Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1360-1379)
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND SIR
BRIAN BENDER
KCB
5 JULY 2006
Q1360 Bob Spink: Do you think there
should be an upper limit on the term of office of the chairmen
of these committees?
Sir Brian Bender: I had assumed
they were kind of `Nolan'ed', that is to say, whatever the Nolan
Committee said initially, these are usually public appointments
and therefore normally two terms is the upper limit. Certainly
my experience is, if we wanted to reappoint beyond that, I or
the Minister would write to the Commissioner for Public Appointments,
giving a rationale, and she would say either "Okay, in this
case I agree," but if we simply went ahead and prolonged
then we would get into trouble.
Q1361 Chairman: Do you think the
chairmen of some of these committees have too much power and influence?
ACMD is an example where the Chairman seems to have considerable
influence over what that Committee does.
Professor Sir David King: I think
we are back to personalities, therefore it is difficult to comment,
but certainly practice in the way chairmen operate is very different
from one committee to another. I think it does raise a question
though, and not only about the chairman but about the rest of
the committee.
Q1362 Chairman: Can I move on to
the issue of research, and perhaps, Alistair, I can begin with
you here. What processes should departments use, in terms of determining
what research they need and from where they should commission
it?
Mr Darling: Again, I do not think
there is a hard and fast rule, department by department, but I
think that ministers have to decide what are the areas they want
to look at, what are the areas they need to look at, and that
will be a mix perhaps of policies they have decided to pursue,
it may be as a result of the processes we discussed earlier, in
relation to long-term problems coming up, do we need to do more
research to sort these things out. The Government is responsible
for commissioning a very large part of research in this country
and ministers, at the end of the day, have to bring to bear their
judgment as to what research they commission. In my experience,
ministers tend to be less involved in who they commission it from,
in that a lot of ministers, frankly, would need advice as to where
is the best place to go, is it a university, is it a particular
research body, is it an individual you ask to come and advise
on it.
Q1363 Chairman: There have been accusations,
which have been made to the Committee, particularly in written
evidence, that government departments have been selective about
which research they have commissioned and, in fact, have been
selective about which elements of the reported research they actually
use. Do you feel that if, in fact, research was commissioned which
was always arm's length, all of which was published as a matter
or course, we would be far better, in terms of getting objectivity
around that research?
Mr Darling: Most research is published
and sometimes it can be very irritating for the government of
the day. I understand also it can be very irritating if you have
done a piece of research and the minister says, "Well, that's
very interesting but I'm not going to do it," or "I
don't agree with you," or "I agree with half of it and
not the other half," and certainly I have come across many
people who have felt that, and incidentally have become top expert
when they are reported in the newspaper complaining about it,
even though you may never have set eyes on them. Again, there
must come a point where ministers are entitled to reach a view
as to what research they think they need to commission, how much
they are willing to spend on research; in relation to where they
get it, I am not aware. I have never come across anybody saying,
"Well I want you to go to them because they're going to give
you a particular answer," but you will take advice in relation
to who is it that happens to be good in this area, who is it that
has got some expertise. I think that is pretty arm's length; although,
inevitably, if somebody is working closely with a department,
someone else, who maybe did not get the contract, will cry "Foul."
Q1364 Chairman: Nowhere in your experience
has any government minister commissioned research deliberately
to get an answer which would back up his policy direction?
Mr Darling: I am not in a position
to comment on every single piece of research that was commissioned
by any government minister in the last 50 years, or whatever.
I can say, in my experience as a minister, I am not aware, well
I in particular, I know I have not ever said "I want to go
to X because X will tell me what I want to know." In fact,
I can think of more cases where I go to X and he comes back and
tells me either what I did not want to know or what was not particularly
helpful.
Chairman: David, you must have examples.
Q1365 Bob Spink: Nancy Cartwright,
of the LSE, did raise concerns about the Government's increasing
use of consultancies to do research and to do analysis of research,
rather than going to the learned societies; does that cause you
any concern? From not just an expenditure viewpoint but from a
manipulation of what you want to hear viewpoint, does that give
concern?
