UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 169-iiHouse of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFOREINNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE & SKILLS COMMITTEE
SCIENCE QUESTION TIME
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
|
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
|
5. |
Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935
|
Oral Evidence
Taken before the Innovation, Universities, Science & Skills Committee
on
Members present
Mr Tim Boswell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Ian Gibson
Graham Stringer
In the absence of the Chairman, Dr Ian Gibson was called to the Chair
________________
Witness: Rt Hon Lord Drayson, a Member of the House of Lords, Minister of State for Science and Innovation, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, gave evidence.
Q28 Dr Gibson: We now turn again to the Minister who very kindly has given us some time when we can ask questions. This is our charming science cross-question session. Thank you very much. You will understand that this is to see how we can help.
Lord Drayson: I know, I look forward to it, Dr Gibson.
Q29 Dr Gibson: When your CV is written, however long it takes, and how and where it happens, what have you achieved will be part of that consideration. What would you put down now in the time you have been here as a Minister? Is there anything that you would say you have achieved as Minister of Science that you are proud of?
Lord Drayson: It is for others to judge, but I believe in the six months during which I have been Science Minister I have managed to make an improvement in the profile of science. I have been able, through my membership of, for example, the National Economic Committee, the Business Council, having a seat in Cabinet, to improve the influence of the science innovation agenda across Government. I have been able to secure resources, not least of which the maintenance of the science ring-fence, maintaining our trajectory towards the ten year framework in the recent Budget. Then I would point to a number of specifics relating to changes to government machinery, for example the new S&I Committee and the Office for Life Sciences being two, achievements relating to a new European Space Agency facility which we achieved at the Ministerial last year, and putting more oomph, if you like, behind the issue of procurement in terms of innovative procurement policy to ensure that particularly the SME sector benefits from the significant investment by Government in various procurement projects as a means of stimulating innovation in those sectors where we need to see significant growth in the future.
Q30 Dr Gibson: Tony Blair was once caught, I think, on a Sunday morning political programme when he was asked what percentage of the GDP needed to be put into the Health Service. Have we put anything like three per cent GDP into science in this nation?
Lord Drayson: I think we can point to a tremendous track record in terms of the Government's investment in science, doubling the science budget, but we can point to a less impressive track record in terms of private investment in science and it is an area which comes under increasing pressure during a global economic downturn. Although I think we can rightly see from the evidence that there has been a renaissance in science in our country over the last ten or 12 years, and when you go to our universities, as I do, you can see that in the bricks and mortar and the quality of the laboratories, when you talk to the scientists themselves, and I have been in the habit of visiting universities and when I do I hold a town hall meeting so not just meeting the bigwigs of the university, if you like, but have an open meeting with students, undergraduates, postgraduates and young lecturers, I know from that feedback it is a statement of fact to say that science in this country is stronger now than it has been for, I would say, 30 years.
Q31 Dr Gibson: As a former businessman, if I asked you the question about the percentage of GDP that is invested in science, could you quote a figure?
Lord Drayson: I could quote you a figure, but when we look at contribution to science investment I believe that we need to put more effort in terms of the investment that the private sector is putting into R&D. I do believe the trajectory that we are on in terms of the public sector although, as I mentioned earlier, there are some concerns in terms of some government departments in terms of looking upon their R&D budget as an area to go for when they are under funding pressure ---
Q32 Dr
Gibson: I know you were President of the BIA, a famous
biotechnologist. Where stands
biotechnology now because the idea was to get it up towards
Lord Drayson: In terms of the area of biotechnology unfortunately we are going backward. We are slipping down the league table in terms of the strength of our biotechnology community. We are still number two in the world but our leadership over those at numbers three, four, five and six has narrowed and that is something that we should be rightly concerned about.
Q33 Dr Gibson: What are you going to do about it, Lord Drayson?
