Science in the Met Office : thirteenth report of session 2010-12 / House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
2012
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Science in the Met Office : thirteenth report of session 2010-12 / House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    84/136 (page 30)
    Q131 Chair: In terms of the changes, the MOD clearly still has an important need for the highest quality Met Office service. What structures are in place to ensure that it continues to get the support that it needs? Mr Davey: There are quarterly meetings between officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Met Office to ensure that the customer service agreement is up to date and being met. It is a close relationship. There is obviously a historical relationship, and, although the change to BIS has broken it to some extent, it is still very close. We certainly would not want to put that relationship at risk. It is very important to this country. Q132 Chair: One of the prized documents on display in the Met Office library is the weather chart for D- day. In any conflict situation, it is clearly mission- critical to maintain that accurate data. Are you confident that the mechanisms that you describe will continue to meet the needs of the MOD in the future? Putting it another way, if the MOD shouted for more help, can we be assured that it would be forthcoming? Mr Davey: The MOD is a customer. It pays money to the Met Office for the services that it receives and the Met Office would like to have the Ministry of Defence’s money. Q133 Chair: In the case of conflict, I would see things slightly differently. I would expect a publicly or even a privately owned company to be responsive to the nation’s need in those circumstances. Can we be assured about that? Mr Davey: You can be totally reassured about that. Q134 Roger Williams: The Met Office depends upon customer service agreements with various Departments for its funding. They are _ intra- government agreements and are not legally enforceable. Sir John Beddington said in his review that these arrangements do not give the stability required and are unlikely to provide stability in the future. Why is it that the defence customer service agreement—and, indeed, the Met Office Hadley Centre climate programme agreement—have not been agreed beyond the financial year 2011-12? Mr Davey: | can understand why people have concerns about this and why the Met Office would like to see changes. If you go back in history, there have never been very long funding arrangements, so it is nothing new, but the current financial circumstances have made it more challenging. We need to consider whether these customer service agreements and the funding behind them can be put on a longer time scale, but that would be work in progress by the various parties. I cannot say that it will happen, or that it will happen by a certain date, but the point you make, Mr Williams, is very well made. Q135 Roger Williams: The Hadley Centre climate change programme is now jointly managed by DECC and Defra, but that does not seem to have given it the required stability. Would it not be better if it was managed by only one Department? Mr Davey: As | understand it, DECC and Defra are coming together to sign a memorandum of understanding—I shall be corrected if I am wrong— in order to give the Hadley Centre the reassurances that it seeks. That is important because it is doing some critical long-term research. Q136 Roger Williams: You say that Departments are looking at how to provide more stability for funding. Would that include making these customer service agreements legally enforceable? Mr Davey: | am not sure that the legally enforceable bit is the critical factor. While this purchaser-provider or Owner-customer split is very important and very real, there are real negotiations about the contract. I sometimes think that people see it as a pretence, but it is very real. Because they are Government to Government and on a Crown to Crown basis, I am now absolutely clear that they are not legally enforceable. Q137 Roger Williams: Under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Met Office is the preferred supplier for advice and services to the Government. Does that give any more stability and certainty about future funding streams? Mr Davey: One can be clear that these sorts of services are going to be needed into the future; they are not services that we can jettison or do without. In that rather profound way, there can be certainty. As for the exact levels of funding and so on, it is always difficult to say, but we have gone through the spending review and the big totals are there for all to see. I think that should give some comfort. Q138 Stephen Metcalfe: As well as having the Government as a customer, the Met Office earns about 15% or 16% of its income from additional commercial activity. Do you think that that proportion—the physical amount—should be increased, and, if so, what are the pros and cons of doing so? Mr Davey: We have no target figure to work toward, but there would be attractions to having one if the Met Office were to develop its commercial arm. It would need to do so carefully, but now that it is within BIS, under the Shareholder Executive for which I am Minister, and under PDC, there will be extra support for those activities, and extra advice and guidance, given the skills in the Shareholder Executive. One of the reasons for developing PDC was to attract private investment. It may well be that joint ventures that might be needed to develop these commercial activities could be a lot easier to arrange than in the past. There was a joint venture five or six years ago, but it was not as successful as people had hoped. Perhaps under the new model we will see more examination of those options to provide the sorts of things you are talking about. But we should be clear that the services that the Met Office provides to the public sector, the Ministry of Defence and so on are absolutely critical. While it would be possible to expand its commercial activities, we must not at any stage put those other services at risk.