MR ED WALLIS

25 APRIL 2007

  Q1 Chairman: Good morning. This is a one-off session for Mr Ed Wallis, Chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council. Good morning, Mr Wallis.

  Mr Wallis: Good morning.

  Q2  Chairman: Why did you want to be the Chair of NERC?

  Mr Wallis: I did not sit there hoping somebody would ask me to be the Chair, but, when I was telephoned—if I may joke to make a point—this lady said, "Would you like your name to go forward to be the Chair of NERC?" and there was a long pause. She obviously realised it was taking me a little bit of time to work out what NERC was and she said "They're the people who do the climate change" so I said, "If that's what they do, my name can go forward." It is just a very exciting thing to do and a worthwhile thing to do.

  Q3  Chairman: As an engineer, do you think that prepared you for that role?

  Mr Wallis: I am not a scientist but I think being an engineer does prepare me. In a number of the experiences I have had—in the old power industry, in Powergen, in Lucas Varity and, indeed, with Atkins too, of which I am also Chairman—it does help a lot. I am not put off by technical things, I enjoy technical things, and of course you learn a great deal about management. There is a great deal about management in this and I think that is probably where I can make a real contribution.

  Q4  Chairman: What do you see as your personal mission with the organisation over the next four or five years?

  Mr Wallis: Basically, when you walk into an organisation you tend to look to see how good it is and how focused it is. You look for the strategy, you look for the business planning and financial control, you look for some process which gives you deliverables, you look for effective, competent people and you look for efficient operation. I have to say I was very impressed by what Professor Alan Thorpe is doing, because he is developing—and I am doing what I can to help him—a new strategy which you will be aware of. The consultation is very extensive. That is just the way to go. Out of that will come a series of theme leaders in these very complex areas, and out of that also will come a financial allocation, budgeting and business management process[1]. Once you start to quantify things like that, you get focus and you can measure what you do, so we can come back to you, hopefully, in due course and say, "We were given this money. This is what we have done; this is how effective we have been." Prior to Alan, I do not think that was really quite possible. The question was what my job is and I think it is to try to give Alan every support I can. He is in the early stages of putting in exactly the right processes, which is just my sort of background, and I will do everything I can to make sure he is successful in doing that. If I can do that, I am sure, as time goes on, other things will come to the fore, but that is very much at the fore at the moment. Also lost in that at the moment, inevitably, is just how well we cooperate and work with others in government, for example Defra and so on. I have little to say on that at the moment because it is really too early days for me. As part of the process of developing and defining the strategy, that will come out in the wash, so to speak. That is another key issue.

  Q5 Chairman: Would you describe it as an effective organisation at the moment?

  Mr Wallis: I think it is rapidly becoming an effective organisation. It would be quite wrong for me to say that in the past it was not an effective organisation, of course, but I think in the past they would have had great difficulty in saying that it is all right to do—as they call it—alpha 5 science, but which bit of science are you doing and is that the bit of science you should be doing? Do you develop the results? Are there deliverables there? I do not think they could really do that. If we get this process right I do believe we can, and that is a big step forward.

  Q6  Chairman: How much time do you spend on this role? You are a very busy man.

  Mr Wallis: I am not as busy probably as it appears. I will give them all the time they need of me. Basically, I suppose, I give them one and a half/two days a week. Fundamentally, there are seven to eight meetings a year, but, beyond that, you need to go to Swindon, you need to understand the subject. It is very important that you, as they say, go round kicking the tyres, so I really need to visit all the centres. I think I should get to know some of the universities better. Plenty of time can be spent very usefully on doing that because that would enable me to be a better Chairman, I think. So I would say two/two and a half days a week.

  Q7  Chairman: You have been the Chairman of some very, very big organisations in periods of significant change. Does NERC live up to expectations?

  Mr Wallis: I think that is a good test. I have sat down and spoken to all the chief officers and I think the HR side was probably more illuminating than any: Are there human relations practices and processes? Do we think in terms of managing and organising our people efficiently? There is a tendency to think these sorts of organisations are miles behind the quoted organisations. They are different but they generally are not miles behind. I found it in pretty good heart, in a pretty good state. The reorganisation of CEH is an example of an organisation like that, recognising—which you probably would not expect it to do—that it was sub-optimally organised, and going through quite a lot of pain to get it organised. Even some private sector businesses are not very good at that. When I looked at how that had been done—and I know there has been pain, I know there has been comment and criticism about that—I thought it was pretty well done. At least it is being tackled and we are now quite close to delivering it, and that is a big step forward. I think there are things that can be improved but it is not in bad shape.

  Q8  Chris Mole: The draft strategy plan 2007-2012 that NERC has was underway when you got there. Do you feel you have come a bit late to that?

