WEDNESDAY 11 JULY 2007

JIM KNIGHT MP, IAN PERSON MP AND RT HON MARGARET HODGE MBE MP

  Q80  Dr Harris: Perhaps I could ask Margaret one question. There is a curiosity here, because, in terms of science subjects, there is a massive shortage of young people studying physics and chemistry and maths and things like that, yet the Government does not really give ongoing revenue support to science and discovery centres but your department gives massive support, very welcome support, to art galleries. Is that because we are short of young people becoming painters?

  Margaret Hodge: I have to say to you, Evan, we do want painters as well. One of the strengths of the UK is our cultural heritage, which I am sure you and I enjoy. We want as much out of the creative industry as we do out of other industries, so I do not apologise for getting money—indeed, I would love to have more to give—to things like the galleries.

  Q81  Dr Harris: You see my serious point.

  Margaret Hodge: From our point of view, we support museums and we support galleries. One of the best science centres is in the Science Museum. There is a really good one there. They fund that, I assume, in part, out of their pot. There is an interesting stat that I came across in preparing for today which comes out of the Ecsite review of twenty five centres. They got just under one million children's education vsits attending the science centres. Forty-three per cent of those went to the two national museums which are supported by DCMS. Directly or indirectly, I think we are playing our role in also supporting science.

  Q82  Dr Harris: It might be confounded, might it not? If there are kids who can get free entry into a museum which are, generally speaking, less "sciency" and more culture and heritage and all that, and they have to pay to go to a science centre, then it may well be that, because government funding supports free entry into things that are less "sciency", that you might be confounding your aim to encourage young people to go into these important science subjects. Can you see how it might be seen to be unfair?

  Margaret Hodge: I have to say to you that if you had the museum world sitting here giving evidence to you, they would baulk at the statement that museums are science-free or do not offer a huge range of offering in the sciences. A number of the science centres, I think about one quarter, are in museums. We do not have free entry to all museums, we have free entry to the national museums, and then local authorities and voluntary organisations decide their own charging policy in relation to other museums, but, out of the Ecsite analysis, 43% of the children who attended a science centre went to one of the two big national museums where there is free entry: the Science Museum and the Natural History. Those are the two they went to.

  Q83  Chairman: They are both in London, Margaret. If you live in Newcastle or impoverished Harrogate—

  Margaret Hodge: I did ask the question, Phil, for example, for the Manchester Museum. I would be interested to know—and I just did not get the stat in time for this morning's appearance—whether there are children who go there as well.

  Chairman: That would be quite interesting.

  Q84  Dr Iddon: Thousands.

  Margaret Hodge: There you are. So it is probably as true of Manchester as it is of the two London museums. I just did not have any stats.

  Q85  Adam Afriyie: We have been to visit a few of these science and discovery centres. They are fantastic places. You can see a lot of excited young people in them, some aged 13, some aged 18, a lot of whom get quite excited about going into science once they have been there. There is no doubt that they are encouraging that interest. Having said that, in 1985 there were more people studying most of the STEM subjects than there are today, so clearly these science centres have not achieved the goal or have not helped in a great or significant way to achieve the goal of creating more students at A-level or graduates from university in those STEM subjects. Why has there been this failure? Is it that you have not had your eye on the ball? Or is it that it has taken second place to other initiatives?

  Jim Knight: I think it is largely down to pupil choice. We have a much bigger range of subjects now than we used to. If you look at the increase in the studying of psychology at A-level, for example, it has soared. There is nothing unscientific about psychology but, with more learning institutions offering that subject, choice means that some are going off and studying that and not choosing the traditional sciences.

  Q86  Adam Afriyie: Your responsibility, surely, as government ministers, where we have a great shortage in those STEM subjects, is to ensure that those subjects are studied, to encourage or to motivate. I am pointing out that it has kind of gone backwards over that period of time. I appreciate Ian's honest assessment that there is work that needs to be done in the area; I am just wondering whether it has something to do with these science centres, the money is going there rather than somewhere else. Why has it gone ... .

