Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER 2004
RT HON
PAUL BOATENG
MP, DR KIM
HOWELLS MP AND
LORD SAINSBURY
OF TURVILLE
Q200 Dr Iddon: Can you be sure that
vice chancellors are going to give you the notice required that
within an individual university they are considering closing an
SET department?
Dr Howells: I am pretty confident
they can, and they are very, very keen to be seen to be encouraging
what we have as a great priority, which is investment in science,
engineering and mathematics. It is a strategic area for us, and
we would be very surprised if moves were made to close departments
without informing us that something as important as that was happening;
so I do not harbour any fears about that. It is an important point.
Q201 Dr Harris: I wrote down what
you said, Minister: you inspire young people by these variable
fees. What part of the inspiration is from increased levels of
debt in an area where we want them to go to relatively low-paid
public sector jobs? I do not see—perhaps I am not creatively
thinking enough!
Dr Howells: I am sorry, Doctor—low-paid
public sector jobs—what are those?
Q202 Dr Harris: You are trying to
inspire young people to go into science careers, and you said
that this variable fee policy was part of that. We can check the
record, but you definitely said "inspired". I am trying
to work out what part of having more debt gave the inspiration
to people to say, "yes, I will go for that low-paid public
sector job with short-term contracts, rather than go off to the
City and study something that might make me even more attractive".
Dr Howells: As enthusiastic as
I am about the new funding package, I do not think it should inspire
anybody to do anything other than borrow some money. I think it
is going to make the issue of going to university much less problematic
than it is now, because doing away with up-front tuition fees,
having access to that loan, and much better terms of repayment
after you are earning at least £15,000, is a much better
package than the one that is there at the moment. If there is
any confusion, I hope that clears it up for you.
Q203 Dr Harris: I think there was
research done to ask people whether they thought that the greater
burden of debt, whatever the repayment arrangements, was an incentive
or not. That research, funded by your department, suggested that
the people concerned thought that it would be a greater barrier—but
I suppose we can ignore research when it does not fit in with
the policy.
Dr Howells: No, on the contrary;
I think we should be much more evidence-based in all of the policies
we have. I will say this to you: in the five weeks that I have
been in this job I have not been asked very much in all the meetings
that I have had with people who wanted to go to university or
might aspire to it, about that funding package. They have asked
me much more about what kind of jobs they will get at the end
of university, and I think that is different.
Q204 Dr Harris: I did a bit of maths
during the last few questions because, Lord Sainsbury, you said
that public and private investment must both increase at a rate
of 5.8% per year to reach the total of 2.5% of GDP target by 2014.
However, table 4.1 in your document suggests that the government
sector increase over that period is 21.2%, that is from 0.66 to
0.8; and the private sector from 1.24 to 1.7, which is an increase
of 29%. Is it not the case that you are expecting a greater increase
from the private sector than you are from the public sector in
percentage terms from the 2004 base?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Can
you give me the figures again?
Q205 Dr Harris: Table 4.1 shows that
the combined government sector, that is basic science and other
government R&D, is 0.66, and that will rise to 0.8 if you
are to meet the 2.5% target—that is the contribution towards
the 2.5% target—whereas the private sector has to go up
on the same table from 1.24 to 1.7, which is an increase of 29%
compared to the 21%. Is it not the case on those figures from
your own report that you are expecting private R&D to increase
more than the government R&D contribution to that target as
a proportion of GDP; and is that the Government not leading by
example?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
am sure that the calculation was done on the basis that it was
5.8% for both of these. I do not have my calculator to check that.
I rather assumed that the Treasury had got those calculations
right. That is the basis of it.
Q206 Dr Harris: I hesitate to say
it is a dangerous assumption.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We
will clarify that.
Q207 Dr Harris: You also mentioned
that you thought it was okay that the Barcelona target of 3% applied
to the whole of the EU, and because it did, not to individual
countries, that it was okay to leave it to the Scandinavians and
have Britain only making 2.5% four years after the 3% target.
So when the Prime Minister signed up to this 3% aspiration in
seven years' time, did he do so on the basis that it would be
okay for the UK to be in the second division, and others could
drive that target forward; or did he on the contrary think, "it
is a stupid aspiration, but I will just go along with it"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It
was always understood that this, in terms of all countries reaching
this, was a very tough target to go for.
