HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1999-2000 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Seventh Report THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: THE FORWARD LOOK—THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY Report and Proceedings of the Committee Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 27 July 2000 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5-00 HC 723 y Z f Z : 3 os, « én ake i ott a 6 oo SIO SS PEE SSRI ITE Ias HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1999-2000 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE [ye SEG aia eed ae Seventh Report es reece ae 2 Seeeeeereecee eee ones THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: THE FORWARD LOOK—THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY Report and Proceedings of the Committee Ordered by The House of Commons fo be printed 27 July 2000 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5-00 HC.723 il SEVENTH REPORT FROM The Science and Technology Committee is appointed to examine on behalf of the House of Commons the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of Science and Technology (and any associated public bodies). Its constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No. 152. The Committee has a maximum of eleven members, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is three. The members of the Committee are appointed by the House and unless discharged remain on the Committee until the next dissolution of Parliament. The present membership of the Committee is as follows:' Dr Michael Clark MP (Conservative, Rayleigh) Sir Paddy Ashdown MP (Lib Dem, Yeovil)° Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas MP (Labour, Crosby) Dr Ian Gibson MP (Labour, Norwich Northy Dr Brian Iddon MP (Labour, Bolton South East)° Mr Robert Jackson MP (Conservative, Wantage)’ Dr Lynne Jones MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Dr Ashok Kumar MP (Labour, Middlesborough South and East Cleveland) Mr Ian Taylor MP (Conservative, Esher and Walton)' Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Dr Alan W Williams MP (Labour, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)? On 30 July 1997, the Committee elected Dr Michael Clark as its Chairman. The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, and to make Reports to the House. The Committee may meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved) and at any place within the United Kingdom. The Committee may meet concurrently with other committees or sub- committees established under Standing Order No. 152 for the purposes of deliberating, taking evidence or considering draft reports. The Committee may meet concurrently with the House’s European Scrutiny Committee (or any of its sub-committees) or the Environmental Audit Committee for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence. The Committee may exchange documents and evidence with any of these committees, as well as with the House’s Public Accounts and Deregulation Committees. The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/s&thome.htm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the end of this volume. All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2794; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. ' Mrs Caroline Spelman MP (Conservative, Meriden) was appointed on 14 July 1997 and discharged on 22 June 1998. ron David Atkinson MP (Conservative, Bournemouth) was appointed on 14 July 1997 and discharged on 30 November Mrs Jacqui Lait MP (Conservative, Beckenham) was appointed on 22 June 1998 and discharged on 5 July 1999. a Nigel Beard MP (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford) was appointed on 14 July 1997 and discharged on 20 March , Mr Nigel Jones(Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham) was appointed on 14 July 1997 and discharged on 15 May 2000. ;A ppointed on 14 July 1997. ; Appointed on 5 July 1999, Appointed on 30 November 1998, ° Appointed on 20 March 2000. *Appointed on 15 May 2000. THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE ili TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ............ 0.000000 ee iv ~ THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: THE A) CC Ko PLES CTODYV EGIRISIVLEGINGo y REPLAY ing clccdosvhcce olke aca bdieeawiglie assi ¥e uw ard Vv PA AtOlO me POT Malt © OOK ier eee ete ty ee et, Gk Nano aysta sca wy viele ee ek vl APPENDIX: The Government’s Response to the House of Common’s Science and Technology Committee’s Fifth Report: “ The Government’s Expenditure on Research and Development: The Forward Look”, published April 2000 .......... RON OP Ors SO SPC COL Lae aS, Oat Spa ey, Tea vii PROCERDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING 10 THE REPORT 3 os. cagesee sc XVI Be eee eek tanker aca anh autre ity sr BOLE a TERI OOTIT XVii iv SEVENTH REPORT FROM THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS (a) Weurge the Government to look again at the recommendations and conclusions contained in our Report and to examine and respond to the arguments that we put forward to support them (paragraph 9). (b) Westrongly urge the Government to reverse its decision to publish Forward Look only once every three years and to re-instate annual publication (paragraph 10). SEVENTH REPORT The Science and Technology Committee has agreed to the following Report:— THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: THE FORWARD LOOK—THE GOVERNMENT?’S REPLY 1. We published our Fifth Report of Session 1999-2000, on The Government’s Expenditure on Research and Development: The Forward Look on 19th April 2000. The Government’s Reply was received on 4th July 2000 in the form of a memorandum. 2. The Government’s Reply sets out each of our recommendations and conclusions, together with any response it has made. It is appended to this Report. 3. In our original Report we made a series of recommendations designed, inter alia, to: * improve the quality of policy-making; ¢ increase the cost-effectiveness of Government Departments’ expenditure on research and development; ¢ enhance the level of co-ordination between Government Departments on issues relating to research and development; * increase the complementarity between the execution of research and development activities on the part of Government Departments and those funded from the Science Budget; and * maintain and improve transparency and accountability in science, engineering and technology areas. 