Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 29 JULY 1998
MR TONY
QUIGLEY AND
MRS HELEN
WILLIAMS
20. Why next time round?
(Mr Quigley) At this stage all I can say is the money
to fund full overhead recovery is not provided in this Review.
We have actually got considerable sums of money to redress the
problems of infrastructure and equipment in the universities.
We will have failed miserably if by the end of three years we
have not made a very significant improvement there. In parallel
with that we have the review of transparency, etc., and as I have
described moving to full overhead recovery actually would be exceedingly
difficult without a handle on what the true costs were and what
the true cost drivers were.
21. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals
have said that they will supervise or organise a scheme which
will establish that kind of system or we will have one hundred
different systems.
(Mr Quigley) That will take a while to put in place.
22. Who is making sure that all this fits together?
First of all, that we do not spend like drunken sailors and have
nothing to make up for what has been eroded in three years? Who
is ensuring that the system does have cost transparency which
will enable the infrastructure costs to be gathered subsequently?
(Mr Quigley) That is a combination of the study being
led by Sir John Cadogan, as I have said, and the science and engineering
based co-ordinating committee which looks at the balance of things
across the science base.
23. That is in place? That is being done? Is
that generally their remit?
(Mr Quigley) The science and engineering based co-ordinating
committee already exists. The study which I referred to is being
launched as one of the actions resulting from the Comprehensive
Spending Review.
24. Are you saying the study that has been referred
to covers the points I am making?
(Mr Quigley) It must do, yes.
Chairman: We will now move on to the infrastructure
funds and Dr Kumar.
Dr Kumar
25. You touched on this new £600 million
that has been allocated by the Wellcome Trust and the Government.
Can we explore a little bit how this money is going to be distributed
now that it will be managed by some sort of executive board and
there will be panels. Can you tell us who will be on these panels
and how it will be distributed, whether the Wellcome Trust will
have a veto over the research or any say in this? I want to explore
basically the distribution of the £600 million.
(Mr Quigley) Okay. It is too early to say what the
distribution of the £600 million will look like because we
are still putting the arrangements together. The whole activity
will be overseen by a joint executive committee chaired by the
Director General of Research Councils with the Director of Wellcome
as Vice Chairman. We are still sorting out the details of members
but what I can say at this stage is it is carefully designed to
maintain a proper balance as between the various contributing
parties. When it comes to distribution of funds everybody has
to remember that there are two major sources of money in there;
there is the Government fund through our organisation and Wellcome
are contributing £300 million. Both parties clearly must
have a say in where that money goes. We aim to make this a collective
decision rather than making it a terribly parochial exercise.
At the end of the day, if you think about it, we have to ensure
that funds that are voted to us by Parliament are treated properly
and equally Wellcome have their own charitable objects and have
to make sure that those are preserved.
26. Do I take it that there is going to be some
sort of panel set up to advise this executive board or is the
executive board going to make decisions? Who is going to be sitting
on this?
(Mr Quigley) It is the executive board. Clearly one
has to have peer review arrangements put in place and ways of
putting advice together for the executive board. The details have
not been finalised yet so it would be wrong for me to say too
much because we are still discussing that with Wellcome.
27. How many people from industry and people
from charities will be sitting on this board? Would you like to
stretch your mind a little bit and say who you think would be
there?
(Mr Quigley) It depends at what level you are looking
because clearly on peer review we would expect to see an international
gathering of people who would be expected to provide informed
opinions as to the quality of various proposals put before them,
covering a good range of disciplines. We would expect research
councils to be equally represented in these arrangements and people
from the funding councils who have an important view as well because
they still retain a significant responsibility for the infrastructure
in universities. I cannot give you specifics at the moment because
we are still tidying those up and it would be wrong of me to preempt
some discussions like the ones I am going to have tomorrow.
Dr Gibson
28. How do you think Wellcome will behave in
such committees in relation to somebody studying yeast genetics
or something like that which may have implications for cancer?