Q208 Dr Harris: It is an average
then, is it not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It
was put on the basis of an average, and on that basis we accepted
it because we thought it was very unlikely that all countries
would be able to achieve that. As I said, there is a difference
between some of the Scandinavian countries, which have a high
level of industrial research that is driven by a small number
of multi-national companies, because it has the downside that
if those multinationals get into trouble you can see the thing
reverse very quickly.
Q209 Dr Harris: I do not understand
the motivation of the Prime Minister in signing up to 3% in the
knowledge, or accepting later on that we would only make 2.5%
some years after, unless he understood that it did not matter
that we would be in the second division if that target was ever
going to be met, because other countries will be above 3% for
that average to met.
Mr Boateng: Dr Harris, our Government
never accepts that we are going to be in the second division in
terms of implementing the Lisbon agenda. Let us be very clear
about that. The 3% target applies to the EU as a whole, not to
individual Member States. Raising R&D intensity to 2.5% is,
we believe, a challenging but realistic target, which will put
the UK in a strong position to compete with leading EU Member
States, and help us close the gap with the United States. The
key to success in that regard will be a partnership between government
and the private sector. I would be very interested to learn what
your own view is as to—
Q210 Dr Harris: We could swap places!
Mr Boateng: Not yet, Dr Harris!
Q211 Dr Harris: You answer the question.
I am asking about the 3% that Britain—
Mr Boateng: I am answering the
question. We have made out very clearly what we believe the contribution
of the taxpayer should be. If you believe the taxpayer should
contribute more, then I would be interested to hear how much more
that should be the case. In fairness, Dr Harris, when putting
questions to David Sainsbury in relation to table 4.1 you might
in fairness have referred him to paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14. What
paragraph 4.13 makes clear is that table 4.1 is a possible scenario
for achieving the growth rate, which in the particular case outlined
in the table as a possible scenario, assumes an equal growth in
both public and private sector. That is an assumption upon which
David Sainsbury answered your question. I hope that helps because
it was designed to do so.
Q212 Dr Harris: It is very helpful!
The fact that it is not equal growth according to my calculation
suggests there is a problem in the document rather than in either
of our understandings. My last question was not about that; it
was about—perhaps I will ask one more time. How is 3% realistic
if Britain, in the first division as you would like to see it,
is only at 2.5% four years after? Why is the Prime Minister signing
up to this 3% when it is not realistic?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There
is nothing absolutely magical about 3% which says that this is
the figure that you have to get to be very successful. The figure
for the USA, which is the most innovation-driven economy in the
world, is today 2.67, so there is no magic that you have to get
to 3%; and simply because you get to 3% because you put in a large
amount of government funding will not give you an innovation economy.
I would not put any magic on 3%; it is an aspirational target
for the whole of Europe. The fact that we are at 2.5 would not
be a problem.
Q213 Dr Harris: Why do you think,
Chief Secretary, since we are on a roll here, that young science
graduates do not go into science?
Mr Boateng: I think that is a
very good question. It must have something to do with—you
ask me, and I can only talk to you as a lay person—this
is not my direct ministerial responsibility but I spend, like
you, a lot of time talking to children and young people in my
constituency, and visiting schools. I think it is partly to do
with the culture in which we live and operate. One of the things
that this strategy is designed to do is to change that culture,
to say that we as a society put a high value on science and technology,
and are prepared to invest in it. I hope that that will make a
contribution. There are other issues too. Some of the work that
Gareth Roberts has done around gender and ethnicity in terms of
the choices that young people make when deciding on their careers,
whether in science and technology, are also of concern. We need
to address those issues too. I would also say, as you ask me,
that there must be issues too around the environment in which
the subject is taught, and that does go to some of the important
work that the DfES is doing in upgrading laboratories and science
facilities, and how they see—and this is important work—those
who teach them rewarded for the decisions that they have made
in their lives and careers. The DfES is addressing that too. You
asked me, but I am a lay person, and the question might better
be guided to Dr Howells.
Q214 Dr Harris: Perhaps your colleagues
can answer the supplementary point. I am sure my colleagues will
have something to say, but graduates in my constituency tell me
that one of the huge drawbacks of going into science research
is the culture of short-term contracts. It is a real problem.