Lord Drayson: I have been asked by the Prime Minister to chair the new Government Office for Life Sciences, so that has responsibility for the entire Life Sciences sector from biotechnology through to medical devices and pharmaceuticals. We are going through a process that will report in the summer aiming to address those factors that have led to the relative decline in competitiveness. Those are around taxation, clinical trials, issues relating to early adoption of medicines. I hope to deliver a coherent package that reverses this negative trend that we have seen. The reason we are doing that is because we now recognise that life sciences is this country's largest industrial sector. Since the decline of financial services we are now going to be relying on life sciences as number one as a growth driver for the future.
Q34 Dr Gibson: What is going to happen to the Office for Life Sciences? Has it done anything? Will it do anything? Is it going to be scrapped? What are the future and the present?
Lord Drayson: The future for it is to firstly establish as a prototype a way of working across Government. It is the first time such an office has been set up for a particular industrial sector. I set a timescale of six months, a time-limited process, whereby we will review at the end of the six months the progress which has been achieved. That will be judged by industry, the academic sector and Government. We have already seen some early success, I believe, in terms of within the Budget, for example, getting agreement for consultation around taxation changes to do with patents, which was identified by the life sciences industry as a very big issue for them in terms of the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. I hope to deliver in the summertime, as I say, a package of measures that shows the Government has been effective in responding to the concerns which were expressed back in January.
Q35 Dr Gibson: What is next after life sciences?
Lord Drayson: If we can establish, as I hope we are doing, that this is a good model for cross-government working where you have civil servants from each of the government departments which have an impact on an industrial sector sitting down with key industrialists and key academics, if this is a model which at the end of the six month process is seen to have been successful, then this is something that we will replicate across Government. I say that we need to review it because it has required a significant contribution from me as the Minister. I have been holding meetings of the Office for Life Sciences on a weekly basis and chairing these meetings myself. For this mechanism to be effective it requires that type of oversight and drive from a minister.
Q36 Chairman: Are you disappointed with it at all?
Lord Drayson: No.
Q37 Dr Gibson: You think it is going to deliver the goods?
Lord Drayson: I am optimistic about its ability to deliver the goods, yes.
Q38 Dr Gibson: And you do not know what is going to be next?
Lord Drayson: In terms of?
Q39 Dr Gibson: Subject.
Lord Drayson: No, not at present.
Q40 Dr Gibson: Are there any discussions on that going on?
Lord Drayson: There are no active discussions as far as I am aware. There may be discussions in other government departments looking at the Office for Life Sciences model but there is no overall plan to implement this into other departments yet.
Q41 Dr Gibson: Do you think there should be one by now if we are going to meet targets in the next few years?
Lord Drayson: No. I believe that we should review the success of the Office for Life Sciences in the summer following that six month period. We should not take long to review its success and then if we regard it as having been effective we should apply it to other areas.
Q42 Dr Gibson: You were quite ambitious in terms of the Budget giving a lot of money for research and so on, and there was the £1 billion venture capital fund. Where has that got to? A lot of people thought it was a lot of old squit and would never happen. Is it going to happen? Has it happened?
Lord Drayson: I was very pleased that the Chancellor announced the £750 million Strategic Investment Fund to be targeted at businesses in the growth sectors of life sciences, green-tech and digital. In terms of the venture capital issue, this is very much a live issue at the moment. We have ongoing discussions across Government as to how the Government can effectively implement interventions in that area.
Dr Harris: Following our first session, I have just been reflecting on what other ministers have said on this issue of the focusing of strategic research priorities and I definitely remember the Secretary of State for Innovation at the Academy of Engineering saying we are not having a discussion about how to do this, we are definitely going to do it. I was not the only one there, if the Clerk could speak she would agree that she was there at least.
Chairman: Stony-faced!
