Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
MONDAY 10 JANUARY 2005
PROFESSOR STEPHEN
TOMLINSON AND
PROFESSOR KAY
DAVIES
Q340 Chairman: If I can make the
ironic point, Stephen, the fact that the Select Committee is looking
at it was not in our remit either until a few months ago, and
Parliament does look at many issues. I am not saying it should
always come to Parliament—of course not—but some issues
do have to like human embryology and laws and all that kind of
stuff; and, after all, it is public money that you are looking
at. We do look at the MRC.
Professor Tomlinson: Indeed.
Q341 Chairman: It was never really
raised in our scrutiny of the MRC, which was some would say savage
and others would say served the purpose. What do you think of
that in terms of other bodies looking at the thing? Could you
not have said that to the MRC council and made that recommendation?
Professor Tomlinson: Could we
have said it?
Q342 Chairman: Yes, or recommended
it to them.
Professor Tomlinson: No, we were
set up by the council of the MRC.
Q343 Chairman: But you could make
a recommendation to them for them as MRC council to take the report
and think of that.
Professor Tomlinson: The answer
to your question has to be that, yes, we could have done that,
but it was not something that was considered.
Q344 Chairman: I know it was not,
because it is not part of your remit as such and it is not part
of your thinking in general—I understand that.
Professor Davies: Nevertheless
the MRC itself has enormous experience in this field. It set up
the Clinical Sciences Centre; it moved the CSC from Northwick
Park to the Hammersmith, where it is now a very successful institution;
it has got the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine; it
has got the LNB which is less integrated with clinical science;
it has seen, this particular problem, every which way. I would
argue very strongly that the MRC council and staff had an enormous
history in this particular problem, and therefore were well versed
in the arguments and problems and therefore in a good position.
Chairman: All I can say is that I understand
that, but you should never count your chickens before they are
hatched on any big political move; always assume the worst and
move from there. I think we missed a trick in this case.
Q345 Dr Turner: Going back to the
question of money, were you satisfied when you made your recommendations
to the MRC council that you had considered all of the relevant
factors in particular the long-term costs?
Professor Tomlinson: My own personal
response to that is that until we know what the business cases
are from UCL and KCL in the case of that recommendation to relocate
to central London, then it is not possible to give full consideration
to the financial cases because there are no full financial cases.
Q346 Dr Turner: Fair enough, but
do you think you should have considered the cost implications
at least in outline? Was that part of the remit of the task force?
Professor Tomlinson: Part of the
remit of the task force was to frame the business case for future
investment in NIMR, but in terms of identifying clearly the capital
investment required and the revenue investment required for a
renewed Institute of Medical Research, no, we did not consider
that in detail.
Professor Davies: Certainly at
the first meeting the issue of how much more expensive it would
be to run an institute in central London was raised, so we did
not do it in the absence of any thinking at all.
Q347 Dr Turner: Normally, a business
case does have some price tags affixed to it, even if they are
approximate. They would have to be approximate in this circumstance.
Did the consultants help with that in any way? Did they do any
kind of thumbnail accounting of the likely cost implications?
Professor Davies: Again, in the
earlier meetings we certainly went through those—so many
hundreds of pounds per square metre for a new institute. You can
do that sort of calculation on the back of an envelope. The real
issue is how expensive it is to employ and recruit staff in central
London. We measured that against the extra added value that being
in central London would bring. That was something that was considered
in detail. Paul Nurse certainly contributed to that because of
his relevant experience.
Q348 Dr Turner: You were satisfied
that that balance came—
Professor Davies: I was satisfied
that there was sufficient information for us to move forward to
consider those options. Before we come to a conclusion on those
options, we need a detailed business case, which is a different
issue.
Chairman: Let us go to where we move
on to from here. We have been talking about past history, and
I am sure you would be glad to say a few things.
Q349 Dr Harris: How much damage do
you think has been done to the NIMR and MRC as a result of this
dispute?
Professor Davies: How do you measure
that? Some. The job now is to repair it and move forward. That
is the only answer to that.
Q350 Dr Harris: What do you think
can be done to build trust up again? What consideration is the
MRC council giving to that specific issue around relationships
and confidence and trust?
