PROFESSOR COLIN BLAKEMORE, SIR JOHN CHISHOLM AND MR NICK WINTERTON

13 DECEMBER 2006

  Q380  Bob Spink: Are you aware that the Counter-terrorism Security Office have expressed concerns about the difficulty of designing the new facility in central London that would give scientific functionality at the same time as affording the correct level of security, and that they are deeply concerned about the design of any such facilities?

  Professor Blakemore: I think again you are referring to the design of a full category 4 facility, which was indeed problematical but is not needed.

  Q381  Chairman: I am going to stop there, if you do not mind, Bob. If we have further questions on some of these issues, we will write to you.

  Professor Blakemore: I would be happy to provide for the Committee the correspondence that establishes the nature of the containment facilities that are required.

  Chairman: That would be important to address that.

  Q382  Adam Afriyie: I would like to turn briefly to some interim issues. On the timetable I have seen, the relocation of staff and equipment, if you did proceed on this path, would be somewhere in mid 2012—which is quite some way off. You have a long period of uncertainty, even if the building project goes ahead. What is the latest estimate on the timetable for completion of the project in the form which we are all assuming you are going to be pushing ahead with?

  Mr Winterton: It is unchanged.

  Q383  Adam Afriyie: There was a little bit of slippage from when it was first proposed until today. We have seen the costings change already. If there were further slippage, let us say by a year or two more years, would that have a significant impact on the costs of the project?

  Mr Winterton: Yes, because we would have to take account of a further one or two years of inflation and inflation of building costs. We have taken into account at the moment the current estimates of the inflation rates for building costs in London over the period in which we will be building. That is what is incorporated and will be incorporated into the costs that we are developing. Clearly, one year further on, you will have another year's inflation to feed in or two years. So, yes, it will have an impact.

  Q384  Adam Afriyie: From a lot of the correspondence and some of the evidence we have received as a Committee there is a lot of concern about the reputation of NIMR in the interim. Whilst there is this uncertainty and whilst the project plans are being worked out and staff are uncertain of their future and the international community is uncertain of the future of the institution, out of interest, why have you limited the budgeting to two years, which would appear to add to that uncertainty?

  Professor Blakemore: I have to say that this is a misconception generated within the institute. At the Quinquennial Review the Committee recommended that there should be continuation of 100% resource funding, recognising that when a new director was appointed there was bound to be reconsideration of the scientific programme with financial implications. For that reason, the recommendation that went to council was that the 100% level of funding should be confirmed for two years, that being the estimate of when the new director would be in place and would have proposals. The budget planning line within the MRC's plans has always been for the full Quinquennium, but this, I am afraid, is an example of some of the problems of misinterpretation. I would not say that we are faultless in that respect and these are difficulties of communication with the institute, but there was never any plan simply to stop the funding of the institute after two years.

  Q385  Adam Afriyie: But you do agree the perception is that it may add to the uncertainty.

  Professor Blakemore: Yes. I would say unequivocally that I regret the uncertainties and the anxieties produced by those kinds of misperceptions and misinterpretations.

  Q386  Adam Afriyie: I guess one of the key uncertainties is the lack of a director at present. How long is the institute likely to be operating without a director?

  Professor Blakemore: There is an acting director in place at the moment, Sir Keith Peters, whose contract runs until October of next year. We have offered the position of director to Professor Scott Fraser from Caltech. The impression I have from the institute is that this proposal was very much welcomed. We are actively negotiating with Scott Fraser about the nature of the appointment but clearly his decision is going to be predicated on the outcome of the process we are now engaged in and the kind of institute that he is likely to be directing in the future. It is in everyone's interests that we should resolve this issue as quickly as possible.

  Q387  Adam Afriyie: In the interim, as the Chairman has said, the key interest of this committee is the future of science, the skills base and whether the UK is going to be competing as well as it has done over the last several decades. What active steps are you taking at the moment with all this uncertainty to retain key staff? There are lots of job offers out there at the moment I am aware of surrounding the staff and some of the key staff. What active steps are you taking to keep them on board?