Q43 Dr Harris: Stony-faced the record shall show. In the debate on the Budget the Secretary of State said: "The question has been asked of the Research Councils. We believe that we should have that discussion about how they organise research to ensure that we maintain fundamental research and get the maximum economic benefit from the substantial investment that we make in research. That is underway. It is not an 'if' - we are doing it". It is not an 'if', - we are doing it. My question to him was, "It is not clear whether the decision has been made that the Government are going to use the science budget to reprioritise research or whether they are asking the question whether they should". The impression I was left with was that the Government has made a conclusion that they will prioritise research.
Lord Drayson: I agree with the Secretary of State 100 per cent. I think he was expressing the view that the debate has started, we will listen to the feedback from that debate, and that is exactly what we have done.
Q44 Dr Harris: I do not understand what the "It is not an 'if' - we are doing it" means, unless he is saying we are having the debate, but there was never a question, "Are we having the debate", the question has always been, "Are we just having the debate or have we now decided?" It is very confusing.
Lord Drayson: I hope I have been able to clarify it.
Q45 Dr Harris: I am now in favour of a Green Paper all over again because it might have been clearer. Let us look at these 'value for money' savings that came out of the Budget for the Research Councils. Are they efficiency savings or are they reprioritisation?
Lord Drayson: Under the Treasury rules there are a number of buckets of assessment, if I could describe them as that, by which efficiency savings can be identified. Reprioritisation is one of those. Within the total of value for money efficiency savings there are a number of types of savings relating to reduction of administration costs, but reprioritisation is amongst them.
Q46 Dr Harris: That surprises me because I would have thought a decision to fund something and not something else is just a decision about priorities, it is not a saving or an efficiency saving or getting rid of waste, it is just deciding to fund something else which is better. On that basis, every time I decide to spend some of my money on something I prefer to something else it is an efficiency saving.
Lord Drayson: I was also surprised when that was explained to me, but now I understand these Treasury rules better.
Q47 Dr Harris: That is useful. It is just because the Treasury says it is that it is. The areas chosen for this new investment, was this the Research Councils saying, "We don't want to spend 106 million on these areas, we want to spend it on other areas", or were they asked to make available 100-odd million, say, that could therefore be reprioritised?
Lord Drayson: No. The Research Councils, like all government departments, have been asked to make value for money savings and I think it is right and proper for the research community to play their part in that drive. Importantly, in the case of research it has been made clear that all of those savings will be ploughed back into research spending. It is therefore down to the Research Councils to decide how they will generate those savings in the first place and, secondly, having generated those savings, how they will decide to apply them.
Q48 Dr Harris: This is intriguing because you said they had to provide these savings essentially and Government is entitled to do that.
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Q49 Dr Harris: And they can find the savings because they would argue that they have been lean, keen machines for quite sometime because they have had to find savings year-on-year. They are allowed to find the efficiency gains by stopping spending in one area and spending it in another area. Is that not equivalent to you saying, "You must stop spending in one area and spend in another area" even if you are not specifying what those areas are? I recognise that as long as they can still decide that you are saying, "We must have 100 million out, here is a way of doing it which we will call efficiency savings which is you deciding to reprioritise from one area to another and we will mention it in the Budget".
Lord Drayson: The only Government direction that has come on this is the Government direction in terms of a requirement to make the efficiency savings. Where those savings are found, how those savings are found and how that money which is freed up from those savings is spent has been determined by the Research Councils. That is further evidence of us maintaining the Haldane Principle and putting that into practice. What we have asked as part of this debate is for the research community to debate and discuss the prioritisation and focus of research taking into account the economic growth prospects and the impact that science can make to that economic agenda.
Q50 Dr Harris: The Budget Report stated an additional £106 million of savings, and we have discussed whether they are really savings except under Treasury rules, delivered by Research Councils within the Science and Research budget to be reinvested within that budget to support key areas of economic potential. That is the Research Councils saying with no influence from the Government, "Hey, we've found 100-odd million and we're going to reprioritise it and we know the areas we're going to reallocate it to and they happen to be areas that we maintain are key areas of economic potential". Did they use those words in what they volunteered to you?
