Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
PROFESSOR SIR
ROY ANDERSON,
MR TREVOR
WOOLLEY, MR
MARK PRESTON
AND DR
PAUL HOLLINSHEAD
28 NOVEMBER 2006
Q160 Chairman: Professor Anderson,
could you give us the figures that I asked for, please, in writing?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: Yes.[4]
Q161 Chairman: Would you regard us as
people who are likely to try to help you in your battle with the
person on your right. If you can give us some idea of the extent
to which other defence research has suffered because of our concentration,
as David Borrow was asking, on the immediate theatres of war and
therefore our investment in the longer term has suffered, then
it might be a good thing not only for you but for the country.[5]
Could we move on, please, to the management of defence research
and technology. The NAO made several recommendations in its 2004
report. I wonder whether those recommendations have been implemented,
or to what extent they have been.
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: Providing
clearer technology and strategy, we have already talked quite
a bit about the defence technology strategy and that is a clear
objective there. The management side of research I think has,
as I understand it, given that I have been in his post two and
a half years, has improved greatly and the intimacy of the relationship
strategically between Whitehall and Dstl and the customers about
deciding what your priorities are for research, both in relation
to your question, what you would like soon, what you would like
in three to five years, what the capability need is in 15 years.
I think that planning is improving although there is more to do.
If we take the metrics for R&D, one of my other, almost an
obsession, is that we should have accurate databases on precisely
what our R&D expenditure is at any one time, and these databases
should not only include the bare facts, but they should have things
about the detail of what the result of that research was, whether
there is IPR associated with it, who is responsible for following
that IPR, etc, etc, and what publications, what reports have arisen
out of it. We have just constructed a database called STRIMS,
which is a Science and Technology Research Management database,
and this I think is going to pay great benefits into the future
although it will not pay benefits instantly. That provides metrics
for R&D and what you got for it, basically. If we take the
expertise and the role of the TLB and Dstl, I suppose, in the
spirit of your previous comment, Chairman, I always am concerned
about the scientific expertise within government, largely because
we recruit very bright and able people, and I have been hugely
impressed by the intake, and then we have lost the old science
and technology streams in the civil service, where somebody could
end up at a high level within the civil service being a deep specialist.
The Ministry of Defence is very actively discussing this at the
moment in the context of or in relation to the establishment of
a new agency, the merger of the DPA and the DLO, and how we sustain
specialist expertise lines for engineers and scientists. We have
appointed head of professionals in both. There is a lot to do
but it fits in with the broader government objective with the
Cabinet Secretary about specialist skills in government. If I
am blunt, I think it was a mistake getting rid of the specialist
science and technology careers stream. I think you had technology
demonstrator programmes and technology exploitation. The demonstrator
programmes is something we are very much thinking about how best
to fund this with industry. We have a very high emphasis on technical
demonstrators and sometimes, in relation to your comment about
timescale, I could quote one which from concept to the demonstrators
about a year, which is very pertinent to an operational theatre.
Q162 Mr Hancock: Lord Drayson told
us it was his intention back in February to have greater competition
in research and development. It has taken some time to get that
moving. What is your feeling on that and are there targets have
been set for what will be sent for competition and what will not
and how will the decisions be made?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: We
have a stated target, and it is published in the Defence Technology
Strategy, of competing about 60% of our total R&T funds, that
is the £500 million.
Q163 Mr Hancock: By when?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: By
2009, and we are ramping that up at the moment. If you are thinking
about that sum of money and you want to do this properly, where
you have adequate peer review, you have to create an infrastructure
to do this carefully. I am very keen on the open competition side
because, as I mentioned earlier, I think in fast-moving areas
of technology a lot of the innovation comes out of the universities
and small companies. I also, with Lord Drayson's approval, commissioned
a study, which will be published quite soon: where does innovation
come from in the technology defence industry? At the top you have
the big primes, then you have the medium-size companies, many
of the small ones at the bottom and perhaps the university spin-out
groups at the very bottom of this pyramid or food web. In that
study we have looked at 36 technology trees in a great deal of
depth and, unsurprisingly, a lot of the really innovative bits
come out at the bottom. The top is still crucial, because they
have the skills of system integration and defining the capability
requirement. So the top is absolutely essential but we need to
think about how we target some of this money, or the competition
side, to make sure that we do not exclude small companies, who
are often less agile and less informed.
