Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2004
LORD SAINSBURY
OF TURVILLE
Q1 Chairman: Thank you, Lord Sainsbury,
for coming along today to help us with this rather novel experience.
I hope it is going to be very useful because we might to be able
to feed some of the information into our scrutiny of OST for 2004.
How we thought we would do it is give you the questions beforehand
to give you a chance to answer. We will do it in the spirit of
the House of Commons and I will play the Speaker (always an ambition),
so you will have short sharp answers and then we will have a supplementary
or two—no more than two—for each question. Minister,
how much money will be realized from the rationalization of business
support schemes over the next three years? How will this money
be re-allocated; and how much new money will be made available
to implement the Innovation Report?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The
rationalization of the schemes run by the Department has allowed
£150 million to be redirected towards technological innovation.
This money will be committed over the twelve months from April
2004 to April 2005 and will be spent over four years. It will
be allocated by the Technology Strategy Board in line with the
new Technology Strategy which has been developed with the DTI
working with industry. The Innovation Report sets out new priorities
for the DTI and the money will be allocated from current budgets
to implement it.
Q2 Chairman: The supplementary to
that would be, what is new about this? What is different? We have
heard of innovation for a long time now; we have heard about foresight.
Is there a dramatic change of strategy in your reply?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
hope there is a different approach. I think in the past we have
tended, with our business support schemes and work on innovation,
to respond in a very ad hoc way to proposals that have come forward
from particular industry sectors or in line with a particular
technology need. I think this has not been a very effective way
and really this whole exercise is about making certain that we
use the money we have in a much more effective way. The point
of the Technology Strategy is to just to say where are the priority
areas that we have and then to work very clearly with those industries
to formulate what are the strategic technology platforms in those
particular areas and fund those.
Q3 Chairman: Are you trying to focus
particular spending on certain areas of technology? Are you picking
winners?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think it is a question of priorities. I think where we are looking
at putting money behind development of technology in particular
areas then it is important to be clear that a) you are addressing
an important segment of British industry, and b) it is an area
of technological development which is considered really important
by that industry to help them gain competitive advantage. It makes
not sense at all just to do this on an ad hoc basis as projects
come forward. We want to be very clear what are the priorities
and that industry really buys into this because we see this as
a way not simply of improving the supply side but actually using
public money to drive forward the demand from industry.
Q4 Chairman: Question two: What was
the role of OST and MRC in the events surrounding the decision
by Cambridge University to cancel plans to build a primate research
laboratory; and what are the implications for biomedical research
in the UK?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The
decision to cancel plans to build a primate research laboratory
was taken by Cambridge University, although OST and MRC were closely
in touch with the discussions. The Government is determined that
this discussion will not impact on the ability of the UK to remain
a world leader in neuroscience and we are exploring ways to ensure
that the University has the facilities it needs to continue its
important work in neuroscience. The Government is committed to
the protection of those scientists and research staff undertaking
neuroscience work. We have given the police tough powers to tackle
animal rights extremists; brought in restrictions on directors'
personal details appearing on company records; and a specialist
police unit based with the National Crime Squad is targeting the
leaders of violent animal rights protest groups. We are also deciding
what additional powers are necessary.
Q5 Mr Key: Minister, can I first
say how very relieved a lot of us were by your very robust remarks
reported in the Sunday Times where you say: "This
decision at Cambridge is not going to be a blow because we are
determined to make certain that it is not and we will make sure
that certain other facilities are available to Cambridge".
You might like to tell us how you are going to develop those.
Could you also enlarge on the comments on the new legislation
which you say is being studied in the Home Office? This would
be warmly welcome. There are, of course, federal and state laws
in the United States which do exactly this and I, for one, believe
that the time has come to enact particular legislation in this
area.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: So
far as the first question is concerned, I have already got Colin
Blakemore (who is the Chief Executive of the MRC) and Sir Keith
O'Nions (who is the new Director General of the Research Council)
looking at this, also in conjunction with the Wellcome Trust who
obviously have a great interest in this because they were our
partners in the project in Cambridge. They are already looking
at that and we have a meeting arranged to look at the possibilities.
