Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 96)
WEDNESDAY 19 JULY 2006
MS HELEN
GHOSH AND
MR IAN
GRATTIDGE
Q80 Lynne Jones: Is not research
and development absolutely vital, not just for your department
and the agenda that you have got but the whole government, the
whole economy, the climate change sustainability agenda?
Ms Ghosh: Yes.
Q81 Lynne Jones: You did not answer
my question about whether that is the advice you are giving, that
on crops and grasses we know most of the answers.
Ms Ghosh: I am sorry. I am very
happy to come back to you specifically on that. I know that the
view that has been reached in the Evidence and Innovation Strategy
is that there is a limited pay-back from extensive further research,
but I am happy to come back to you on that. Of course, because
we are an evidence-based department, it would be wonderful to
have an infinite amount of money to spend on research and development,
and of course the Science Advisory Council will have strong views
on this point. I think the point you make about we need to be
spending more money on the climate change area is one, for example,
that we are trying to meet in rebalancing away from traditional
agricultural research, although sustainability of agriculture
will remain a key area of research, and its impact on the rest
of the environment, into climate change sorts of areas. I think
the Government's commitment on this is reflected in the fact that
when we announced the Climate Change Programme Review we agreed,
I think, an Environmental Technology Fund, precisely to look at
that kind of innovatory technology, low-carbon, renewables sort
of energy research, so I think we are seeing a shift away, but
we cannot spread our jam thin, we have got to decide where we
are going to spread it thickly for the best outputs.
Q82 Lynne Jones: One area of potential
technological advancement is on areas, for example, biomass and
biofuels?
Ms Ghosh: Indeed.
Q83 Lynne Jones: Which is both related
to sustainability of land use and also the Climate Change Agenda.
I understand that the Science Advisory Council has actually expressed
concern about the reduction in land-based research. It is good
that there is money going into climate change research, but they
are inter-related; it is difficult to distinguish between the
two.
Ms Ghosh: I do not know the details
of the investment we are currently putting into the biomass research
side. I know money is going in, but we will happily send you the
details of that. In a sense I was excluding that. That is not
traditional, that is, as it were, how we move our research budgets
into the new world of sustainable agriculture as it contributes
to wider—
Q84 Lynne Jones: The Institute of
Environmental Sciences Research is involved in agricultural biotechnology,
and there is a lot of concern, for example, on the Centre of Ecology
and Hydrology. You are losing posts in areas related to climate
change and one has to wonder whether there is real coordination.
I think that is the other area of concern, coordination between
your science strategy and that of the research councils and, in
fact, the other agencies.
Ms Ghosh: As I say, Howard Dalton
is certainly a representative on NERC and I know has had a number
of meetings, if he is not on the council itself, and I can confirm
that, with BBSRC on precisely the points you make. So, I think
we coordinate extremely closely, but there are hard decisions
that have to be made sometimes. I will certainly come back to
you on how we are supporting research on biomass and biofuels.
Q85 Lynne Jones: How do you co-ordinate
with other departments in this area in terms of the DTI and the
Energy Review because climate change and energy are inter-related?
Ms Ghosh: Which I think is very
much reflected in the outcomes.
Q86 Lynne Jones: How you co-ordinate
that because, on the one hand, you could say that NERC is reducing
their work on climate change and you are increasing it, maybe
that is complementary, but maybe you have got different priorities
and maybe there is something wrong if you are not both seeing
areas for expansion, you are seeing different areas for expansion.
It does not seem logical.
Ms Ghosh: We will send you a note
on that certainly.
Q87 Chairman: At the beginning of
the evidence you were candid enough to question whether you have
got the right PSA targets and I think gave the impression that
there may be some new ones coming along as part of the Comprehensive
Spending Review process. If that is the case, are you going to
publish those for any kind of consultation? If so, can we have
a copy so that we can have a look at them before they get cast
in concrete?
Ms Ghosh: As with many elements
of the CSR 07 process, it is iterative and although, as you will
probably know, the Treasury has been doing some preliminary thinking
about what the structure of PSAs might be, and we have fed in
some thoughts, I do not know now, unless Ian can correct me, how
the process of developing detailed PSAs will be taken forward
and what consultation we will be proposing. As I said, we would
certainly find it valuable to share with the Committee, in whatever
form you think appropriate, ideas once they have reached a stage
of specificity on which you might want to comment. Do we know
a timetable for the process?
Mr Grattidge: Only that we submitted
our response on the PSA Review that the Treasury are conducting
earlier this year, I think in June. All departments did something
similar, so they critiqued how did the PSA actually get delivered
and how do you know it is working and, secondly, what ideas do
you have for improving the PSA framework in the future. I think
all departments have now submitted their responses and the Treasury
are looking at them over the summer. I think the next phase will
be September, but the Treasury have only said, "We are going
to read them," they have not said what the next phases are.
They are going back now and considering how they work.
Q88 Chairman: It is difficult for
you to be more specific as to when we might have a discussion
about them. Perhaps that is the Treasury ringing you saying that
they have now arrived and we can crystallise this out! We would
be grateful if you would keep us posted on that because some of
the targets are cast in rather vague and woolly terms and, as
we have seen, some are proving quite challenging, to use a favourite
departmental word, to quantify as to whether they are achievable
or not. So I think we would very much welcome an opportunity for
discussion because obviously they do form a key underpinning role
to the work of your Department.
