House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Sixth Report

4 Strategic role of RCUK

Role in Higher Education policy-making

34. In our scrutiny Reports on the individual Research Councils we have encouraged RCUK to develop and promote a common Research Council view on the implications of the Government's higher education policies. This stems largely from our view that individual Research Councils are not always effective in influencing policy on matters concerning their remit. We note that one of the criticisms that emerged in the Ruffles Review was that RCUK had punched below its weight in terms of exercising an influence on policy.[59] In our view, RCUK should be a key player in the development of policies designed to preserve and strengthen the research base in the UK. In its written evidence, RCUK states that it will continue to work through the Research Base Funders' Forum to influence debate, but acknowledges that there is a need to strengthen strategic and operational level dialogue with the Funding Councils.[60] This is starting to happen. The Chief Executive of HEFCE, Sir Howard Newby, will attend RCUK Executive Group twice a year and there will be reciprocal arrangements for the Research Councils' Chief Executives in respect of HEFCE board meetings.[61] The two bodies are to meet to explore how "communications and interactions might be improved across the whole spectrum of their activities".[62]

35. Given these statements, we were surprised that, in his oral evidence to us, Professor Diamond appeared entirely satisfied with the existing arrangements. He gave no indication that improvements in the relationship between both sides of the dual funding mechanism were being sought: "at the moment I think it is working pretty well".[63] We are pleased to see that this complacency seems not to be reflected by the reality of what is happening on the ground.

36. By its own admission, RCUK was less than successful in influencing the review of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Its evidence reports that, whilst it was involved in the consultations, "there was some disappointment the Funding Councils appeared to have shied away from fundamental reform". It specifically highlights the "insufficient attention" given to the evaluation of cross-disciplinary research and the absence of the clarifications on the basis of funding awards necessary to reduce the scope for "game playing".[64] The more detailed guidance on assessment criteria published by HEFCE in January 2005 did go some way to meeting these concerns but RCUK states that "it remains to be seen" how further guidance, to be published in June, will address its outstanding concerns.[65] Professor Diamond was optimistic, believing that the "portents are good". He was "very, very happy", particularly about the assertion by HEFCE that in 2008 "they will be more like instructions", although he hinted at some remaining concerns about the way in which interdisciplinary research will be handled.[66] We recognise the need for an NDPB such as RCUK to respect departmental boundaries and lines of communication, but in an area which requires joined-up policy making we would expect RCUK to be a strong representative of the concerns of Research Councils, particularly over skills shortages. We have not yet been persuaded that RCUK is exercising much influence, or even that it is seriously seeking to do so.

Skills shortages

37. We are currently conducting a major inquiry into strategic science provision, in which the role of the key players on this issue will be explored in more detail. We raised the issue briefly with Professor Diamond in the context of this inquiry in order to gain his impressions of the role RCUK has played on the health of disciplines during its first two years. This is an area in which the Research Councils have rightly taken an interest. Professor Diamond explained that it was for the Research Councils to identify emerging disciplines in order to support the health of the research base. They also had a role in working with the funding councils in order to ensure the long-term future of the more established disciplines.[67] Councils are already using Roberts Review additional funding to enhance postgraduate stipends and postdoctoral salaries in subjects, such as mathematics, that are experiencing recruitment difficulties. The effectiveness of this approach is being monitored by RCUK.[68]

38. Asked about his assessment of the need for graduates in certain disciplines, Professor Diamond told us that it is "absolutely critical that we do take a view on how many basic chemistry undergraduates we need in this country, and that we are able to balance the key elements of demand and supply".[69] We have encouraged Research Councils, notably EPSRC, to establish what a healthy research profile looks like and to adjust funding accordingly, but we have been disappointed by the response.[70] The problem is that existing statistics on projected future needs, such as the Working Futures: National Report, 2003-04, are based on a sectoral examination of the labour market which uses the wrong criteria to draw detailed conclusions on the health of disciplines. They are therefore of limited use to HEFCE and the Research Councils. Sector Skills Councils are beginning to do some useful work in this area, for example in highlighting the potential shortage of expertise in nuclear fission.

39. RCUK is seeking to join with others to provide better information. It has produced a summary of disciplines faced by shortages of researchers and is now in the process of identifying quantitative indicators to provide further insights into the health and composition of disciplines and sub-disciplines.[71] The Research Base Funders' Forum is developing more general metrics on research excellence at an institutional level and examining the ability of the research base to sustain itself. It has found that the availability of relevant data is "somewhat sparse" and varies between the Research Council areas.[72]

40. Individual Research Councils are taking some steps towards calibrating shortages. For example, in the case of chemistry, we heard that EPSRC is targeting physical-organic chemistry and the chemistry/chemical engineering interface through its Science and Innovation Awards. The delivery plans of individual Research Councils will address the health of disciplines, in consultation with RDAs, HEFCE and the Funders' Forum. We welcome the steps that RCUK is taking in the context of the Funders' Forum to gather better statistics with which to inform decision-making on the sustainability of disciplines. We will make further recommendations on this issue as part of our separate inquiry on strategic science provision.