As you might expect, I would not want to go into exactly where
these are or what form they would take, which has to be decided
anyway. As far as the legislation is concerned, there has been
a proposal put forward by a number of bodies interested in this
for a new bill which would specifically cover this area. Quite
a large part of that is already covered by legislation which is
already in existence and it makes no sense and it would not be
allowed to have legislation which duplicates other legislation
which already exists. What we are doing is going through that
to pick out all those things which would be new powers or would
be changes in existing powers which we think would be helpful.
We will then see what comes out of that and then take it forward.
Clearly you cannot have a bill that duplicates what already exists.
Q6 Dr Harris: This Cambridge business
was a bit of a dog's business, was it not? Would you agree that
it is a disaster because it has given a victory to animal rights
extremists which they need not have had? Is the Government planning
to say that this will not be allowed to happen again and underwrite
the costs of security when these threats come in the attempt to
close down lawful—and often government sponsored, government
required—research?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think it is very unfortunate because it will introduce a delay,
but even then I do not think it will hold up much research which
is on-going at this point. It will not be a disaster because we
will simply make certain that there are other facilities to continue
this work. As far as security for other facilities are concerned,
I do not think that the Government can get involved in guaranteeing
the security costs either on capital or revenue going forward,
but obviously to the extent that people put up new facilities
or renovate them, these kind of costs will have to be part of
the costs which will then have to be funded.
Q7 Chairman: Question three: What
wider scientific benefits from the Beagle 2 project were anticipated
when the decision to provide financial support to the project
was made? Have these benefits been realized and at what cost to
public funds?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The
Beagle 2 mission cost £42.5 million, of which £22 million
was directly from public funds. The scientific objective was to
establish whether life is present—or has been present—on
a planet other than earth. It has enabled UK industry to develop
expertise in robotic exploration and a UK university to develop
expertise in miniaturisation and mass spectrometry. It is a project
that has captured public imagination, demonstrating that this
is possible without a human presence in space.
Q8 Dr Turner: Could you tell us,
Lord Sainsbury, something about the background of the decision
to support the Beagle project? Can you tell us what scientific
benefits were expected from Beagle—had it spoken to us—which
were not part of the US mission to Mars?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Clearly
it was very much more directed to this question of life being
present on a planet other than the earth. That is why it had the
ability to do the mass spectrometry. That was more advanced than
what was in the American project which I think is there simply
to find out whether there is water which could have led to life.
It was, in that sense, a very far-sighted and a very interesting
scientific attempt to discover whether there has been life on
Mars. Clearly it is extremely disappointing that we have not had
the signals back, but, as I say, it did enable us to develop some
interesting technology for robotic exploration and mass spectrometry.
Of course, the ability to have a mass spectrometer of this kind
of size—which is shoebox size rather than a room—has
actually some other very interesting applications in medicine
outside this field. Of course, I think the final thing is that
it captured the public imagination. I always thought it would,
but not to the extent it did. I believe that the near future of
space exploration is going to be about robotic exploration. We,
in this country, have some real skills in this and I think Beagle
2 has pushed that forward. We need to make certain that in the
future, through ESA programmes, that kind of robotic exploration
is taken forward.
Q9 Dr Turner: Can you expand a little
on the applications of technology that have been evolved to go
into the instrumentation that the Beagle carried? Do you foresee
some commercial exploitation of these applications for the future?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As
I said, I think the mass spectrometer is a very good example of
this, where something which usually has to go in something the
size of a room can be reduced to what is effectively a shoe box
size. Of course, that makes it something that you could actually
move round different parts of a hospital. I think within medicine
there is a move to make more and more something which can be done
quickly and flexibly so that is potentially a very interesting
bit of technology.