Lord Drayson: If you look to the documentation relating to the feedback from this consultation as part of the debate you will see the themes that have come out from the scientific community. As I say, I will endeavour to make public all of the feedback. Having seen that feedback myself, the coherence of the picture from the scientific community has been fascinating about those areas where they regard the science is likely to have the greatest impact in terms of economic potential, and that has been taken into account by the Research Councils.
Q51 Dr Harris: Let us say that they were asked for 100 million anyway despite the debate you initiated, do you think they would have come up with the reallocation proposal into these areas of key economic potential, and I would be interested to know what those areas are, without the debate having been started because it is just what they want to do, or are they responding to an implied request for that sort of reallocation from above?
Lord Drayson: There is an important political point here which is that the debate which I kicked off in February of this year is part of the Government making explicitly clear the central role that this Government believes science and innovation plays in the future prosperity, health and security of this nation. It is a core plank, as I said in the article that was published in the Guardian this morning, of our policy. We are optimistic about the ability of this country using its scientific prowess to grow its way out of this downturn, which is why we are maintaining the investment in science and innovation despite spending pressures. Therefore, raising the profile of science at a time when, if you remember that time, there was huge debate about what the response should be to the economic downturn has been effective in the overall raising of the importance of science to our future prosperity and happiness and that has been a good thing. It is a central plank of the Government's policy.
Q52 Mr Boswell: If I might move to a more thematic issue, but following on from that, the science community is a complex one of Research Councils, national academies, university and industry, and of course the people who work for those various sectors. In a word, what would you consider you to be the strengths and weaknesses of your relationship with that community either jointly or severally in the various parts?
Lord Drayson: I would say the strength of my relationship is built upon the fact that the community recognises that I have spent all of my working life working at the interface between science and business. As a PhD student I know what it is like to go through that research world. I know what it is like to build businesses based upon British science, particularly from universities in the medical sphere. That is a positive. I would say a negative is the conclusion some people jump to that because I have been engaged as a technology entrepreneur and have worked at the applied end of science, if you like, that that is all I value, so I have had to work really quite hard to bust that myth to explain how I absolutely see the value of fundamental research and I would say that is something which has been brought home to me during this debate around the focus and the way in which certain people have characterised it.
Q53 Mr Boswell: So your formal answer is not actually about funding, which is interesting, it is about the relationship side.
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Q54 Mr Boswell: Can I just ask on the funding side, or rather going back to the priorities, some of the concerns that we have identified relate to the level of alleged Government influence over Research Council priorities. Can you get more transparency into that relationship to give more assurance?
Lord Drayson: I think we should do everything we possibly can to give transparency to this. I have already committed to providing details relating to the feedback that we have had. The Director General for Research in future will be consulting with the wider research community in the way in which we have and that is something which I think is a good thing. We have taken on board comments by this Committee in the past of the need to engage with the wider community, particularly younger members of the scientific community and not just the elite within our science community. We have done that through an engagement process over the past six months which has been healthy.
Q55 Mr Boswell: We had earlier exchanges on the Council for Science and Technology and they have now done this report into academia and Government. How do you think this can be used to make sure those sectors work together more effectively?
Lord Drayson: We have taken on board the advice. In my view, the specific areas for improvement are around interventions relating to either a specific project area or a specific challenge which is being faced. That is where you get real traction and that is the experience as the Chief Scientific Adviser has mentioned and my experience too. For example, I was very impressed with the way the academic community responded to the challenge from Government for advice on the likely impact that a global economic downturn is going to have on society. What could the academic community tell us from their research, social science research, economic research, for example, to inform our policy as we went into this downturn at the back end of last year.
Q56 Mr Boswell: You see it as being a two-way relationship?
Lord Drayson: Yes, absolutely.
Q57 Mr Boswell: Them proposing to you and you asking for advice?
