Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
LORD SAINSBURY
OF TURVILLE
2 MARCH 2005
Q1 Chairman: Lord Sainsbury,
thank you very, very much for coming again. We will try and sharpen
it up to 30 minutes and the best way we can do that is that you
know the questions and the areas and if you can just reply, like
you do in the Chamber to questions that are written down, then
somebody will reply from our side and will ask a supplementary
question. I will try and restrict each question to about five
minutes. Question 1?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville:
I share the Committee's concern about the need to show that we
have proper teaching facilities in key areas/strategic areas for
the economy and that in fact is why, long before there was the
Exeter situation, in the Ten Year Framework for Science Innovation,
we set out what we would do in this area in terms of HEFCE taking
an interest in the regional balance, looking at the funding of
teaching in chemistry departments and the whole area of encouraging
more chemistry students to come forward.
Q2 Dr Iddon: One of the
biggest problems appears to be the size of the cliff between five-rated
departments, rated according to the RAE, and four-star departments.
It is becoming rapidly clear that four departments, certainly
in my subject, chemistry, are not sustainable with the size of
this cliff. Once a department drops from five to four, God help
it, it has great difficulty surviving. Are the Government going
to address this problem?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
agree with you that that is a problem but I would put it in a
slightly different way, which is that I think we have set up a
system where essentially, though this is debatable on the facts,
we use research money to fund the teaching side in these areas.
I think we have to get this sorted out. People have come forward
saying, "We run a 4 chemistry department and it is fine,
we do not lose money on it", but I think there are cases
where that is so and I think the requirement is that, if you have
a teaching department, whatever the level of research, it should
pay for itself. So, if there are more or less good research universities,
that does not affect the amount of teaching in chemistry. So,
I think there is a big issue around getting the funding right
at the teaching side of chemistry.
Q3 Dr Iddon: Even on the
teaching side there is a problem in that science and engineering
of course is extremely expensive to put on in terms of laboratory
accommodation. Fume cupboards are very expensive these days, for
example. Even in the engineering workshop provision, that is very
expensive. If you just want a teaching only department, the costs
proportionally do rise because at least you have the opportunity
of bringing research money in to refurbish your laboratories for
research purposes. To keep a laboratory running for teaching only
purposes would be extremely expensive and I am hearing rumours
that the TRAC exercise is showing that there is not a sustainable
chemistry department, including Oxford I have to say and Oxford
have made that completely well known, with the current dual funding
system.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think that getting the information off TRAC is the absolute key
to this because, as I say, there is wide disagreement about what
the costs of doing these things are. My instinct says that you
are absolutely right, that this is much more expensive than we
think, and that HEFCE's claim that they fund it on the basis of
what information comes from the universities I am not certain
is very good information or necessarily on comparable bases. I
think getting the TRAC information right, in order that we know
what the situation is, is the first step in trying to achieve
what I said which is, how do we make certain that the teaching
side of this can stand on its own?
Q4 Mr McWalter: Professor
Keith O'Nions, Director General of the Research Councils, came
before us and afterwards he specifically expressed to me the view
that actually you probably need a new University Grants Committee,
a new UGC, because they actually have within their brief the welfare
of the subject at a national level and the only way of doing things
like preserving mathematics at Hull, which is not a particular
expensive department, nevertheless maths is perceived as difficult,
students will vote with their feet to go into subjects which are
perceived by them to be easier and we end up losing a critical
mass of capacity on the part of young people for the future welfare
of our economy. Surely we must revisit the argument as to whether
the role of the UGC should be in place because clearly neither
HEFCE nor the Research Councils are capable of fulfilling the
function which directs students to subjects other than those to
which they feel driven by some kind of market.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think there are three different issues here. One is the number
of students and that, to me, in most of these instances, is the
biggest area. The system is that if there are the students there,
then usually the system will respond to it. I think the first
thing that we have to do—and this is about the quality of
the teaching, the qualifications and the pay of teachers in science
subjects and indeed communicating to young people the importance
of these subjects—
Q5 Mr McWalter: Which
we do not do.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Which
I do not think we do nearly well enough and I think we have a
lot more to do on that. So, we have to make certain that the numbers
are there. There is a second issue which is the number of departments.
Certainly in chemistry—and I think for most others—there
is no problem in terms of the numbers of departments to cover
the students who want to do the subject. The third issue is the
regional balance of departments across the country and there HEFCE
are now taking much more interest in that and looking at whether
they should do things to make certain that there is a regional
balance. I have to say that the main issue is the numbers of students.
As far as departments are concerned, I think this is about incentives
and I think that the system responds pretty quickly to incentives.
If we say that we are really keen to have more chemistry students
or that there is not enough provision for chemistry students,
so we need more provision for chemistry students and we will pay
at a very good rate, then I think the system is quite responsive
to that.
Q6 Chairman: Question
2?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We
are very supportive of the ITER project and developing fusion.
The EU Competitiveness Council has given the Commission a mandate
to negotiate a six party ITER site sited in France and the Council
has also given the Commission a mandate to conclude a deal with
less than the six partners if necessary. I should say that we
are also very keen that facilities such as IFMIF should also be
included in this because, if we want to have the fast track, it
is important that we have IFMIF being done alongside ITER. The
EU is currently negotiating with Japan which will be on the basis
of the main ITER site being in France but there will be some facilities
also in Japan. We are waiting a response from Japan but I think
it is clear that we will have to start making decisions fairly
soon and we cannot prolong these negotiations indefinitely. It
would be by far the best solution if we could have a negotiated
settlement with ITER in Cadarache and some other facilities like
IFMIF in Japan.
