|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 490-iii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND INNOVATION
Monday 24 April 2006 RT HON ALAN JOHNSON MP, SIR BRIAN BENDER, PROFESSOR SIR DAVID KING and PROFESSOR SIR KEITH O'NIONS Evidence heard in Public Questions 74 - 165
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee on Monday 24 April 2006 Members present Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair Adam Afriyie Mr Jim Devine Dr Evan Harris Bob Spink Dr Desmond Turner ________________ Witnesses: Rt Hon Alan Johnson, a Member of the House, Secretary of State; Sir Brian Bender, Permanent Secretary; Professor Sir David King, Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Office of Science and Innovation, and Professor Sir Keith O'Nions, Director General of Science and Innovation, Department of Trade and Industry, gave evidence. Q74 Chairman: Could I welcome the Secretary of State and a high powered team: Sir David King, the government chief scientific adviser, Sir Brian Bender, the permanent secretary for the DTI, Professor Sir Keith O'Nions, the director general of science and innovation. Thank you all very much for coming and a very warm welcome to members of the public and the press who are also attending this afternoon. We were a little concerned having received notice from Sir Brian Bender that these very significant changes were taking place with the Office of Science and Technology which is going to be renamed the Office of Science and Innovation. When the budget came up, this was a budget for science. I mentioned that in my remarks during the budget debate. I think you would accept that that was very much the case. This seemed to indicate a very significant set of changes on the back of what was going to be a change in terms of the Department and the Office of Science and Technology. We felt it was important as a Committee that we got to grips with what exactly was happening and also gave you and your team an opportunity to explain what these changes are about and what will be the real effect once they are embedded into the system. That is the background to this session. We are very grateful to you and your colleagues for coming today. It is the most high-powered team we have ever had before us in the history of the select committee. I do not know whether that is quite true but it sounded good. Is the creation of the Office of Science and Innovation a superficial change or is it one of the most significant changes, for instance, during your time as Secretary of State? How significant is it? Alan Johnson: Thank you for those opening remarks. We are delighted to be here. It is certainly not superficial. Is it as substantial as some people may be indicating - i.e., does it give them fears about some change that would for instance, affect the independence of the research councils? It is certainly not that either. We think it is a very important change. Myself and the permanent secretary asked for a piece of work to be done on the organisational and working methods of the DTI, given our absolute central aim to make science an integral part of the DTI, which it is. It is more than half of our budget now, but there is still a concern that science is seen as somehow separate from the DTI, not integrated within the DTI. We had some terrific success with the work David Hughes did. We felt it was time to take that on to a new level. Using the outcome of the piece of research that we commissioned and the report we commissioned, we decided to implement this change. What this change means is the Department now has a complete marry up between the push of science and the pull of innovation. The old system had a DG for science and a separate DG for innovation. Bringing that under one DG we think is the right management change. Introducing a director with business experience if innovation and putting this under the umbrella of the Office of Science and Innovation rather than science and technology, which goes back to 1964 and the introduction of the Department under Frank Cousins, we think reflected what that Department does much better now. Substantially, yes; no interference with the ring fenced budgets both in terms of innovation and science; no interference with the independence of the research councils and certainly no interference with the sacred Haldane principle. We want to put your minds at ease. It is certainly a much better structure for the DTI. Q75 Chairman: Four years ago when Mr Hughes was appointed, exactly those words were used about that appointment. Here was going to be someone heading up the most senior position within the DTI, innovation, someone who was going to be recruited directly from industry to lead what was seen as a bold new world in terms of innovation. Has that been a failure? Alan Johnson: No, it has not. There is no criticism implied or otherwise of David Hughes's work. We have done that. We have that work in and we have set up the various arms of this, including the Technology Strategy Board. The feeling of many of the people we consulted during this review was that we needed to ensure that innovation and science were in the same place. Having two DGs, one dealing with the innovation side and one dealing with science, was not the best way to take this project forward. In a sense, we have built on the success with the introduction four years ago of the work of David Hughes and now we move to the next level. It has been well received. I think it is going to operate and is already operating, as of 3 April, very successfully. It is certainly not any criticism of the previous regime. Q76 Chairman: Sir Brian, there was a rumour - I am sure it is a malicious and wicked rumour - that the Civil Service could not cope with somebody who had come from industry, who wanted to do things differently and therefore, in true "Yes, Minister" style, the Secretary of State had to be persuaded of the change. Sir Brian Bender: It is a malicious rumour. It was not put to me or I could have rebutted it straight away. If you look at the top team in the DTI, there are some with a Civil Service background; there are some at this table with academic backgrounds and the process of peer review in academia is brutally challenging. David and Keith bring some of that challenge to the discussions with the DTI. There are some, including our chief economist, who have a private sector background. I would want to have that diversity and sense of challenge in different backgrounds in the top team in the Department. Q77 Adam Afriyie: The government memorandum notes the achievements of the innovation group so what were its shortcomings? Alan Johnson: I do not think there were shortcomings of the innovation group. This is confidential so I will not name the company. One company said they had two different aspects of the same project. For one aspect they had to go to the DG science and for the other aspect they had to go to the DG innovation. That led to problems in terms of our stakeholders. It is simply moving to the next level. It has helped us to embed science into the DTI because previously innovation was with a different business relations group. Bringing that together under one DG, that DG now being the DTI's chief adviser in science, we think is a sensible, structural move. Q78 Adam Afriyie: Perhaps you could remind us how long the innovation group was in existence. Does not making such a radical change now indicate that there must have been some sort of failure somewhere? Alan Johnson: No. It was in existence for three or four years. Q79 Adam Afriyie: That is a very short life span. Alan Johnson: Yes, but if you adopted that principle you would never change anything. This is a constant process. The stuff we have said in the budget in terms of the next steps on the ten year science and innovation framework shows that every time you get to a step you see more steps that need to be taken. Whilst I understand the line of questioning, I can say absolutely for myself and for Brian that this was in no way saying that innovation has failed either in the personalities involved or the system involved. It is just felt that we can move to another stage now and that is a process of evolution. Q80 Adam Afriyie: In effect, what has happened is that the innovations group has been taken over by or assimilated into the OSI? Is that technically what has happened? Alan Johnson: Not taken over, no. Q81 Adam Afriyie: Absorbed? Alan Johnson: Incorporated into. Sir Brian Bender: As the Secretary of State was saying in his earlier answer, one of the points is to bring together the push from the science end and the pull from the business end into the Office of Science and Innovation rather than having separate parts. One of the tests looking forward would be to ensure that the good work David Hughes did in building up relations with our business group is not lost by this change because the relationship between the business group and the Department and the Office of Science and Innovation will continue to be very important for getting the science push and the innovation