There is no tenure; it is already low paid. They are in debt at
the moment or maybe, and they might want to buy a house, which
is hard enough in many parts of the country. Can you show any
signs of progress about tackling this problem, which is the thing
that is raised with me more than anything else by young scientists?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Can
I go back to your first question? I do not think we should start
on the basis that our position in this country is worse than other
countries. In fact, we probably have a higher percentage of each
cohort getting a first degree in science and engineering than
practically any other country in the world, which is about 10%
compared to about 6% in the USA. The problem of there being a
switch out of subjects like physics, chemistry and engineering
into biological sciences and IT is almost a universal problem,
and actually we are rather better than other countries. Our major
problem, as the Chief Secretary pointed out, is not at that level;
it is on the technician level, where again and again the figures
point to us being very poorly placed and not at the top level.
As far as the issue of fixed contracts is concerned, or short-term
contracts, we have done a lot of work on this. We have not made
a huge amount of progress, but the situation will be radically
changed with the new EU directive, which will make it much more
difficult and will affect this issue.
Q215 Dr Harris: It came into force
in October 2002, and still allows people to be re-appointed to
short-term contracts if they could show objective reasons such
as short-term funding, which of course underlies a lot of what
we have here. I know there is long-term strategic funding planned
in this investment, but part of the problem outside of the £23
million package for fellowships, is that so much research funding
is short-term, and universities do not want to take a risk on
their people and so they just employ them on short-term contracts.
That means, they tell me, that no-one is interested in investing
in them because they know they will probably not be around beyond
this three to four years. That is why we lose, I believe—and
there is evidence for this—so many to the financial services
and to other careers.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I
think it was true in the past, when all the funding was short-term
and it was on an annual basis. Of course, now we are on the three-year
spending reviews, so this gives much more stability. We have a
record where there have not been wild swings in the amount of
QR funding and others, which means that vice chancellors had become
very obsessed, quite rightly, with the degree of flexibility.
I think that is less of a consideration these days, and as a result
of this you are seeing less emphasis being put on the short-term
contracts.
Q216 Dr Harris: Is HEFCE going to
advise vice chancellors how to do something about the fact that
they are being so unfair to people in these particular jobs? The
fact that we have three middle-aged men being questioned by a
bunch of even more middle-aged men reads into the problem of science—
Mr Boateng: You do yourself an
injustice, Dr Harris!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Speaking
as a man on a short-term contract!
Chairman: This is our youth policy!
Q217 Dr Harris: Lord Sainsbury accuses
me of having a short-term contract. It is easy to say from the
comfort of the Lords, but I take the point! We have a problem
particularly with women in scientific careers at all levels, as
you have recognised. Part of it is that they appear particularly
sensitive to this question of lack of tenure, and the problem
of the pressure to publish, which makes it more difficult to take
career breaks. Is there not anything you can do through your department,
through HEFCE if necessary, to get universities to behave better
in this area?
Dr Howells: We are looking very
hard, as a number of people are, at university governance at the
moment, and making sure that whatever else we do we do not risk
the assets we have there. We have announced, for example, an increase
in PhD stipends from around £5,700 to £12,000. We are
trying to address those issues, but they are certainly about university
governance. They are about trying to ensure that what we have
got at universities we use to the best effect. I cannot tell you,
Dr Harris, if there have been discussions between HEFCE and vice
chancellors about this issue. I will try and find out for you.
Mr Key: Gentlemen, can I turn to the
question of science and energy. Does the UK have any chance at
all of meeting the target for reducing CO2 emissions by 20% in
five years' time?
Q218 Chairman: Dr Howells, you have
a PhD in energy policy, do you not?
Dr Howells: Not entirely. It is
kind of energy—it is about the coal industry between 1937
and 1957, but I notice it is coming back! Obviously, this is a
subject that is dealt with mainly by the DTI. I have my own views
on it, and they are very peculiar ones, I have to tell you, Mr
Key.
Q219 Chairman: Let us hear them.
Dr Howells: I was, as they say
in the jargon these days, tasked to put a case against the building
of a pressurised water reactor at Hinckley Point in Somerset,
and the reactor eventually was built at Sizewell. During the course
of researching this, I was reconverted to the cause of nuclear
energy. I am not a great fan, I have to say, of the idea of covering
Wales in windmills. I rather think that we run a very great risk
of destroying our great historical visual heritage, and what makes
it unique; and besides that, I do not think the damn things produce
enough electricity anyway. I cannot see how it is possible to
generate those massive of tranches of electricity. Every time
you build a tower block these days, or an office block, we fill
it with electronic machines, and you virtually have to build a
power station to power it. I think that we are not having the
kind of adult conversations we ought to be having about this.
| 