4, There are some issues upon which the Government wholeheartedly agrees with us but these are largely restricted to those of our conclusions which are statements of general principle rather than specific recommendations. The Government, while thanking us for our Report, has not in general been persuaded that the measures we proposed are either necessary or expedient. 5. We recognise that in some areas that the Government may have been constrained in its Reply by a justifiable desire not to foreshadow either the announcement of the outcome of the second Comprehensive Spending Review (an announcement which was subsequently made on 19th July 2000) or the expected White Paper on Science and Innovation which was published on 26th July 2000. Wealso recognise that the Government is under no obligation to concur with our conclusions or to accept our recommendations. 6. Nevertheless, we find the Government’s Reply to be wholly inadequate. In some instances the Reply does little more than re-state facts to which we had already drawn attention in our Report or re-iterate evidence which the Government submitted to our inquiry in the first place, without any indication of why we should be persuaded to alter our original analysis of that evidence. (For example, in response to our recommendation that “MAFF should at least restore R&D funding to the level prior to the 1998 CSR and, if possible, implement the recommendation of its own working group for an £8 million annual increase in spending”.)’ We note that the CSR settlement announced on 19th July 2000 included an increase in MAFF’s overall budget. We realise that the Government could not have told us about this when it replied to our Report, but it should have drawn our attention to it later. Moreover, we cannot assume that this increase will translate into an increase in investment in research and development on the part of MAFF, particularly in light of the that overall research and development was disproportionally reduced by cuts after the 1998 CSR settlement. On a number of issues, having re-examined the evidence and taken into account any relevant, subsequent developments, we chose to re-state a "See Appendix, p. xiv. at SEVENTH REPORT FROM recommendation which we had previously made in an earlier Report. In these cases, the Government has for the most part declined to offer any substantiative response other than that which it provided in its Replies to our original Reports. (For example, in response to our recommendations regarding the quality and levels of competence of graduates in science, engineering and technology subjects.)’ 7. Recommendation (d) of our original Report stated that: “Although Ministers do not acknowledge it in so many words, the suspicion persists that the increased Science Budget is being asked to bear the brunt of cuts in departmental allocations. Such a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul is neither sensible nor sustainable. We strongly recommend that in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review the long-term decline in civil departments’ R&D spending—both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total civil R&D—should be halted and reversed.”.’ 8. The Government’s response — “the Science Budget has not been augmented through reductions in civil Departments’ R&D budgets”—is at best curious and at worst a bizarre misinterpretation of our analysis.* Our argument, plainly, was that the welcome increases in the Science Budget could be undermined by reductions in departmental expenditure on research development, not augmented by them. Indeed, we cannot envisage a mechanism by which such augmentation could happen: the overall science budget is determined at the same time as the overall expenditure levels of each Government Department. Only later do Departments determine their precise allocations to research and development. 9. We urge the Government to look again at the recommendations and conclusions contained in our Report and to examine and respond to the arguments that we put forward to support them. Publication of the Forward Look 10. In the opening section of our Report we recommended that “Forward Look should resume its annual publication”.° In response the Government told us that “the current Spending Review process involves settlements intended to cover a three-year forward period. The Government believes that publication of Forward Look should continue to reflect the phasing of the expenditure cycle. Accordingly, it intends to produce new Forward Looks on a cycle consistent with the timing of future Spending Reviews”.° While we welcome the longer term-planning that the three-year expenditure cycle enables, we do not accept that reporting on planning and progress on a three-yearly basis is a natural consequence. We remain convinced that Forward Look should be published on an annual basis both because it is an effective management tool to ensure progress monitoring against objectives and a means of communicating the Government’s plans and progress to a wider audience. Moreover, three-yearly publication would represent a move away from the policy of publishing Forward Look and the Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics at the same time. Concurrent publication enabled information to be read across from one publication to the other. Thus the inevitable consequence of the Government’s proposal must be that there will be a decline in both the topicality and quality of the information provided to the public on the Government’s plans for science, engineering and technology. We strongly urge the Government to reverse its decision to publish Forward Look only once every three years and to re-instate annual publication. *See Appendix, p. x. ‘Fifth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1999-2000 on The Government's Expenditure on Research and Development: The Forward Look, HC 196-I, para 32. See Appendix, p. viii. HC 196-1, para 1. ° Appendix, p. Vil. THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE vii APPENDIX The Government’s Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s Fifth Report: “Government Expenditure on Research and Development: The Forward Look”, published April 2000 The Government thanks the Committee for this report and has noted the findings. It offers the following responses to the recommendations which have been made. (a) We recommend that Forward Look should resume its annual publication (paragraph 1). The main objective of Forward Look is to present the Government’s planned expenditure and strategy for SET. Forward Look was published on an annual basis from 1994 to 1996, to reflect the outcomes of the then annual resource allocation process. The current Spending Review