  Professor Blakemore: First, as Dr Holder said, the fact is that staff have not been leaving Mill Hill. The MRC is very grateful for that indication of support for the institute and commitment to the future of the institute. I very much hope that the MRC very soon will be able to deliver a confirmed vision of the future of the institute that will resolve the anxieties and that will be seen by the staff as attractive. Of course, individuals make their own decisions. People can and do move on from one job to another. But we would hope that there would not be an exodus because of anxiety about the future because the future is very rosy.

  Q388  Chairman: When will you lift the cap on appointments?

  Professor Blakemore: Perhaps I could clarify that too. Wording says everything: it is another misinterpretation. There was never a cap on new appointments, merely a requirement—quite usual during the transitional direction of any organisation that there should not be new appointments without the approval of the chief executive on behalf of the council. There have been three appointments during the period of the so-called cap, so it is not an absolute cap, but it is understandable that we should want to leave as much flexibility for making new appointments as we can, given that a new director will have their own views about how the institute should evolve.

  Q389  Dr Harris: How many days a week is the acting director Sir Keith Peters employed?

  Sir John Chisholm: Two days a week.

  Q390  Dr Harris: Do you think the communication would be better between the MRC and the NIMR if you had someone who was nearer full-time than part-time doing that communication role? Because obviously that person is a key link as your appointment. There was a problem of communication with the previous director, so I am surprised you have a two-fifths' person in such a key role.

  Professor Blakemore: In an ideal world we would have had someone of Keith Peters' stature proven leadership, who was available full-time for a year or so. But you will understand it is not easy to find such a person. All the signs are that Keith Peters is already, after a very short period of time in the institute, doing an extremely good job, not only at a management level but also, I think, in raising the staff's confidence in that leadership.

  Q391  Dr Harris: That is a view. In our previous report we looked at the science case. We were not trying to displace the role of the council of the MRC in making its decision but everyone put a lot of store by the taskforce which was brought in—and we generally thought that was a good idea—to deal with some of the impasse that existed, in the sense that that would have everyone on it. Do you think the original taskforce would be of the same view now as it was then, given the prospects—and they are serious prospects—of a reduced institute with significantly smaller numbers and doing less perforce than they were doing before, or being spread out, albeit on a campus, and not in a single entity which I think was the understanding of what was proposed as an ideal option at the time?

  Professor Blakemore: I think that would depend very much on the extent to which the members of the Task Force were as informed about the evolving issues as the Council of the MRC is. The Task Force recommendations were extremely helpful. But the Task Force was an advisory committee established by the Council and it delivered views of principle and some views that were very specific. The Council has taken those, worked with them, but we are two and a half years on from that position. I know that those members of the Task Force who have kept in touch with the evolving situation are still very much on board for the present vision.

  Q392  Dr Harris: We have had evidence from Professor Richard Flavell, evidence which has been read from already in this session, that: "The Task Force with the consultants help looked carefully at the size necessary and appropriate for the renewed NIMR. We came to the unanimous conclusion that it was important to maintain the renewed institute at close to its current size. If the MRC plans to employ more consultants to look at the size needed for the institute, it implies that MRC no longer relies on the Task Force recommendation and devalues the large amount of time that I and others put into this process." That is a separate issue, but I just wanted to complete the quote. It is not clear to me, at least in terms of his view, that he was, if you like, a swing person. I think you would agree, if you could think back to those many hours spent discussing it. That suggests that the task force might not have backed one of the possible outcomes, perhaps probable outcomes, which is a reduced institute, a reduced institute in size and breadth.

  Professor Blakemore: I think we are discussing hypothetically and I would just say that if the Task Force had been sitting through every Council meeting and had known all of the accumulating evidence it would still be very difficult to second-guess what their opinion would be. On the question of critical mass, we are very concerned about this because we have had a lot of discussion in the Task Force and beyond about what constitutes an institute as opposed to a research unit. The range of figures—and you will see it in the Task Force report—that was accepted was between 500 and 1,000 for the size of an institute that can have proper interdisciplinary working over a wide range but is still not too big to be unmanageable. The size of the functional institute—and that involves, let us not forget, the supporting contribution from UC—will still be of the order of the size of the present institute in any circumstances.

