Examination of Witness (Questions 100-119)
5 FEBRUARY 2004
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
FRS
Q100 Chairman: He or she, who did not
like . . . I mean, you see, if you are looking at the honours
system—
Professor Sir David King: I do
not know.
Q101 Chairman: No, I understand that,
and I am not going to push you beyond where you can go, but—
Professor Sir David King: I am
simply saying what my views would be.
Q102 Chairman: But, if we are looking
at the honours system, and we then get a little spillage which
shows how it works inside in a rather conspicuous case like this
and someone like you says you cannot understand how this
can be, you can see why we might want to ask some questions about
it. There may be other cases of this kind sitting around, where
secretaries of committees have written these outrageous things
which cannot be sustained.
Professor Sir David King: Yes,
but sometimes storms do happen in teacups and I happen to think
this is one. It is unfortunate that the minute was leaked because
I do think it is right that this committee ought to look at the
running of the honours process—I even think it is high time
that the honours process was re-examined and reviewed—but
I do think this particular issue is a storm in a teacup. We are
discussing a given individual—which I think is totally unsatisfactory:
Does this individual merit a K or not? It is absolutely right
that a committee composed of three senior civil servants, six
very distinguished scientists . . . I do not think anyone looking
at the committee if the membership was published would question
whether that committee could make the right decision in relation
to the science, medicine and technology communities. I think the
committee is composed of very distinguished individuals. That,
to me, is highly relevant.
Q103 Chairman: You are saying, are you,
unless I have misunderstood you here, that because of the distinguished
composition of that committee, this could not possibly have reflected
their view?
Professor Sir David King: I am
surprised at the minute is what I am saying. I am also, though,
not questioning the committee's decision. I think that committee,
making difficult decisions of choices between individuals in a
given year . . . The number of Ks for scientists and technologists
each year, as you know, is a very small number, and I am not questioning
the decision that was made, I am simply surprised at that minute.
Q104 Chairman: We will talk about the
wider issues in just a minute, but, when this minute fed into
the main committee, is it not surprising to you that someone at
that level, reading this, did not say, "This is outrageous.
We cannot proceed on the basis of these kind of comments"?
Professor Sir David King: I am
guessing, as you are[1]
Q105 Chairman: Yes.
Professor Sir David King: If the
higher committee were to receive a listing of people, one of whom
or several of whom are not being put forward for honour in this
round, they probably would not have dwelt on it. They would have
said, "Right, there is the expert committee, they have put
forward this group of people who have gone through"—in
other words, they have stamped them through. But I do not believe
we are talking about a case where an honour was proposed. But
I cannot say or defend what the higher committee did.
Q106 Chairman: No, no. I am just trying
to get my head inside those committees that were meeting, full
of these distinguished people, and then coming up with something
like this. Back to the science and technology, there would have
been a discussion of Blakemore. Blakemore's name would have come
up, otherwise he could not have been reported in a minute.
Professor Sir David King: In the
higher committee.
Q107 Chairman: The science and technology
committee, you are saying, was where this had happened. This was
a minute from that committee that then fed into the main committee.
Professor Sir David King: I believe.
Q108 Chairman: Therefore, there had to
have been a discussion at the science and technology committee
about Blakemore to generate the minute. How did these distinguished
people, whom you say would never have come to this conclusion
or expressed it in this way, enable this to happen?
Professor Sir David King: Query.
Q109 Chairman: Just a mystery.
Professor Sir David King: I really
have nothing to add to that. I think I have tried to be as explicit
as I can.
Q110 Chairman: You are suggesting that
somehow the secretary went away and just made this up.
Professor Sir David King: It is
a possibility.
Q111 Chairman: What, because they did
not like Blakemore? Or did not like vivisection?
Professor Sir David King: I have
no idea. Could I make a constructive suggestion: It has apparently
been leaked who the chairman of the science and technology committee
is. I would suggest you talk to him.
Chairman: All right. That is a very,
very positive and constructive idea. Let's bring some colleagues
in.