Q164 Mr Hancock: How would they be
able to afford to take part in the competition that you are devising?
Will this inevitably mean that there will be prime players in
the research and development who in turn will systematically downstream
the resources?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: There
are two strategies to this. This is a slightly different approach
so I will answer this in two parts. In the past, we have always
felt we knew what we needed in technology and therefore we put
out calls for people to bid for X, Y and Z. I am very keen that
we actually also ask the community "Do you have interesting
areas of technology that might have important defence and secure
at security implications, not necessarily immediately but some
time in the future?" All a small company has to do there
is get on to the website, write half a page and say, "I have
got this. It is terribly exciting" and then somebody from
the Research Acquisition Organisation will go down and see them.
Q165 Mr Hancock: So why did they
tell us when they gave evidence that there was a problem in knowing
what you wanted and how to go about getting part of the action?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: Fair
comment. I think in the past we have been less transparent than
ideal, and our relationships with the big primes are the strongest,
so they are always very well informed but, if you look at the
real powerhouse of innovation in the UK at the moment, it is often
in those small companies. In October we launched the Defence Technology
Strategy website up and running with the competition of ideas.
I spoke to 600 people last week from the small and medium-sized
company end to tell them, with the Director of the Research Acquisition
Organisation, Andrew Baird, how to do it and we will be as synergistic
or encouraging as we possibly can be. The universities are another
bit of this.
Q166 Mr Hancock: I think it is vitally
important, and it is great news that we have got that far. Maybe
that will go some way to address the criticism they brought to
us when they gave evidence on it. What do you see as any potential
downsides and how do you play a part in protecting us from a decline
of that interest from the small players?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: As
I said, we have not been as good as we should have been perhaps
in nurturing them. We have not recognised that a lot of the innovation
comes from that end. Now that we have finished a study of technology
trees, innovation trees, we now have hard numerical data on the
different types of capability or technologies, where the really
innovative bits come from. Now we have that in front of us, which
is very recent, that gives me a firm basis from which to say we
have to spend a lot of attention on these companies and the spin-out
groups in the universities. Sometimes they will do it with partnership
because a company such as QinetiQ or BAe Systems could quite correctly
argue that they know us as the beast much better and therefore
if a small company collaborates with them, they are more likely
to be successful in the research bid, and some of that will go
on, I am sure, but as this community sees us as a more friendly,
interested customer, I am hopeful.
Q167 Mr Hancock: The French now have
a pot of money which people can bid for for carrying out specific
research that they themselves have generated, which they have
persuaded the French Ministry to support in one way or another,
with possibly no chance of it ever coming to success, but hopefully
it will. Are we going down a similar route?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: We
are doing two things. I said there was a competition of ideas:
as one of them, going out to them. Also, again via the website,
and the Research Acquisition Organisation, we are going to compete
60% of the £500 million. This competition will be rather
like writing a proposal. It can be detailed or it can be a short
inquiry, and the Research Acquisition Organisation's responsibility
is to sift these and to look for the interesting ideas and the
well-written proposals. I may be biased because this has been
a big hobbyhorse of mine, but I think we have been doing more
at the moment than we have ever done before and we are going to
do more and more.
Mr Hancock: That is good news.
Q168 Mr Jenkin: We have heard quite
a lot about Dstl's role from Frances Saunders already. Is there
anything you want to add from a strategic point of view, from
your oversight point of view, to what Dstl's role is?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: One
thing that is not commonly realised—and Frances hinted at
it to fire a question concerning polonium 210—is that Dstl
is vital to this country, not just in defence but in many security
areas. It provides deep technical expertise. It is not ever in
the public eye. It might be the Home Office and others who take
the lead, correctly, but the technical backup for this lies often,
very often, in Dstl. So it is something we need to nurture and
sustain and look after, in my view.
