Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2000
MR BRIAN
BENDER, MR
RICHARD CARDEN
AND MR
GEORGE TREVELYAN
60. So there is nothing in the pipeline to actually
strengthen that relationship?
(Mr Bender) No, I did not mean to imply that. There
is a strengthening relationship between MAFF and its export NDPBs
and British Trade International. What I cannot answer is precisely
how that is being carried forward.
61. If I can touch finally on the Food Industry
and Competitiveness programme which I think in 2000/2001 is due
to be £4.9 million. Last year it was £6.4 million and
the year before that it was £8 million. I just wondered why
the funding for the programme is being cut so sharply?
(Mr Carden) We have been maybe focusing more, with
the aim of improving competitiveness, on regulation and lightening
the regulatory burden in the last 12 months and there is activity
stretching ahead to try to carry through recommendations from
a number of groups that sat last Autumn and Winter. That is the
leading activity, I should say, on the competitiveness front at
the moment. The Red Tape Reviews that started with our Minister
inviting the National Farmers' Union to say which areas of regulation
they regarded as most burdensome. The setting up of the three
major groups last Autumn on IACS and Intervention and Meat Hygiene,
brought a large crop of recommendations, a high proportion of
which were accepted by the Government, which are now being put
into action. Some of them not all that spectacular—on the
intervention front, for example—but all of them points that
the industry have brought forward saying: "These added together
are a burden at the moment and if changes could be made that would
ease things considerably financially for farming and downstream
industries."
62. Does the food industry agree with the change
of focus that MAFF has adopted because you are saying you have
reduced the funding of this programme because you feel the emphasis
should be more in reducing regulation? Is that a view that is
shared by the industry?
(Mr Carden) I did not make that precise point, Mr
Borrow, but what I was saying is that we have not, as it were,
withdrawn from the field, but there is a lot of activity with
the objective of improving competitiveness. Most recently it has
been on the regulation/deregulation front.
Dr Turner
63. I wanted to ask some questions about research
and development. I was not sure, Mr Bender, if it is you who will
be familiar with the report of the Science & Technology Committee
earlier this year and its recommendations?
(Mr Bender) I am familiar enough—
64. To answer for MAFF?
(Mr Bender)—to be aware of the deep level of
concern.
65. If I may just give a little bit of history
and then I would like a one word answer, I am afraid, if I can
have it. Last year the Committee made a very simple statement
and said: ".... it was axiomatic that a wise organisation
resisted the easy temptation to slash its R&D spending in
times of trouble." It went on to recommend, because of the
decline in R&D spending in MAFF that the MAFF budget for R&D
should be ring-fenced. The short answer, and I am reading through
what was said in response, was "No, it would have to take
its share of the arguments in redistribution." Since then
the Science & Technology Committee, in fact, pointed out that
in terms of the figures, that within MAFF we had seen from 1996
to 1997 a 26½ per cent decrease in R&D budget and a further
10 per cent cut in the lifetime of this Government. That Committee
went on to recommend, not just to MAFF, that there should in fact
therefore be ring-fencing of R&D expenditure. Do you believe
that would be a wise move?
(Mr Bender) Forgive me if I do not rise to your challenge
for a yes or no answer. The Government, I believe, has not yet
replied to that latest report; I think I am correct in saying
that. As far as the Ministry of Agriculture is concerned, I honestly
do not think it is practical to ring- fence an area like this,
given the experience the Department had with the swingeing cuts
in its expenditure in the Comprehensive Spending Review, to say
something is off limits in that way. What I can say rather more
positively is what we are doing now, which is first of all, as
part of the present Spending Review, we have bid for more money
on research and development, not least to help us to develop our
horizon scanning capability and we are also taking steps to have
much wider consultation and involvement of outside and independent
people on the way in which we carry forward our research strategy
and the management and direction of our research expenditure.
66. If I can get a yes or no then, do you accept
that it is axiomatic what the Committee had to say last year and
which I read out; I will not repeat it?
(Mr Bender) Axiomatic that there would be a cut?
67. No, axiomatic that a wise organisation resists
the easy temptation to slash its R&D spending in times of
trouble. It is very easy to kill the future to protect the present?
(Mr Bender) I am very sorry, Dr Turner, but there
is a limit to wisdom when the pain is very great. It is easy to
be wise when you are not suffering a lot of pain. It is certainly
preferable not to cut an investment in the future, but it does
depend on the level of pain and the level of cuts required across
the department and what the consequences would be for other activities
if there were no cuts in research and development, regrettable
though those cuts have been.
(Mr Carden) If I may just add one point on a less
philosophical plane, the large part of MAFF's spending is tied
down by legal obligations and a large proportion of that is Community
legislation. It leaves a relatively small proportion of the budget
where Ministers have freedom of action if they are in a tight
financial situation and however much one regrets it, and a lot
of people clearly do, R&D is an area of MAFF's spending which
is at Ministers' discretion; where if they have to make cuts they
often have to look. Another area is flood defence and cuts in
that area would, I am sure, also be unpopular.
68. Certainly in my constituency, I can tell
you, Mr Carden?
(Mr Carden) But it is not easy to make adjustments
in large parts of MAFF's budget because there are precise legal
obligations that require a certain level of spend.
69. We are not intending sacrificing the longer
term for the short term?
