3 Funding the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew
20. In April 2014, The Guardian and several other
news outlets reported that a reduction in grant-in-aid from Defra
would contribute to the loss of 125 jobs at Kew and potentially
threaten its ongoing status as a leading research institution.
According to the Guardian:
the cuts were approved against the advice of
consultants for Defra, who told ministers in 2010 that Kew would
lose its world class status and see its research decline below
a critical level if its operating grant was not maintained from
2012 onwards.[14]
21. Kew confirmed in May 2014 that it faced a £5m
"hole" in its 2014/15 budget "as a result of unavoidable
rising costs, and reduced operating budget funding from Government
and our charitable partner, the Kew Foundation".[15]
Evidence from the trade unions at Kew highlighted that the "unexpected
removal of Defra 2014-15 funding for several 'in-flight' capital
projects added further financial burdens, as staff previously
seconded to these projects reverted to revenue budget adding £500K
of unexpected annual expense".[16]
The management of this shortfall has been complicated by two interventions
by the Government, one in September 2014 when the Deputy Prime
Minister announced an additional £1.5 million and then again,
when, the day before we held our evidence session, a further £2.3
million was announced.[17]
Evidence of how poor communication was, with regard to ad hoc
funding, was demonstrated as the Minister, when pressed, admitted
even he had no foreknowledge that it would be forthcoming.[18]
22. Richard Deverell, the current Director of Kew,
explained that:
a number of factors came together. When we were
putting to bed the budget for the current financial year in January
and February of this year, we had to consider a number of changes.
The first was that funding from DEFRA had fallen. […] Secondly,
for a number of years Kew had received a growing grant from its
philanthropic arm…but they had, in effect, been handing over
more money to Kew than they could sustain and their reserves had
been depleted. They…had to reduce the grant that they were
giving Kew. Thirdly, some costs, of course, rise. Staff costs
rise, pension costs rise and utility costs rise. Those three things
together added up to this hole of about £5.5 million, which
is about a 12% hole in our total budget.[19]
23. He explained that the additional funds announced
by the Deputy Prime Minister had not changed the management strategy
"because it would have delayed the issue rather than avoided
it. This additional funding is for one year only".[20]
Both Professor Kathy Willis, head of science at Kew, and Richard
Deverell were confident that Kew would be able to fulfil its functions
in science and as both a public amenity and a World Heritage Site
but Professor Willis told us that "We are now at the bones;
we can't go back".[21]
Richard Deverell expanded on that "I would further stress
that if there was an equivalent reduction in Kew's resources,
for whatever reason in future years, we would face some extremely
unpalatable decisions, and they would have to include closing
the garden for part of the year and they would have to include
considering closing the schools' programme".[22]
24. Richard Deverell indicated to us that the strategy
adopted by management would not just reduce current costs but
"most of the changes we are implementing this year at Kew
are to do with making Kew fit for purpose and effective in the
21st century[23]…
I stood up in staff meetings in February and said that we would
need to make significant changes in restructuring across the whole
of Kew irrespective of the funding. We would be doing this even
if our funding was rising".[24]
Relationship with government
25. Professor Georgina Mace of the Royal Society
(and the chair of the most recent review of science at Kew) told
us "One of the things that our review found was that DEFRA
was not terribly clear with Kew about what they wanted for the
funding. They were clearly proud of Kew as a jewel in the crown
but were not very clear about what they expected for the money.
It was a rather overcomplicated funding relationship—a continual
to and fro about what money was wanted for what" .[25]
26. Richard Deverell also expressed some frustration
with the funding process.
This year nearly half of our total funding comes
in the form of unrestricted income. You have to bid for that each
year. You do not know whether you will get it next year or not.
It also means, in effect, that our colleagues in DEFRA rather
than at Kew are deciding whether a path is restored or a bit of
science equipment is bought and so on. It seems to me, as Sir
Neil Chalmers said, that those are decisions best made by people
within Kew. It is not the funding model enjoyed by the Natural
History Museum. They received £44 million this year, and
96% of that is unrestricted. They have the freedom to choose how
that money is spent and they are held to account properly on how
they spend that money.[26]
27. The Minister, Lord de Mauley, was supportive
of the current management restructuring at Kew, indicating that
it had "the full backing of Ministers".[27]
He expected the forthcoming triennial review of Kew to address
the issue of "long-term" confidence. He did not accept
that the Government was failing to provide funding and indeed
indicated that "the level of funding has been historically
relatively high and relatively consistent, although I absolutely
acknowledge the concerns that management have voiced".[28]
28. We were impressed by the current management
at Kew who appear to be competent to manage both the scientific
and financial challenges currently facing the organisation. However,
we are disappointed that the restructuring of the organisation,
and the resultant job losses, have occurred before any clear science
strategy was published. The strategy is long overdue and its absence
is likely to have exacerbated concerns about how the loss of staff
would impact Kew's ability to continue contributing to fundamental
botanical and mycological science.
29. We are convinced that the current pace of
change is a consequence of how Kew is funded by the Government.
Management has had to implement cost cutting measures more quickly
than its strategy may have required to ensure the organisations
ongoing financial security. The additional funds found by the
Government at the last minute, had they been made available much
earlier, may have allowed management to assure staff and outside
observers about the security of Kew's fundamental science capabilities
prior to losing staff.
30. We consider the
current financial arrangements for funding to be a recipe for
failure. Tactical, short term funding, will not encourage strategic,
long term thinking in management or science. We note that the
Government signs off on a five year rolling management plan for
Kew but does not, at that time allocate funds to support that
plan. We therefore recommend that the Government writes to
our successor Committee to provide an update on how funding will
be changed to provide longer term security to both the management
of Kew and its contribution to world class science.
31. We agree with Richard Deverell that Kew suffers
by comparison to the Natural History Museum with respect to its
ability to adapt its spending to its immediate priorities. We
recommend that the Government ensures that future funding to Kew
has a far greater proportion that is unrestricted. The forthcoming
triennial review of Kew should provide an opportunity to consider
whether Kew's funding should be more consistent with that of the
Natural History Museum. We would expect that the triennial review
teams for Kew and the Natural History Museum work closely to ensure
more consistency of treatment.
14 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/24/budget-cuts-threaten-kew-gardens-world-class-status Back
15
http://www.kew.org/about/press-media/press-releases/financial-challenges-kew-update Back
16
KEW 042 Back
17
http://www.kew.org/discover/news/deputy-prime-minister-commits-over-2-million-support-kew Back
18
Qq 84-85 Back
19
Q40 Back
20
Q43 Back
21
Q48 Back
22
Q76 Back
23
Q44 Back
24
Q73 Back
25
Q25 Back
26
Q58 Back
27
Q115 Back
28
Q87 Back
|
