Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 29 JULY 1998
MR TONY
QUIGLEY AND
MRS HELEN
WILLIAMS
60. What do you consider as not "incredibly
quick"?
(Mr Quigley) Certainly not by Christmas, but beyond
that I would not like to speculate. It is not going to be a five
year job, if that is what you mean, but we have not really got
it pinned down yet.
61. Do you think it is appropriate that a person
representing one side of the Dual Support System should be in
charge of the overall review?
(Mr Quigley) It is not really a review of the Dual
Support System, it is actually a review of transparency and such
like of what is happening to the funds, particularly the funds
which we pay as the 46 per cent, let us call it overhead, contribution
to support costs within universities.
62. He is on one side of the two limits of the
Dual Support System, is he not?
(Mr Quigley) Yes, but he is actually the provider
of the funds where there is a question about transparency.
63. Would it not have been more appropriate
to have had an independent expert?
(Mr Quigley) Well, somebody has to lead it. Remember
it is about transparency.
64. I was not asking that there be no leader,
I just said the leader should be independent.
(Mr Quigley) I do not have a problem with the arrangement
that we have got.
65. You do not think it is more appropriate
that an independent should lead it?
(Mr Quigley) Not particularly, no.
(Mrs Williams) Chairman, perhaps I could just chip
in at this point. Mr Quigley did say earlier that the science
and engineering base co-ordinating committee would also be involved
in the review. This is a committee chaired by the Chief Scientific
Advisor in his cross-departmental role and the membership includes
all the Research Council Chief Executives and all the Funding
Council Chief Executives and the education departments. There
will be discussion in that forum of the detailed work which Sir
John has done with the English Funding Council on the possibilities.
66. How will these two bodies work together?
We have got one under Sir John Cadogan and then another one. Which
takes precedence? Which is supervising the other?
(Mr Quigley) It is not a question of supervising,
it is a question of what is best done where. Where things can
be resolved in terms of a simple bilateral relationship or through
the accountability of the two participants then they should do
it. Where issues which transcend a simple bilateral relationship
emerge then that tends to be a thing for the Coordinating Committee
to deal with.
67. What sort of issue would that be?
(Mr Quigley) I cannot think of one at the moment.
One operates on the basis that such issues will emerge because
they always do.
68. Presumably there is one in mind if you have
set up a dual system. They must be fairly obvious or you would
not have the two bodies being involved.
(Mr Quigley) The Science and Engineering Based Co-ordination
Committee exists anyway.
69. Mr Williams was quoting the existence of
this body with a role in this review. I am just trying to elucidate
what the roles of the two bodies are because if you do not elucidate
and there are no terms of reference as at the moment then it will
not be a very quick exercise.
(Mr Quigley) The review was announced last week and
we have actually been preoccupied with a large range of things
consequent to the Comprehensive Spending Review and we just have
not put everything together yet.
70. I understand that. You have got a review
of the Dual Support System.
(Mr Quigley) No.
71. You have got a review of the funding arrangements?
(Mr Quigley) It is a review of transparency and what
happens to that money, it is not a review of the Dual Support
System.
72. Fine. You have got a committee under Sir
John Cadogan and you have brought in the other committee that
is embracing all the other research councils and funding councils
as well. All I am asking you is if you could outline to us and
illustrate to us so we understand better what the roles of these
two bodies are?
(Mr Quigley) There is not a committee under Sir John
Cadogan at the moment to do this review because that is a review
where in OST we will work with HEFCE under Brian Fender, who is
the Chief Executive, to start to put together what are the facts,
identifying what are the recognisable allowable costs which should
be covered by these arrangements, what are the numbers involved,
what is happening. As we get into that we can then start to see
what might be possible by way of improving transparency in the
system at what cost because one can have incredibly transparent
arrangements that bury everybody in administration and make us
knee deep in accountants, which at one end of the scale is a situation
that I do not think any of us would want. We have got to devise
something sensible out of it. The Science and Engineering Based
Co-ordination Committee (it is known as SEBCC) as a body will
want to know what is going on because at some point we also have
to engage the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish and also what is
happening within the Department and what is happening with the
other source of money and make sure that what we are actually
doing as a bilateral does not actually produce other distortions
to the system because we do not want to do that.
Mr Beard: The only conclusion I can draw from
this exchange is that transparency would be best started with
a committee that are intending to bring it about because I am
still at a loss as to what exactly they are doing.
Chairman
73. Would you care to write to us on this, Mr
Quigley, because we have the Minister waiting and I do not wish
to keep her waiting too long and I think this exchange perhaps
is not going to get very far? Could you write and answer Mr Beard's
questions in that way?
(Mr Quigley) Certainly.
Mr Jones
74. I think you may have answered this already,
but we have already established that the life sciences are going
to get a fair chunk of money from this settlement, but I am just
concerned about the funding of the funding councils. Is that going
to be distorted? As the Government has not accepted the recommendation
of this Committee that all the indirect costs should be picked
up by the research councils, are the funding councils going to
have to direct a greater proportion of their research funds to
underpinning research council funding?
(Mr Quigley) I find it hard to answer that question
because the role of the funding councils has not changed. They
get more money out of this settlement anyway. Of course, part
of their job is in a sense to complement what the research councils
are doing. Exactly how that will pan out and if there are any
changes, I could not answer that at this stage.
75. So it is too early to ask you the question?
(Mr Quigley) Yes.
Dr Williams
76. I would like to ask Mrs Williams a question.
I note that you are the Director of the Trans-departmental part
of Science and Technology. We have had very little information
so far as to what is happening in the other departments in terms
of their research budget. Could you give us some idea of how defence
and the others are doing? We have got a very good story from OST
and we are delighted with that. How are things looking in other
departments?
(Mrs Williams) Chairman, the answer is that we do
not know yet. Departments will be reviewing how much they can
afford to spend on R&D in the light of the overall settlement
that they have got out of the Comprehensive Spending Review. We
expect it will be a matter of months before the full picture emerges
of R&D spending plans across government.
Chairman
77. Is the full picture published information?
(Mrs Williams) Indeed.
78. Do you collate it altogether and publish
it and could we have a copy of it?
(Mrs Williams) Indeed, Chairman. You may recall that
up to 1996 the OST used to publish every year a Forward Look which
set out the latest spending plans across all government departments.
We did not publish it last year nor this year because we had a
new government and we had a Comprehensive Spending Review, but
once we know what the outcome of the CSR is for the collectivity
of departments' R&D then we will bring all that information
together in a successor document to the Forward Look.
79. So there is no reason why this Committee
should not have that information in due course?
(Mrs Williams) There is every reason why this Committee
should have that information in due course.
Chairman: I am afraid we do have to finish there.
It has not been the easiest of sessions either for the Committee
or for you as witnesses because we had intended to probe a little
further along political lines and we have tried to be fair to
you and you have been very fair to us in answering very frankly
and succinctly our questions. The only time you have been slightly
long in your answers is when you have not had a precise answer
that you can give and that is understandable. We thank you both
very much indeed for coming this afternoon and helping us with
our inquiry.
| 
