MPs have said that they have “reservations” about the expertise of the government’s chosen candidate to chair the UK’s main research funding body, while calling for a formal process to be put in place to avoid his potential conflicts of interest.
In a published following a pre-appointment hearing last month, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee says that Sir Andrew Mackenzie had “the professional competence and many of the skills required” to lead UK Research and Innovation.
However, the committee adds that it has “reservations about Sir Andrew’s science and innovation policy knowledge and how potential conflicts of interest will be managed”.
The MPs note that in his answers to them Sir Andrew – former chief executive of the world’s biggest mining company, BHP, and now chair of Shell – “did not always demonstrate a depth and breadth of knowledge that we would have expected”.
“This, combined with his own admission that he will need to ‘acquire skills to work across government’, and his career history not being in R&D could mean that early in his tenure he will face challenges in: advising the secretary of state on the breadth of policy issues covered by UKRI; negotiating across government for increased funding for UKRI specifically and public sector investment in research and innovation more generally; and providing challenge to and alternative views to pre-held organisational views within UKRI,” the report says.
“However, Sir Andrew has had an eminent career to date which indicates a track record of being able to adapt and succeed.”
The MPs add that Sir Andrew, who was nominated for the role by business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, will “need to improve his personal knowledge of how government works, the research and innovation landscape and the most pertinent issues relating to research and innovation”.
Many of the key exchanges in the pre-appointment hearing focused on Sir Andrew’s career in “polluting extractive industries” and the potential for conflicts of interest with his role as Shell chair, particularly in relation to UKRI’s key role in funding research on green innovation needed to tackle climate change.
Labour MP Zarah Sultana noted that one professor had described Sir Andrew’s selection for UKRI chair as being “like putting a tobacco industry magnate in charge of health research”.
In the hearing, Sir Andrew said that he did not think conflicts of interest would arise, since issues relating to Shell were unlikely to come before the board and, if they did, protocols allowed for the recusal of the chair. He said he had moved BHP towards a strategy of being “part of the move towards a zero-carbon future”, and that he “decided to become the chair of Shell because I’m very committed to getting to net zero”.
In their report, the MPs say that Sir Andrew had “illustrated to us the importance he placed on personal integrity”. “However, when we asked him a number of questions on how any potential conflicts of interest would be managed in practice it did not appear that a formal process had been put in place by Sir Andrew and UKRI to manage potential conflicts of interest,” they note.
The MPs conclude that, even in the absence of any wrongdoing, it was very important that there was “no perceived conflict of interest” between Sir Andrew’s roles.
“Prior to confirming the appointment, the government, UKRI and Sir Andrew should formalise a process for how potential conflicts of interests (direct and indirect) between these two roles will be managed in practice,” the report says.
Mr Kwarteng is now able to confirm Sir Andrew in the role of UKRI chair. He is due to succeed Sir John Kingman in the post over the summer.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said that Sir Andrew’s “impressive track record at the top tier of business will offer UKRI the strong, commercially-minded leadership it needs to cement our position as a global science superpower”.
“We welcome the committee’s report and look forward to working closely with Sir Andrew as we unleash the firepower of UKRI to drive an innovation-led recovery across the UK,” the spokeswoman said.
It is understood that assessment and mitigation of potential conflicts of interest will take place once the appointment is confirmed.
