IAN PEARSON MP AND PROFESSOR SIR KEITH O'NIONS

23 OCTOBER 2007

  Q60  Chris Mole: Coming back to Brian's point, RDAs have had that as an element of their mission since the start of the new millennium. I suspect in Hertfordshire you would find footprints of the RDA in what has happened there. Do you think they are fulfilling that lead role in encouraging technology clusters and links with universities?

  Ian Pearson: RDAs have produced regional innovation strategies for a number of years and again I think their performance has been variable when it comes to the extent that they have worked with universities. There are some very good examples, having said that, and again I think we just have to focus on how we continuously upgrade our performance, and that is about how RDAs themselves can make sure that they fully take into account science and innovation as part of the new regional strategies that they are going to be producing. It is also about universities looking at themselves as well and saying, "Given our chosen mission, what more can we be doing?" It is not about government dictating from the top "you must do this". Universities are independent institutions. We happen to provide them with quite a large sum of money but they make their own decisions, and I think that they can see that it is in their own and the country's interests that they look to work with business wherever appropriate.

  Q61  Chris Mole: To change the subject slightly, the Sainsbury Review also states a belief that significant opportunities are being missed to support innovation in the companies with which the Government does business. I think procurement is the angle that is being thought about particularly. How will you seek to change this as Minister for Science and Innovation?

  Ian Pearson: Sainsbury has a particular recommendation when it comes to the Small Business Research Initiative. When you look at how it operates at the moment, on the figures we actually do quite well, the targets that have been set have been exceeded, and perhaps if Evan were here for this he would hear me say, well, actually I am not sure we have been measuring the right thing, and although we have over-performed here, we were not doing it in the right way! Sainsbury is saying that actually this really does need to focus on innovation and R&D and at the moment it just focuses on whether you are a small business. The proposal there to change it so that it does focus on R&D is going to be a quite a challenging one for us across government. It is a recommendation in the Sainsbury Review that the TSB will lead on this, and I am keen that we discuss with the TSB how we can actually implement this recommendation.

  Q62  Chris Mole: What else has changed in procurement since the introduction of the Sustainable Procurement Action Plan?

  Ian Pearson: We certainly have a new head of the Office of Government Commerce. It is obviously not my area of direct ministerial responsibility, but I think the Sustainable Procurement Action Plan that was launched earlier this year is a major step forward. We have been discussing within government what more we can do on what they call the FPC model, which is about Forward Procurement Commitment. This is the idea that as a Government we say that we are interested in procuring a particular type of good or service which may not exist currently in the market-place, but if you can create one we will want to buy it off you, and a number of people who have looked at this suggest that this could be a good way forward in terms of encouraging innovation across government. At the moment we are currently discussing how we might be able to implement that model across government. There is a lot of work in terms of training and development that is going on as well since the publication of the action plan. Just making sure that we have got skilled procurement professionals right across government is a big challenge. I think it is £150 billion a year that we spend in the public sector on procurement. Making sure that that is spent in the most effective way and making sure that there is the scope for innovative procurement have got to be priorities for us, and it is a huge training issue as well.

  Q63  Chairman: Minister, this Committee was very, very supportive of the Cooksey Review and we are pleased that in the Comprehensive Spending Review arrangements were made to roll out the Cooksey Review and to support it. I wonder if you could tell us who is leading the process of implementation. We have got new bodies being set up—OSCHR obviously, the Translational Medical Funding Board, the Public Health Research Board—three different new organisations; who is pulling all this together so that it does not just become a bureaucratic quagmire?

  Ian Pearson: OSCHR, led by John Bell, is pulling this together. It has been working on setting up the Translational Medicines Board. There has been an interim board of OSCHR and I think recommendations on appointments to the board are going to go to ministers this week.

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: For the independent members.

  Ian Pearson: For the independent members of the board, but good progress overall is actually being made. As part of the CSR settlement, there were additional sums provided for us to be able to implement the Cooksey proposals and we are now getting on with it. I think there are some tremendously exciting opportunities in putting together in a single and co-ordinated way the funding that is being provided by the Medical Research Council and the funding that is being provided by the National Institute for Health Research.

  Q64  Chairman: So the organisation is OSCHR and under John Bell it is pulling those two boards together and that is the reporting mechanism, through OSCHR?

  Ian Pearson: Often with these things the clue is in the title. OSCHR is about strategic co-ordination and that is exactly the role that OSCHR is providing. John Bell will be working closely with the new Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council and their board and with the Department of Health as well.

  Q65  Chairman: Okay. How are you resolving the difficulties of reporting to two different government departments? What strategies have you put in place to actually deal with that?

