Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-168)
PROFESSOR MARTIN
SHIRLEY, PROFESSOR
IAN CRUTE
AND PROFESSOR
CHRIS POLLOCK
1 NOVEMBER 2006
Q160 Chairman: Could I try to pin
you down on this question of government-sponsored research; in
other words, research it wants to support its policy or indeed
to inform its policy, whichever way you want to look at it. Clearly
there is a difficulty for the institutes in terms of being able
to respond to that agenda and at the same time respond to its
own agenda which is generated either through BBSRC or indeed through
its own research programmes. How best do you think we could preserve
economic capacity to be able to respond to government demands
without having these sudden cuts of resources to which you alluded
earlier? What is your solution for that?
Professor Shirley: We need to
have long-term guaranteed funding. That is critical.
Q161 Chairman: Who should provide
it?
Professor Shirley: If we are going
to have a capability for the UK as a whole then it does not really
matter whether it comes through BBSRC or BBSRC plus the government
department. The model works well in theory but the practice is
that if one of those government departments comes under funding
pressures then we lose that money.
Q162 Chairman: That is the question
I am asking you. Defra came under real pressure because of the
farm payments and suddenly there was a pressure on your budget.
That is the reality of what we are talking about. What is your
solution to that?
Professor Crute: My solution is
something I have talked about in times past and that is that within
government departments capital budgets are ring-fenced. You cannot
raid capital budgets to look after recurrent problems. I see no
reason at all why research budgets cannot be ring-fenced in exactly
the same way. That was the original concept when the Rothschild
transfer took place from the Science Budget to the Department
of Health and MAFF. At the time the concept was that that was
a ring-fenced activity. The transfer was made essentially to put
what you might call customer and market requirements into the
equation in terms of how that money was used, not that the money
should be used for other things.
Q163 Chairman: Should that money
come directly from the government department or should it continue
to come ring-fenced, as you have said, through BBSRC?
Professor Crute: I personally
see advantage in the government department involvement because
they have different perspectives on science. The Research Councils
are there with a particular agenda for looking after the quality
of science in an international perspective with, you might say,
very much a quasi-academic role. The government department has,
as you have said, a policy direction. It also has an industry
to which it is, in some senses, attempting to deliver science
information. I think that perspective is important but I think
what has really happened, not just in recent times but over a
long period of time, is the erosion of that and essentially, you
might say, the downgrading of that as being an important component
of the UK science activity. It has been taken as very much a departmental
priority rather than a national priority for the science.
Professor Pollock: The Office
of Science and Innovation set up a study some years ago into the
sustainability of public sector research institutes which addressed
this very issue. It made recommendations about the relationship
between sponsoring government departments which paid more than
a certain percentage of institute turnover and those institutes
and it put forward some recommendations about how that process
should be managed. Unfortunately, that agreement has not been
implemented. If it was, I think many of the things that we are
concerned about today would be addressed.
Chairman: We will ask Defra about that
in a moment.
Q164 Dr Iddon: Obviously you have
undergone reorganisations in the past. It what is expected of
you currently quite different? In other words, have you any experience
to handle the present situation from the past reorganisation?
Professor Pollock: Yes, this looks
very like the near-market cuts of the eighties. What IGER is going
to have to do is to respond in a similar way to the way in which
it responded after the Thatcher near-market research cuts.
Q165 Dr Iddon: So we are seeing an
ad hoc reorganisation rather than a planned strategy.
Professor Pollock: Absolutely.
We have been reactive not proactive.
Q166 Chairman: What help have you
had from the Research Councils in developing and implementing
these restructuring plans?
Professor Pollock: From my standpoint,
the BBSRC have been extremely supportive. They have worked out
short-term financial measures to keep the institute solvent. They
have helped us to negotiate through sale of fixed assets a way
forward which gives us the aspiration to a stable business over
the next five years. I could not have asked for a more positive
relationship with BBSRC over the last 12 months.
Q167 Chairman: Does that apply across
the board?
Professor Shirley: In our case
they also provided their own in-house support, which was very
high quality, and they also brought in external support, which
was very high quality. They provided resource by competency that
we absolutely depended on.
Professor Pollock: I would echo
those comments. We should not underestimate the fact that BBSRC
has had to find very significant amounts of cash unscheduled to
pay large amounts of redundancy compensation.
Q168 Chairman: The first line of
questioning was really about institutes versus universities in
simple terms. I understand that your preferred solution in terms
of the changes you are having to make—and I understand that—is
to merge your facilities with Aberystwyth and Bangor.
Professor Pollock: Could I clarify
the position of the institute. The institute has been charged
by its governing body with looking at three options, one of which
is the option that you describe. It is my view at the moment that
it is possible, in theory, that all three options could be made
credible in terms of sustaining a science base, but the discussions
on the option you provide have been positive. There is a strong
sense of engagement with the university sector and there is no
reason to stop pursuing that avenue as being one of active potential
value.
Chairman: Professor Martin Shirley, Professor
Chris Pollock and Professor Ian Crute, thank you very much indeed.
You have been excellent witnesses this morning. We thank you.
| 
