Examination of Witness (Questions 278-279)
Ian Pearson
6 MAY 2008
Q278 Chairman: Minister, welcome.
We very much appreciate your taking time to help us with this
inquiry; it is a very important inquiry that underlies a great
deal of the science that is going on. We are in a little bit of
difficulty—and I will just be upfront about this—that
clearly one of the things that keep coming up is the fact that
the area of systematics and taxonomy is spread across government,
so more than one department has a clear interest and indeed, we
believe, responsibility. We had rather hoped that there might
be representatives from other departments here but in one case
the representatives suggested that there was nothing further to
be said from Defra, and one of the questions I will ask is about
splits of responsibility between, say, your department and Defra.
So we are in a little bit of difficulty on that. We also understand
that you may have been provided with written answers to read out
to some of these questions. I think that would be wasting your
time and ours.
Ian Pearson: I was not intending to do that.
Q279 Chairman: Good because clearly
it is the follow-up and the discussion that lets us move on. But
your presence here is much appreciated and your department has
significant responsibilities and is indeed making a significant
contribution. May I then begin—and we will move round the
table as we have a number of questions. Taxonomy and the funding
for it is, as I have just suggested, dispersed. The leading institutions
receive grant-in-aid from more than one department including,
clearly, your own. What we would like to discuss a little with
your help is what manner of responsibility there is for taking
a strategic overview. Whose responsibility should that be? What
are the kinds of interchange between departments? How far is the
liaison such that things will not fall between the cracks, and
so on? And ought there to be a single lead department?
Ian Pearson: Firstly, thank you very much for
the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I think that this
inquiry can be very valuable to us as a government because it
is an area where I know that you have done work in the past, and
you had Baroness Walmsley's report previously and we have seen
some action from the BBSRC and from the NERC as a result of that.
Obviously the Committee thinks that there are issues that remain
unresolved which is why it is conducting this inquiry, and I will
be very interested to see your conclusions when they are complete.
In terms of overall responsibilities, as you will appreciate and
has been given in evidence already to you, DCMS, Defra and DIUS
take responsibility for areas which fall within each of our remits
and there is a clear relationship between government through DIUS,
through to our Research Councils when it comes to providing funding
in the field of systematics and taxonomy. I suppose my answer
to you is that we have a collective responsibility here as government
departments, as a government for ensuring that this area is paid
sufficient attention. As you will be very well aware—perhaps
far more than I—from reading some of the background briefing
before this meeting today I was reading about the coordination
that takes place through the Biodiversity Research Action Group,
through the Global Biodiversity Sub-committee, and also how the
Environment Research Funders' Forum works. That brings together
a range of different organisations of those with an interest in
this area and does provide coordination.
|
