MALCOLM WICKS MP

21 MARCH 2007

  Q1 Chairman: Good morning. We welcome today the Minister for Science Malcolm Wicks. Thank you for coming to this, the first of our formal sessions since you became the Minister for Science. The usual procedure, Minister, is that I will read out the first of the questions of which you have been informed, you will make a brief response and then the Committee will come in with questions. We are tight on time and we will give about ten minutes to each of the questions. What are the implications for the ring-fencing of the science budget, following the recent reductions in the end-of-year flexibility for the Research Councils?

  Malcolm Wicks: Let me read the answer to get it on the record accurately. The spring supplementary estimates reallocated £98 million of underspend in the science budget to the DTI's other high priority areas because of pressures that I could describe. After that transfer, the science budget remains ring-fenced. The annual allocation to the science budget made at the time of the last spending review, including for 2007-08, is unchanged. We have sought to minimise the impact of the reduction in end-year flexibility on science budget objectives. The Research Councils are only bearing £68 million of the £98 million reduction, even though they receive the bulk of science budget funding. The Government's long-term commitment to investing in science and innovation, I want to emphasise, remains secure, and we stand by the commitment made in the ten-year Science and Innovation Framework.

  Q2  Dr Turner: Minister, you have to admit that this move gives ring-fencing a new name. Clearly, it is ring-fencing, except that it is convenient to go dipping into these budgets—which is described as "collecting underspends". The Research Councils do not regard them as underspends. As far as they are concerned that was money that they had committed. It had distinct spending tags on it. What reassurance can you give to the Research Councils that something like this will not happen in future to disrupt their spending plans?

  Malcolm Wicks: Obviously the background to this is that the DTI has been under some serious financial pressure because of events far away from science. With MG Rover, it was important that we did our best to take action there. Also, the unfortunately named WEE Directive on waste electrical and electronic goods involved some extra expenditure. And so on. The DTI, like any other organisation, has to balance its budget. Unfortunately—and it is unfortunate—we have had to make this small adjustment to the science budget. They are the facts of the matters. These are underspends, but I do not want to overemphasise that. Organisations need some end-of-year flexibility and this will make an impact. I would urge the Committee and the Research Councils as well to try to put it in context, the context of us more than doubling, as you know, the funding for science since 1997—I think it was an increase of 105% in fact—and the fact that this coming year the funding for science will be more than for the current year. These reductions on end-of-year funding represent approximately 1% of funding during this three-year period.

  Q3  Dr Turner: It will inevitably mean, however, that a lot of good science, very good science, will not be funded as a result of this measure. It sits ill with the Government's rightful and proud claim to have doubled science budgets—admittedly starting in 1997 from an appallingly low base. We are still not at the kind of levels that we would really like to aim for, so it sends out the most awful message to the science community, do you not agree? Can you do anything to reassure them for the future?

  Malcolm Wicks: I have tried to give some reassurance already. My judgment about this is that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating or in the spending. The Jeremiah's will be there but I think not only the past track record but the future track record will demonstrate very ably this Government's commitment, including financial commitment, to science and innovation. Yes, it is for the Research Councils now to decide on their budgets and their allocations. There will be some discomfort. I am not trying to minimise that. I wish we were not here, but in the real world our department had to balance its budgets. We had enormous pressures from rescuing British Energy some years ago: nothing to do with science, but we are in one department and we had to do that. I would still emphasise the fact that the funding record is a very good one and I think will be a very good one in the future.

  Q4  Dr Harris: You recognise that this is a breach for the first time of the principle of the ring-fencing of these budgets. Can you give an assurance that this will never happen again in future years? Or, alternatively, is the perception that there is ring-fencing and that they are protected not something you can guarantee now?

  Malcolm Wicks: The principle of the ring-fence is a very important one and personally I feel confident about the future. I can see why you asked that question.

  Q5  Dr Harris: I am not asking you about your state of confidence. Research Councils have asked us to ask you whether this might happen again, regardless of your confidence, or whether this is a one-off and it will never happen again.

  Malcolm Wicks: I can guarantee that this Government—and I cannot speak for any future ones that might occur—remains very committed to funding the science partnership adequately. I suppose it would be slightly absurd to say "Never, ever" but I cannot foresee that situation. This has been an unusual episode that we have gone through.

  Q6  Chairman: Minister, are you aware of any area of science within the Research Councils where cuts will be effected? Are you aware of any of the cuts that will be made? Can you cite a particular example of a piece of research?

  Malcolm Wicks: No, I cannot. This will be for the Research Councils to determine. It is not for me.

  Q7  Chairman: So you do not know what the effect is of this reduction of £68 million.

  Malcolm Wicks: I doubt if some of the Research Councils yet know the detailed impact.

  Q8  Dr Harris: The EPSRC have said that they will not be able to award £40 million in grants. This is an area which is recognised as a shortage subject, so this, I would say, is quite critical and I would be interested in your view. The £29 million will be found by withdrawal of support for specific aspects of a number of schemes, including to Diamond, and the cancellation of schemes to generate ideas for new research projects and the cancellation of additional equipment for nanotechnology. Other Research Councils have said what they are planning to do as well. BBSRC say they will not meet their delivery plan for a 4% annual increase in responsive mode grant awards. They have told us that. Have they not told you?

  Malcolm Wicks: I think I have seen some press notices, yes, but the Research Councils are still determining this. If you reallocate £98 million of underspends away, there will be impacts, of course. If you are seeking to demonstrate through the Research Councils' press notices or whatever that there will be impacts, then of course there will be impacts. That is clear.