Q10 Chairman: Question four: What
is the expected impact of the proposed EU Chemicals Legislation
on innovation in the sector? What opportunities are there for
the UK?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There
are three potential benefits. REACH includes generous exemptions
for R&D and new products and processes, five years initially
with a possible further five year extension. The threshold starts
at one tonne which is higher than the threshold that currently
applies for new chemicals. It could also have an impact on encouraging
the development of new substitute chemicals. However, as currently
drafted, there are also risks that some low production volume
chemicals could be withdrawn from market because of the costs
and administrative complexity of REACH.
Q11 Dr Iddon: Lord Sainsbury, how
far apart do you think the Green NGOs and the chemical industry
are now and what are the other main hurdles that they have to
get over if REACH is going to be a practical proposition?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think we have actually moved much closer together with Greenpeace
and World Wildlife Fund on this. Equally, I think, the chemical
industry is closer to this point as well. The two issues which
are still important are more emphasis on prioritisation and also
the question of one chemical one registration. I think we believe
that if you are going to get any sense into this you need to have
a system where each chemical is only registered once and there
is one lot of testing and everyone who wants to use that chemical
comes together and does that one testing. The advantage of this
is that you stop the duplication of testing so we would cut down
very strongly on animal experimentation. Also, of course, you
avoid the situation where different groups get different results
from the research they do. It seems to me that it has the final
advantage that if you have one cost for registering it then you
could use this when you come to have imports; you could say that
if you want to import this chemical you must pay the same fee
as the people who did the test originally. I think one chemical
one registration is something and there is no reason why that
should be a disagreement between ourselves and either the chemical
industry or the various chemical interest groups. Prioritisation
is a slightly more controversial issue but again I think there
is beginning to be agreement round this, that it does not make
sense just prioritising on the size of the tonnage; you should
prioritise on what the evidence would suggest would be the most
dangerous chemicals initially and these are the bio-cumulative
ones and so on. Again I think there is beginning to be agreement,
certainly within this country, that that is also the right thing
to do. If you look at it from the point of view of the consumer,
this has to be right. They are not very interested in whether
there are a hundred tonnes or a hundred thousand tonnes; what
they want to know is which are the ones which, from the evidence
we have already, are likely to be the serious ones.
Q12 Dr Iddon: My second supplementary
is about the future of chemistry in British universities. We have
had a long series of closures of chemistry departments and just
in the last few months we have seen the following three mentioned:
closure of chemistry at King's College, closure of chemistry at
Queen Mary College in London and now, tragically, an announcement
in the last few days, that one of the highest ranking chemistry
departments is about to close and that is Swansea. Are you as
concerned about all these haemorrhaging of principal departments
in universities as I am and, if so, what do you think the Government
can do about it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think it is a very serious situation and we have to see whether
there is more we can do. At the end of the day it comes back to
the number of students who want to do chemistry. We cannot order
people to do chemistry; we can only inspire them and excite them
to do this. That is why I think the question of schemes like the
Science and Engineering Ambassador Scheme and, indeed, our network
of Science Learning Centres are extremely important. At the end
of the day it comes back to exciting young people about chemistry.
I think there is also, for the various professional institutes
and government, a major communication issue which is to convey
the message that chemistry and the chemical industry is not part
of the old economy; it is very much part of the exciting new world
we are going into and that speciality chemicals and areas like
that are fundamental to some of the most exciting things that
are going to happen in science in the future. I think there is
a big communication issue to be confronted there.
Q13 Chairman: Question five: What
role will the OST's Science and Society Directorate play in shaping
new school science curricula?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The
OST is very concerned that young people should be encouraged that
young people should be encouraged to take up careers in science
and technology. We therefore work closely with DfES on activities
to inspire children by complementing their work on curriculum
subjects. In particular we are continuing to support the Setnet
scheme which co-ordinates the UK wide network of 53 set points
at a task with ensuring that science and technology activities
are made available to schools. Setnet also operates the Science
and Engineering Ambassadors Programme which encourages young scientists
and engineers to visit schools to explain about their work. This
is proving to be a very successful initiative. The number of Science
and Engineering Ambassadors has increased from 657 in December
2002 to the current figure of over 5000. Of these, some 35% are
women and about 40% are under 35 years old.