process involves settlements intended to cover a three-year forward period. The Government believes that publication of Forward Look should continue to reflect the phasing of the expenditure cycle. Accordingly, it intends to produce new Forward Looks on a cycle consistent with the timing of future Spending Reviews. However, Departments do make some adjustments to their spending plans between Spending Reviews and the intention is to publish any revised year-by-year data in the Science Engineering & Technology Statistics. — The Committee noted comments in its report from witnesses that Forward Look did not cover implementation of the CSA’s Guidelines’ nor did it act as a guide to what was happening in the Foresight area. The Government sees no need to repeat detailed information in Forward Look that has already been made publicly available elsewhere and has, instead, included pointers and information links in the document to this material. Implementation of the Guidelines is already assessed on an annual basis and OST publishes a separate report showing progress. In the case of the Foresight programme, many departmental entries to Forward Look do refer to their Foresight activities. The Foresight website provides extensive and up-to-date information on progress and the Government also publishes regular Foresight progress reports. (b) We recommend that Forward Look should in future seek to match Science, Engineering & Technology and Research and Development expenditure figures more specifically to policy objectives and the achievements of departmental science strategies (paragraph 3). The 1999 Forward Look and its predecessors contained breakdowns of departmental SET expenditure by policy-related subject area. In addition each department publishes an Expenditure Plans Report describing the achievements over the past year. Departmental science and innovation strategies, which the Government plans to introduce from 2001 following ~ recommendations made in a report by the Council for Science and Technology (‘the Nicholson Report’’)*, will develop improved measures of SET output performance, linked to policy objectives. The Government agrees that there is scope for further development of ute practice in this area. (c) We repeat now-and with greater force, having considered the evidence submitted for this inquiry-the anxiety expressed in our previous Report about the decline 1i.n civil departments' R&D investment (paragraph 31). (d) Although Ministers do not acknowledge it in so many words, the suspicion persists that the increased Science Budget is being asked to bear the brunt of cuts in departmental | “The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making”, Office of Science and Technology, March 1997. ” "Review of S&T Activity Across Government—Report by the CST", July 1999 and the Government’s Response, September 1999. vill SEVENTH REPORT FROM allocations. Such a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul is neither sensible nor sustainable. We strongly recommend that in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review the long-term decline in civil departments' R&D spending-both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total civil R&D-should be halted and reversed (paragraph 32). As the Government noted in evidence to this Inquiry, there is no absolute right level of R&D expenditure. Departments must invest in R&D at a level which they judge best meets their policy, regulatory, procurement and service delivery needs. The outcome of departmental allocations for science in the last Comprehensive Spending Review was varied, with some increases and some decreases. As part of Spending Review 2000, the Government has undertaken a cross cutting review of science and research with the aim of ensuring that science supported by public funds in England is being properly conducted and exploited to the benefit of the economy at large. The outcome of the cross-cutting review has now been fed into Spending Review 2000, which is still in progress. The Science Budget has not been augmented through reductions in civil Departments’ R&D budgets. The Science Budget is used to support basic and strategic research and postgraduate education, whilst departmental R&D funds are used in support of their policies and statutory duties and to provide foresight for policy development. For civil departments, this is very largely applied research. There have been a few cases where, for sound policy reasons, responsibilities for certain areas of SET activity have been transferred to Research Councils, but these have involved relatively small sums of money, which have invariably been transferred with the responsibility. Changes in departments’ spending can have some impact on the science base. Reductions in MAFF funding possibilities have been a factor in redundancies at Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council institutes and, indeed, have also caused problems for its own Agencies. As the Committee has noted, Research Council laboratories and universities undertake research commissions and contracts for Government Departments, and the income from such work contributes to funding of the institutions indirect costs. If research funding is brought to an end, for whatever reason, this can cause difficulties through the loss of this contribution to indirect costs and, in some cases, from the cost of any consequential redundancies. Contractual relationships between Public Sector Research Establishments and departments will be considered as part of the forthcoming quinquennial reviews. (e) In the introduction to Forward Look, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry emphasises the status of science as a "major priority" for the Governmenton the grounds that "it underpins our quality of life and is a key driver for wealth creation and employment both in this country and overseas. This is a statement we strongly endorse (paragraph 33). The Government welcomes the Committee’s endorsement. The Government is firmly committed to maintaining and building upon the excellence of the UK science base, and ensuring that the UK thrives in the global knowledge-driven economy of the new century. (f) Competitiveness is a key issue for science policy which merits inclusion amongst the aims of SET expenditure. We therefore recommend that a fourth objective should be added in future editions of Forward Look, namely: -to generate useful knowledge and inventions, both as a contribution to enhancing the competitiveness of the UK economy and as a stimulus to wealth creation and improved quality of life (paragraph 35).