Q169 Mr Jenkin: You do not feel the
work that DERA used to do is compromised in any way by losing
quite a lot of the intellectual property to the private sector?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: In
the areas that are particularly important in the security and
counter-terrorism and counter-insurgent areas, I think we have
kept the areas of expertise that we need because these are very
sensitive. We have already mentioned the IED areas, we have mentioned
biological and chemical weapons, detection, counter-measures,
protective suits, explosive forensics, etc, a whole pile of areas
at a AWE in radiological detection and clean-up—those have
been sustained within government control through Dstl.
Q170 Mr Borrow: The jewel in the
Crown, as you described Dstl, you are obviously very pleased with
its performance, but do you have no concerns at all?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: One
of you asked a question to Frances about physicists. I have concerns
about university entrants and graduation in physics, engineering,
mathematics, computer science, etc. These are all highly competitive
fields in the civil sector. We rely on very good people here,
so we will feel the effects in the future in recruitment in what
used to be called the hard sciences—it is a bit of an insult
actually to other areas. They are mathematics-based sciences often.
We will feel the effects. I could recruit from Ukraine and China
bucketfuls of mathematicians and engineers at the drop of a hat
but, of course, as you hinted earlier, we cannot do that in security
sensitive fields I think we are part of a larger effort through
the Academy of Engineers and the Royal Society, which we have
very intimate and good relationships with, and we have all got
to strive to raise the excitement and stakes for being a scientist
and an engineer. As Frances mentioned, a lot of young people get
very motivated by contributing to security and defence.
Q171 Mr Jenkin: On the narrower question
of Dstl's actual performance, are its targets stretching enough?
Are there additional targets which it should be given?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: I
am new to Government targets so I might not have a good understanding
of this. We are constantly evolving these targets in a learning
experience with an agency. I want to come back to one of your
earlier questions. The other slight concern I have—in a
spirit of honesty here about it—
Q172 Chairman: That is always relieving
to hear!
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: —Government
departments are often in a cycle of customer knows best-driven
research and I will make the point that we have gone through that
cycle quite quickly and we have now orientated Dstl's work very
much to customer needs. I do place the caveat that saying that
the customer knows best in fast moving areas of technology and
science is wrong. You must sustain a proportion of your activity,
which is young people who have got a fascination with fields of
science where, independent of the customer need, they can see
very exciting things to do. We are evolving and iterating the
balance between that at the moment. I think the Defence Technology
Strategy hinted that we are looking to perhaps slightly increase
the proportion which is not so customer-driven but is more inquiry
enthusiasm-driven.
Q173 Mr Jenkin: What proportion of
the budget is that?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: At
the moment it is probably about—I should give you a more
exact figure here—10% or so, something of that nature. Remember,
to the very good scientists in Dstl the board there gives them
incentives. To keep the very best you might have to say, "Four
days a week you work on the customer problems but one day a week
you can pursue your inquiry and inquisitiveness", so you
can keep a more basic research programme going. In discussion
with the Dstl board we need to think about all sorts of incentives
for encouraging that.
Q174 Chairman: In a spirit of honesty,
Professor Anderson, you gave the impression just now, in answering
about targets, that you thought in this field anyway essentially
they were a load of drivel. Would you be able to confirm that
is your view in a spirit of honesty?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: I
think that inference would be wrong. I am not an expert here and,
Trevor, you are far more experienced in setting targets.
Mr Woolley: Clearly some of the
targets are harder than others. Some of the more qualitative targets
in this area are inevitably going to be difficult. I do think,
though, it is important, as part of the governance of trading
funds, that the owner of the trading fund does set targets on
the agency, and this is what we do. The targets are evolving.
We are trying to reduce the number of targets to try and make
them a little more relevant and in some respects they have got
tougher over the years.
Q175 Chairman: I will take that as
a financial answer rather than a scientific answer.
Mr Woolley: I would like it to
be taken as a governance answer rather than a scientific answer.
