Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-284)
RT HON
JOHN DENHAM
MP AND MR
STEPHEN MARSTON
20 MAY 2009
Q280 Dr Iddon: Thank you. On the
question of reimbursement of costs for the colleges that have
been stalled and are not likely to get approval in detail, can
you give those colleges some assurance as to when they might be
reimbursed at this stage?
Mr Denham: The LSC are looking
actively at how that should be handled. We have already made,
I think, the most important initial commitment that no college
will go bust or go under because of the commitments that they
have entered into. I cannot today say exactly how we will respond
to all of the many different colleges which are in many different
circumstances and have taken different actions, but we will stick
to that initial commitment we gave. I know the LSC will want to
develop its approach for those colleges as swiftly as possible,
but, I think, if we can send a message out about the security
of the colleges' position at the moment, that is a critical thing
to have done at this stage.
Dr Iddon: Finally, I want to pick up
Graham's point about need. I must declare an interest. It is not
all bad news. We are having all our three colleges replaced and
one is open and has proved highly successful.
Chairman: It is always the same, Secretary
of State.
Q281 Dr Iddon: My concern is, if
we have not looked across the whole of the estate, I know that
colleges are autonomous, but there must be some colleges in areas
of high need where, for one reason or another, the principal is
not thrusting, the management is not thrusting enough, they have
not even hit the radar screen yet. Does the LSC have some idea
of the condition of the estate outside those that have come into
the demand system?
Mr Denham: I am glad you recognised
the investment has taken place, because I sometimes feel it is
a debate that, although we know that there have been 700 schemes
in 330 colleges, you can never find them, but they are there and
they are very, very good by and large. Let us be honest about
where we are at the moment. We have schemes in a pipeline some
of which are in an advanced stage of development and in a position
to go ahead, and we have some money which is for this spending
review period and for the next few years. In an ideal world, given
where we are, you would stop the clock, go back and do a zero-based
system of prioritisation, but I think that is just not a possible
thing to do. We would end up not spending anything probably for
the next two or three years while you did that exercise. I think
the honest answer is that for the immediate period we are going
to have to work as fairly and transparently as we can on those
schemes that we know about in the pipeline which are at an advanced
stage of development. What we do want to do is to look into the
next spending review period and beyond at how a system which more
effectively prioritises people's place in the pipeline can be
applied, and I think that is something the college sector as a
whole would like us to be able to do, but I think we are going
to have to move from where we are to that; we cannot just stop
the clock and start again.
Q282 Mr Marsden: Secretary of State,
that is understood, and obviously, as one of those who have a
college in the pipeline, I would be very interested to see the
regeneration and other criteria that come forward, but, again,
for the future and the future structure, when you acquire your
new permanent secretary, will it be one of your key instructions,
discussions, or whatever, to make sure that in future the forward
looking nature of things, the risk assessment and the proactive
aspects of the organisation in DIUS, are stronger than they have
been apparently in this case?
Mr Denham: Yes, they will. As
you know, Sir Jon Shortridge starts as the Acting Permanent Secretary
on Tuesday next week, and as an Acting Permanent Secretary I do
not expect him to make big structural changes. I think we will
start from the very beginning for him to come in as a very experienced
senior civil servant to look at what we have in place and the
way the board works and to make sure that we are taking the measures
that we can now to strengthen or to address any issues within
our structure so that when the new Permanent Secretary takes up
post—they have not yet been appointed so we have not got
a date for that—we have addressed the more obvious issues
that need to be addressed.
Mr Marsden: I am sure, Chairman, we will
look forward to interviewing the new Permanent Secretary.
Q283 Chairman: We certainly will.
Secretary of State, I did give you notice that I would like to
ask you a question about the science budget allocation letters.
Just for the record, I have let you know that. We accept that
you are not going to publish them, but the reason we want to see
them is that there is a suggestion that the Government is taking
an overly prescriptive role in determining the way the Research
Council spend their money. Given the fact that the Osmotherly
Rules state, July 2005, that the Government is committed to being
as open and as helpful as possible with select committees and
that, indeed, during your time as a select committee chairman
you received from Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary, papers
which were very sensitive but were relevant to a committee inquiry,
could you give us an explanation as to why you are digging your
heels in and not allowing the committee to have those on a confidential,
not to publish, basis, and will you reconsider?
Mr Denham: Chairman, I would never
refuse a request from you to reconsider, so I promise you I will
go away and look at it again. The view that I have taken up to
now is that it does raise a precedent for the release of papers
which were intended to be confidential which I am concerned about.
I would say two things. I will go and consider it again, because
you have raised it with me quite fairly. I would also say to you,
Chairman, this may come as a surprise to my officials, but as
we look forward to the next allocation process, which we have
already discussed with you as to ways in which we can make that
more consultative, perhaps we can find a way which avoids this
situation happening again.
Q284 Chairman: When Peter Hain came
before the Liaison Committee he made it clear to all the chairs
of the select committees that there should be a presumption for
disclosure of documents, and I am grateful to you for reconsidering
that. This is not an attempt to trap the Secretary of State—I
am sure there is absolutely nothing in these innocuous documents—but
we would like to see them to complete that piece of the inquiry.
Thank you very much indeed.
Mr Denham: Thank you, Chairman.
|