  Jim Knight: I do not think it has anything to do with the science centres. We certainly cannot blame any decline. Certainly it is starting to level off now as the various initiatives that we are pursuing have an effect. We cannot blame the science centres for that decline. It is certainly not a failing on their part. As you say, there are some absolutely fabulous places for us all to visit. It is more about the development of society and what interests young people now. To some extent, Ian can probably comment more wisely on this than I can, but it is to what extent science employers are engaging with education and getting into schools and showing young people that careers in science are exciting and interesting and not dreary occupations for people in white coats, which people think are not for them and they are pre-occupied by Big Brother and media studies.

  Q87  Chairman: I am not particularly wanting to go down that road, but Ian you have been mentioned in dispatches so I will give you a quick word.

  Ian Pearson: I would just like to make the point that we should not forget about the excellence of UK science overall and the fact that we are second only to the United States in the number of science citations per head of population per researcher, or whichever metric you use. It is true that we want to see a greater pull through and more people wanting to complete doctorates in STEM subjects, which is one of the targets we monitor on a regular basis, but, when it comes to the effectiveness of the UK's science base, as the Committee will note, we have very good reasons to be proud of what we achieve here in the UK.

  Chairman: Thank you for that.

  Q88  Dr Turner: Could I turn to more practical aspects. We have three ministers lined up here, from three departments, and all of them have an interest in science centres. How are we going to divvy up responsibility for supporting these centres? Is one department going to take responsibility? Are you going to pool resources? What are you going to do?

  Ian Pearson: You are right to say that we all share an interest in science centres from our respective departments. I think it is right also to recognise that science centres have always been supported not particularly by government but by the Millennium Commission and by others on the basis that they will be financially sustainable. I believe that I have an overall responsibility for science policy. I think it is my role, and I want to do more in it, to promote UK science, within the United Kingdom as well as outside it. To the extent that science centres contribute to that agenda, I think it is fair to say that I am the minister with lead responsibility for this area. I look forward to meeting with Ecsite and discussing the work they are doing on financial sustainability, for instance, and looking at how we can have a more effective way in promoting science in the United Kingdom.

  Dr Turner: Thank you for that. It is nice to see someone standing up and taking responsibility.

  Q89  Chairman: Do the two other ministers agree? There was relief going over their faces at that point.

  Jim Knight: I am absolutely delighted to agree with that.

  Margaret Hodge: We almost let him come on his own!

  Jim Knight: This is a model of joined-up government. We will continue to increase the funding for schools and provide them with the resource, if they want to, to visit the centres. Ian will talk to me strategically about what we should be doing across government on this but I think it is right for the Science Minister to take the lead.

  Q90  Chairman: May I put a rider in here. I think one of the concerns—and this goes back to Evan Harris's question—is that your predecessor but one, Lord Sainsbury, made it clear to this Committee that these were commercial ventures which, therefore, should stand on their own two feet, and if they could not they should go under. That is not really the message you are giving today. You are going to support them if they are delivering on the Government's agenda, be it the STEM agenda or indeed promoting good public engagement with science. You are going to give them vast resources.

  Ian Pearson: Let me use my own words, rather than have words put into my mouth. Science centres are clearly commercial organisations. They took the decision to establish themselves. They do not exist as a matter of government strategy and policy. Where they have been supported, whether it be by the Millennium Commission or by others, it has been on the basis that they would be financially self-sustaining. That very much remains the case. I was trying to make a broader point in saying that if we are going to have an agenda to promote UK science for the future and we are going to build on the goodwill that is already taking place at the moment, I think we need to take a strategic look at where science centres fit in with this picture. Yes, they are independent organisations but they need to be part of the picture about how we promote UK science.