There is a financial dimension. Obviously the interest of the
Department as owner is only partly financial, it is also to ensure
we get the best quality out of the agency, and the targets are
aimed at quality as well as financial return.
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: Chairman,
can I correct one figure? I said 60% of 500 million were going
to compete; it is 60% of 410 million. I apologise and would like
to correct the record.
Q176 Linda Gilroy: On the role of
Dstl, an emerging argument of those who have difficulty in appreciating
the merits of a nuclear deterrent is that climate change needs
scientists who are in scarce supply. How does that argument look
from where you stand as the Chief Scientific Adviser to the MoD?
Given that climate change and energy security have got strategic
defence relevance, presumably there is cross-departmental discussion
amongst scientists on these issues?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: Yes,
very much so. David King takes the lead in DTI and the Office
of Science and Technology, but I asked DSAC, which is our
Defence Science Advisory Council, about a year ago to produce
a report about their assessment of what climate change predictions
could do, or the implications for the MoD, in particular thinking
about certain areas of procurement because we are thinking now
about procuring for 15-20 years ahead. If you take issues such
as helicopter lifting, high temperatures, cooling systems for
land vehicles, protection gear and clothing, there are huge implications
for us. It is a very, very active area of thought at the moment.
I would not be telling the truth if I said it had entered heavily
into our procurement thinking, but from the science and technology
end it is a very active area of thought.
Q177 Linda Gilroy: In terms of the
supply of scientists?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: Of
what global warming might imply for us as a defence activity.
The supply of scientists is more a Met Office issue. The Met Office
attracts very good quality people. If you talk to graduates now,
climate change is something they are all aware of and if they
can work in that field they get quite excited. Increasingly climate
change models now have the environment and biological component.
If you are talking about physics and high-end computing, perhaps
there are problems.
Q178 Linda Gilroy: In the competition
between the two areas?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: No,
in competition with the civil sector. Business high-end computing
people are highly desirable in a whole variety of areas of employment.
Q179 Chairman: You talked a bit about
the supply chain, what about international collaboration in defence
research? Would you care to answer about whether we are getting
enough from the United States in relation particularly to Joint
Strike Fighter?
Professor Sir Roy Anderson: First
of all, in relation to the previous comment, if you look at my
facts earlier, the United States produces a very high proportion
of the total science and technology output today. Scientists are
there to try and solve technical or understanding problems, and
the best strategy, in my view always, is to go to the best people
in the world. Science is an international activity, it does not
have borders. The web provides this communication instantaneously,
so if you have got a problem to solve, you should do your collaboration
first on a strategic judgment, in other words who you have a Memorandum
of Understanding on, but you should also weigh into this equation
technically who is the best in that field. That total international
environment for science is changing very rapidly, as you know.
There are some fields where China would not even have been on
the horizon five years ago. I am thinking, particularly, of signal
processing where suddenly countries like China have a significant
activity there. We have got to think very carefully over the coming
years about how we form these collective Memoranda of Understanding.
At the moment they are dominated by our relationship with the
United States for very good science and technology reasons because
a lot of the very best people are there. That is an evolving area
of thought for us. If you take Western Europe as a whole and you
sum science output from Western Europe as a whole, then the gap
between Western Europe and the United States is closing. Again,
we need to think strategically over a 10 to 15 year horizon whether
in some areas where there is deeper expertise in Europe, our research
collaboration should broaden. That is important to do. With the
Joint Strike Fighter, I am not well placed to comment on the detail
of that. My own experience is in areas where there is no commercial
sensitivity, your comment about black programmes, we get complete
access with the United States and a very privileged position in
many fields. Where there are commercial sensitivities and IPR
issues, then inevitably—and it is the same this side of
the Atlantic as the other—there could be acute sensitivities
about sharing information with anybody. My understanding of the
Joint Strike Fighter at the moment is that we are seeking the
same product as the United States. There are very active and ongoing
discussions concerning what technical information we require for
sovereignty and security reasons and, by and large, those discussions
have been going well.
4 See Ev 36 Back
5
See Ev 36 Back
|