  Ian Pearson: I will ask Keith to deal with this because Keith is directly involved.

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: I have been there from the beginning, as it were. OSCHR is chaired by John Bell who is the permanent Chairman, but on that board at an official level there is myself, really representing DIUS; and there is Sally Davies representing the Department of Health; then there are the representatives for both the Medical Research Council and the National Institute of Health Research. So in effect all of the connections back to host departments are there at the DG level. There are also three independents, who ministers will get advice on, to be appointed soon. I think that is proving to be very effective. In terms of reporting back and getting two secretaries of state now to agree for example on recommendations for independent members to OSCHR, we just have a rather simple process through the OSCHR office for myself and Sally Davies in Health to submit simultaneously and use the same submissions to ministers. I think it is pretty light touch and no more bureaucratic than it needs to be to do the job with two accounting officers owning the vote.

  Q66  Chairman: Traditionally, Sir Keith, and I think you would perhaps accept this, departments have tended to be silos, and this is a very, very significant initiative where you have got two major departments actually coming together to deliver a really major thrust in terms of health care.

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Absolutely.

  Q67  Chairman: Do you envisage any problems at the secretary of state level? My question really to the Minister is do the secretaries of state actually meet to interface directly over this issue or is it just simply done by officials?

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: We have done so in the past, there has been ministerial contact to get this going. From Ian's point of view, it helps enormously that there are two ring-fenced budgets here. The Medical Research Council budget is ring-fenced as is the NIHR budget for the first time ring-fenced, so that really takes away some of the tensions that may exist between departments where other priorities may intervene.

  Ian Pearson: I will have regular meetings with John Bell. I have met him already since taking over this job as Science Minister. I will also meet with my counterpart in the Department of Health as well.

  Q68  Chairman: Do the three of you ever meet together? Have you ever met together?

  Ian Pearson: We have not yet in the three months so far, but I have got no doubt that we will do in the future.

  Q69  Chairman: It might be a good idea. One of the areas we were concerned about as a Committee was the comments in the Cooksey Report about UK Priority Projects, and there was a concern which the Committee had, on which, to be fair, we received very, very supportive responses from David Cooksey, that in fact the NHS research would dictate the priorities for Medical Research Council research. Have you identified any of those UK Priority Projects yet and, if so, what are they?

  Ian Pearson: Let me say something in general terms and then Keith will say something more on the detail. The first thing I want to do is to put on record the fact that David Cooksey did a terrific job—

  Q70  Chairman: We agree.

  Ian Pearson: —and the issue for us is to get on and implement the recommendations which I think will really enhance our capabilities in this area. The second thing I wanted to say is that when you look at the funding that will be provided in this area through the MRC and NIHR, I think it will be totalling £1.7 billion a year. It is a huge investment that we are making in medical science and we need to make sure that the co-ordination is not just between MRC and NIHR but we that also co-ordinate with the various medical research charities. Around one third of total health research is actually funded through medical charities. Making sure we get all that right is obviously a key overall priority. Do you want to say something Keith?

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions: Yes, going to your question, the Translational Medicine Board which sits beneath OSCHR, is the key board at the moment for putting together joint research programmes between the Medical Research Council and NIHR. It has got currently four working groups in different areas. Just to give you the details. One of them, a joint working group between MRC and NIHR, is on experimental medicine, and it has already been made clear that MRC will have the lead on that. MRC ultimately will have the lead on that whole programme even though it is being contributed to from two sources, and that is quite far advanced in programmatic terms and it is probably not very far away from being published as an experimental medicine programme. There is one on methodology, another one on clinical trials and evaluation, and the clinical trials one is going to be led by NIHR. Then there is a fourth one which is really somewhat behind in terms of maturity, and that is on public health research where there is a Public Health Research Board. There is quite a lot that has been going on well in advance of the CSR settlement. I am very optimistic that this is going to start delivering really quite quickly.

  Chairman: Thank you very much and finally we come to Chris and STEM development.

  Q71  Chris Mole: I think there is a general consensus, Ian, that we need more science and technology, engineering and maths output from the education system coming through into our economy. There seem to be positive shoots, shall we say, at different stages of the education system—a recovery on A level biology, maths and chemistry, although physics still looks concerning. What plans do you have to work closely with your colleagues in the DCSF to further promote STEM at A level?

