Volume 2: Science
Part 2: Commissioning and funding of research, 1986-96
Arrangements for commissioning and funding research
MAFF

MAFF

Introduction

6.98 As explained above, the focus of agricultural research changed significantly during the early and mid-1980s. For most of the period with which the Inquiry is concerned, MAFF's own research 'focused very directly on supporting its policies', ¹ leaving basic science-led research to the Research Councils and near-market research to industry. ² However, MAFF also acted as a 'customer' for 'strategic research underpinning the development of new technologies and policies'. ³

6.99 The main contractors for publicly funded agricultural research were MAFF's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS), ⁴ the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) and the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL), and the AFRC/BBSRC institutes, although other contractors were increasingly employed towards the end of the period. ⁵ Vol. 15: Government and Public Administration notes how ADAS, the CSL and CVL became Executive Agencies following the 1988 'Next Steps' report, ⁶ and the section of this chapter on the CVL outlines how commissioning and funding arrangements changed significantly to reflect this.

Oversight

6.100 MAFF's research programme was overseen between 1986 and 1995 by a Grade 2 Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), ⁷ who was supported by two Grade 3 Chief Scientists - for Agriculture and Horticulture, and for Food and Fisheries. ⁸ Until 1992, the CSA was also Director-General of ADAS. ⁹ In addition, the postholder was (from 1987) Head of MAFF's Regional Offices and (from 1992) Head of MAFF's Information Technology Division. ¹⁰ During this period, there were two CSAs: Professor Ronald Bell and Dr Bunyan. ¹¹ The Chief Scientist (Agriculture and Horticulture) was Dr Shannon. ¹² He received support on veterinary scientific issues from Dr Kenneth MacOwan.

6.101 Professor Bell told the Inquiry that, as CSA, he:

. . . delegated . . . all of the detailed commissioning of research both within ADAS and with AFRC and the universities. What I retained, and rarely [sent deputies to], was attendance at Priorities Board, ABRC, the meetings . . . called by the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Cabinet Office and so forth. ¹³

6.102 In 1995 the post of Chief Scientific Adviser was abolished and a single Chief Scientist became responsible for agriculture, fisheries and food - and for all the specialist scientists responsible for commissioning research - and reported directly to the Permanent Secretary. ¹⁴

MAFF's commissioning and funding system

6.103 Below the strategic level, MAFF's requirements as a research customer were determined by its science and policy groups, including the State Veterinary Service. A Chief Scientist met senior staff from other funders and providers of agricultural research to review existing programmes and research proposals in the light of departmental customer requirements. Finally, proposals for the development of research programmes were put to Ministers for approval. ¹⁵ The scientists in the institutes and laboratories had an important voice in the way the research programme was carried out, and contributed prominently to its direction. ¹⁶

6.104 There was some external peer review of research proposals: for example, the animal health team in the Chief Scientist's Group used outside experts if insufficient internal expertise was deemed to be available. ¹⁷ Strategic external overview of the BSE research programme was provided by the Consultative Committee on Research on BSE (the Tyrrell Committee) and by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). Their roles are described in Part 3 of this chapter, but did not include reviewing individual project plans or progress. When in the early 1990s MAFF started to use formal competitions to place some of its research contracts, in order to improve value for money, external referees were involved in assessing the proposals. ¹⁸ However, such competitions were used only in a limited number of projects started before 20 March 1996.

6.105 Up to 1991, budgetary responsibility for R&D in MAFF rested with the Chief Scientists. In consultation with their policy colleagues, they established the annual research programme within the budget agreed by Ministers during the annual Whitehall-wide PES round described earlier in this chapter. Expenditure on in-house research (ie, work commissioned from MAFF laboratories, including the CVL) counted as 'running costs', whereas research commissioned externally counted as 'scheme' or 'programme' expenditure. As these were separate Votes, transfers between them required Treasury approval. ¹⁹ Dr Shannon told the Inquiry that:

It was not possible to transfer resources between the external and 'in-house' funding streams without Treasury agreement and this constrained the rate at which funding could be transferred into BSE research. These arrangements changed when 'in-house' laboratories became Agencies in the early 1990s and formal contractual arrangements were established. ²⁰

6.106 The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser took the view that MAFF did not distinguish clearly enough between the customer and contractor roles. MAFF responded by transferring budgetary responsibility for research from the Chief Scientist's Group (CSG) to its policy-making groups, with effect from April 1991. With the exception noted below, the research funds obtained through the PES round were henceforward spent by the policy-makers, advised by the CSG, which retained its role of ensuring that the research programme was balanced and appropriate. The aim was to ensure that 'each research programme would be decided by the budget officer with responsibility for the expenditure in agreement with the appropriate Chief Scientist': ²¹ ie, that science and policy interests were both formally given due weight in reaching decisions, an approach known as the 'double lock'. ²²