Q7 Dr Harris: What is
the deadline for agreement and what role do you see the UK presidency
of the EU play in this?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
do not think that we have a firm deadline but I think, as I said,
we are coming up rapidly to decision time on this. There is a
Competitiveness Council coming up which will have a report on
this and, if there is no sign of movement in the negotiations,
then, before we get to the presidency, we will have to start taking
action.
Q8 Dr Harris: Before?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes,
before our presidency.
Q9 Dr Harris: What are
the cost implications of going it alone? Obviously we hope that
would not apply but, if that is the intention of the EU, are there
cost implications to the EU and specifically to the UK?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There
are cost implications for the EU. There would be obviously very
serious cost implications for France as the host country on this.
Of course, it very much depends on who else comes in. If we go
it alone, it is quite likely that five of the six players will
still come in. We have to work through that, so that we know that,
if we do have to go along with that, we can do it within the kind
of sensible budgets of the EU plus higher contribution from France.
Q10 Dr Harris: Would Japan
be the sixth one that would not come in?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes
and even they might come in if the alternative was to do nothing.
Q11 Dr Harris: It is disappointing
that the United States is not shoulder-to-shoulder with the UK
on this! Do you know why that is? Are you disappointed that our
American allies are not persuaded by our strong advocacy of the
European alternative/European solution here?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes.
It would be clearly very helpful if they were because that would
make it four-two.
Q12 Dr Harris: Why do
you think they are not? Is it because they do not like the French
or is there a scientific reason that they cite?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: They
say that they think on balance the Japanese site and proposition
is a better one. We have failed to move them from that position.
Chairman: Well, they have French fries
back on the menu in American, so things are looking up!
Q13 Dr Turner: There is
a great concern over the time surely because the process of negotiation
over ITER has been going on for years already. For years, we have
all been saying or have all been told—I am listening increasingly
hopefully now—that fusion is 25 years away now from commercial
application. At the current rate of negotiations on ITER, it took
them 25 years of negotiation before anyone actually starts building
the machine and, given the increasing urgency in response to climate
change and the great potential that fusion could deliver towards
that, can we get some greater urgency into this whole business,
please, because it seems to me that this is one of the most important
things that anyone could hope to achieve.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
totally agree and that is why I said that I think we are getting
to the point where certainly the UK position will be that we have
to get on with this and, if we cannot do it on a totally negotiated
basis, then we have to say that we will go alone and seek to bring
in everyone else.
Q14 Dr Turner: When are
you going to get to the point of saying, "Right, that is
it"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think we have to wait until we hear more from the Commission about
how things are progressing with the Japanese.
Q15 Dr Harris: It will
be a better use of money than the Millennium Dome, will it not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Some
people are divided on this issue! I support all science projects
enormously enthusiastically.
Q16 Chairman: Well said!
Question 3, the Asian Tsunami and no domes!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think we have done quite a lot of useful work because of our very
good research in this area. We knew relatively quickly through
the British geological survey work about what had happened and
we supplied quite a lot of data on this, but there are a whole
series of things that we are now doing in the science field to
help. We sent out British Geological Service scientists who have
gone out to help train Thai scientists. HMS Scott is assigned
to undertake a survey of the Indian Ocean earthquake disaster
epicentre, that is to help a further understanding of the earthquakes
and assist prediction of such events in the future. The Metrological
Office is playing a role in improving the global telecommunication
system to enable tsunami early warning to be distributed effectively
within the area and the Met Office is assisting in the reconstruction
of the Maldives and Seychelles metrological services which were
particularly affected by the tsunami. We are undertaking a very
interesting project between the Thai Government, Bangkok University
and a British NGO, Coral Cay Conservation, which is looking into
the damage of the reefs in the Surin Marine Park in Thailand.
Coming closer to home, the Prime Minister asked Sir David King,
the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, to consider and advise
on the mechanisms that could and should be established for the
detection and early warning of global physical natural hazards.
So, I think we are both helping in a very practical way to the
particular short-term situation but also we are looking ahead
to see whether there are other things we should do on a more long-term
basis.
Q17 Dr Turner: Is it true
to say that there is was not enough British expertise that will
be contributed towards the development of an early warning system
and, if so, what role is DfID playing in this?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In
fact, as you probably know, there has been a huge rush of people
offering to provide early warning systems and I think we can probably
do more about the communication links and how we actually get
this working practically in the countries. That is where we are
more focusing our efforts in this.
Q18 Dr Turner: How have
the Government responded to UNESCO's request to provide scientists
to support the sea level monitoring stations in the western Indian
Ocean? You clearly had discussions with Sir David King about the
role of the British Geological survey in this as well. Will we
be partaking in this?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I,
frankly, do not know. If I may, I will write to you specifically
on that particular question. We are involved in a whole series
of these working parties in different areas. What is specifically
happening on that I am not certain but I will come back to you.
Dr Turner: It is also true that there
is a potential tsunami waiting to happen that would engulf the
eastern seaboard of the United States and also affect our own
shores. Are you satisfied that we will be prepared if that were
to happen?
Chairman: What do you know about tectonic
plates that John Prescott does not?
Q19 Dr Turner: There is
a bit of the islands that is about to fall into the sea!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There
are some issues here and Defra are doing some rather quick studies
on that to see whether we should be doing more in terms of the
entire UK position on this.
| 