Do you think they are going to be really tight on that and keep
within their remits and say: "Thou must not work on cancer"?
How do you think they will behave in terms of this money? How
flexible is their policy going to be?
(Mr Quigley) It is impossible for me to give a definitive
answer to that, but the thing that we recognise is that half the
money comes from Wellcome. So long as half of the spend of the
money is consonant with Wellcome's charitable objects then one
would not expect them to be a problem beyond that.
Mr Beard
29. What proportion of the current spend is
consistent with Wellcome's charitable objects, in other words
bioscience?
(Mr Quigley) I was thinking about Wellcome's expenditure.
Bearing in mind that half of this fund is from Wellcome, therefore
half of the spend of the fund must be compatible with Wellcome's—
30. What proportion of last year's funds would
be compatible with Wellcome's charitable objects?
(Mr Quigley) Of our funds? If you add Wellcome's money
to our money that gives you about £1.6 billion and roughly
half of that goes into bimolecular things.
31. So it will not make any difference then
if that is going to be the future rule?
(Mr Quigley) There is a slight problem here because
in the operation of that fund all that matters as far as that
fund is concerned is that at least half the expenditure of the
fund is compatible with Wellcome's charitable objects, otherwise
they would be breaking the law.
Chairman: I think Mr Beard is saying that if
in years gone by half was spent in that area, then there clearly
is going to be no problem staying within those same guidelines
in the future, but if in the past only a quarter was spent in
that area and now suddenly the rules are it has to be a half,
then that is going to be a massive change this year compared with
last. I suspect that is what you are saying.
Mr Beard
32. That is true.
(Mr Quigley) The figures I gave you were if you added
Wellcome's expenditure to ours then roughly half of that is in
that sort of area, if you take past figures.
33. So there is no likely distortion or shift
in proportion due to the new arrangement?
(Mr Quigley) There could well be, but of itself it
does not necessarily drive in that direction.
Chairman
34. Your answer implies that no-one else is
going to be robbed to meet the new arrangements.
(Mr Quigley) I would not wish to go that far. That
depends on decisions yet to be made.
Dr Kumar
35. Let us come back to membership of the board
and the panels and various things. Who is going to make the decision
on who is going to be appointed to these boards?
(Mr Quigley) Ultimately we would see that as being
determined by the top level committee which has clearly had representations
from Wellcome, from research councils, from DGRC as the chairman.
36. So the Committee will make a decision not
the Minister?
(Mr Quigley) Yes, bearing in mind, of course, it is
a joint fund because if the Minister was going to make the decision
then on the face of it the Wellcome board of trustees ought to
do it as well.
37. So if somebody wants to be on this Committee
they ought to write to the Committee and not to the Minister?
(Mr Quigley) I would think so, yes.
Dr Gibson: Will there be an advert in Nature?
Mr Atkinson
38. Up until now the responsibility for the
provision of research infrastructure has rested on the funding
councils. Why has the Research Council arm of the Dual Support
System been given responsibility for administering the funding
councils?
(Mr Quigley) There are a couple of components to this.
First of all, I would say that no money has been taken away from
the funding councils. Indeed, the funding councils get more money
as a result of the CSR settlement. Secondly, the funding arrangements
proposed are prospective rather than retrospective; in other words,
people bid specifically to make proposals. It is that scheme that
is being run UK-wide depending on peer review arrangements, whereas
if you look at the education departments and funding councils,
their mechanisms tend to be retrospective and also they are distinct
as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So for
a combination of reasons you can see how this package makes sense.
As I say, no money has been taken away from the funding councils.
39. Was there any approach to other charities
or industry for contributions to the fund?
(Mr Quigley) I cannot give you a complete answer to
that question because it is always conceivable that there are
approaches that I may not have known about. I know that there
have been a number of discussions, but I cannot answer more on
that and some of those are ones conducted by the Treasury.
| 