  Mr Wallis: Maybe. When you think of its structure: seven themes, trying to focus on what needs to be delivered in each of those theme areas—not forgetting, of course, technology, which could be an eighth theme area[2]. If I had had my imprimatur on it there would have been eight themes and that would have been one. It is not truly a theme but you cannot go very far without the right technology. In the way it has been done and organised and the extensive consultation, I do not think I would have changed it or improved it very much. Had it been there, I would have said, "Terrific. That is what I would expect". Had it not been there, I would have put a lot of pressure on to get it put there. Maybe I am too late. I do not think it is very much of a lesser document because of that.

  Q9 Chris Mole: What is coming out of the consultation? Is there anything which you think might change those seven themes?

  Mr Wallis: Not that I am aware of. Of course it is early. The consultation has only just ceased. There are a lot of inputs. We are taking care to deal with those very carefully and very properly, so we will have to see. I have not heard of any comment yet. I was with the Director of Science and Innovation on Monday and certainly he did not indicate anything that significant.

  Q10  Chris Mole: When will you publish it?

  Mr Wallis: The term is the autumn. The other answer is as soon as possible in the autumn. If the document is going to have credibility, this consultation is very important. It is very easy for consultation to take all the comments, ignore them and say "Right, we've done it." I think we need to take time to weigh the various issues, get the adjustments made, get it right and get it out as soon as we can, taking that into account. If the people who have contributed do not believe we have done that, then the document is not credible before it is started.

  Q11  Chris Mole: The next trick is getting the organisation to deliver what is in the strategy. Will this be a fundamental change to the way NERC funds its research?

  Mr Wallis: Undoubtedly it will have quite a significant impact in some areas, because there are some areas which are fairly independent, do their own thing, do not compete very effectively for the funding, and it is going to throw that up. We are getting complaints from such people already, so you could say it is working already because if such people moan then you are changing something. The theme leaders have been tried in various forms before. There is concern about whether the theme leaders will be effective or not. That is a concern, but we have some very good applicants for them, both from within the research centres in universities and in the outside world, therefore I think we feel reasonably confident at this stage that we will get some good theme leaders. With them working with SISB . . . Ed Jenner has done an excellent job, but Ed goes very soon now, his term is up. Provided we can get a good Chairman of SISB, then it is almost like a fresh start. With the strategy and the structure and FAB as well, which will discipline and structure it even more, then I think we can say two things which I think you always ought to be able to say; that is, "My effort is going into the strategic priority list in that order, so we are doing the right things"—it is not just a matter of doing science, it is doing the right science—"and we have the means of measuring what the deliverables are." If we can get to that stage, even if it is faulted at first and it is a bit crude at first, I think that could be a very significant step forward.

  Q12  Chris Mole: Tell us a bit more about FAB. What are the main changes you think will flow through from that?

  Mr Wallis: FAB, when it was originally conceived, was about financial allocation and budgeting. It seems as if it is not a very significant step. It seems as if it is a financial controlling step—which is vitally important, of course, but it has really moved on to be more than that. It is still that but it also adds now two other aspects to it. It has really become a business planning tool and it is a business planning tool in which this accountability and the deliverables "Have you delivered?" can be measured. I think FAB is just as crucial as the strategy. Neither can be effective without the other. As I say, it has been extended in what it will do, and I think that is right and I think that is going well. That, again, is just at a juncture where we have done a lot of consultation and we are ready to move on to the next phase. These things are still in our vision. They are not there and working and will be a little while yet, but I think by the end of the year we could be in a very good position on both of them.

  Q13  Dr Iddon: You have four research centres and you also invest in universities. Do you think we have the balance right in the investment in those two main prongs of your work?

  Mr Wallis: I recognise it is a very important problem. I think we are better than we were. I have only chaired two council meetings and nobody has complained that we aren't. Nobody has come up to me and said, "You've got to make sure it's going that way instead of the other way."

  Q14  Chairman: Not even the Government?

  Mr Wallis: No, not actually. I am sure there may well be a time when they will do that.

  Q15  Chairman: We have just looked at that as an issue, which is why we have raised it with you.

  Mr Wallis: I think the problem is, Mr Willis, that I am so new in house that in three months it is not long enough. Going back to the FAB situation with regard to, say, BAS, there would be areas of their work in the Antarctic where, yes, of course, they run the resources, the logistics, the ships, but when it comes down to the science they will have to compete against universities for the work which is done and the funding which is allocated. So I think this process will further redress the balance. I am not really sure which way it needs to go but I think we need a much fairer and effective process. If we can do that, I think that is progress.

