DR ANTHONY HOLDER AND MS EILEEN CLARK

13 DECEMBER 2006

  Q340  Dr Turner: The Institute at Mill Hill recently underwent a quinquennial review by international referees. I gather that the outcome was pretty favourable and, certainly looking at the metrics of performance of the Institute, the MRC's Institutes, the LMB and Mill Hill, if you were to put them through a research assessment exercise, you would have to invent a new category of five star plus plus to accommodate them. Given that the MRC have said that if they cannot succeed in the move to the UCL they would close the Institute, how do you react to that in the light of your Institute's record?

  Ms Clark: I think that it comes back again to the staff seeing the logic of it. If something is apparently excellent and doing good work, then why do something that puts that it in jeopardy because it is not proven that it actually will increase translational research or improve on what we are doing at the moment. We are not against a move or a new institute, I think it is at the very beginning we do not believe the logic.

  Q341  Dr Turner: You are facing the possibility of total closure.

  Dr Holder: That is obviously ridiculous, in my view. To destroy a world-class institution full of internationally recognised experts which makes a major contribution to the field makes no sense whatsoever.

  Q342  Bob Spink: I wondered if I could explore a little further the terrorist and animal welfare threats that would be continued on a move. Are you aware of any evidence that has been provided by MI5 or any other body regarding this matter?

  Ms Clark: All that we are aware of is that there have been discussions about security of the site with MI5 but we do not know any details.

  Dr Holder: As I am sure you are aware, we have a high containment facility for working with viruses such as the avian flu, so we do need to ensure that that work is continued. Whether or not that sort of facility can be replicated in central London and what the risks associated with that replication may be we are unaware of but clearly poses some hazards.

  Q343  Bob Spink: Are you aware of any discussion between ministers in this place and those in the DTI or other departments and MI5 regarding possible terrorist implications that might increase and be unacceptable if Mill Hill were to move for instance to NTH?

  Dr Holder: I am personally not aware of such things.

  Q344  Mr Flello: I need to state for the record that I am a member of Amicus as well as Transport and General and Unity Trade Unions. Forgive me if this question has been answered right at the very beginning before I arrived. There are a number of concerns and issues that you have raised today. Have those been put robustly to senior management and is it the case that you are not satisfied with the answers that you have had back?

  Ms Clark: We have made representation at every opportunity that we had. Obviously, there was consultation at the end of the Task Force report. In fact, the highest percentage of people who responded to the consultation there felt that the recommendation for a single site and for the vision for the Institute was certainly acceptable but that Mill Hill should be considered as possible for that single site. We were told that that was not a referendum and that because a high percentage of the staff who had responded to that either were working at Mill Hill at the time or had in the past had something to do with it, in fact that was not a reflection of the general opinion because the larger stakeholders like medical schools and whatever tended to reply that they thought it was a good idea to move. So, staff felt that when they were consulted, they were not particularly listened to. We made representations before council meetings and put all these points to council, so that they are well aware. One problem that we did have in the past was having any knowledge of what sort of discussion about concerns there was and the problems we felt with communication was basically having anything back from the various points that we have raised. We have had two statements in the last six weeks which have been welcomed by the staff because it gives them a better idea of what is happening, but we have also had problems with representatives on the Task Force and the Project Board being told a lot of the dealings were in confidence and that they could not discuss it with us. When we asked for information from council, we were told that our representatives should be giving us information and keeping us in touch, so we just felt that we were in this circle with people as far as communication was concerned. We have certainly made representation at every available opportunity.

  Dr Turner: I should declare that I am a member of Amicus as well.

  Chairman: Does anyone else have anything to declare before we go any further? I would like to thank you very much indeed, Dr Holder and Ms Clark, for coming this morning. I would like to put on record that this Committee in no way wishes to in any way say that there is not brilliant science going on at Mill Hill. It would be quite wrong for us to begin with that conclusion. We not only recognise that, accept it and indeed the international quinquennial review confirms that, so, please, take that very much as the feeling of our Committee. Thank you both very much indeed.