6.107 Mrs Elizabeth Attridge of MAFF ²³ explained that:

The 'budget' for research work was allocated to Under Secretaries who were advised by their scientific liaison officers from the Chief Scientist's Group. Dr MacOwan was the AHVG ²⁴ Scientific Liaison Officer. Any money becoming 'free' at the end of a 3 year contract was theoretically available for reallocation to finance new work and under a system of 'double locks' the commissioning of new work needed agreement by both the Chief Scientist and the Policy Under Secretary and merits were assessed by the MAFF Research and Development Committee which had also . . . to take into account the views of priority committees set up to consider the work needed by or jointly financed by the industry. Also involved were the AFRC which through the Office of Science and Technology had an input into the balance of research between establishments. ²⁵

She added that when the CVL became an Agency (as noted below), it was:

. . . considered a self-standing organisation with whom formal research contracts had to be drawn up. Contracts, many of them of an informal nature, with both the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the various research institutes under the AFRC were required to be put on a formal basis, costed and given specific dated goal posts to achieve. ²⁶

6.108 The overall budget was allocated to policy groups in the autumn. But they had to identify 5 per cent of their allocation to be 'donated to a central resource to provide flexibility in the overall programme'. ²⁷ Their allocations were only finalised two or three months later, and a group's '5 per cent donation' could then be redirected to another policy area or programme, to reflect MAFF's developing priorities.

6.109 The Chief Scientist (Agriculture and Horticulture) retained a relatively small share of MAFF's overall research budget (known as his 'special' or 'strategic' fund) of around £4 million, to use at his discretion. ²⁸ It had two purposes: (a) to fund novel approaches, and exploratory and strategic work to address possible future problems (including areas of research which cut across several policy interests); and (b) to address immediate research issues when other budgets were fully engaged - eg, when issues emerged during a financial year after resources had been allocated. This budget could be used to commission both internal and external research. ²⁹ It had the subsidiary purpose of broadening the contractor basis by introducing open competitions for selected small projects.

6.110 The current MAFF Chief Scientist told the Inquiry that, while research was to be funded by the operating divisions, ³⁰ his role was to ensure that they 'took a long enough term view and also exercised their responsibilities properly'- ie, to have an overview of MAFF research and development to ensure that it was effective and that there were no gaps. ³¹

6.111 The ROAME programme management approach was also introduced in the early 1990s, to tighten up management and control. Under ROAME, a Rationale and Objectives were identified, and projects were subject to Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation.

Prioritising research projects

6.112 As noted earlier in this chapter, 'agricultural R&D had been seen as a prime target for cuts by the Treasury . . . since about 1985'. ³² Downward pressure on budgets meant that research proposals had to be ranked and prioritised. Strategic advice on priorities and on the allocation of funds was provided by the Priorities Board. ³³ When this was established, Ministers indicated that they would expect to accept its advice. It was supported by sectoral Research Consultative Committees, ³⁴ which comprised research scientists and technical experts from industry.

6.113 Professor Bell who, as CSA, was a member of the Priorities Board, told the Inquiry that it:

. . . never saw its role as campaigning for more money. It saw its role as determining priorities within a total budget set by the various funding agencies . . . We were trying to . . . determine a pattern of spend across monies coming from various places: the Agricultural and Food Research Council derived money from the DES, MAFF had its source of funds from the Government, Scottish funds, Irish funds and so on . . . we were trying to set a pattern across all Government Departments within this area of agriculture and food. ³⁵

6.114 Despite the Board's recommendation in 1985, noted earlier, that expenditure on animal health should be reduced by 20 per cent, total R&D expenditure by MAFF on animal health and welfare rose from £15 million in 1988 (of which research into TSEs accounted for less than £1 million) to £24 million in 1996 (with around £7 million on TSE research). This increase was funded entirely from within MAFF's overall research budget, thus diverting funds from other, non-TSE, aspects of animal health. ³⁶

6.115 The Priorities Board continued until 1993, and then recommended longer-term priorities and that it should itself be wound up. Ministers decided that a successor independent advisory body was not needed. Instead, a small group of senior staff from the main funding bodies was set up in 1995, to ensure that the overall programme of publicly funded research in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, the agri- and marine environment and food was coherent. This Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Research Funders Group was to keep under review the requirements for publicly funded research in these fields; to ensure that there was effective coordination between Departments and Research Councils so as to prevent duplication or significant gaps in the research they commissioned; and to make sure that research programmes and proposals took account of the needs of industry and other end-users. ³⁷ It was supplemented by a series of Concordats between MAFF and the BBSRC and the MRC, ³⁸ to promote effective interaction between them. MAFF's own research programme was kept under review and prioritised by a Research and Development Committee, chaired by the Chief Scientific Adviser. ³⁹