Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1284-1299)
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND SIR
BRIAN BENDER
KCB
5 JULY 2006
Q1284 Chairman: Good afternoon, Secretary
of State. Welcome to the Science and Technology Select Committee.
Welcome to Sir Brian Bender again; it is nice to have you back
with us. Sir David King, welcome again; it is nice to have you
back with us. This is the final oral evidence session in a fairly
major piece of work we have been doing, in terms of the Government's
handling of scientific advice, risk and evidence, and as an attempt
to bring together a number of strands right across government,
and we are very grateful to all three of you for giving your time
today. Can I say, we have one or two members of the Committee
who are missing because Wednesday lunchtime they are tied into
Statutory Instruments, and other things today and our apologies
for that. I am going to start with you, Secretary of State. We
had real difficulty in identifying the appropriate minister to
bring before the inquiry today, to address this issue of scientific
evidence. Do you think there is clarity, in terms of government,
as to who actually leads this whole area?
Mr Darling: I think, in some ways,
the answer to your question is every single Secretary of State.
One of the things which has struck me, after having been in Government
for nine years, is that unless a particular policy or approach
is wholeheartedly endorsed and pursued by a secretary of state
it is actually quite difficult to make it happen. One of the things
that has happened in the last few years, which I think is immensely
beneficial, is that departments have been far more focused on
what scientific evidence they have got available. They have been
far more focused on what problems are coming up in the medium
and the long term, and climate change is a case in point, where
I think even seven or eight years ago people were not nearly as
focused as certainly they are now. That means that individual
secretaries of state, who, after all, are responsible for and
answerable for what goes on in their department, not only deal
with the day-to-day stuff that is part and parcel of ministerial
life but also they have an opportunity to look ahead and say "What
sorts of issues should we be bothered about; what are the risks,
what are the opportunities?" I think the answer to your question,
in many ways, is that really you need to ask department by department
what they are doing. Having said all that, there are clearly issues
that cross the entire governmental span, climate change being
the classic example, it affects just about everybody, in relation
to the threat of a pandemic, for example, many departments are
involved in that. That is best dealt with either by individual
departments working together at ministerial and official level
or occasionally there will be ad hoc groups of ministers in committees
set up to deal with these things. I chair, of course, the cross-government
Science Committee; that is very much a sort of very high-level
co-ordinating role. If you ask me about outcomes, which is what
we are all judged on, that is primarily the responsibility of
the Department and I think actually we have made some good progress
there.
Q1285 Chairman: Alistair, you have
worked in a number of different departments, as Secretary of State
now, Chief Secretary in terms of the Treasury, but what we are
trying to get at is do you think if there was a Secretary of State
for Science, a Cabinet post for science, my question would have
been redundant?
Mr Darling: No; and I have to
be careful here because, of course, it is always open to the Prime
Minister to arrange Government as he, or she, sees fit, and I
would not want to condemn something that might happen. There are
two answers to this question. One is, I think science and innovation
is crucially important. Half of my Department's budget now goes
on science and innovation; it is the biggest single element by
far. It is very important, and one area that I am particularly
interested in is the application of the excellent research and
development we do in this country through to commercial exploitation
and development in the marketplace; we have done a lot but I think
there is more that we can do there. I suppose, almost by definition,
I am the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but predominantly
I am the Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, because
that is where most of my money goes. I do not think your question
would have been redundant at all, because I would have gone on
to give you the same answer as I have just given you. A lot of
the stuff, for example, that David has been doing over his time
in office has been to encourage different departments to use science,
to use the evidence available, to deal with the problems we can
see coming down the line. I will give you one example. I mentioned
climate change, where actually there has been a difference. Through
the evidence we have got on climate change, the Government now
is spending more on coastal defence. That whole process went from
looking at the evidence, the Department, in that case Defra, coming
up with a policy, the Treasury accepting, with this evidence,
there is an economic benefit to us doing this as well as it is
the right thing to do, and then we see it through to where there
is actually a budget, and now, of course, it is the delivery to
make sure the thing actually happens. I think there are two elements
of science. One is, in its own right, it is very, very important
and we need to do more to exploit it, we need to be spending more,
we are spending more; the second thing is the application of science,
to get the scientific evidence right across Whitehall.
Q1286 Chairman: Sir Brian, you were
nodding and shaking your head throughout this episode.
Sir Brian Bender: I hope I was
nodding my head at everything the Secretary of State was saying
and shaking it at some of your questions, Chairman.