  Q393  Dr Harris: Dr Turner, read previously from the letter we have had from Professor Flavell, and I will read it again. He said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the Task Force vision was that a renewed Institute would be of a similar size to present with excellent world class facilities. Moving the Institute did not, and does not, make sense unless it can be done properly so that it can deliver more than it can achieve in Mill Hill. From what I understand MRC policy now is to build"—at least to contemplate building—"a substantially smaller Institute with poorer facilities than present. This policy makes no sense . . ." Again, I do not think it is hypothetical my putting to you that at least one member of the task force who on balance backed your proposals—and I have to say, speaking personally, was quite influential with the previous Committee in respect of backing your view as well, because they did look at all the detail—says that he could not support what you are now contemplating. I do not think it is hypothetical and that worries me. Does it worry you?

  Professor Blakemore: I have the greatest regard for Richard Flavell and his opinions and he is a great scientist but my judgment of him stops short of him being a clairvoyant. He has not seen the business case that we have yet prepared, so it is very hard for him to make a judgment.

  Q394  Dr Harris: He is not making a business case point; he is making a point about the size of the institute. There is now more controversy and we are getting embroiled in the scientific media and that is not helping matters with all the coverage of this.

  Professor Blakemore: It is absolutely not. It is a distraction, if I may say so.

  Q395  Dr Harris: The task force was quite an effective way, although it was painful, of reaching a view with key members of staff. Would you be willing to reconvene the task force or ask them for their views on emerging options in order to give you the confidence to know that you had not been deflected from some of the scientific reasons—because they were a science group—that underpinned your strategy?

  Professor Blakemore: That is an interesting idea. It would not be my decision. Perhaps the Council can discuss it this afternoon. My immediate reaction is to say that I am not sure that would add constructively to the proposals at this stage.

  Q396  Dr Harris: Do you think the MRC has sufficient expertise to handle a project of this scale without more outside assistance?

  Sir John Chisholm: Undoubtedly, once we have decided on the project and we have launched the execution of it, we will certainly need outside assistance to ensure that it is properly, robustly managed and delivers according to the plan.

  Q397  Dr Harris: Are you happy that the Government is being as helpful as it could by giving you good advance notice of the problems? Or do you worry that the next thing you are going to get from OSI or the Treasury is something quite negative which may well be in the public domain and would just be another blow? Do you think there could be an opportunity for closer working or is that just not the done thing or not allowed?

  Sir John Chisholm: Every project of this size and importance raises a number of issues and generates conflicting currents of opinion. We are seeing those. One of the things we have to do is to make that balanced judgment at the end. As we have said consistently in this session this morning, we are not there yet. All the points you have been making are very sensible points and we have to balance them.

  Q398  Dr Harris: Is there more the Government could be doing to help in this process?

  Mr Winterton: Perhaps I could pick up on that. There is a range of interaction obviously taking place informally, so I would not want you to feel that we were producing a detailed report and then waiting for a reaction. The whole process that we are going through will be interacting closely with officials at OSI in order to ensure that the sort of situation you have described does not arise.

  Q399  Dr Harris: We have had letters from NIMR staff complaining that not everything that you know has been shared with them; for example, letters from OSI or the Treasury or whatever. Is that a mistake or is there a policy? I think we are talking about the people on the project group, as well, who have said that they are not entirely happy with the amount of transparency there has been, if I may put it like that. Was an error made or do you think your disclosure to key staff at NIMR about the problems that emerged from the OSI letter and the Treasury response was okay?

  Mr Winterton: I think it was okay. In terms of more broadly, there was a Council paper in October, which was an open paper and was made available, which set out what the main concerns were. We did not circulate either the OGC gateway report or the detailed letters because they would not make sense unless you had the full draft business case prepared at that stage—because quite a lot of it was to do with things that had not yet been produced and so on. The issues that those comments raised, in terms of points of principle, were exposed. They were included in the Council paper, they were shared, and they are the background to influencing the next stage of the Council's decision.