(Mr Bender) You are getting a commitment that we are
not intending doing that. What I do not think would be wise of
me to commit to you today is what we will do from 2001 onwards
when we know the results of the Spending Review currently under
way.
70. I can probably guess I am going to get a
straight bat to the next question because later on in that same
report and specifically in paragraph 100 of the Science &
Technology Report, specific criticisms and comments on MAFF's
approach there is what seems to me a fairly damning condemnation
which is the failure to acknowledge a wider strategic purpose
for Department R&D, for example in seeking to maintain core
research capabilities in key policy areas. All right, you perhaps
have not done anything about that criticism given that the Government
has not responded, but is that an issue you recognise which needs
to be addressed in going forward, Mr Bender?
(Mr Bender) As I implied in my earlier answer when
I declined to give a one word response, we will be undertaking
a wide consultation on our new research strategy in the course
of this year, so we have noted the concern expressed by the Committee
and we have recognised in response to that that we actually need
to consult more widely about what our research strategy should
be, and that is something that will be carried out later this
year.
71. Clearly that would also be guided by the
evidence from the past and if I can move quickly to page 82 of
your current Report where we are told that in order to assist
assessment of MAFF R&D the Government's Chief Scientist has
begun a programme of ex post evaluations and I just would
be curious if you could draw back a veil a little bit and tell
us what sort of results are coming out of those post evaluations?
(Mr Bender) I cannot answer that directly. I know
he has commented on our research programmes generally, but I do
not know whether Mr Carden can answer the specific point.
72. Will those evaluations be made available
on the principle of open government to—
(Mr Bender) May I take delivery of that question and
we will come back to the Committee on that.
Chairman: Yes, certainly.
Dr Turner
73. On a related issue to those, one final question
on science and research, if I may? The Business Plan talks about
a new Committee being set up, a Science Committee, and it talks
about there being external scientists being put on to the Committee.
I would suggest to you that such a Committee without budget inputs
or any influence is not going to attract the right people, but
might attract the right people if it actually has financial clout
within the Department as well. What is its remit in a little bit
more detail? Who do you envisage might be attracted to serve on
it and will it essentially control that budget in any real sense?
(Mr Carden) This Committee will, I think, have some
of the influence that you are looking for it to have. It will
take the place of an internal committee on research and development
that MAFF had in the past to advise the Permanent Secretary and
the Ministers on how to spend the MAFF research budget for the
best; and it is a move towards involving outsiders and opening
up the process of developing a strategy for MAFF's R&D in
line with ways that we have tried to open up to external advisers
in the running of our agencies and in expanding the membership
of scientific advisory committees. So it is a step in line with
other changes that we have been making over the last year or two.
This science Committee is now very close to being set up. I do
not think it would be right to give you any indication as to the
kind of people that might sit on it because we have fairly precise
ideas as to the kind of people who might be shortly invited to
sit on it. That part of the picture will become clear very soon.
Will it have financial clout? Well it will be influential -and
I expect Ministers will pay close attention to the views that
come from it in feeding into decisions on how to spend MAFF's
still quite substantial R&D budget.
74. How many people do you expect will be on
it?
(Mr Carden) About 12,15 perhaps. With perhaps three
or four from outside.
75. And the three or four are going to cover
all of the interests of the wider scientific community, research-based
industry and consumer interests? So with three or four there is
only going to be one from each of those one external sciences?
(Mr Carden) Put that way it sounds a very exacting
remit, but we do hope that external members invited to sit on
committees themselves radiate out to a wider set of contacts and
so draw these in to feed in not just their own views, but views
from a network of contacts that they have.
76. It sounds quite a hard task for one scientist
to me but I will be interested. Who made the decision as to how
big it should be and how many external? Where is that sort of
decision made?
(Mr Carden) The proposal is with the Minister at the
moment. As to composition, there is always a balance to strike
between getting as full a set of expertise as possible and having
a committee of a manageable size. Much beyond 12 or 15, in my
experience, you get diminishing returns from the discussions in
the committee.
77. Would you accept that the external scientists
might feel a little bit lonely?
(Mr Carden) I do accept that because I know that external
members on committees of Government—I think the point works
the other way as well; government representatives on outside committees—can
feel lonely.
78. My own comment, if I may make it Chairman,
is that it is not sufficient, it is a tokenism is my fear and
I was thinking there might be sub-committees or working group
onto which you had a broader reach?
(Mr Carden) I would be reluctant to accept it as tokenism.
I would not myself personally accept that. I think there is a
lot of value added to a government discussion by having a sprinkling
of external members, even if the number might seem quite small.
Dr Turner: Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman: The Almighty made do with 12 on his
Committee and as my Clerk has pointed out, none of them were women.
Mr Hurst?
Mr Hurst
79. BSE and the number of cases, and you predicted
some three years ago the number should be down to 650 by the year
we are about to enter next year, 2001. How are those predictions
made?
(Mr Carden) We look primarily to two sources of advice;
our own Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge which has been
producing predictions for a long time, refining its methods as
it goes and the Oxford Group which was led until recently by Professor
Roy Anderson, and they have been producing predictions as well
for a number of years. We keep an eye on both; they are not identical.
At the moment we seem on course to meet the target that you referred
to judging by our own Central Veterinary Laboratory's predictions,
which have been near the mark for the last two or three years.
| 