Mr Darling: The Permanent Secretary
is in complete agreement with whatever I say.
Q1287 Chairman: Sir Brian, ignore
that. Do you agree with that analysis?
Sir Brian Bender: I do, because
when, for example, I was in Defra, I was accountable to the then
Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, for the way in which the
Department used scientific evidence and other evidence in the
policy advice given to her. David King, in his role as Chief Scientific
Adviser, had the challenge role to ensure it happened, I have
also a responsibility to make sure we work across Government,
to make sure that the responsible Secretary of State got the right
sort of advice. I do not think it would have helped, and arguably
it would have hindered, if there had been a different Secretary
of State responsible for the science, so I am in complete agreement
with what the Secretary of State was saying.
Q1288 Chairman: David, do you concur?
Professor Sir David King: Oh,
yes. I have just been sitting nodding.
Q1289 Adam Afriyie: Apart from the
Office of Science and Innovation, which other departments have
a major role in safeguarding and strengthening the role of the
Government's use of scientific advice, risk and evidence in policy-making?
Mr Darling: I think they all do
really. I can speak from very recent experience in Transport,
for example, where scientific evidence is considered at all levels.
There is driving safety, for example. There is the whole question
of the challenge of how we deal with congestion, where Frank Kelly,
who was my Chief Scientific Adviser, who was appointed, I think,
in 2003, who is a Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University
but is also the Department's adviser, having someone like that
to look at problems afresh, to bring his own background to bear
on the Department's consideration was an immense help and partly
it informed our decision actually to pursue road pricing as a
solution to the congestion problems we will face in the future.
If you take Defra, for example, obviously I have not been a minister
there; that is a very obvious department where science is extremely
important in relation to animal disease, in relation to climate
change, just about every part of it. I would be hard-pressed to
name any department where this was not important, which is why,
in reply to the Chairman's question, I made the point that I think
it is crucially important that secretaries of state firstly are
able to get advice from their scientific adviser direct, because
I think I am right in saying, in every case, there is a direct
line, it does not have to be filtered through the system, if you
like. If we are going to do our job properly, as I say, we do
not have to deal with just the day-to-day problems, we have got
to look at the problems that we can see coming down the line in
20, 30, even 100 years' time.
Q1290 Adam Afriyie: I guess the Treasury
plays a role in policy-making and also the Cabinet Office, but
they do not have chief scientific advisers like every other department
in Government. Why is that, especially when they have such a cross-cutting
role?
Mr Darling: I will make a distinction.
I think the Cabinet Office serves a rather distinct function.
It certainly brings things together but it is not a department
in its own right. The Treasury, you are absolutely right, has
an influence on just about every aspect of Government policy.
Q1291 Adam Afriyie: But they do not
have chief scientific advisers?
Mr Darling: They also have the
benefit of advice coming from departments. Remember that the Treasury
has to consider advice in the round. I do know that the Treasury
is extremely focused on policies, part of which has been formulated
because of advice coming from chief scientific advisers. I mentioned
the question of coastal defence but, given the Treasury has to
fork out money for most proposals, one way or another, it is focused
on the implications of climate change, and the energy review which
we will announce shortly is very much part of that. The Treasury
and the Cabinet Office perform different functions. I am certainly
not against them having a chief scientific adviser. I am not sure
it is absolutely necessary, because the function is rather different
from a ministry and delivery department.
Professor Sir David King: If I
may expand on that a little bit, it seems to me that the Treasury
is in a trans-departmental role, in the sense that all of its
actions, as has just been said by Alistair really, in terms of
Defra, are through other government departments. In that sense,
my acting as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and
the Cabinet means that the Chancellor will call me in for advice,
and certainly we have very close relationships with the Treasury.
For example, in terms of spending reviews on each department's
R&D application, this comes through my office; equally, the
science and innovation strategies, which are determined annually,
department by department, we co-ordinate this with the Treasury.
I think, in the sense that I am the trans-departmental Chief Scientific
Adviser, I work quite closely with the Treasury.
Q1292 Adam Afriyie: One can argue
also that other ministers and departments, equality and women
for example, have roles which cut across all government departments,
within those departments there is still a chief scientific adviser
at the top of a department.
Professor Sir David King: I am
suggesting there is something qualitatively different about the
Treasury and the Cabinet Office.
Q1293 Chairman: Why are you not based
in the Treasury then, David, because that would be the ideal place?
Professor Sir David King: I could
be in the Treasury. I could be in the Cabinet Office; in the past
the Chief Scientific Adviser has been in the Cabinet Office.