pull in one place. That seems to us to be the next step, building on the success of the last three or four years. Q82 Adam Afriyie: I did not hear any statement in the House of Commons; I did not see a written statement; the website did not say anything about it. Why all the secrecy? Alan Johnson: I do not think there was secrecy about this. It was a departmental issue. We announced it as soon as we had made the decision. I do not know whether we put it on our website. We should have done. Sir Brian Bender: The purpose of writing to the Chairman of this Committee and the chairman of the trade and industry committee and the Lords science and technology committee was to put into it the parliamentary domain as soon as the decision had been taken. We did not feel it was significant enough to merit a parliamentary statement, written or otherwise, but certainly no disrespect was intended and absolutely no secrecy. Similar material was sent to a number of external stakeholders in the academic sector and in the business sector. Q83 Chairman: I do not think it was a question of a slight. We were very grateful for the letter you sent us. This seems to be such a significant change in terms of the direction, admittedly moving forward. I firmly accept the point that you are making. Not to have made more of it does not seem to be in line with the way the government operates. Alan Johnson: We have been hiding our light under a bushel. It was significant but not significant enough for a parliamentary statement, I would suggest. We made sure that those people who needed to know and all the stakeholders knew very quickly. That was done. I have not checked but maybe the press and the media just did not pick it up as a story but it was there. I thought it was quite a significant story but we cannot insist that they report it. Q84 Adam Afriyie: You have mentioned that there will not be any rebudgeting which I am sure is reassuring in some quarters. What will the changes mean in practice for the personnel within the OSI or the former two groups? What changes in personnel will there be or is it simply that the existing groups will work in exactly the same way, just under a different umbrella? Once you have explained those changes, do you anticipate further changes that we are not aware of at the moment? Alan Johnson: The principal change is the key alliance of the DG for science and innovation so we have one DG now responsible across the whole piece and any introduction of the director of innovation which we are currently advertising for. Sir Brian Bender: I hope it goes without saying that David King remains head of the Office of Science and Innovation and the government chief scientific adviser. That is not altered by this. Within what we are talking about, there are a bit over 140 posts for people who were in the Office of Science and Technology and around 250 who were in the innovation group who are now part of the Office of Science and Innovation. We are recruiting for a director of innovation who would report to Keith O'Nions, who would be very much focused on the business pull side of things. It is probably a bit early to say, although Keith may want to add something, whether the working methods simply by bringing people together can squeeze out any inefficiencies or any particular focus. That is something that needs to be thought about as we look forward. The other element which is relevant to this was the statement as part of the Chancellor's budget speech about the possibility or prospect of the Technology Strategy Board, which is at the moment staffed from the Department, becoming more an arm's length body. As we work through what that may mean, that would have implications for the staffing. Q85 Adam Afriyie: Sir Keith, you take over as director general. Are there any further changes in personnel or any other reorganisations in the back of your mind? Are you very happy with the way it is at the moment or are there changes on the horizon? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: The present situation offers a great opportunity in having the budgets for innovation and science alongside. I expect that this will give a synergy between them. The research councils are much involved in knowledge transfer progressively in innovation. It will make stronger, more complete arguments for the comprehensive spending review and it is an important, efficient part of it. In terms of the organisation in that area for which I am now responsible, it does not change the fundamental relationship between David King and myself. Fundamentally, that is the same as it was in the OST. It is a very strong relationship. Within the combined group of what was the science based innovation group, we are in the process of appointing a director for innovation. We are looking for somebody that complements the overall skills in innovation, a strong person from business. There are some vacancies within the innovation group which have come along in a natural way and which we will be filling but that is it for the foreseeable future. My job is to put together the strongest possible team, particularly in a year when we are making the best case we can for future support of these areas as part of the comprehensive spending review. Q86 Adam Afriyie: We will not see you again, in the next six months or a year, saying that there are further changes? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Not all of these decisions are in my gift. If there are other changes, I am not anticipating them. Work is under way to understand what the options are for putting up the Technology Strategy Board at arm's length and as yet we do not know fully what the implications of that might be. Q87 Chairman: I am a little unclear as to who initiated the review in the first place. Why was that review undertaken? Were you unhappy with something? What were its main findings and why has it not been published? Alan Johnson: When I was permanent secretary I instigated the review. I was new; Brian was even newer. We were struck by the fact that whilst over half of our budget was science it was still the case that the DTI were not perceived as being responsible for science. Science is an element of everything we do but was not seen as such. We were looking around for how we could tackle that. That is not just about this organisational change. There is a lot more we have to do to deal with that misconception. Certainly there had been a piece of work done before that we decided to revisit. We commissioned the Gaskell Review as a result of that. In terms of why you cannot see it, I think you should see it if you want to. Sir Brian Bender: It was like any such report produced for internal purposes. I would be a bit concerned if it was intended for publication because it was not written for publication but equally, if the Committee wish to see it, then the Committee can see it. Q88 Chairman: Could we have sight of it on a confidential basis? Sir Brian Bender: Absolutely. Q89 Dr Turner: You say that the OSI will bring together science push and innovation pull more effectively. Can you expand on that a little bit? Why do you feel it is really necessary and how do you think that this reorganisation is going to make that work better? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: The notion of the investment that we make in science or the research base pushing new knowledge and transferring knowledge into business against business defining its requirements - i.e., user defined requirements and pulling it - is to the first order quite a good way of describing it. Because those things need to be married well across business sectors, whether they are traditional sectors in chemistry or pharmaceuticals or whether they are newer sectors in creative industries, for example, those things need to be married well. There is an argument on that push/pull basis for putting these together. People who have analysed this in a lot more detail as to how the intricacies of that push/pull relationship work come to the conclusion that it is rather more intertwined than a simple push/pull and this is often called "open innovation" and other language is used to describe it. Because it is more intertwined in those relationships, I think the argument is probably even stronger that those things are in one place because both are trying to get knowledge out there, to meet user defined requirements and that relationship is going to be much easier to deal with if it is in one place. I think the argument is quite a strong one. Q90 Dr Turner: What obstacles do you see? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: The clear obstacle would be if budgets were threatened. The Secretary of State has given his undertaking that the budgets around the science and technology strategy are secure so that removes that threat. The other threat is simply our inability to do it properly and that is my job so it depends on the level of confidence that you have in my response to the last two questions. Q91 Dr Turner: There is no answer to that, is there? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Not a polite one. Q92 Dr Turner: David, on 15 February when you were before us, you said there was still a lot of work to be done on innovation and the wealth creation agenda. Was the creation of the OSI part of this work? What else do you think needs to be done? Professor Sir David King: The whole science innovation and wealth creation agenda is enormously important. There is still a big patch of work to be done in sorting out how we move from the current opportunities that have been largely thrown out by the fundamental research, the university research, in the form of small, high tech companies and pulling those opportunities into the large scale industries where big wealth creation is possible. There is still an enormous amount of work to be done. In other words, I still stand by the point that I made. I feel that we now have a situation which is different from what we have had before in the sense that this agenda of science, innovation and wealth creation is not only fully owned by the DTI in the form of the Secretary of State but is also now very much at the centre of the DTI's activity. I think that was a prerequisite for moving this whole agenda forward. Q93 Dr Turner: Given that the OSI is very much more embedded in the DTI than the OST apparently was, seemingly to the outside world, how do you think it is going to affect the over-arching responsibilities that you for instance have, David, to review and bring together science across government? Professor Sir David King: Your question is a good one. As head of the Office of Science and Innovation I report to the Secretary of State but also to the Prime Minister so I have that dual responsibility. Within the office we still have the transdepartmental science and technology team and within that team we seek science and innovation strategies from each government department. This is by way of reminding you that while £3 billion is the budget for the Office of Science and Innovation through the research councils there is another £2.5 billion approximately that goes into research and development through government departments. Part of my function is to oversee the proper use of the money in those departments and this includes overseeing a science and innovation strategy. The science and innovation programme we are now discussing also operates in other government departments. I also see my role, despite my keenness to see this embedded through the Secretary of State and the DTI, as the protector of those parts of the science budget that would not necessarily be seen to deliver to science wealth creation agenda. Chairman: I am going to come back to your role because I think it is important to see where everybody fits in together. Q94 Adam Afriyie: Sir Keith, you said that the Office of Science and Innovation would be more effective with communication and coordination. What was the problem in the past? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I do not think you should look at it like that. Sincerely, if you go back, let us say, five years and look at the success of the innovation group and the establishment of the Technology Strategy Board and what David Hughes achieved there, that has moved that agenda along at quite a pace. In terms of the research councils, knowledge transfer and innovation have moved way up the agenda in the performance management of the research councils. As I told you the last time I was here we have a group under Peter Warry looking at how we can increase the impact and hopefully we are trying to make a step change there. You have two things that have been on an upward rising trajectory. There is nothing wrong. The question is how much further and faster can we drive this extremely important agenda which not only grips the government chief scientific adviser but is now at the centre and a core part of the DTI. What was wrong? 15 years ago, we just were not doing this stuff. It is a matter of how quickly it has become right. Q95 Adam Afriyie: It is a matter of evolution, a bit like metrics and the use of them. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: That is another issue. Q96 Adam Afriyie: What will be the role of the Technology Strategy Board within the OSI? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: In the near term, it will continue the excellent work it has been doing in terms of defining on behalf of business the optimum innovation platforms and programmes, including knowledge transfer networks, knowledge transfer partnerships. That will continue. It is very important that myself and others in the DTI make it clear that the changes that have taken place maintain business as usual for the Technology Strategy Board. In parallel to that we are looking, following the budget, at options for an arm's length body but this has to be to reinforce the independence and the impact of the user defined research and technology strategy. Q97 Adam Afriyie: Why do you feel it necessary to have it at arm's length if it has such a key function? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Let me give you a personal view. It is extremely important, if we are going to get the best impact from our few billion pounds a year in the research councils and the interventions we make in technology strategies, if we have a clear user defined strategy - i.e., business has given its best view of where these financial interventions will have best effect, rather than somebody like me sitting in Victoria Street trying to think what they should be. A clear independence of that process is crucial for us to get the best value for money. Q98 Adam Afriyie: You mentioned the business involvement in setting the strategy but how will the activities of the Board be reviewed and evaluated? Will that also be independent? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: The Board is 18 months old and we have not undertaken a quinquennial review of its activities. It is a non-departmental public body formed as an NDPB advisory board. The normal practice is, on a cycle, to review the activities of all NDPBs in an independent way. After 18 months we would not be expecting to undergo a very major, external review of its function, but we would expect to do that for any NDPB on that cycle, whether it be a research council or any other body. Q99 Adam Afriyie: When it does happen, whenever that may be, you expect it to be independent? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I would expect to have an independent input into it. Any decision made is advised to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State owns the NDPBs under the aegis of the DTI. Yes, that would be normal practice in my experience. Q100 Chairman: Who has ministerial responsibility for it? Is it the Secretary of State? Do you have direct responsibility for that strategy board? Alan Johnson: Yes. Q101 Chairman: Is it one of your ministers? Alan Johnson: Lord Sainsbury deals with that. Q102 Bob Spink: Could I please probe the organisational changes? I wondered first of all how the management of the OST had changed as a result of the creation of the OSI. Sir Brian Bender: As far as I am concerned, Keith reports to me. David is the head of the office and has this peculiar position that he both reports into the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister. If you are asking, as I think you are, about how the OSI itself is managed, it may be right that Keith and David answer. Q103 Bob Spink: I wanted to know what the impact of the OSI creation had on the OST. Professor Sir David King: The Office of Science and Technology had two key parts to it, the transdepartmental science and technology team and the science and engineering base. Essentially, the transdepartmental science and technology team provides the capability that we have in foresight activities and international activities and also in reviewing other government departments' work and assisting in dealing with crises. The SEB team deals with the finances coming in and passing out to the research councils as a key part of its activity. Then we have a science and society team. Now we also have an innovation group, so there is a third group added to the Office of Science and Innovation. Within those two first structures, the change is minimal. Q104 Chairman: The science and technology group directly reported to you before. The science and engineering base group reported directly to you before, Sir Keith? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Yes. Q105 Chairman: Who did the overseas innovation group, this third group, report to before? Professor Sir David King: The innovation group reported to David Hughes. Q106 Chairman: That now comes to Sir Keith? Professor Sir David King: Yes, so you have three pieces instead of two. Q107 Chairman: You have two of them and you have one of them? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I have two which are now called one piece. Q108 Bob Spink: Did you want to make a further comment? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: For many years, probably back to somewhere in the mid-nineties, the Office of Science and Technology has had this relationship with the government chief scientific adviser at its head and a director general of research councils so-called reporting to the permanent secretary and advising the Secretary of State on the budget. It is a construct that has worked well. You may look at it and say why does it work so well but it has worked well and it continues to. Q109 Bob Spink: This Committee is a very caring, laid back, uncynical group of guys but even we were a little bit surprised at the speed at which these changes took place and the lack of public consultation. We had a letter on 28 February and then, bang, it was all done. Was there any particular reason for this urgency? Alan Johnson: That was down to me with Brian, who decided that we needed to implement this change. Once we had an idea of what we wanted to do, there was no point in hanging around. We just needed to get on and do it, particularly with a budget coming up. All the representations we were making were for a budget for science. We were confident there would be a lot of changes coming through from the budget so there was no point in dragging it out. We needed to do it and do it quickly. Q110 Chairman: Was the Chancellor driving this? Alan Johnson: Not at all. This is an area that the Chancellor was not involved in until we had made the decision. Q111 Bob Spink: Sir David, was there any discussion at all about your particular post and whether the post of CSA might be split from the headship under the OSI during these changes? Was that discussed? Professor Sir David King: It would be fair to say that in the soundings that took place initially it was discussed. It would also be fair to say that it was rather instantly dismissed by most people who discussed it. In other words, there was a general feeling - and I perhaps should not be the one to say this - that the added value in having the chief scientific adviser as head of the Office of Science and Innovation was well worth maintaining in the new structure. Q112 Bob Spink: Was it ever thought that, even though there is some added value and there are always cons as well as benefits, your role as being truly independent across government might be challenged by your position as head of the OSI? Alan Johnson: No. Sir Brian Bender: Emphatically not. I witnessed in my last department a challenge of David King's role and I would still expect under the new structure that there will be times when, as the government chief scientific adviser, he may well want to assert that challenging role in relation to the DTI. Q113 Bob Spink: Was it ever considered that the administration should be left to the director general of science and innovation during these changes? Professor Sir David King: No. Once the decision had been made in the early discussions that I should continue as head of the Office of Science and Innovation, I do not think that discussion was propagated. Q114 Bob Spink: Sir Keith, it seems that you have taken on three jobs now. Are you able to perform all of those jobs well? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: You had better ask me next October. Q115 Bob Spink: Do you feel that some of those jobs may now be part-time? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: The responsibility for what is now the science and innovation group is entirely manageable, he says confidently only to be tripped up later. The new role for me of chief scientific adviser in the DTI is worth pursuing. Although I was chief scientific adviser in defence for five years which was an enormous job, I have to create that role in the DTI. I am going to need quite a lot of help to create it, although I have some experience of that. I already have very considerable help and advice from Dave. That has to get buy-in across the DTI. It is nothing like a full time job but to be effective there has to be a culture within the DTI that seeks out the view of the chief scientific adviser, as is commonplace in a number of other departments. We are not there yet but I believe with Brian's very strong support we will get there. This third hat, if you like, is one that is going to develop frankly over some months. It is not going to be instant and sudden but I greatly welcome it. Q116 Bob Spink: I am sure you do. You are a man for challenges and you always have been. Has there been any consideration of whether there will be any conflict within your three roles and, if so, how that will be managed, or is that not going to arise? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I have not thought of any. I immediately pass that to Brian because it will be Brian's job to resolve any. Sir Brian Bender: There is a potential area of conflict which the Secretary of State's early comments have already addressed. In so far as the same director general is going to be responsible for a lot of the action in government to promote science push and to get the innovation pull, one of the questions might be is there a risk that the allocation of the research council money will be skewed, not on the basis of Haldane principles but on the basis of some business pull. There first of all the ring fencing will remain and, secondly, if there were such a risk David King's role as chief scientific adviser could come into play at his discretion to operate as a challenge. I do not believe the conflicts are there but they could be there and we have set up safeguards to minimise that risk ever occurring. Q117 Chairman: I am staggered, Sir Keith, that you say that being the chief scientific adviser to the DTI, which arguably is the most powerful vehicle for delivering science, technology and innovation in the country, is just a minor, part-time job. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I already have a day job. At the moment I spend five days a week involved in science and innovation. What I am saying is what in addition the time I am involved in scientific matters there and involvement in other areas of the DTI will add to that. There are two obvious candidate areas where any chief scientific adviser to the DTI should be looking in addition. One is obviously energy. The other is probably in some of the biosciences areas of business group, what is known as EBG. What I cannot say at the moment with great precision is how much extra effort that is going to be. I completely accept your point that most of my life is involved in scientific matters and advising the Secretary of State on the most wise use of his budget. Professor Sir David King: Could I come back to the previous question because it seems to me that the Committee has touched on a very important point. The funding of the research councils not only covers innovation and wealth creation opportunities. For example, there are many different government departments with different demands on the research base and the skills generated by that research base. Outside the country we have many demands also met by that research base. Quite clearly my function as head of the Office of Science and Innovation within this structure that we are describing is to see that I can provide the challenge that maintains that process. I can only provide that challenge if the Office of Science and Innovation operates as a true entity. Q118 Chairman: It is an issue that we were very conscious of. One of the reasons we did the current review of the research councils in terms of knowledge transfer was to tease out where is the split between basic research and maintaining high quality basic research and having the function to pull or push that through in terms of applied research. It was a concern to our Committee that this reorganisation might re-emphasise the work of the research councils very much towards the wealth creation side, perhaps at the expense of the basic research which, I think speaking for the Committee, we felt would be a mistake. That is obviously for others to decide. Secretary of State, would the director general of science and innovation always be expected to fulfil the role of chief scientific adviser within the DTI? Do you think that is a necessity? Alan Johnson: We will see how it goes. That is the role that David Hughes had. I do not think I can, hand on heart, say yes, I think that will always be the role. I think it is the right place to put that job at the moment. In relation to Adam's earlier question, are there any other changes going to come up over the next six months, we will see how all this works. We have the basic principles right here and I tend to think it is Sir Keith's position that should be chief scientific adviser. Q119 Chairman: We find it a little difficult to understand how the DTI chief scientific adviser can provide very independent advice when he is also director general of science and innovation. There seems to be a conflict in those two roles. Alan Johnson: The previous role was as director general of innovation. Q120 Chairman: I am not saying the previous role was right either. I am just saying that there seems to be a contradiction but you are fairly confident