  Q91  Dr Turner: Thank you, Chairman, for anticipating my next question. Seriously, I could not help thinking that perhaps the reason why Jim and Margaret looked so pleased and relieved when Ian spoke up was because they thought, "Ah, that means no one is going us to stump up from our budgets to help with financial support of centres." I want to ask you now, Ian, because you have picked up the gauntlet, whether you will be considering the possibility of helping science centres with core funding. Because it is quite clear that institutions like this, which are not commercial ventures, can never be commercial, are not profit making, always have difficulty at one time or another in maintaining themselves because they do not have any reliable core funding. Will you be considering that?

  Ian Pearson: Firstly, on your point about relief from other ministers that their budgets are not going to be affected, as a government we look far more broadly than just individual departmental costs and budgets. When you are looking at the issue of science, it is right that we look right across government. We should not get tied down in discussions about budgets and which government pot funding comes out of. When it comes to the issue of potential government-funding of science centres, I think it is premature to make any judgment. We have provided some funding in the past. You will be aware of the £2 million that was provided to help a small number of centres to become financially self-sustaining. Most of them, if not all of them, have had support previously from a number of sources on the basis that they will be self-sustaining. I do not accept the argument that they will never be self-sustaining because some of them are already very successful ventures—and we can point to some of them. Some of them clearly have financial difficulties. I say it is premature because I think we need to look at the work that Ecsite is doing. As I hope the Committee is aware, we have funded, jointly, Ecsite, to the tune of £750,000 over two financial years, to look at how centres can be self-sustaining. I would like to think that for three-quarters of a million quid Ecsite is going to come up with a slightly more sophisticated solution than "Give us all a grant".

  Q92  Dr Turner: Certainly. You have commissioned Ecsite in their review to "demonstrate the impact of science centres and the added value that they deliver." The only reason why I question this is because Ecsite are not exactly a disinterested body and it would be an enormous surprise to anybody if their review did not conclude that science centres did exactly that in spades. Some people will obviously think, "They would say that, wouldn't they, because that's what they do?" Would it not have been an advantage to have had this review conducted by someone independent? If they came back with the same message, great—and it is quite possible—but it is that much more valued and that much more powerful if it is seen to be independent.

  Ian Pearson: I have confidence that Ecsite will be a professional job and will provide an objective assessment and recommendations to us in accordance with the funding in terms of reference that we set up for the work that we have asked them to do. My officials and officials from Jim's department certainly will want to monitor closely the progress of the project and ensure it is meeting our objectives.

  Jim Knight: Clearly, we could have gone with an independent source for this, but I would hope it would be the case that Ecsite would understand that people would level exactly the charge that you have done, and therefore make sure that whatever they propose is extremely well argued and extremely well evidenced, more so, perhaps, than an independent consultant being asked to do it because of their vested interest.

  Q93  Dr Turner: Do you agree that it would be nice to have independent confirmation?

  Jim Knight: If it is sufficiently well argued and evidenced, and we can see that when we, across government, assess it, then, yes, we are relatively independent-minded people and that may be sufficient.

  Ian Pearson: If the Committee want to undertake a peer review of Ecsite's work, they are more than welcome.

  Dr Turner: We are busy enough—and you are not offering us the contract either!

  Q94  Linda Gilroy: From that I take it that you are expecting Ecsite to come up with a fairly comprehensive analysis of where science centres can draw their funding in future.

  Jim Knight: The funding that we have provided to date, the £2 million and then this funding, has all been based upon the premise that they should become self-financing. We have put the £2 million in to try and assist with a limited number of centres that were having trouble over the short term, in order to get them to a better long-term position. Similarly, the argument was accepted that we needed to do a wider piece of work to look at science centres as a whole and their long-term financial viability on a self-sustaining basis.

  Q95  Linda Gilroy: Is there anything implicit in the remit you have given to Ecsite that you have some conclusions why that has failed to happen?

  Jim Knight: I do not know that there is.