Q1294 Chairman: Do you think he should
be, Alistair: the Treasury or Cabinet Office, not your Department;
you should have your own separate CSA?
Mr Darling: The fact that David
and his team are in the DTI has a synergy, in the sense that we
employ a lot of people who deal with science and innovation. In
some ways, I think what is more important, certainly as far as
the Chief Scientific Adviser is concerned, is the calibre or the
quality of the individual who holds that post, and we are very
fortunate that we have a first-class, excellent incumbent just
now. Where you actually choose to place him is something which
I think you can argue for ever and a day. As David has said, it
has been in the Cabinet Office, it has been in the Department
of Education and Science, when it was called that, it has been
in the DTI.
Q1295 Chairman: What is your view,
Alistair, of where it should be?
Mr Darling: I do not have firm
views as to where it ought to be put. I think it is important
that we have such an office, it is important that we have a Chief
Scientific Adviser who reports direct to the Prime Minister. David's
point there is very, very important. Also, having been a Treasury
Minister, the Treasury is different from other departments. There
is very little that happens in government the Treasury does not
both know about and approve and is not actively involved in; therefore
it draws on the resource available to the particular departmental
minister, as well as, as David said, having the benefit of his
advice too.
Q1296 Adam Afriyie: Then, David,
does not that make it an even stronger case for your position,
your role, to be located within the Treasury? If it is so cross-cutting,
it is seeing everything from every other department, it is making
decisions; surely do you not think that Treasury is where you
should be? I can understand why the Cabinet Office may not be
the first preference; but why are you locked away in the DTI?
Mr Darling: He is hardly locked
away.
Sir Brian Bender: He is not locked
away. If I may say, again, I am in complete agreement with the
Secretary of State. I do not think it matters where David sits
so long as he can play a cross-departmental and challenging role.
The reason I wanted to come in, Chairman, is you made a comment
at the end of your previous question and I just wanted to make
sure there was no misunderstanding. The DTI does have a Chief
Scientific Adviser and it is not David King, it is now Keith O'Nions,
since the reorganisation. David can, and indeed, I can assure
you, does, play a challenging role about the quality of evidence
and advice going to the Secretary of State for DTI, as he would,
and I know does, in relation to Defra and other departments; but
it is for Keith, in the first instance, to assure himself, in
this relatively new role for him, about that quality of the science
evidence.
Q1297 Chairman: Brian, you are absolutely
right to pick me up on that, and I agree with you. Could I go
on from that to say that, in your opinion, do you think that,
the Head of OSI and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, those
roles should be separated?
Sir Brian Bender: I do not have
terribly strong views. Again, I am rather with the Secretary of
State; as long as it works. OSI has two roles. It has the trans-departmental
role of the sort that David carries out so effectively, and it
has the role of overseeing allocation and spend of money that
goes into science through the Research Councils and, since the
recent reorganisation, the innovation pull-through from that.
As long as those two roles are carried out effectively, it seems
to me there is no organisation that is perfectly right, so, as
long as the organisation is not getting in the way of that I would
prefer to concentrate on making sure it happens effectively than
worry about whether we should play around with the governance
too much.
Q1298 Chairman: Is this very much
built on David King's excellent performance as Chief Scientific
Adviser, so this reorganisation is built on his expertise rather
than you feel that is the right structure?
Mr Darling: No. As I said to you,
David's office has moved around Whitehall from time to time and
there have been different Chief Scientific Advisers. I would be
hesitant about building a structure purely around the individual,
because otherwise you would find you would spend an awful lot
of time reorganising. What I think we are all saying, in our different
ways, is the present system works; if it stopped working, for
whatever reason, we would have to ask ourselves why it was not
working. What I would say to you is what I said right at the start.
I think it is terribly important that, of course, process matters
but it is actually the outcome, what difference does all this
make, in terms of policy-making; that is what we have got to ask
ourselves. If that works then if you were drawing up an organogram
you might say, "Well, it doesn't look ideal to me,"
you might do something differently, but if it actually delivers
the goods, in terms of outcome, then that is right. Before you
say it, I am the first to say that, from time to time, there will
be things that go wrong and we need to learn from that; but I
think the main thing is to concentrate on what we get out of all
this, in policy terms, in delivery terms.
Professor Sir David King: Chairman,
would it help to distribute an organogram of the Office?
Q1299 Chairman: It would, for us
to have, but I do not want to discuss it just now.
Mr Darling: We can let you have
that later.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
|
