Memorandum 3
Submission from Prospect
INTRODUCTION
1. Prospect is a trade union representing
102,000 scientific, technical, managerial and specialist
staff in the Civil Service and related bodies and major companies.
Our members are professionals, managers and specialists across
a diverse range of areas, including agriculture, defence, energy,
environment, heritage, justice and transport. Prospect represents
more professional engineers than any other UK union. Across government
we represent 18,000 engineers, scientists and technical staff.
2. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence
to this inquiry because, despite strong investment by the Government
in the science budget and the high profile given to science and
engineering through the Treasury's ten-year investment framework,
we are concerned that science for the national good is under threat.
In recent years, world-leading UK programmes including research
into breast cancer, agri-engineering and animal diseases have
been closed. Research on the impacts of climate change, pollution
and biodiversity all struggle for funding. The UK's industrial
research base has been decimated. Ninety-seven sites have been
closed, sold or contracted out over the last 20 years. In
Prospect's view there needs to be diversity in the organizations
that perform such workgovernment laboratories, universities,
charity and businessso that no discipline is only supported
by one type of organization. The "contract research"
model is not likely to be sustainable because the contractors
are not driven to identify and pursue winning ideas.
3. Whilst Prospect accepts that priorities
can and do change, we object to the fact that such devastating
decisions have been taken with no central knowledge by government
of the location, functions or specialist expertise it employsand
hence no clarity of what capability is being lost or whether retained
capability will be sufficient to cope with future demands. A significant
example of failure to maintain national technical capacity is
in the nuclear industry. For example, UKAEA used to run a number
of internationally recognised centres of expertise, but this was
curtailed at the time of the 1996 privatisation. Expertise
and documentary records have been irrevocably lost and the current
position is that no UK organisation has the capacity to offer
a candidate design for the next generation of nuclear power stations.
4. This submission builds on our earlier
evidence to the Select Committee's inquiry into "Engineering".[15]
It also draws on Prospect's contribution to the TUC's evidence
to the consultation by the Department of Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills into "A Vision for Science and Society"[16]
and on Prospect's own evidence to the inquiry by the Public Administration
Select Committee into "Good Government".[17]
Our response to the specific issues identified by the Select Committee
is set out in the following paragraphs.
Whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science and
Innovation and the Council for Science and Technology put science
and engineering at the heart of policy-making and whether there
should be a Department for Science
5. In 2006 Prospect published a Charter
for Public Science identifying, among other objectives, the need
for a clear strategic vision for UK science and a Cabinet Minister
with authority and accountability for public sector sciencewith
a similar Ministerial role in the devolved administrations. We
therefore very much welcome the Government's decision to establish
a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science and Innovation and we welcome
the fact that the Science Minister, Lord Drayson, attends Cabinet
meetings. However, more could be done immediately to make sure
that Lord Drayson's Cabinet level role includes cross-cutting
accountability for public science and is not simply to act as
an exponent of science in Cabinet, important though that is.
6. Prospect believes that science and technology
have a crucial role to play in identifying high quality and sustainable
investment opportunities that would help to lead the economy out
of recession. However, the same commitment must extend to funding
for blue-skies work and pure research and development, which must
come from an adequately funded and motivated public sector science
base. Public science must provide a measure of stability to preserve
the UK's technical capacity through short-term fluctuations in
demand. As yet we are unable to judgebecause we have not
seen the evidencewhether the Cabinet Sub-Committee has
succeeded in putting science and engineering at the heart of policy-making.
We hope that it will do so. We certainly believe that, short of
establishing a separate Department for Science, this is the best
opportunity to make science and engineering integral to high-level
policy-making.
