Chamber and committees

I want to follow up Mr Cameron’s question and your reflection on that eternal question about short-term funding or “projectism”, as I think that it is called. It is a question that needs an answer, because I see a lot of public money being wasted due to the fact that projects have to eternally reinvent themselves. That wastes core staff time, which is spent on funding applications and trying to develop new projects on the back of those. What organisations really need is multiyear long-term funding to enable them to get to a place where they might well innovate and move into a different space. However, in the meantime, they need a space to grow into that. You mentioned the power of convening. How do you answer that question? How do you crack that issue, because it has been there for years and it is grinding the entire voluntary sector down—not just in the culture sector but in many other sectors.

I see an official nodding at that.

Do you to have any other points to raise on the detail? You mentioned a sense of vagueness.

Environmental assessment is a well-established practice and relates to the habitats directive. There are a set of tests, including a public interest test, that apply. Again, we are speculating as to what may or may not happen, but do you see that practice of appropriate assessment and the application of key tests continuing? Alternatively, if we look at other bills that are being introduced, can we see a potential change in relation to habitats as well, which would seriously impact on assessment?

I raised this point with Michael Gove, who actually took it quite seriously. If there is an evaluation process, could that lead to increased animal testing if particular products, or any active ingredients within them, effectively have to be re-evaluated?

The witnesses have already touched on some areas that I want to ask about. I want to get a bit more information from them about part 5 of the bill, and particularly the clauses that set out how the new system will work. Some aspects of that have already been covered, but I would like to go round the witnesses and get their views on the specifics of what is currently laid out and how it will work.

Is there clarity over which plans and programmes might be captured?

I just want to raise the issue of the potential for increased animal testing, which has been raised in relation to the implementation of REACH.

We would hope that would be the case, too.

I want to ask about the potential for increased animal testing, which is something that has been raised in relation to the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation.

Does that relate to international obligations? Are those baked into that provision or, again, is that part of being satisfied?

Is that also coming through the EU refit process? Is the EU responding to the need for reform relating to transparency in wider public health?