Mr Darling: I think, in relation
to consultants, there are two issues. One is, I think right across
government there is a general feeling that we should be using
less consultancy rather than more, and certainly that is my view
and I think you should be sparing when you go outside. That said,
which is the second point, the size of government, and certainly
Whitehall, in many places has been reduced, and the DTI has got
over 1,000 fewer people than it had, what, two years ago. Inevitably,
that means the Department will be doing less, and it does not
make any sense, in some cases, to carry on expertise which you
may need only every five or 10 years, therefore you have to go
out and get it. Whether or not you go to a firm of consultants
to give you advice or whether you go to a university or a learned
society, really, I suspect, depends on the particular instance
of that. I do not know this lady nor do I know what specifically
she had in mind, and if you would care to let me know then certainly
I can cause inquiries to be made.
Q1366 Bob Spink: She gave evidence
to this Committee and it will be published, so you will be able
to see it.
Mr Darling: I will see it then.
Q1367 Dr Iddon: Since the learned
societies have been mentioned, if I could turn to you, Sir David.
We have heard a lot of praise during this inquiry about your guidelines
for the learned societies but, in discussing matters with the
departmental CSAs, they gave us the distinct impression that they
made little use of them and, indeed, Frank Kelly went a little
further, and I have to say immediately that Frank Kelly, in our
view, is quite well respected as a CSA, but he has given us the
impression that the guidelines should act like a contact, you
look at it only if things have gone wrong. Are you a bit surprised
by this evidence that we are picking up?
Professor Sir David King: Yes,
I am.
Q1368 Chairman: You were not conscious
of it, to be fair.
Professor Sir David King: I think,
if I may, first of all, answer the original question then come
to this, because I just want to take a slightly different angle
on this question of what research is needed for departments and
what is sought. I think it is very important that departments
procure research from an intelligent customer base. In other words,
the department itself needs to have in house people who understand
where the best research can be procured, if it is not actually
being conducted in house. Of course, if you go to Defra, Sir Brian
would know, but I think Defra has about 800 scientists in house,
so it is quite a large team, they would have a large number of
people whom you can turn to and say "Can you do it, or would
you like to advise us on who are the best people to procure that
research from?" It is very important to make this distinction
between research that is conducted in house and then the use of
the in-house team as intelligent customers. On the question of
the increasing use of consultants over learned societies: we approach
learned societies on a frequent basis, not for a piece of research
to be done but for advice on who the best people are to approach;
in other words, learned societies do not take on, as far as I
know, pieces of research. We might go to the Royal Society to
do a job of work, such as the nanotechnology work where we wanted
them, but that is not what we are discussing here. Pieces of research
would be done by key individuals, and we will certainly use the
learned societies to find out where the best individuals are,
and if Rob Sullivan is sitting behind me he will know, in the
Department for Transport, that the Department, I believe, does
follow that route, as an intelligent customer, going out to learned
societies and checking where the best available research would
be.
Q1369 Dr Iddon: The Government supports,
of course, the research councils in a pretty major way and they
in turn support the universities but they have their own research
institutes as well. Do you think there should be a ring-fenced
fund within the research councils, perhaps administered by RCUK
(Research Councils UK), which could be used to commission research
which would underpin policy-making in the various government departments?
Professor Sir David King: If I
give you, off the top of my head, my response to that, I do not
think a ring-fenced budget is a very good idea. I think that already
we have very good examples of understandings between research
councils and government departments and, staying with Defra, the
arrangements between Defra and BBSRC are very close and the flexibility
I think is extremely advantageous over having a ring-fenced budget.
It recognises that some of the research will be directly of interest
to Defra, and Defra only, and some of the research will be for
blue-skies purposes but also feeding into Defra's needs over a
longer period of time. I think the current arrangement, in my
view, generally is working well.
Sir Brian Bender: Can I maybe
supplement it from my own experience. One of the things we have
done in this group CRAG was bring in Ian Diamond of the ESRC,
very much so that he could, in his hat, participate in a discussion
of future analytical needs, so that he could then think whether
there was value for him in his research council aligning some
of its programme on what we were saying might be the future analytical
needs of Government. That is another way in which we can skin
this cat, so to speak.