  Q9  Chairman: We have asked the Research Councils what will be the impact. It appears you have not, Minister. That is the point. That seems to me strange, that you do not know what the effect will be.

  Malcolm Wicks: Obviously we are in discussions with the Research Councils. I have seen one or two notices from them but I have not yet seen any detailed assessment. My understanding is that some of the Research Councils, understandably—and it is not a criticism—are still assessing the impact.

  Q10  Dr Harris: You have explained that you cannot guarantee that this breach of the ring-fence will not happen in the future and, arguably, there could always be another MG Rover type issue you have to deal with as a political priority in the DTI. Do you recognise at least that this is an argument for taking these ring-fenced budgets out of the DTI (to take them away from those British Energy/MG Rover political crises that you may be faced with) and putting them as ring-fenced in another department?

  Malcolm Wicks: When I say I cannot guarantee, I think that is an honest, logical answer. It is a straightforward assessment, I think, but I do not want that confused with the Government's determination to fund adequately science and innovation in the future as we have very adequately funded it in the past. On your second question, as to how we slice the cake of governance—which always excites politicians, I know—it will be a matter for other people if they wish to revisit the restructuring that affects my department, the DTI. I think it would be foolish to think that just by departmental reorganisations you can guarantee these things. The most important guarantee is our record to date and I emphasise the fact that, over the three-year spending period, this financial adjustment is 1% of the budget. Now, 1% is 1%. I have said there will be impacts. I am not trying to minimise that. I regret the impacts, it is an uncomfortable situation, but the guarantee is what we have done in the past and, I believe, in future years when this Committee looks back, what we will do in the future.

  Q11  Dr Turner: The import of what you have told us is that these cuts were made presumably by looking in budgets and saying, "There's £30 million there that has not gone out yet," without finding out what the impact of those cuts would be. We have that impact very clearly spelt out by the Research Councils and it is very serious. It does seem strange that you should cut first and ask questions later.

  Malcolm Wicks: Questions were asked before. There was some dialogue between officials and the Research Councils.

  Q12  Dr Turner: Can you illuminate that further?

  Malcolm Wicks: Not much further. There was some discussion about the potentiality here and the difficulties that Research Councils might face, of course there was, but it does not negate the fact that at the end of the day the judgment was made, understandably, that the Department had to balance its budget.

  Q13  Chairman: I think we will move on, Minister, but could we put on record our concern, as the Committee which is here to protect the science base. There is a real disquiet that these cuts were made and that the principle of breaking into the ring-fence is something we hope would not occur in the future. We will put that on record.

  Malcolm Wicks: Before we move on, Chairman, may I say that this financial year, 2006-07, we will be spending £144 million more on the previous year and in 2007-08 we will be spending £217 million more than the previous year. The increase in the funding for science is maintained.

  Q14  Dr Harris: Is that after netting off the £68 million? Or is that ignoring the £68 million negative in that positive?

  Malcolm Wicks: It is having netted it off, but let me be careful about that and promise to send a note to the Select Committee on those figures. I think that is the best way to deal with detailed figures.

  Q15  Chairman: Moving on to our second area: What assessment has the OSI made of the effectiveness of 21st century science GCSE in engaging students in science and increasing the take-up of science at A level?

  Malcolm Wicks: It is obviously a development we are looking at with great interest. As you know, Chairman, it is very early days for this. I think it is the first academic year that we are now experiencing. It is obviously very important that we and the DfES, as they will, monitor and in due course evaluate this. When I look at this, I think there is a difficult balance to strike. On the one hand there is clearly a need to interest, indeed to excite more children in science. My judgment would be that in the past the curriculum was not achieving that objective for as many children as required, so I think by trying to talk to children about the sheer importance of science, by talking about climate change and global warming, for example, or space research—something that will interest children—and doing appropriate projects is very, very important. On the other hand, we need to make sure that, out of that interest, sufficient cohorts of children go through to study science in detail, in depth, academically, scientifically, so that some of them can go on to A levels and to university. I think we are all interested in how we get that balance right. I hear voices on both sides expressing interest and concern. Our monitoring of it with DfES is trying to see whether we get that balance right in the future.

  Q16  Dr Iddon: What discussions have your officials in OSI had with officials in DfES over this particular syllabus which one in five schools has undertaken this year?

  Malcolm Wicks: Officials are in close contact on this. We are very heavily engaged. Obviously we are not the Department for Education, but we are very heavily engaged. Indeed at ministerial level I have at least quarterly meetings with education ministers about science and technology and related subjects. We are really quite heavily engaged.

  Q17  Dr Iddon: Have you seen the evaluation report that is causing controversy in the press at the moment?

  Malcolm Wicks: Which one is this?

  Dr Iddon: The 21st Century syllabus evaluation report.

  Q18  Chairman: The 21st Century Science pilot evaluation report.

  Malcolm Wicks: I have only heard about it second-hand. I have not yet had a chance to study it.

  Q19  Dr Iddon: Do you agree with me that the disappointment is that the press seem to be knocking the whole of 21st Century courses on the basis of that evaluation report, which was only an evaluation of the core subject syllabus, when in fact there are a number of other syllabi available and the 21st Century Science project directors have no more money available to evaluate the rest of their courses. Would you take that point up and see whether we can evaluate the whole of 21st Century Science and any of these new innovations to teach science, perhaps with the DfES colleagues?

  Malcolm Wicks: Certainly DfES will hear your remarks. I will discuss the matter myself with colleagues at DfES. It is very important, given the balances that we need to strike, as I have put it, that there is proper monitoring and evaluation, of course.