Examination of Witnesses (Questions 76-79)
MR PETER
EWINS
23 MAY 2006
Q76 Chairman: Mr Ewins, thank you very
much for coming to give evidence to us. Could you begin by telling
us, very briefly, what your relationship with the Met Office was
when you began there, when you finished there and what you did
there, please?
Mr Ewins: Good morning, Chairman.
It is good to see you again. Thank you for the opportunity. I
joined the Met Office in 1997, I think it was, to become the Chief
Executive, and I was there for seven years and retired almost
exactly two years ago.
Q77 Chairman: How would you describe
the relationship between the Met Office and the Ministry of Defence?
Mr Ewins: The relationship is
historic, for a start, but I think the MoD has always been a responsible
owner of the Met Office. The relationship has been generally good.
However, there are two points I would make. One is that sometimes,
I believe, there is confusion between the MoD's role as owner
of the Met Office and its role as a principal customer and those
two things can sometimes get confused. The second point is that
I am not sure that the MoD understands fully the role of the Met
Office internationally and, therefore, there is a sense in which
perhaps the international dimension is neglected by MoD, or at
least misunderstood, perhaps is a better way of describing it.
Q78 Chairman: Can you expand on that
a little?
Mr Ewins: The Chief Executive
of the Met Office is normally appointed as the permanent representative
to the World Met Organisation, which is an agency of the UN, and
as such it is discharging that role on behalf of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, I guess. That is where the appointment comes
from. I should point out at this point that weather forecasting
is a global business; you need data to make a good forecast from
everywhere in the world. The broker for that data exchange is
the World Met Organisation, and the UK standing could not be higher—it
is of the highest—but I was never sure that the MoD fully
understood that role and, therefore, gave it quite the prominence
and the support that it probably deserved.
Q79 Mr Crausby: I have some more
questions on ownership by the MoD. The traditional reasons why
the Ministry of Defence would have ownership of the Met Office
are quite understandable, but, given that it is now probably a
completely different organisation in that it provides the kind
of services that you are talking about, not to mention international
traffic and public broadcasting, is it appropriate that the MoD
should own the Met Office or should it be expanded out into other
departments?
Mr Ewins: Personally I do not
think it should move into a different department. I think the
MoD has shown over the years that it is the right owner, and,
of course, it has particular needs as a customer and those are
important to recognise. If you were to think a little bit more
widely and say, "Where else might the Met office go?",
that is a different question—in other words, "Does
it need to stay inside government or does it not?"—but,
if you are keeping it inside government as a trading fund agency,
I do not think there is a better place to put it than leaving
it in the Ministry of Defence.
|