that there is not? Alan Johnson: I am confident because I think that is where also David King's role comes in here. David is a long stop. His independence and the fact that he reports directly to the Prime Minister and is the government chief scientific adviser allow him to see issues like this in context. If he needs to have words with me about how it is going, I have absolutely no doubt that David would be no shrinking violet. Q121 Chairman: Would it not be better for David King to be embedded in the Cabinet Office directly responsible to the Prime Minister so he could really hold you and your colleagues to account? Sir Brian Bender: I would like to endorse my own personal experience. I do not see David King as a shrinking violet who will hide from any challenging interventions when necessary. Coming back to your more direct question about the role in the Department of chief scientific adviser, I would like to reinforce the points Keith made a few minutes ago. One of the principal roles of the Department's chief scientific adviser is to provide assurance essentially to the Secretary of State and to me of the evidence and quality of the science base policy advice going out. That ought to happen almost without blinking in the pure science area that Keith has dealt with up to now. The bigger challenge is whether it is and can be said in the future to be happening in relation to other parts of the DTI, especially the energy area and the biosciences areas and in any other areas. What assurance can that person give? I do not see any conflict there. It is a question of having the access and the challenge role into other parts of the Department. Q122 Chairman: In the old organisation Sir David King and Professor O'Nions seemed to be on a par with each other in terms of the structure. Now, Sir David King has been elevated and Sir Keith O'Nions reports to him? Sir Brian Bender: No. It was always a slightly odd, two headed structure with David King having this double role, being the government chief scientific adviser and a member of a peculiar organisation that had Wednesday morning meetings with permanent secretaries. David had that role and continues to have it. As Sir Keith said earlier, his predecessor director general for research councils and he were part of this two headed organisation and reported to the permanent secretary of the DTI. That is continuing but with a larger remit that Keith now has. Q123 Chairman: Would it be possible to have a flow chart or schematic diagram of who does what within the new organisation with a clear understanding of their responsibilities? Sir Brian Bender: Yes. Q124 Mr Devine: There have been suggestions that these proposals are Treasury led. The editor of Research Fortnight notes that Gordon Brown has put his foot on the accelerator. Sir Keith, you said that within the ten year framework the Treasury have obviously quite a strong lead. We are interested in why the science and innovation paper Next Steps was published with the budget. Is that a science white paper in all but name? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: That was a Treasury decision as to what is included in a budget. You will know about the way in which budget statements and documentation are prepared. I greatly welcome the possibility that this has happened. It is a year of a comprehensive spending review when a very large part of the government's budget is being zero based and reviewed. In terms of the science budget within the DTI, this has not been subject to zero based review. It is perhaps unsurprising that the Treasury take a close interest in looking at it in another way. I greatly welcome it because it has highlighted a number of areas for some decisions and for consultation that the Secretary of State has endorsed, obviously, in a year when budgets are up for consideration and so on. The timeliness is right on. Had it been left another year or two or three years to have quite such a hard look, we would have missed the boat somewhat. Q125 Mr Devine: Where was Next Steps drafted? The Treasury? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: It was a Treasury produced document but some of the drafting was done in the Department of Health, some in DfES and some in the DTI. It was considered by ministers and our Secretary of State and I presume the Secretaries of State in the other departments. Q126 Mr Devine: Were you all consulted? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I certainly kept my Secretary of State fully informed. Alan Johnson: There are four government departments involved. We were consulted on this. There is nothing wrong with this. I am absolutely delighted that the Treasury are leading and are so interested in the science base but I thought you started off by mentioning the change to the Office of Science and Innovation. That was nothing to do with the Treasury at all, as a matter of fact. If it was to do with the Treasury, fine, but the Treasury were not involved in that. In this, all four government departments were fully consulted and it would not work in relation to producing a document like this if we were not fully involved, particularly as it is such a major aspect of our work. Q127 Mr Devine: You had a significant input? Alan Johnson: Yes. Q128 Mr Devine: Who owns the science and innovation investment framework? Alan Johnson: It is owned by the four departments. I am not sure whether the Department of Health were part of the original ten year programme. I think that was three departments but now, because of this very welcome change in relation to health research, they are involved in this. Q129 Mr Devine: To what extent is science policy driven by the Treasury? Alan Johnson: Without the help and involvement of the Treasury and without the passion of the Treasury for this, we would have a great deal of difficulty in doubling the science base as we have done since 1997. It is crucial that they are involved. I would not look at it in any way as a negative feature that the Treasury are so closely involved. There might be other areas where the Treasury's necessary work is not so welcome but on this it is very welcome. Mr Devine: This Committee has always had a concern that the Treasury does not have a chief scientific adviser and I wondered if that concerned yourselves. Q130 Chairman: Yet it is making significant decisions about this key area. Alan Johnson: I am quite happy about that. David may tell me I should not be. Q131 Chairman: This could be an interesting answer. Professor Sir David King: You do not go into a department demanding something such as I, as chief scientific adviser, have been doing, going into the other departments, unless there is very good reason for it. I agree entirely with the previous comments from the Secretary of State. In other words, science has done exceptionally well out of the Treasury and our interaction, for example, with Harry Bush and John Kingman in the Office of Science and Technology and now the Office of Science and Innovation has been exceptionally strong. I still know that if I need to I can pick up the phone to John Kingman and he and I can be talking in a very short period of time. Our interaction has been very good and I have not been pressing for such a post. Q132 Mr Devine: It is okay that Gordon's foot is on the accelerator but he does not have a chief scientific adviser? Professor Sir David King: As soon as he gets near the brake I will be in there. Q133 Chairman: Secretary of State, putting aside the fact that the Treasury does not have a chief scientific adviser which may or may not be a good thing, do you think, given the prominence of science, technology and innovation within the government's agenda, that there ought to be a Cabinet post specifically for that and there ought to be somebody sat round the Cabinet table who leads that whole agenda? Alan Johnson: No, I do not. Q134 Chairman: That is not a criticism of your work and it is not intended to be. Alan Johnson: I had the same thing when I was at DfES dealing with higher education from some quarters. I have been reading Geoffrey Goodman's biography of Frank Cousins which shows that in 1964 they set up this Office of Technology, but it was not associated with industry and it was not associated with science. All the people that Goodman talks to - this is 20 years afterwards - all the senior civil servants and everyone involved said, "That was the problem with the Office of Technology". Indeed, Frank Cousins himself said what he wanted was to see it merged with industry and with science. We have got that now, we have got this connection. I think if you plucked science out - it was with education, was it not, at one stage and then it was on its own - I think it is in the right place. I would say that, would I not, but I genuinely feel this. Part of the change to the Office of Science and Innovation is keeping up with what is happening in British business and at the cutting edge of what is happening in terms of the challenges of globalisation, I think you would lose a lot of that. Because we have an eminent scientist like David who is responsible for giving advice to government, not just to the Prime Minister, in a sense, that is your Treasury post there because David does it across the patch, I would not like to see this dismantled. This Committee plays an important role, but I think if you did a thorough examination of that - maybe you have at some stage - I do not think you would start pulling the pieces apart again, that would be a big mistake. Chairman: I made the point in response to Jim's line of questioning that I think it took many people by surprise that this was very much the lead in the Budget, and it was very much a Treasury-led science agenda, whereas, perhaps, we might have expected it to be a DTI-led agenda, that is the reason behind that. Q135 Dr Turner: The other interesting surprise in the Budget was the announcement of the amalgamation of the MRC budget and the Department of Health research and development budget along with other changes in research councils. Sir Keith, what do you think prompted the creation of the single health research fund? Was it an indication that perhaps the NHS R&D budget was not as effective at generating research as it might have been? I know many cynics who would say that in fact most of it went to propping up trust deficits, but I will not pursue that line. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I can only relate the sort of tenor of conversations that I had with Treasury officials and, indeed, officials in the Department of Health. I think the background to this is that there is a big prize to be had if you can effectively join together the truly outstanding biomedical research in the UK, 13 noble laureates in LMB alone. Through to that, through translational research, clinical trials to bedside care, a seamless transition through there with the effective use of money is a big prize to be had. We are not there, and everybody who has looked at it has declared we are not there. We have got outstandingly good research, but we have had difficulty in finding structures that have given a real seamless meshing of Department of Health and NHS facilities and so on. Things are always difficult when you have got two departments involved, but this is an extremely welcome attempt. It is welcomed both by clinicians and it is welcomed by people doing very basic biomedical research. There is a huge prize to be had by having two budgets which are ring-fenced now - the science budget was, the R&D budget, health now is - and to see if we can find a way of using those in the most effective way to have a seamless connection from research to the hospital bedside, and particularly to promote clinical research which will support our biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry enormously. It is not trivial and that is why there are some months of work to be done, looking at the best way to deliver that with two separate areas of state, Alan Johnson owning one budget and Patricia Hewitt owning the other. The background is there is a prize here. Q136 Dr Turner: Presumably since the budget has been amalgamated, the organisation--- Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: The budgets have not really been amalgamated, there are two budgets. As you read the Budget document, or as I read it, the Secretary of State has the budget for the Medical Research Council and the other research councils in DTI, and the Secretary of State for Health has the R&D budget. It is a matter of how those two budgets are going to be used as a single pot. It is not quite a pot which has been taken out of DTI and taken out of health to be managed independently of those. Q137 Dr Turner: The Department of Health R&D budget will continue to be administered by the Department of Health, it will not be a united health budget? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: All of this is to be understood. We are so close to the beginning on this and there are some months of work to be done to see how delivery of basic medical and clinical research can best be delivered from those two budgets, both of which are ring-fenced. The key thing is ring-fencing the R&D budget in health. Q138 Dr Turner: It struck me that there was a potential new window of opportunity in what sounded like, firstly, a straight amalgamation of these budgets because the current structure in medical research and development leaves, if you like, orphaned diseases, ME is the one which absolutely springs to mind. The Chief Medical Officer has recommended that there should be a specific research effort on that but nothing has happened since his recommendations. There are clear reasons why that might not have happened because the MRC, apart from its research institutes, operates solely in response mode. Since that is dominated by the research assessment exercise it is quite clear that no ambitious basic researcher in their right mind is going to touch something as difficult and unpromising as ME, whereas if you are going to invoke the Health Department's R&D budget, is there room for filing those sorts of lacunae with directive research against difficult disease areas? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: There has to be. You have picked a particularly difficult one. Spotting Dr Harris out of the corner of my eye here, he probably has much stronger opinions on it, so getting him off the ME hook, he probably has strong opinions on. You have picked on an area where not all clinicians will identify it as a real disease, but, yes, you have to be right. Q139 Dr Harris: Strong views notwithstanding, I have got some arithmetic. The MRC budget is going to be £550 million and the NHS R&D budget is going to be about £750 million, about 2006-07, 2007-08, that is £1.3 billion. Secretary of State, is that going to be the minimum pot in this new merged budget? Alan Johnson: It is a minimum of at least £1 billion. Q140 Chairman: A third of £1 billion will go then? Alan Johnson: That is not necessarily certain, no. Q141 Dr Harris: It is possible, given what has been said, that the total spend at the moment of £1.3 billion cannot be guaranteed to be maintained? Alan Johnson: I would be very surprised if there is any reduction on the current £1.3 billion. What we are saying is we will have a fund of at least £1 billion to start off with. As Keith says, the crucial point is that the Department of Health aspect of this will now be ring-fenced. Professor Sir David King: I want to underline that because one of my jobs is to see that R&D funds in government departments are well spent. First of all, I very strongly welcome the Budget Statement on this issue for a variety of reasons. One is it means that, as I understand it, what will emerge is not necessarily a merger of the two budgets but that the two budgets will be treated in much the same way as research councils. At the moment we have a Medical Research Council within the Office of Science and Innovation in DTI and we will see a similar structure emerging if not under a single head, which it may be, but, nevertheless, it means that money will be operated like a research council. That is rather different from the previous mode of operation. I do think this has significant advantages. Q142 Dr Harris: I agree with you, but I am still trying to chase the not insubstantial sum of £300 million. If you are ring-fencing £750 million, which is the Department of Health R&D budget, and you are retaining spending plans, which are welcome and increased of £550 million from the MRC, then why does that not enable you to say that there will be at least, or near enough, £1.3 billion? As soon as you say £1 billion it looks like you are ring-fencing out £300 million. Alan Johnson: I would guess the problem here is we need to look very carefully at the Department of Health and how they spend that money. I do not think it is so much a DTI issue as a Department of Health issue. Q143 Dr Harris: I agree with you. Alan Johnson: If we are going to ring-fence it, what does that mean? Ring-fencing is not a small measure to take, once it is ring-fenced it is ring-fenced. Probably the reason why we have said at least £1 billion and not said at least £1.3 billion is the need to make absolutely sure that some of that money which is classified as research spend in health at the moment is right to go in the ring-fenced bit. Q144 Dr Harris: If we were honest we would say what many people recognise that a significant amount of NHS R&D is used to prop up service and is not being well-used for R&D, and that is part of the basis, but you do not want to destabilise the NHS by sucking it all out into proper R&D spending. That would be an honest way of putting it and you might have a bit of heat from that in the first instance. Q145 Chairman: Secretary of State, do you agree with that? Alan Johnson: We are honest. The only point I am making here is I would be very surprised if it was less than £1.3 billion, but I think you have to keep some contingency plans there for when you look very closely at turning what is now a budget which has some discretion over it into a ring-fenced budget. I would not go into the areas that you are going into at all, Dr Harris, but I think that is a proper way to frame this, it is to say that there will be a least £1 billion. We are not saying there will be £1 billion, we are saying at least £1 billion. At least £1 billion could be £1.3 billion or it could be more. Q146 Dr Harris: You have to go into the areas I am going into, with respect, because there is an expectation of £1 billion. Everyone in the NHS recognises that NHS R&D has not been ring-fenced functionally for R&D, that is what Sir David has just said. I do not think it has been clear that that is a problem which this is part of a solution to. I think it would be made clear if it was stated. Perhaps we are not going to make much more progress there. There is a plan to identify what the governance should be of this overall budget, if I can call it that. What do you think are the advantages of the MRC type model of governance for this fund? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: It very clearly says in the Budget Statement, after identifying these two ring-fenced budgets, that Haldane principles will be deployed in the deployment of that budget. The Haldane principle is quite hard to find, it goes back to 1917 when Lord Haldane, who was something of a machinery of government anorak in modern speak, devised that. The key thing is that this is arm's length from government and would, in effect, be enshrined under the Science and Technology Act which defines the Haldane principle and that. That Haldane principle is enshrined in the last Budget document. It says there has got to be a research council structure or something that is identical to it under the Science and Technology Act to deliver that. It is not a matter of do I think it is a good model, it is the only model we have got within legislation as it is. Q147 Dr Harris: That is very helpful. Why do you need this review of what the governance arrangement should be if you have got the research council type arrangement which you like so much, and which has Haldane and a whole series of other things, unless you can identify for me some benefits of the way the NHS or the Department of Health handles the R&D budget? Can you give me any? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: At this stage it probably depends on where the boundary of R&D in the Department of Health lies. It may well be that some of their spend is not ideally under Haldane principles. Quite a lot of DTI's spend in business and so on is not a Haldane principle. I do not think it is sensible at this stage, until this has all been reviewed over the summer and into the autumn, that you would automatically say, "Every penny that is spent across that whole piece all comes under the Haldane principle" because I do not know the R&D budget well enough. It would almost be like saying, "Every penny you spend on innovation in DTI has to be a Haldane principle", which would not be the case. Q148 Dr Harris: It is not just Haldane, the research council model - which I support and I have been very strongly, by the same token I am not blaming the Government for decisions of research councils because they are independent - is well liked and also the MRC has an international profile. There is worry that obviously if there is going to be a governance arrangement half-way between the way the DH works and the way the research council works that some of the good things about the MRC's way of doing things may be lost. Can you reassure on things beyond the Haldane principle? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I am not running the review so I cannot give you any reassurance, but I would be exceedingly surprised if you could come to a conclusion where that sort of structure was inappropriate for a large part of that. Q149 Chairman: Sir Keith, are the terms of the review published? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: No, I think they are a couple of weeks away. They are being determined by a team within the Treasury. Q150 Chairman: Who is leading that programme, Sir Colin Blakemore? Sir Brian Bender: No, David Cooksey is dealing with it. Q151 Dr Harris: He has been appointed to lead the review, but his precise terms of reference have not yet been. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: They will be published in a couple of weeks and the nature of the consultation will be published in a couple of weeks, as I understand it. There is a team in the Treasury, I will not name the individuals here because I will get some of them wrong. Certainly there is an individual from OSI as part of that team and there is an individual from the Department of Health and a couple of Treasury officials supporting those. Q152 Dr Harris: The CCLRC and PPARC are proposed to be merged, well they are not definitely going to be merged, this is a proposal unlike the OSI thing where you decided you were going to do it and you did it, that does not apply to this. Concerns have been raised about the fact that you should not separate the grant givers from the people who know and understand the machinery because the two are heavily linked and that is precisely what the current proposal does. Are you alive to those concerns? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Very much so. The current proposal is basically saying, "We believe there is a case for some merger of those activities and asks the question as to where should the grant-giving functions go and then it is a consultation which is on-going. It has not come to a conclusion, it is a consultation. The motivation and driver for that is the nearly £600 million a year that we spend on large facilities in the UK, both indigenous ones and through subscriptions, usually more and more and more is spent on things with Europe. We are a large player by international standards in that, and we have the good fortune to have a budget regime for science where we continue to be a large player. There is real scope for getting even greater benefit from that investment, particularly when you take in the establishment of a Harwell science and innovation park and a Daresbury science and innovation campus, also announced in the Budget. Again, it is part of this shifting agenda of money invested in the science base, getting involved more and more in knowledge transfer and innovation. When you put that together there is really a case for putting this £600 million into a single body. Once you do that, because there are overlapping responsibilities for international subscriptions between PPARC - particularly in particle physics, high energy physics - and CCLRC, you draw into the question you have got two research councils and then you say, "What do you do with the grant giving, for example, to astronomy?" That is part of a consultation. I am absolutely alert to the notion of the dangers of separating the grant-giving from the knowledge of how it should be spent, but different people have different suggestions. The consultation will flush this out. I am not going to say here, but I think you would probably guess, how I would vote, but it is a legitimate consultation and I am well alert to the important points there. Q153 Dr Harris: One issue is the issue of separating the facility from the people who use it and know it best in terms of peer reviewing applications for use of those. Another issue is the fact that EPSRC timescales are three years and PPARC's per force are usually much longer and the cultures are different. Can you give me any reasons that you have heard as to why giving the grant-giving powers of PPARC to EPSRC on the contrary might be a good idea? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: People have different views. Some people simply make the observation, "That is how the National Science Foundation in the US do it, that is where astronomy is supported there and high energy physics and particle physics is in the Department of Energy", therefore it must be a good thing. Q154 Dr Harris: It is not very convincing. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I am not necessarily convinced by those arguements. I think the important thing that is established in this Budget is that looking forward over a ten-year period there is really a tacit acceptance that the fundamental structure of our research councils is right, they are large in number relative to any other country, no other country has as many as this, but they are efficient and effective. The Budget is proposing two changes, one of which I think has a huge prize, potentially, the linkage with health for the medical research, and the other of which has a significant prize in innovation at the large facilities end. Beyond that, that is the way in which the ship is going to sail for most of it. Q155 Chairman: Why did you not speak to the people involved in the research councils before these announcements were made? They came as much of a surprise to them. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: This is part of a budget and you will understand, at least as well as I do, the purdah that surrounds budgets. This is not something that says, "This is what it is going to be", this is a consultation. The community has all the opportunities to give a view on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of these structures exactly as it does on the research assessment exercise and so on. If there had been a decision, and this was now as of April next year, a new structure was taking place with new chief executives, jobs were changing, and so on, without consultation, that would be a real issue but this is a consultation. Whether you should consult as to whether you are going to have a consultation I think is a moot point. This is part of a budget. Q156 Chairman: You must have been aware of this when the new Chief Executive of PPARC was appointed, that you were going to perhaps seriously interfere with proposals. Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: You say "must" and I will be totally honest with you, it was not in my mind at that point. People within the research councils themselves for some years, not unanimously, have pointed out the oddity of the present situation. The thing about the appointment of the new chief executive, and particularly Keith Mason who is the Chief Executive of PPARC, is this is an outstanding appointment. I would hope that within this new structure these outstanding people are continuing to contribute. There is a very big piece of territory there for them. I would not expect them to feel threatened and I do not believe they do. Q157 Dr Turner: I am still not entirely clear, Sir Keith, about what problems you are trying to address or resolve in, for instance, putting CCLRC and PPARC together. Would the final outcome, if it is a merger, be treated as and function as a research council because it sounds as if it will be a slightly different body? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: It will be different. I think these large facilities are different, they require a long-term view. Dr Harris made the point that EPSRC only gives grants within five years, basically they have very few commitments into the future. Investments in these big facilities are very long-term things. Just to give you the list, within the UK we have the biggest science investment in Diamond, the synchrotron, a UK investment which is going to run for several decades; we have the neutron sources; we have the lasers; then jointly we have the international contributions to SER, particle physics, again decayed all timescales, and also European synchrotron in Geneva, a whole host of things. We have got a big budget relative to many countries and we are the envy of them, but there are two things we have got to do. One, we have got to be able to prioritise because the things people would like to do exceed any reasonable expectation of budget growth. If we double the budget over another ten years we would not be able to do all the things that we would like to. You have got to prioritise, you have got to know what is right for the UK, but more and more we have got to get more knowledge transfer, more innovation and more benefits for business out of these large facilities. We have not been in that world before, they have never been put together with the notion of, "What extra benefits will we get from those investors?" that is the change. Q158 Dr Turner: Will you ring-fence the current grant awarding budget that PPARC operates because it would be very easy for them to get sucked into large facilities, would it not? Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Let me be clear, the science budget is ring-fenced and the Secretary of State has given assurances on that. It would be foolhardy across eight research councils to take one or all of them and say, "This is your budget forever more". Had that been done we would never have been able to accommodate the huge growth in biomedical sciences, there have to be shifts of budgets between research councils. The advice I give to the Secretary of State has got to be, "My advice is that you spend the budget in this way and these will be the optimum outputs we will get from this investment for the benefit of the UK". To ring-fence and say ring-fencing, anything in a research council long-term I think would be foolhardy and I would never give that advice to the Secretary of State. Q159 Chairman: That was a very, very clear answer, if I might say, Sir Keith. Can I ask you finally, Alan, the National Institute for Energy Technologies, which was again mentioned within the Budget, what stage are your plans at for that? How would this research institute interact with the other research councils? Alan Johnson: The stage we are at is busily getting commitments from funds like BP, E.ON and Shell, that they want to be become involved in this, and getting everything in place. We have got the basic structure. The concept is at an early stage and there are many of the details to work through. We have got the basic idea here, that we can do something quite exciting to attract more private sector investment into energy research. David might want to say a word on this about how we would interact, but I certainly think it is an enhancement to the Energy Research Partnership. Indeed, I think the Energy Research Partnership in many ways has driven this. There are lots of details to go on this, but I think it is a very exciting development. Q160 Chairman: Alan, can you give us some idea of a timescale for that? Alan Johnson: David, you know timescales better than I do, I think we are talking about the autumn. Professor Sir David King: If I can answer it a bit more fully. The Energy Research Partnership, which I co-chair with Paul Golby, who is the Chief Executive of E.ON UK, is the body that began this notion of setting up a research laboratory for energy technologies, pulling together public and private finance so that we could cover the full spectrum from research through development through demonstration right out to the actual implementation. The research council end, of course, funding the first part of that and industry tending to pick up as it goes out to deployment. The National Institute for Energy Technology is very much in an early phase. We had the first meeting today, pulling together the four private sector partners with the government partners involved, Sir Keith was there as well, and we are fleshing out what this body will look like. I would very much hope that before the summer recess we will be moving forward with a much clearer idea of how this partnership will work. I think all of us believe that this is a major step forward for the UK in terms of energy research and technology and that it will give us an edge in Europe over all of our competitors. The potential is enormous and we therefore have to work hard to see that we realise the potential. Q161 Chairman: Have you got a budget for that? Professor Sir David King: The budget is what was referred to by the Chancellor in his Statement. I think we would hope to be talking about sums in the region of £50-100 million a year. Q162 Bob Spink: It is well recognised that energy is a subject of growing importance and public awareness from the cost, the security of supply, particularly from the climate change angles. Do any of you think that it is now high time that the House of Commons had its own dedicated energy minister? Alan Johnson: It is back to the machinery of government. I do not think that, Mr Spink. Once again, we have been here before. Q163 Chairman: Just a yes or no answer will do us. Alan Johnson: No, I do not, Mr Spink. Q164 Bob Spink: Sir David has had a lot to say on energy recently, very exciting announcements. What do you think? Professor Sir David King: For once I am not going to make an exciting announcement. We are in the middle of the Energy Review, the Stern Review and we will have the Quorum Report shortly, and I would not want to prejudge this. I would want to say that energy is a critically important problem for government to face up to. I understand fully where your question is coming from. Q165 Bob Spink: I am delighted with that answer, Chairman. Sir Brian Bender: Personally, I would deeply regret it if a Department of Energy was set up, which I guess underlies the question, which separated responsibilities for energy from responsibilities of business. This last winter showed the crucial importance of the link between the supply of energy, the cost of energy and the cost to business. I would be disappointed if that link was broken. Professor Sir David King: If you were looking for a re-alignment, you would want to be looking at energy, environment and transport. In a way, unless you took a much more radical step than the one you are suggesting, I would not tinker with energy and the DTI. Alan Johnson: We are quite willing to take the environment--- Chairman: The final comment is, "Chief Scientist adviser urges Government to include transport and environment". On that note, can I thank you very much indeed, Secretary of State, and thank you very much indeed gentleman for a very interesting and entertaining one and a half hours. |