Ms Ghosh: To give you a flavour,
there are these issues that you have discussed with me before,
and Brian Bender before that, about the effectiveness of shared
PSA targets. Are shared PSA targets effective or would it be more
effective to have overarching government framework objectives
and then individual contributions measured by department? We have
a number of PSAs where the levers are not in our hands and certainly
the spending is not in our hands so, for example, if you look
at the rural PSA, many of those aspects of spending, other than
the money we put into the RDAs, are actually not in our hands.
Two things we would aim at: that we have much clearer outcomes
and that we are very, very clear what the leaders are that we
have to achieve them and, back to the point made earlier, that
there is a wide consensus that the particular performance indicators,
whether it is biodiversity or climate change, are the right ones.
Q89 David Lepper: Just on the comment
you were making just now, Mrs Ghosh, about shared PSA targets.
One of those is I think target seven, eliminating fuel poverty,
which you share with the DTI. I think the current assessment is
that by 2006 the numbers of fuel poor people is likely to be up
to two million. I just wonder if you could tell us something about
where the ability to manipulate the levers lies there? Is it with
your Department mainly or with the DTI and how do you work with
the DTI on that particular target?
Ms Ghosh: I suppose we have two
main levers there. You are absolutely right, the figures are disappointing
and they are disappointing primarily because of increases in fuel
prices. The way that the target is measured, spending more than
10% of income on fuel means that fuel prices and their rapid increase
will push us back. I suppose we have two main areas of impact.
One is through the Warm Front programme which, as you know, is
focused on lower income households and in particular recently
has been about energy efficiency and insulation and central heating
systems. One is energy efficiency more generally insofar as we
can—and the Energy Review has proposed this—to put
further responsibilities on the energy suppliers to take account
of energy efficiency issues and also to put more money into, as
we were discussing earlier, developing energy-efficient technology.
So we have got those two things but actually the overwhelming
influence is going to be the cost of energy. I think that does
mean this target is extremely challenging for us. I think in fact
it is one that conceptually is not just for the DTI but is also
about incomes, employment possibilities, all those kinds of bundles
of things that come together to impact on incomes and available
incomes of disadvantaged families.
Q90 Chairman: To draw things to a
conclusion and just reflect on something which is near and dear
to the heart of all of my colleagues on the Committee, because
from time to time we write letters to you—
Ms Ghosh: Ah, yes.
Q91 Chairman: —Yes, and it
is quite intriguing that in 2003-04 11,068 bits of ministerial
correspondence, 75%, were answered within 15 days. Then you girded
your loins, more letters in the following year, 11,245, and 80%
of them were replied to within 15 days and then we go up by another
1,500 letters a year and you drop down in 2005-06 to 61%. Why?
Ms Ghosh: Mainly because we have
had a 50% increase in the number of letters we have received.
In the first six months of this year we had 50% more letters than
in the equivalent period and we suspect that will go on at that
high level. They were mainly about AI, bovine TB and—
Q92 Chairman: Hang on a minute, just
before you hide behind the global figure, I am talking about items
of ministerial correspondence.
Ms Ghosh: That is right, we have
had a 50% increase in the number of letters we are receiving.
Q93 Chairman: That is not what your
report information says. That is why I read out the numbers of
letters. We understand that the figures in 2005-06 were 12,737
letters received versus 11,245 in the previous year. Even my ropey
maths do not make that a 50% increase in letters.
Ms Ghosh: Possibly what I am doing,
Chairman, is apologising in advance for the statistics you will
see for the most recent period! We have been looking at the most
recent period because our ministers have been expressing concern
about a backlog in correspondence.
Q94 Chairman: I am not surprised.
Ms Ghosh: And I know a number
of Members here have been raising similar points. If you look
at the last six months from now, we have had a 50% increase on
the comparable period for the first half of 2005 because of AI
and bovine TB in particular. That has put enormous strain on our
central correspondence unit. As you know, we decided as part of
our reform programme to take responding to ministerial correspondence
out of the line and put it in a central communications unit, which
has worked extremely well in terms of the use of common knowledge
banks and, in normal times, the turn round effect, but it has
recently been swamped by the high level of correspondence and
so we have put more resource in there on an emergency basis to
try and clear the backlog, and I think we will have to put more
resource in going forward. It will still be a more efficient way
of dealing with our correspondence, but I think we just have to
face the fact that given the greater political profile of many
of the issues we deal with, we have just got to accept that we
might well be looking at a department that deals with 18,000 items
of ministerial correspondence a year, not 12,000.
Q95 Chairman: And you are going to
staff up and equip yourselves to meet the 15-day target?
Ms Ghosh: Which is of course a
target that is tighter than the 20-day target that the Cabinet
Office sets but 15 days is our target and we will staff up to
meet it.
Q96 Chairman: I am afraid we will
probably have to add to your burden of letters coming in because
time prevents us from asking all the questions we would like to,
but can we thank you both very much indeed for the responses that
we have received. We look forward very much to receiving the further
written material that you have promised us and information particularly
in the context of the RPA discussions, and hopefully, in due course,
the opportunity to comment and engage in some discussion on the
future PSA targets, so thank you very much indeed.
Ms Ghosh: Thank you.
| 