7. Prospect does accept that the Government
is trying to improve coherence and coordination between the centre
and individual departments. However there is a deeply embedded
culture in the civil service of departments, headed by competitive
Permanent Secretaries, guarding their own territory. There is
no doubt that this creates real difficulties for effective implementation
of policy areas with cross-government application, such as science
and innovation. There are dangers either of lack of effective
stewardship or policy paralysis, where Departmental Ministers
with differing priorities effectively veto decision-making. There
are also challenges in resolving tensions between the desire for
central co-ordination on some issues whilst delegating responsibility
on others.
How Government formulates science and engineering
policy (strengths and weaknesses of the current system)
8. In Prospect's view, and in line with
the Fulton principles, good policy-making should also be based
on objectivity and impartiality and on Ministerial accountability
through Parliament. It is also crucial in relation to science
and engineering policy to have "intelligent" or informed
customers within government to undertake a range of roles including
identifying whether research needs to be carried out, having knowledge
of capabilities to undertake necessary work, assessing the merits
of alternative contractors, and evaluating the end results. This
range of expertise is unlikely to be found in one person and the
function needs to be properly resourced. Furthermore it can only
be achieved if a close relationship is retained between those
responsible for policy and its execution.
9. Yet Prospect members directly involved are
concerned that, in part due to recruitment difficulties, government's
capacity as an "intelligent customer" of engineering
projects has eroded. There is insufficient technical expertise
both among Senior Civil Service policy and decision makers and
at levels below Chief Scientific Adviser, resulting in increased
use of external consultants without either contextual knowledge
or "corporate memory".
10. Members do report examples where engineering
advice feeds effectively through to policy makers, though often
this is through informal means and dependent upon personal relationships
with colleagues in policy teams. In effect, engineering advice
is "loaned out" through the goodwill of individual engineers
and their managers. Whilst this can work well, the informality
of such arrangements means that consultation does not occur as
a matter of course and so there are likely to be many instances
where policy decisions are made without engineering input. Too
often engineering and scientific advice are called on simply in
times of crisis and, on occasion, to rectify poor quality work
done by external consultants.
11. By contrast, there are examples of good
government in operation. Examples include the Seed Potato Classification
Scheme (SPCS) and the Plant Health Propagation Scheme (PHPS) run
by the Plant Health and Seed Inspectorate in DEFRA. In both cases
European Union and international directives are put into effective
operation by competent technical officials working in close collaboration
with the industry and with scientists to ensure a scheme that
is practical, fair and effective in the interests of industry
and the public.
Whether the views of the science and engineering
community are, or should be, central to the formulation of government
policy, and how the success of any consultation is assessed
12. As outlined above, Prospect would agree
that the science and engineering community should have an effective
voice in the formulation of government policy. Of course, ultimately
it is Ministers that are accountable for decisions but Prospect
believes that more could certainly be done to make the process
of decision-making more open and to consult with the wider community
at a sufficiently early stage to allow for the possibility of
influencing outcomes. For example Prospect has painful experience
of being consulted on how to deal with the consequences of research
closures or transfers rather than having the opportunity to provide
evidence or put forward arguments that could lead to a different
decision.
13. Many Prospect members are also members of
professional scientific and engineering bodies, and Prospect seeks
to work collaboratively with such bodies on projects of common
interest. For example, we have worked with the Institute of Physics
on research funding issues and sponsored events by the Institution
of Engineering and Technologyincluding in support of smart
metering. More broadly, Prospect is involved with initiatives
such as Women into Science, Engineering and Construction (WISE)
and the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and
Technology (UKRC), which provide valuable expertise and resources
to enhance diversity.
14. However, we believe that the Government
also has a cross-cutting responsibility to ensure the nation's
future science and engineering capability. There are currently
pressing challenges to ensure an adequate skills base for the
future, as highlighted in recent work both by the then Department
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform[18]
and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).[19]
Sector Skills Councils are starting to address these challenges,
albeit with varying degrees of success in business environments
that tend to be dominated by short-term concerns. In Prospect's
view, the Commission for Employment and Skills could play a valuable
role in taking this work forward.
