Efficiency Unit scrutiny of public sector research establishments : oral and written evidence / Science and Technology Select Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
1994
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Efficiency Unit scrutiny of public sector research establishments : oral and written evidence / Science and Technology Select Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    32/132 (page 24)
    13 October 1994] [Continued base, and arguably one which is in much greater need of attention, has been largely excluded from analysis and debate. Q4. Will the proposals in the report: — aid efficiency? — strengthen the effective provision of scientific expertise and advice? — contribute to wealth creation and to the quality of life? Explain your answers and, if necessary, note how the above aims could be furthered 4.1 In answering these questions we will take each of the issues in turn, analyse their meaning in the context of the scrutiny and refer to the recommendations. In doing so we cover both those recommendations which directly refer to the subject in hand, and are not covered by more specific questions elsewhere, and the impact of other recommendations less specifically or more indirectly related to the issues raised in the question. 4.2 Will the Proposals Aid Efficiency? 4.2.1 First we need to define “efficiency” and for this purpose we take “the aim of achieving best value for money across the board from public expenditure in science and technology” (by paragraph 1). This definition in our view also includes effectiveness, particularly in achieving the second two objectives set out in Q4. Effectiveness, in our view is as important, if not more important than efficiency. There is also the narrower definition taken from the same first paragraph “to minimise the costs associated with public sector capabilities and ensure that funding is devoted not to overheads but to the delivery of good and effective science”. 4.2.2 We accept the need to achieve effectiveness, efficiency and good value for money. We also recognise that the context in which the scrutiny takes place is one of severely declining funding, as spelt out in paragraphs 2.27—2.30 (8). But efficiency gains alone are unlikely to bridge the funding gap, and privatisation, even if acceptable on other grounds, is not proven to be any more efficient (9), or any cheaper for the taxpayer. Moreover many of their recommendations will not aid efficiency. 4.2.3 Itisalsoimportant to recognise that major advances in efficiency and effectiveness have already been made. Indeed Sir Peter Levene and the SET White Paper claimed that the research councils and the government research establishments (GREs) were working well and only minor adjustments were required. The Scrutiny report itself notes that “there has been substantial rationalisation of civil research establishments over the last 10 years or so, ... and duplication between establishments is rare” (paragraph 4). They mention in Chapter 2 that a whole range of government initiatives, including “Next Steps” agencies, financial management initiatives and ROAMEs have been applied to PSREs as to the rest of the civil service and NDPBs. In addition the new mechanisms established by the SET White Paper, such as “Technology Foresight” and the “Forward Look” also need to be given a chance to work (paragraph 2.6). 4.2.4 Thus, apart from the fact that the changes undertaken so far have stayed within departmental or research council boundaries, they appear to identify little general need for further change were it not for the funding issue: “trends in departmental expenditure on R&D/S&T imply a need for further action to ensure that capacity remains in line with demand” (paragraph 2.3.2). In other words further efficiencies must be made to fit the PSREs to the funding available. Indeed, the issue of funding is driving the scrutiny. 4.2.5 We do not find the funding situation (described in more detail in Annex 1 (not printed) ) either satisfactory or acceptable. We would argue and have done so elsewhere, that science funding must be increased, but in this context it is a political fact which cannot be ignored. 4.2.6 Leaving aside the question of merit the reorganisation and reviews suggested in the recommen- dations will themselves add to costs. There would be costs not only in terms of those carrying out the measures themselves, and costs associated with closure and redundancy, but costs in time spent away from scientific activity, costs in terms of lost reputation, break up of teams as in the case of WSL, and costs in terms of further deterioration in morale. The costs of making changes can be enormous and major changes should be very carefully analysed to ensure that the expected benefits outweigh the costs. The case of AFRC is particularly salutary in this regard. Since 1980 institutes have been closed and rationalised with the number of institutes cut from 12 to eight, the number of sites cut from 22 to 13, staff cut from 6,300 to 3,700. But restructuring cost £81 million in building projects and £46 million in staff costs. Nor should the cost and time needed to reorganise science provision effectively be ignored, or the impact on morale. It took 12-14 months to reorganise and reassemble new science structures and to get programmes on stream again. 4.2.7 Many of the recommendations will entail costs and ensure that funding is in fact devoted to “overheads” and not “to the delivery of good and effective science”. Examples include recommendation