  Ian Pearson: As a newly appointed Science Minister, one of the things I have to do is sit down with Ecsite. I have read the evidence they have submitted to the Committee and I note the points that they make, but I would like to sit down with them, to take stock of the project we are funding and how it is going, and to take their minds on any emerging conclusions. My understanding is that the project runs until April next year. I think it is right to take stock now as to what direction it is going in. No doubt my officials have been monitoring the progress of the project to date.

  Q96  Linda Gilroy: How does that fit with the comprehensive spending review? Are there any options in funding, revenue funding, project funding, capital grants, tax breaks? We have heard aspirations about reducing VAT that have been ruled in or ruled out.

  Ian Pearson: The comprehensive spending review is ongoing. For certain departments and parts of departments it has already been settled. As you will be aware, the science budget has already been set and shows significant growth over the 2008-2011 period. That again demonstrates the importance that the Government attaches to science. In a tough spending round, 2.7% real growth in the science budget is very much to be welcomed. Exactly how that budget is split up is a matter that we will want to consider very carefully over the next few months, particularly as a new ministerial team and with a new structure to the department. With regard to some of the wider questions about tax breaks, they are clearly not matters for the ministers around this table.

  Q97  Linda Gilroy: When it comes to regional diversity, we have heard a little bit about the role of regional development agencies. How do you see this trying to safeguard regional diversity in the subject mix of science centres to maintain that in the regions?

  Ian Pearson: Perhaps I can say something about that to start with and then others might want to contribute. I just look at some of the examples from my own region. We have this Thinktank which is based in Birmingham which is being supported by the regional development agency Advantage West Midlands to do work on the Science Cities agenda. It is a really good example about how a science centre can work with an RDA and fit within a regional strategy for innovation. When we are looking at a lot of the science centres, we need to recognise that they are regional or local bodies. I think it right that they fit within a regional strategic framework when it comes to science and innovation. We have regional development agencies which are now well established. They will produce development strategies regionally. Most of them have been looking very carefully at the science base and how universities and business can work more closely together and most of them have also been looking at the role of science and design centres as part of that agenda. I think we do need to see science centres looking in that context and some will fit more easily within it than others.

  Q98  Linda Gilroy: Perhaps, finally, I could return to the point Evan was making earlier and invite Ian and Jim to comment on it, because Margaret has made her point of view very clear. The figures we have in the briefing are that there is £320 million for museums revenue funding. It would be interesting, I do not know if it might be possible, to get some information on what proportion of that does support science and museums. £400 million goes to the Arts Council. In a three-year period, the equivalent figure for science centres was in the region of £35 million. They are maybe not quite directly comparable, but, given the importance of having a science literate community to understand some of the challenges we face on climate change, on wrestling with issues like MMR and GM foods, do you not think the time has come to try to move progressively towards putting some funding into science centres to support not just the educational programme for schools but general science. Ian, I think you mentioned that in your opening remarks.

  Jim Knight: I will kick off by saying that there is a balance to be struck here. We choose to give as much money as possible directly to schools so that they then have the resource to buy whatever provision they think is fit for them, rather than giving less money to schools and giving some to the supply side of the market, if you like. There may be a case—and that is something that Ian and I will look at—for saying there might be specific projects coming out of specific centres which would interest us. For example, we have this problem with girls engaging with physics. If centres were to come forward with ways of addressing that with us, perhaps with broadcasters, it would be great to do for physics what Bill Oddie has done for biodiversity. Those kinds of things would have to interest us because they deal directly with our priorities but I cannot see us going into a place whereby we make centres subsidy dependent, particularly those like, for example, the Eden Centre which are very successful. Kew Gardens is a funding line in the Defra budget. There are some that get money from other departments as well.

  Q99  Linda Gilroy: Would one way of dealing with that be to put that in the hands of children, young students and the families themselves, by perhaps giving something like "books for babies", giving a science enrichment entitlement access to one or more science museums at certain stages in school careers, to encourage them to see that they have ownership of it themselves and they can take it to whichever science museum? That would be a way of supporting the activity and could be linked to some sort of outcome as well.

  Jim Knight: There are notions of credits, particularly to less advantaged families—