The case for a regional science policy (versus
national science policy) and whether the Haldane principle needs
updating
15. Prospect accepts that the debate over
regional science policy is highly charged. Our overriding objective
is to ensure excellent science throughout the UK. However Prospect
members outside the South East have been at the sharp end of policy-decisions
that have had harsh consequences for their work despite its recognised
excellence. More broadly we share the concerns expressed by the
TUC and Universities UK regarding the structuring of research
funds which could concentrate funding into the largest and most
highly rated university units thus exacerbating existing regional
differences in research capacity and performance. If that were
to happen most regions have research areas at risk as would clusters
in engineering, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and
environment. It should also be noted that some disciplines are
enhanced by having a dispersed set of research facilities, for
example research into the natural environment.
16. Although there seems to be little overt Ministerial
support for a regional science policy, we are conscious that the
Government is concerned about future regional economic prospects.
Following on the Manchester Independent Economic Review, being
led by Sir Tom McKillop, the new Regional Economic Council must
surely also have keen interest in regional science and engineering
capability as a basis for addressing recessionary pressures. We
would therefore urge that the Government uses this mechanism to
ensure that it builds on and provide support for regional science
and engineering capability as a cornerstone of new industrial
policy. Ensuring the future skills base will be integral to this
approach.
17. Whilst we recognise the longevity and
enduring value of the Haldane principles, we do now think that
the time is right for them to be updated. For example, there is
a compelling case that earlier engagement by the Director General
of Research Councils in some recent decisions could have widened
the criteria under consideration, promoted greater openness, and
resulted in improved quality of outcomes. It no longer makes sense,
in a global research environment, for government to be at arms'
length from decisions that will impact on UK capability. Neither
does it make sense for decisions that may be of wider consequence
to be entirely devolved to individual organisations or funding
bodies. In practice, decision makers generally occupy multiple
roles and responsibilities. The Government should accept that
this is the case and ensure that it can also exercise strategic
influence without infringing Haldane.
Engaging the public and increasing public confidence
in science and engineering policy
18. Prospect welcomed the Government's consultation
on "A Vision for Science and Society". It is important
for many reasons both to engage the public and to increase public
confidence in science and engineering policy. Too often there
is a disconnect between individual interaction with science and
technology applications and awareness and understanding of the
underlying science and engineering. Further, past attempts to
engage and build confidence have not always been successful and
it is important to learn from experience, for example of the GM
Nation debate. Equally government must resist the temptation to
treat its own scientists either as infallible oracles or scapegoats
for unpopular political decisions. The most recent Foot and Mouth
Disease (FMD) outbreak showed that the public did have a high
degree of trust in the Government's Chief Veterinary Officer at
that time, but were much less confident about statements made
by Ministers.
19. As the TUC's response to the consultation
on "A Vision for Science and Society" pointed out, an
ongoing dialogue will also make it much easier for the public
to understand and engage with changing scientific priorities.
Of course, there can be no public veto over individual scientific
projects. We must continue to rely on experts to advise on the
science that is most beneficial, in both applied science and fundamental
research. But that does not mean that the public has no interest
or that both science and society cannot benefit from greater dialogue.
20. However, a successful process of engagement
should involve more than dialogue with individual citizens. Hundreds
of thousands of trade union members work in science and engineering
based employment, and they should have the opportunity to have
their voice heard through their union. This often does not happen
at the moment. For example, the 2007 TUC Congress carried
two resolutions highlighting important issues on which there has
been little, if any, debate with the relevant unions.[20]
The first, moved by the Society of Radiographers, addressed the
need for realistic and enforceable control of genetic testing
rather than employers and insurance companies relying on self-regulation,
which has the potential for misuse and discrimination in the workplace
and in the wider community. The second resolution, moved by the
National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers,
noted that, whilst developments in technology have improved working
practices, technologies such as mobile phones, e-mails and internet
sites can be used to bully and harass workers, undermining their
health, well-being, confidence, self-esteem and, in some cases,
their career progression.