Q112 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Is it possible
that the comment was not, as it were, part of the committee's
deliberations but a comment on the committee's deliberation by
a civil servant before it went to the main committee?
Professor Sir David King: I think
that is possible.
Q113 Mrs Campbell: Perhaps I could follow
up that exchange. Are you absolutely convinced from your experience,
were you a member of that committee, that there is no political
pressure or abuse of the system? Are you able to give us an undertaking?
Professor Sir David King: I have
personally in my time as Chief Scientific Adviser absolutely no
reason to feel that there has ever been any political pressure
in relation to the science and technology groupings.
Q114 Mrs Campbell: I remember seeing
some of the news cuttings at the time that suggested that there
may have been some influence from Prince Charles who did not like
vivisectionists and that may have influenced the committee's decision.
Professor Sir David King: I believe
that is pure conjecture.
Q115 Mrs Campbell: Some of my colleagues
may want to follow that up.
Professor Sir David King: I simply
also would point to the Brian Cass award.
Q116 Mrs Campbell: Indeed. I am a little
confused about the structure of these committees and maybe you
could help us with this. Professor Blakemore told us that he was
a member of a small group of chief executives of research
councils which forwarded nominations to the main science and technology
committee. Is that the science and technology sub-committee? Is
that what it is called?
Professor Sir David King: Yes,
I can try to make the committee structure as clear as possible
as I see it. All science and technology nominations—I believe
virtually all—come through initially a committee that I
chair. That committee is composed of the chief executives of all
the research councils and the director general of the research
councils. We receive nominations very largely from the learned
societies in the professions: the Royal Society, the Royal Academy
of Engineering and so on. I think it is basically a good structure,
in the sense that the chief executives of the seven research councils
cover the full spread of research activity in the UK and also
are funding the best science in the UK and therefore I think are
well placed to make judgments on who should receive honours. I
can hardly think of a better initial committee to make this judgment.
The committee is not only reactive, I should say. A couple of
years ago, it seemed to me that we were not getting enough nominations
and so we did go back to the learned societies and suggest that
they might wish to make more nominations. We are proactive in
that sense. Our listings would cover all the appropriate honours—and
I have to say, Anne, that before I took this job, I was not even
aware of the order of the honours system. I had a vague idea that
a K was more important than anything else but I did not know that
an M came below an O came below a C. I can now ring it out. I
had not actually ever had any involvement with this, but, as I
say, now I know what the ordering is and I know roughly what the
criteria are. So we put forward from our committee, listings,
in priority order, which go on to the S&T committee.
Q117 Mrs Campbell: Your committee is
. . .?
Professor Sir David King: This
is just the informal OST committee which is helping a formal committee
by putting its group of names forward, with reasonings. This list
then goes to the permanent secretary in the DTI and from the permanent
secretary goes to the science and technology committee and then
into the upper committee.
Q118 Mrs Campbell: At what stage do organisations
like the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering input
their nominations? Do they go to you or do they go directly to
the science and technology—
Professor Sir David King: They
go to the Cabinet Office[2]
I am a bit vague on the bits outside my immediate province, but
I believe all the nominations go into the Cabinet Office and the
Cabinet Office then has to divvy them up into the various areas
of speciality.
Q119 Mrs Campbell: The committee in which
you are involved is the committee that looks at suggestions or
nominations from the research councils and that is all. They do
not consider nominations from other quarters.
Professor Sir David King: We look
at nominations from the learned societies. They could come from
research councils. They could also come from civil servants within
the Office of Science and Technology.
1 Note by witness: As my evidence makes clear
I was not present at the Main Honours meeting and therefore not
in a position to comment on it or on the record of the discussion.
It should be stressed that my comments in response to these questions
are purely hypothetical and not relevant to any particular individual. Back
2
Note by witness: The Learned Societies (Institute of Biology,
Royal Society of Chemistry, Institute of Physics, Royal Academy
of Engineering and Royal Society) submit citations to OST. Other
Government Departments submit directly to the Cabinet Office. Back
| 