  Q16  Dr Iddon: Quite a lot of the work the four research centres do—and I have visited the Proudman, which is the smallest of the four research centres—seems to be observation rather than pure blue skies research. Do you think that NERC is doing enough of the latter?

  Mr Wallis: Some say it is not, and of course we are increasing the amount that we allocate to that, but we have to acknowledge that all sorts of things have been hung on NERC over the years. In the last meeting we had, a guy came down from Aberdeen University to report on the seal count, which is very important. You probably would not expect it to be there but it has to be there somewhere, so it was treated properly and professionally and on his way he went. I think there is a whole spectrum of things we must do. In terms of the balance, we are increasing it. Again I think it is a little bit too early for me to say whether we think the balance is right. One of the great things about the strategy and FAB is that it gives somebody at the centre, like me, the opportunity to look at the structure of objectives and priorities to which we are allocating our funding. I am told that in the past that was not really possible. It was a sort of block allocation and a hope that they got it right: "Yes, we think they've got it right because, look, they've found the ozone layer" and this sort of thing, whereas in the future it will be far more disciplined and structured. That is the sort of background, of course, which I am used to and so I look forward to that. Having looked at that, I think it will be much easier for me to answer this sort of question, so I am mindful of the need to get my head into it and understand it and provide the answer but I simply do not have it today.

  Q17  Dr Iddon: You must be aware from the brief you have probably received that this Committee has been very interested in the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH).

  Mr Wallis: Yes.

  Q18  Dr Iddon: We have investigated in depth the reorganisation of CEH. Have you had a chance to look at that reorganisation yet? Do you have any comments to make, for example, on whether CEH has lost any vital skills or personnel as a result of that reorganisation?

  Mr Wallis: I think it is too early in the reorganisation. Have I looked at it? Yes, I have. How have I done that? I have read some papers. I have also seen the lady Managing Director and had discussions with her, and of course I see the monitoring papers coming to council. The bureaucratic answer at the moment is that things are going well, we are up to programme, and everything should be okay. The weakness of that statement—because that is what the monitoring papers say—is that in the sites which are closing down or areas which are moving into other sites, we do know, because they have told us, the people who will go. If all those people are true to their word and go, we should be okay. Our big dilemma is when it comes to the day: "It's tomorrow, guys, you've got to go," will they say, "Whoops, I've changed my mind"? That is the uncertainty. Very often in one's career you have lost people because you have moved sites or done various things. I have learned to look at that as an opportunity. Though, at the time, the market is a bit tight on this kind of expertise—because the universities have been demanding quite a bit from it—that tends to come in phases and, by the time we know that we need to get more people, I think the market may become a little better supplied. Where we are likely to lose, if we do—and I suspect we will—is in the people who lead the groups. It is the more experienced people. But I think we have to go out and try to persuade people to come and join us because, after all, they are in the regenerated, reorganised outfit. There is a lot to do, the funding is there, and generally speaking these areas of discipline are bigger, because that was the whole objective of putting it together and making it more concentrated. I think it is up to us to see it as a challenge and rise to that. But I am sure we will lose some people we do not want to lose and we are committed to that.

  Q19  Dr Iddon: Could I turn next to International Polar Year, in which NERC is investing a considerable sum of money. I would not think you would invest that some of money if you were not expecting a return. Perhaps you could comment on what type of return you expect from International Polar Year. The cynic would say this is a publicity stunt.

  Mr Wallis: Yes. I think in part it is a publicity stunt. Because it raises the awareness, which some people would say is a publicity stunt, but that means it creates interest. People are becoming more conscious of the problems of global warming, so to have a polar year does add to that, so that people do understand more what is going on and provably become better briefed. We had a television company in Antarctica speaking to large numbers of evening viewers from Antarctica about what the problem was. The Princess Royal was there. I think that was very beneficial. It also focuses us in a way which enables us to be more influential in other countries because a lot of this is a very international thing. There is no doubt about it, when you go to BAS and you walk into a room where there are half a dozen people, there are all sorts of accents around the table, so there is already a great deal of international interactivity. This will cause it to be even more, because we do not have enough funding or scientists to solve all these problems or to discover this science or to fill in the historic record, we have to do it to a great deal in conjunction with others, and we do really need to know what they are doing to make sure we do not all do the same thing. Again, it does bring people together. Because it focuses on the year, we must go and talk to these people. Then, of course, there is the science itself. Whether the science is more focused and more accelerated because it is polar year, I doubt, it is just more publicised. The more people who are aware of what we are doing and others are doing, the better it is. There is an element of publicity in it, but I think it is worthwhile.

2   Note by the Witness: The new strategy is expected to include a cross cutting "Technologies" theme. Back