  Ian Pearson: We work closely at ministerial level. We have regular meetings which will involve Jim Knight, Bill Rammell and myself. There is a clear STEM agenda in terms of the work that we are doing. The Sainsbury Review again makes a number of recommendations in this area that we will be taking forward as a Government. It is good that we have started to see some progress. I think it is too early to judge how much the work we have done has been influencing results, from what we have been doing on the teaching side to what we have been doing in schools. The fact that we have got 250 science and engineering clubs and we are going to double that over the next few years, and I would like to see us go further; the fact that we are pretty close to reaching our target of 18,000 science and engineering ambassadors, who are people mostly in their 20s who are working in industry or the public sector in science and engineering who are going into schools and enthusing our young people about science and engineering and explaining to them the career possibilities; there is lots of good work that is going on at the moment. We need to keep working at it because this is not just a problem in the UK, it is a problem right across Europe as well, and for the United States. It seems to be only China and India that seem to be pumping out vast quantities of scientists and engineers at the moment.

  Q72  Chris Mole: I suppose one could argue about the quality that is coming out and that might be affected by the qualifications of the teachers teaching things like GCSE physics where NFER have told us that only a small proportion of them actually have specialist training. Where do you think current recruitment drives might succeed where previous ones have failed?

  Ian Pearson: I think there are some encouraging signs. We are seeing more people wanting to do maths, chemistry and physics at university level. The most recent figures show that applications are up by around about 10% in each of those areas, and that is good. We have started to see more people entering teacher training: 3,390 last year as opposed to 2,590 in 2000-01, and again that is quite a big difference. I think the £9,000 bursaries and the £5,000 golden hello is really helping to make a difference. It is going to take a bit of time to get this right. There is a small programme as well that is being run at the moment to give teachers time out to do an accredited course, and they will get paid a cash incentive of £5,000 if they get this course and then come back into teaching. DCSF are funding that and they are funding the staff cover while this accredited training goes on. It is a relatively small course but, again, it is trying to address the issue that in particular we do not have enough qualified physics teachers in our schools.

  Q73  Dr Iddon: Last Friday I spent a very pleasurable day sitting in classes where they were teaching 21st Century Science with Jennifer Burden, who is one of the key architects of that new syllabus, and I was full of appreciation not only for the way that the teachers were dealing with the classes but for the enthusiasm of the students in the classes I was sitting in. We talked to teachers and we talked to pupils afterwards, so there is no doubt in my mind that 21st Century Science is beginning to have an impact. In the two schools that we visited there were more people choosing to go into the A level science courses as a result of this new way of teaching—it is brilliant—but the problem is, I am told by the University of York, that there is no money to assess these courses or to monitor the impact that they are having. Would you consider that, please, with your equivalent ministers in the other department responsible?

  Ian Pearson: I am certainly happy to discuss with colleagues in DCSF if there are funding issues related to assessment and evaluation. I have not sat in on a class yet but I would be keen to do so in the future. Certainly from what I have heard this new course is perceived as being a lot more relevant to young people.

  Dr Iddon: If I may say, there are several new courses and I think it is important to try and find out which course is having the maximum impact and perhaps persuade the teaching profession to use the best of these courses rather than all of them, but it is important to use them all now.

  Q74  Chris Mole: Finally, Ian, the Sainsbury Review also refers to the fact that half of all physics teachers leave within five years of starting to teach that subject. Is this a severe problem and is it something that you are planning to address?

  Ian Pearson: Certainly physics teachers is the area where I think there is the biggest problem in our schools. If you look at maths and chemistry, there are certainly issues there, but the problem is worse when it comes to physics. We need to do what we can to recruit and retain and make sure that physics teachers are motivated and want to continue to have a career in education. These people are mobile and they have skills that are in high demand. It is going to be a constant struggle, but I think what we have been trying to do through providing bursaries and providing golden hellos is an appropriate response for us as a Government to try and make sure that we have more qualified physics teachers in our schools

  Q75  Chairman: Investing in teachers and their continuous professional development is absolutely key. Science is fast changing and I wonder if you would like to comment on the science learning centres which were set up by the Government and the Wellcome Trust, particularly the National Centre at York, which are suddenly running into the buffers because the initial funding was there in terms of capital development to set up the centres and in terms of revenue support they now very much depend on schools actually releasing science teachers to go along. The schools have to pay for cover, there is no money available for that, so therefore the numbers of science teachers are declining in going to these centres. It is an incredible waste of a fantastic resource and I wonder if (a) you would comment on that and (b) whether you would do something about it?

  Ian Pearson: I agree that science learning centres provide an important resource for teachers. I personally would want to ensure that they continue to operate effectively. I am not aware that there are big problems when it comes to science learning centres, but I will certainly take away the points that you have made and talk to colleagues in DCSF about it.

  Chairman: Because they are brilliant. With that, could I thank you very much indeed, Ian Pearson MP, Minister of Science, and Professor Sir Keith O'Nions.