Q14 Mr McWalter: To what extent are
you addressing the report of this Committee about science education,
particularly claims that current GCSE courses are overloaded with
factual content, they contain little contemporary science, they
have stultifying assessment arrangements and they are differentially
difficult compared to other subjects, particularly when the latter
lack mathematical content?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The
basic responsibility lies with DfES and not the Office of Science
and Technology. Our role has to be to play a sort of parallel
role in terms of encouraging children to do science. I am stepping
outside my departmental brief in saying that a lot of work has
been done on this field by the DfES in terms of the key stages,
and particularly in terms of introducing more general science
questions into those.
Q15 Mr McWalter: Am I right to infer
that you do not pro-actively seek to advise DfES on its science
educational policy, you just sort of sit back and wait to be consulted?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It
is not our responsibility and it is also not our skills to do
curriculum development. What we know about the officials in OST
is about science policy and not about science education. That
clearly has to be the responsibility of DfES.
Q16 Chairman: Question six: What
plans have you got to encourage the MRC, the NHS and other research
funders to co-ordinate their activities in order to focus research
on areas which will have the most benefits for patients?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: One
of the main recommendations in the Bioscience Innovation and Growth
Team reports have published in November was that a Clinical Trials
Agency should be set up. Likewise, in October, the Academy of
Medical Science report recommended that Clinical Trial and Translational
Research Network be established. Lord Warner and I asked Sir John
Pattison to chair a working group—the Research for Patients'
Benefit Working Party—to look at how to improve the way
scientific breakthroughs are turned into treatment for patients.
We asked the working party to produce a report by Easter. They
have made excellent progress and on Friday sent an interim report
to Lord Warner and myself.
Q17 Dr Harris: Is it a happy situation
that there have been year on year cuts in the research budget
of the NHS, that there is less access to clinical trials in this
country than comparable countries for patients, and that there
is an on-going crisis in academic medicine with so many unfilled
chairs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think this is a very key area of importance and that is why this
working party is really going to look into what we can do in the
field of clinical research. We have very arduous requirements
of people to do that and this may not be very sensible so Sir
John Pattison's group is also looking at that area. I agree, it
is extremely important.
Q18 Mr Key: The Medical Research
Council is clearly very concerned about clinical research and
they have an initiative with industry and other funders to try
to promote clinical research. As far as the Government is concerned,
do you see this as a priority for science spending in the OST?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think it is extremely important because we are not simply in the
business of doing research; we also want to see that actually
used for improving health care and, indeed, for the strength of
our industry in pharmaceuticals and biotech. It is interesting
that this proposal came out first from the Biotech Innovation
and Growth Team. We are very keen to support this and I think
there is also a lot of support from the Department of Health also
because there is no doubt that it improves care if there is good
clinical medicine going on.
Q19 Dr Harris: I want to bring you
back to the issue of animal work. My constituents think that you
are a great minister for science and so forth, but they are not
happy at the moment because there was a headline in the Oxford
Mail that stated that there was going to be this threat against
an animal facility in Oxford. If an MP was ever threatened with
security issues to try to prevent them from speaking out—as
is their right—then there would be funding for enhanced
security I would imagine. Why is it that the Government should
not say, because it is our regulation, it is our requirement—indeed
we encourage this—that we will not allow the threat of security
to otherwise undermine the viability of a university (or, indeed,
a local police force) and we will deter this sort of approach
by protestors by underwriting the security of these facilities
that you regard as so necessary?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Where
there have been particular situations—as at Cambridge—additional
funds have been given to the local police to deal with this situation.
Obviously one has to think very carefully before one makes it
a rule that every university animal facility or anyone who is
threatened will have constant police protection.
| 