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Q58 Graham Stringer: Two very quick questions. You mentioned previously the Strategic Investment Fund. Can you give examples of the advanced industrial projects that are likely to be supported? Can you tell us who will decide which projects and which companies will receive the funding?
Lord Drayson: The Strategic Investment Fund is managed and, therefore, decisions about investment are made by the Department for Business - BERR. Within that Fund decisions have been made relating to the allocation, for example, of £50 million already to the Technology Strategy Board, so the Technology Strategy Board will be making decisions relating to the allocation of that investment. As you know, the Technology Strategy Board is independent of ministers and will base its assessment around an understanding of both scientific excellence and the commercial environment. The Strategic Investment Fund has been set up specifically to support those areas of growth potential broadly speaking within low carbon, green-tech, life science and digital ICT.
Q59 Graham Stringer: Can you give non-generic examples?
Lord Drayson: A specific example is
electric vehicles. The infrastructure
around electric vehicles and the development of the understanding of power
electronics for next generation motor control, for example, is an area that we
regard the
Graham Stringer: Finally, at the start of the session Dr Gibson asked you what you had achieved as Science Minister and you gave a completely reasonable and positive response. Can you tell us what you wanted to achieve that you have not achieved over that period?
Q60 Dr Gibson: If you ruled the world, what would you do?
Lord Drayson: The debate around focus and prioritisation of science funding highlighted to me that there is some way to go in terms of getting a coherent view amongst the scientific community as to the place of science within our society and our future and the accountability of the science community to that future. Where I would have liked to have achieved more is to have made more of an impact on being able to convince the science community that it has a duty to explain to the general public why it does the great research that it does, what that achieves and to be prepared to communicate that.
Q61 Dr Gibson: Do you think they have had it too good for a while and the downturn has blown them out of the water?
Lord Drayson: No, I would not say that. The scientific community has certainly had very good support from Government over the last 12 years, and I am very glad about that and expect that to continue, and we have said that it would, but I do believe there is progress that needs to be made. I need to convince the science community that it cannot do science in isolation from the rest of society. I believe it has a duty and an opportunity to explain and to communicate better. It is fundamental to the success and happiness of our society in the future. We have put a lot of effort, for example, in terms of the Science: So What? campaign to bust the myth of science as an elitist activity. We know from the market research that this is very much how science is seen in this country. For us to prosper as a nation science really has to be at the heart of our self-image as a country.
Q62 Dr Harris: I get the impression that compared to four months ago when you came to us, you would rather be in a position where there had been a consensus around more refocusing of research, applied and pure, than the 106 million that we are at now four months on. Is that a fair impression, that you recognise you are in a rather different place than you thought you might have been four months on from 26 January?
Lord Drayson: You can assume that I see my role very much as championing science and engineering within Government and, therefore, arguing for the maximum possible budget for science and engineering within Government. I have achieved so much in doing that but I would have liked to have achieved more.
Q63 Dr Harris: On the focusing, would you have liked to have seen more consensus around focusing more than the 100 million of reallocation to economic potential?
Lord Drayson: No. As I said earlier, I have confidence in the Research Councils' ability to do this and the judgments that have been made. Answering your question directly about what do I feel that I need to do better and what has surprised me, it has surprised me that certain elements of the scientific community believe they should just be left alone and not have to explain and talk about the importance of their science in the context of the wider role of science within the community and that parts of the scientific community do not believe it is important to communicate as part of society the importance of what they do.
Q64 Dr Gibson: Would you like to identify those sectors?
Lord Drayson: No, I would not like to.
Dr Gibson: I am sure you would not!
Q65 Dr Harris: Would you anyway?
Lord Drayson: That is something which I need to work further on.
Dr Gibson: Thank you very much indeed, Lord Drayson, for coming along and sharing your obvious enthusiasm for the subject, some of your frustrations and some of your achievements. It is a pity we did not have the chance to see you in five years' time because you would have more achieved if you get that opportunity. Thank you very much for trying and getting stuck in. Thank you.