The role of GO-Science, DIUS and other Government
departments, charities, learned societies, Regional Development
Agencies, industry and other stakeholders in determining UK science
and engineering policy
21. Prospect believes that the Government
Office for Science has an important and significant role to play,
though it is not well resourced to deal with a complex and wide-ranging
engineering community. The initiative by the new Chief Scientific
Adviser to establish a science and engineering community of interest
is very welcome but, in practice, its impact will be limited because
it depends on voluntary self-identification and is limited to
core government departments and agencies. Prospect played an active
role in promoting this initiative to our members, many of whom
had not heard of it from their own employer. Others who wished
to become involved were barred from doing so because they work
outside the core civil service, despite the fact that this is
where much of the government's practical engineering work is undertaken.
In our view the initiative should be extended to include the whole
Government science community.
22. At departmental level Chief Scientific Advisers
and Heads of Science and Engineering Profession tend to be even
less well resourced, and many combine this responsibility with
other professional roles. Prospect did have high hopes that Government
Skills, the Sector Skills Council for central government, would
provide additional support to the network of scientific advisers.
However, it is becoming increasingly evident that Government Skills'
priorities lie elsewhere. This is of particular concern given
that many of the key challenges for government, such as climate
change and defence security, depend crucially on engineering and
technical expertise.
23. Prospect remains concerned that although
the Government has consistently supported the science base through
the Science Budget, this commitment is not always replicated in
departmentsparticularly when their own budgets come under
pressure. For example, the level of core funding for research
institutes leaves many of them highly vulnerable to shifts and
reductions in competitive funding that owe more to short-term
changes in departmental priorities than to the quality of work
being undertaken. Such decisions can have significant implications
for regional capability, and we would certainly hope that the
Government will use its new Regional Economic Council to ensure
that decision-makers are better sighted on the regional dimensions
of science and engineering policy.
24. In similar vein, the announcement in
the Pre Budget Report to once again review the ownership status
of key science bodies, such as the Met Office, appears to be wholly
cost-driven. As well as providing the National Meteorological
Service for the UK, its combined weather and climate change research
and expertise is relied on by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the
Department of Energy and Climate Change and Defra. Privatisation
would denude the Government of this intelligence and impoverish
the UK's contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Prospect finds it incredible that the Government is considering
proceeding with privatisation given that numerous previous investigations
have concluded that the Met Office should be left as a public
service, and at a time when the general economic climate will
fail to provide an adequate return.
How government science and engineering policy
should be scrutinised
25. Over the past five years much effort
has been devoted to various reviews of the governance of Public
Sector Research Establishments (PSREs) in order to attempt to
ensure that they remain fit for purpose in a changing world. In
many cases the status quo has often been confirmed as the optimum
governance model and it is far from clear whether the time, cost
and effort of the reviews has delivered any tangible benefit to
wider society. Indeed, in a small number of cases the governance
changes that have been implemented have arguably weakened the
organisation and thereby the ability of Government to access impartial,
evidence-based advice on nationally important issues.
26. Whilst Prospect recognises the need to regularly
review the governance of public sector science and engineering
to ensure that it meets society's needs, it is our experience
that the current process actually weakens the science and engineering
base rather than strengthening it. We therefore recommend that
there needs to be a period of stability before conducting any
future reviews, which then should be of a light touch in nature.
This, we believe, would allow organisations to consolidate and
plan for a sustainable future and to attract, motivate and develop
science, engineering and technology professionals.
December 2008
15 "Engineering" (March 2008) and "Engineering
in Government" (October 2008). Back
16
"A Vision for Science and Society"-TUC (October 2008) Back
17
"Good Government" (October 2008). Back
18
Energy Skills-Opportunity and Challenge. Back
19
Skills for a Low Carbon Resource Efficient Economy. Back
20
Discussed in TUC policy document "Hybrid Cars and Shooting
Stars" (2008). Back
|