Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
SIR JOHN
CHISHOLM
20 JUNE 2007
Q20 Dr Harris: If you hear that you
are being seen or regarded as an executive chairman, which you
say you do not want to be and you are not supposed to be, would
you see that as a failure of what you are trying to do? Would
you see it as an outcome to be measured and tried to be improved
upon?
Sir John Chisholm: I certainly
do not want to be seen as an executive chairman, that is true.
Q21 Dr Harris: Do you think there
is a risk that if you are seen as being too proactive, too active,
in the day-to-day running that you might scare off some potentially
very good candidates for chief executive because they would want,
if they are outstanding individuals, more freedom to do what they
need to do in that role?
Sir John Chisholm: I can well
imagine that the sort of chief executive we are looking for would
want to be a chief executive not reporting to an executive chairman.
That is clearly something one has the ability to do with direct
communication rather than rely upon reputation.
Q22 Linda Gilroy: The Cooksey recommendations
in conducting the internal strategic review, it is going further
than what was recommended in Cooksey. Can you give us an insight
into what the thinking behind that was?
Sir John Chisholm: The Council
felt that post-Cooksey it would be useful to look at the way the
MRC operated given that Cooksey changed the playing field upon
which the MRC was operated. It was a sensible time to look at
that.
Q23 Linda Gilroy: You brought in
external assistance to conduct the review in the form of Ernst
& Young. How did you decide who to bring on board? Why them
and how much did it cost?
Sir John Chisholm: I would have
to write to you about how much it cost. Being a non-executive
chairman, it is not something I follow in any great detail.
Q24 Linda Gilroy: How did you decide
that it should be Ernst & Young?
Sir John Chisholm: We took advice.
Q25 Chairman: From whom?
Sir John Chisholm: From, for instance,
the director general of the Research Councils.
Q26 Chairman: It was Keith O'Nions
who recommended Ernst & Young, not yourself.
Sir John Chisholm: There was a
process and so I was asked just now how did we collect them. We
took advice and looked for a firm that had relevant experience
who would get up and running quickly.
Q27 Linda Gilroy: Were there others
in the frame? Was there a formal short listing or a more informal
way?
Sir John Chisholm: There were
others in the frame and Ernst & Young looked the most credible.
Q28 Linda Gilroy: You had a group
of people in charge of this internal review and presumably you
looked at a range of options and selected Ernst & Young in
a fairly formal way?
Sir John Chisholm: It was not
a formal process. It was a process whereby we looked for people
who had a solid recommendation behind them and who had relevant
experience.
Q29 Chairman: Was anybody else interviewed
at all?
Sir John Chisholm: Frankly I do
not recall. I would have to write to you to remind myself of that
process.
Q30 Linda Gilroy: Given the balance
of membership on the steering group, which is 3:1 from MRC and
Ernst & Young, how much input did Ernst & Young have into
the review and the resulting report?
Sir John Chisholm: They were members
of the team.
Q31 Linda Gilroy: Did they take a
leading role in shaping how it was looked at or were they there
in a more low key advisory capacity?
Sir John Chisholm: I do not want
to mislead you and waste your time but my observation of it was
when the team came forward and presented its review points there
were three review points. They were always joint presentations
between the Ernst & Young representatives and those from the
MRC.
Q32 Linda Gilroy: They worked as
co-partners on it rather than Ernst & Young taking a lead
and presenting things and people coming around afterwards.
Sir John Chisholm: Yes. My guess
is that because we wanted something done relatively quickly it
was important to gather together knowledge holders and the knowledge
holders are more likely to come from within the MRC.
Q33 Linda Gilroy: How did you consult
the MRC staff and other stakeholders about the changes? How were
they bought into the process?
Sir John Chisholm: I would have
to gather information to answer that question because I was not
actually involved in the study itself. My role was listening to
what they had to say.
Q34 Linda Gilroy: The other MRC members
and Ernst & Young would have been the ones consulting the
staff and stakeholders and you were presented at meetings with
the results of that?
Sir John Chisholm: Yes.
Q35 Linda Gilroy: What feedback did
you get from that part of the process? We have had some evidence
from the MRC five unions hoping for what they refer to, at the
end of their letter, as more open consultation and communication
in the future, which suggests that perhaps they were not entirely
feeling involved in the process of what is a fairly substantial
piece of work.
Sir John Chisholm: The study was
a study by that team. That was then reviewed by the Council and
then the Council decided upon the actions that would follow from
that and that was communicated then to the staff.
Q36 Linda Gilroy: What sort of feedback
have you had from that?
Sir John Chisholm: I cannot say
that the Council has yet reviewed the feedback.
Q37 Linda Gilroy: That has yet to
come but you expect that to be an important part of the process
of shaping the way ahead?
Sir John Chisholm: Necessarily
we need to take staff along with us on all occasions. The chief
executive has since been out on a series of communication exercises
and I would expect at the next Council meeting to get a report
on that.
Q38 Linda Gilroy: One of the key
missions of the MRC is public engagement. That does not seem to
have been part of the strategic review. How do you envisage that
important part of what the Council is committed to taking on about
shaping the way ahead. You describe it very eloquently in how
you see your mission in the written statement that we have from
you. It is a very substantial change in funding with the Cooksey
review involving stakeholders and public engagement. Do you see
that as an important part of what you are trying to re-shape?
Sir John Chisholm: The MRC has
long had a tradition of public engagement and public meetings
and I would certainly expect those to continue. As I have said,
the chief executive has recently been out on a series of public
presentation meetings and that is very much part of what the MRC
does.
Q39 Linda Gilroy: You are using the
word "presentation" rather than "engagement"
and that suggests a one-way process rather than a dialogue. I
do not have experience of MRC public engagement so I do not know
what the historic experience of that is but would you agree that
both in terms of staff and in terms of public engagement there
should be a conversation which enables you to take their views
into account?
Sir John Chisholm: You are quite
right to pull me up on my use of the word "presentation".
I think the chief executive, who isn't here, would probably use
a more felicitous term than I did and say that he was involved
in public engagement and dialogue.
| 