Professor Sir David King: If I
may add, Ian is also Chairman of the RCUK, so he brings the research
councils in general to the table.
Q1370 Chairman: Can I ask you for
a yes or no: do you feel there is enough money within departments
to be able to commission research when they need it, generally
speaking?
Professor Sir David King: Yes.
Mr Darling: Yes, I would say that
unequivocally, but, as in every other area, departments have to
make choices and that does not do any harm sometimes.
Q1371 Chairman: The question really
is they are not commissioning research because they do not have
the resources to do it?
Mr Darling: Again, I have not
come across that.
Q1372 Dr Iddon: Has it changed, for
example, in Defra, David, because at the time of the foot and
mouth crisis there were a lot of outside complaints, that they
did not think Defra had invested enough in research and did not
have the money to invest in it, at that time. Has the money come
back now?
Sir Brian Bender: The issue in
Defra primarily at the time, or MAFF, as it was, was a cultural
issue. There was a separate question, which I think the forerunner
of this Committee, maybe it was the Lords equivalent Committee,
looked at, and criticised, and indeed I think it was my first
meeting with David when he was appointed as Chief Scientific Adviser,
that when the Department was under resource pressure it did cut
its research budget. That was corrected, so that subsequent Spending
Review settlements for Defra essentially required the Department
to make sure it was maintained in real terms.
Q1373 Chairman: It was interesting
that we heard from the Chief Executive of BBSRC last week that,
in fact, research funds to the research institutes were being
cut by Defra, there were all sorts that were spending in those
institutes and the chief part of that was perhaps undermining
the science which we had built up?
Professor Sir David King: If I
may say, I think that the tension between the research budget
and delivery in departments is a constant tension, so I feel,
for example, that in the Department of Health there has been almost
a tradition of R&D budgets being raided for delivery purposes
and this is to the detriment of the long-term health of the department.
I understand the reasons for the tension, absolutely, but at the
same time these create problems in the longer term.
Q1374 Dr Harris: You mentioned, Sir
David, that you were concerned that there were not research requests
made for a specific purpose to back up a policy, that it was done
with equipoise. Can I urge you to consider looking at the Department
of Health, and this is not a criticism of the Minister, but in
the Independent on Sunday on 14 May, it says: "More
women should have babies at home, not in hospital, says Health
Secretary. Patricia Hewitt is to challenge the assumption that
the safest place to give birth is in hospital and that home births
can be dangerous." Then the Department of Health says it
has commissioned research to support the case for home births.
Would you say that sort of announcement, which was made by them,
is the sort of thing that might lead you to inquire?
Professor Sir David King: I think
that is just phraseology.
Q1375 Dr Harris: Have you investigated
it and you are certain that is all it is?
Professor Sir David King: I have
not investigated it, no.
Q1376 Dr Harris: Is that the sort
of thing you might investigate, if there was concern that actually
was what was going on; that what is written on the box is what
is actually inside?
Professor Sir David King: My views
on that are certainly well known in Government.
Q1377 Dr Harris: To ask a separate
question, if someone were not to publish research that was publishable,
because they did not want it to get out there, and the people
who funded it conspired in that, or they decided that, would you
consider that was worthy of investigation, as potential fraud,
effectively, or at least research fraud, or at least misuse of
public funds if it was publicly funded; the suppression of research
findings, or allegations of such?
Professor Sir David King: And
the suppression on the basis of?
Q1378 Dr Harris: An allegation made
that the research findings had been suppressed for political purposes,
say, by a research council or a government department; would that
be worthy of investigation and, if so, would you see it as your
role to look into it, if allegations like that were made?
Professor Sir David King: Yes.
Q1379 Dr Harris: You will be aware
of allegations made by Professor Tim Hope in published articles
and indeed in evidence to this Committee, which suggested the
Home Office deliberately did not publish one of two case studies
in the criminal area because it did not support Home Office policy.
Do you think that is worthy of at least investigation and, if
so, have you done it, or would you consider doing so, as part
of your role?
Professor Sir David King: The
answer that I can give very clearly is that I have not done it,
but until I had examined a bit more than what you have just told
me I am not sure whether I would take it further or not.
|
