Supplementary memorandum by the Department
of Trade and Industry (UWP 115A)
Thank you for your letter of 19 April with further
questions regarding the role of the Office of Science and Technology
and Government Ministers in the recent Synchrotron site decision.
I think it would be helpful if I took you through the chronology
of work that was undertaken in reaching the decision:
— During meetings, from September to
December 1998, the OST, at officer and director level put forward
the advantages of a Daresbury location to the Wellcome Trust on
the understanding that whatever site was considered there would
have to be an investment appraisal. The Trust, however, wanted
to carry out their own assessment of the project, which they subsequently
did alongside the data collected by CCLRC and OST.
— The Trust did not accept that the
Daresbury Laboratory site was an automatic choice and in early
1999 formed the view that an open competition was required to
choose the site. It was OST's opinion that this would lead to
a lengthy delay and the incurring of substantial costs by those
who participated, and that there were probably only two credible
options: to locate the project at Daresbury or at the Rutherford-Appleton
Laboratory where the infrastructure for such a facility already
exists.
— A study was, therefore, commissioned
from ADD Consultants in April 1999 by OST to look at these two
options and a so-called "green field" option in terms
of their comparative advantages, benefits and costs. This was
completed in June 1999 and made available to the Wellcome Trust.
— From this background you can see
that OST were in on-going discussions with the Wellcome Trust
at the meeting on 10 May.
— The Trust was also given access to
information on the Daresbury Laboratory and its advantages and
attended consultation meetings with the Research Councils and
CCLRC senior management on 12 November 1998, and several others
in the following months.
— On the basis of the study by ADD
Consultants and other work the OST decided that the best site
scientifically was Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and made a recommendation
to this effect to myself in July 1999.
— At the same time the Wellcome Trust
formed a similar view on the basis of their own studies and the
information supplied by the OST, and got the agreement of their
Trustees. They also agreed to drop the idea of a competition.
I am afraid that we are not prepared to release
copies of correspondence with the Wellcome Trust. I refer you
to Stephen Byers' answer to a PQ on this on 19 April 2000 (Official
report, column 544W) in which he says: "The correspondence
between my Department and the Wellcome Trust contains information
given in confidence and as such is exempt from disclosure under
the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".
Further, the internal opinions and advice given
to ministers by officials in relation to the siting of the Synchrotron
project will not be released as it falls under exemption 2 of
the Code (Internal discussion and Advice). The basis of the decision
to locate the facility at Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory has been
placed in the public domain at hearings of the Science and Technology
Select Committee in addition to the Government response in Parliament.
I attach a summary of the science case that has been released.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Science
24 May 2000
|