Professor Davies: A sub-committee
has been set up by MRC council, chaired by Peter Fellner, to look
at the NIMR business case as a baseline so that we can compare
the other options, so we are moving forward in that sense.
Q351 Dr Harris: Is that just looking
at the move or is there a specific effort being made by the council
outside of the issues of the move, which is controversial, to
try and bring people together, whatever that fluffy term might
mean?
Professor Davies: There is certainly
awareness in council about the morale of staff, and the MRC are
doing all they can to try and alleviate that—and we need
to do more probably. I was not at the last council meeting before
Christmas so I cannot make any further comment.
Q352 Dr Harris: There is an issue
of time because there is a perceived pressure to press on with
this both for the sake of the timetable of any move, even though
it is rather long term. Is time constraint now an issue, or is
it more an issue of not wanting to drag out this process any longer?
Is there an argument for having another process to go over some
of the issues, not repeat the work of the task force, in order
to seek to do the work for example that might have taken place
or been achieved arguably in a sixth meeting; or is it your personal
view that it is probably best to crack on now with the agreed
timetable of agreeing a third option and a detailed business case
and so forth?
Professor Tomlinson: I think the
latter. It is essential now that we crack on and accept the MRC's
decisions following the recommendations of the task force. It
is particularly important to set the scene for beginning to recruit
the successor to Sir John. It is essential that there is some
certainty about what direction the National Institute for Medical
Research is going in, because if there is continuing uncertainty,
and certainly if there is turbulence, then what will happen is
that I suspect it will be difficult to recruit somebody of Sir
John's stature.
Q353 Dr Harris: So no more turbulence
is an argument for pressing on. Another argument might be that
you are not going to get a better answer than that which at least
the majority of the report of the task force provided—but
is underlying it the idea that the credibility of the MRC is at
stake if it does not go ahead with the timetable it has set out?
Professor Davies: I think the
credibility of the MRC council is not threatened—it has
now arranged for site visits of KCL and UCL to move this forward,
and that will happen in a very small time frame. That will only
add to the process because that will be an informed decision at
the next council meeting in February. That can only help the reputation
of the MRC. We certainly need to maintain a dialogue with colleagues
at NIMR as well.
Q354 Dr Harris: Some people might
argue that the MRC council in and of itself is no longer independent
enough because it has so much in the dispute between itself and
NIMR, if I can put it in those binary terms. That may apply by
definition. Are you of the view that there is no case for trying
to get an external view, or would you see this Select Committee
report as an external view on process?
Professor Davies: You are assuming
that MRC council stayed with its membership the same this year
as last, and it is not actually. As Nancy herself said, she has
stepped down, and somebody else has come on who worked in NIMR,
as it happens.
Q355 Chairman: Are there dangers
in that, do you think, with knowledge of history?
Professor Davies: All I am arguing
is that MRC council is not a static body and that new views will
come in from different positions.
Q356 Chairman: It is quite a baptism,
is it not, to come in at this stage?
Professor Davies: If you are a
bright scientist and you come on to the MRC council, you expect
a baptism of fire whatever; there is always an issue—
Q357 Chairman: Bright scientists
are not always bright politically—we have heard that.
Professor Davies: Some of them
are. In any case, it is a new mind, a new contributor to the debate.
Q358 Chairman: What about the possibility
of a phased move—unit by unit or whatever? Are there options
like that still on the table, that it is not an all-in-one kind
of move into the city, and the furore that stirs up? Do you think
there is a case to be argued for bit by bit, a phased move?
Professor Tomlinson: It is bound
to have phases, the movement of people; not all 700 people will
be able to move—
Q359 Chairman: But there is such
a difference in saying "phased". It is like building
a road; if you build it in phases it is much different getting
it through politically than saying "we want to build one
big road" because you will not get the money for one big
road, but you might get it in phases.
Professor Tomlinson: This is a
very careful balance, if you are talking about phasing the relocation
of the scientists and what the impact will be on the science.
I think that critical mass is important. You could not move, in
my view, a small number of people one year and then wait another
couple of years and move some more people.
| 