41. RCUK sees as one of its functions the promotion of science careers in schools, including academic careers. We were pleased to hear that RCUK is working with organisations such as the Wellcome Trust to "explore issues around research career paths" with a particular focus on challenging some of the misconceptions among pupils, tutors and careers advisers about the nature of a career in research.[73] Unfortunately, not all impressions are misconceptions, and we have commented before on the deleterious effects of short term contracts on the attractiveness of careers in science.[74] This was seen by Professor Diamond as "something which we really need to get a grip on".[75] We recommend that RCUK specifically addresses the issue of short term contracts in its future work. Research Councils are already engaged in outreach to school children as part of their science in society activities. RCUK co-sponsors with the Wellcome Trust a scheme to enable PhD students and post-doctoral researchers to work with students and teachers in secondary schools; it supports a national competition to stimulate school children to undertake mini-research projects; and an interactive schools science race during science week enjoys widespread participation by secondary schools.[76]

42. We recognise that the Research Councils are taking steps to address skills shortages and promote science careers using the tools available to them. But we are not yet convinced that they are fully involved in decision-making in the Department for Education and Skills. For example, we would have expected the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Charles Clarke MP, to consult the Research Councils before writing in December 2004 to HEFCE seeking advice on how to protect identified higher education courses deemed to be of national strategic importance. However, the press notice announcing this measure referred to consultations "with cabinet colleagues"[77] and Professor Diamond confirmed that RCUK was not consulted.[78] Similarly, in spite of the need for RCUK to take a view on the right number of chemistry undergraduates required, Professor Diamond told us it had had no discussions with HEFCE over recent closures of science departments.[79] We note that it is HEFCE, rather than DfES, that is participating in the Funders' Forum project on the health of disciplines.[80] The activities of the Research Councils in addressing particular skills shortages and in stimulating students more generally to pursue science careers need to form part of an overall Government strategy. We recommend that RCUK ensures that it is heavily involved in the preparation of the HEFCE response to the invitation to provide the Secretary of State for Education and Skills with advice on protecting courses of national strategic importance.

Allocation of the DGRC's discretionary fund

43. The 2004 Spending Review announced a fund of £70 million over two years, to be allocated by the DGRC, in order to "enable Research Councils to respond more quickly and effectively to emerging priorities and opportunities".[81] The Ten Year Investment Framework elaborated that the fund would be used "where it is necessary to focus research effort, build national capacity (including infrastructure) or to seize opportunities from international partnership".[82] RCUK believes that the fund should be used for funding time-critical priority areas and initiatives aimed at underpinning the health of disciplines.[83] Professor Diamond did not indicate to us that RCUK had been involved in discussions on the allocation of this money. Instead, individual Research Councils had been in discussion with the DGRC about their priorities and the decision would be left to him.[84] The Government has indicated that it does not wish to limit the use of this fund to major projects and facilities but has given no indication as to the criteria that will be employed in determining its distribution.[85] It has said that the strategic goals which it will support "could include health of disciplines issues".[86] We find it surprising that RCUK and OST between them have not yet worked out how the DGRC's discretionary fund is to be allocated. We recommend that the Government draw upon the advice of RCUK and announce in the near future how this money is to be used.

44. There is a case for this fund to be given to the Research Councils to allocate, particularly if it is to be used, at least in part, to support the health of disciplines. RCUK would be content to be able to play a more prominent role in the preservation of key disciplines. Its evidence states that it would welcome additional funding for supporting strategic capabilities at national level, although it says that "ensuring national coverage in key subject areas is mainly an issue for the Funding Councils and would need to be taken forward by the Funders Forum".[87] Whilst we welcome the valuable work that the Funders' Forum is doing, we are not convinced that it has yet established a prominent enough position in the policy-making hierarchy for RCUK to rely too much upon it as a means through which to channel its influence.

45. We have previously recommended that RCUK co-ordinate the management of a new Strategic Capabilities Fund, which could be used to support national coverage of key subject shortage areas.[88] The Government rejected this recommendation on the grounds that it would create extra bureaucracy and would be more likely to attract weak, opportunistic bids. It thought that better results could be obtained by Research Councils working bilaterally with HEFCE and RDAs.[89] These are unconvincing arguments. They could equally be used against the DGRC's £70 million fund, which the Government was content to establish, or against any new fund established to address a particular weakness. In any event, such a fund need not be allocated on the basis of specific applications but could be awarded on a discretionary basis. We will monitor closely the effectiveness of the bilateral links between RCUK and others that are to be relied upon for time being.

Regional role

46. The policy of all the Research Councils is to fund the highest quality proposals they receive, regardless of institution or geographical location. However, Research Councils also have "a national remit and adopt a UK-wide strategic view on research capability".[90] We were keen to discover how this translates into a regional dimension of Research Council policy in practice. Helen Thorne from RCUK explained that individual Research Councils were represented on the Science and Industry Councils that have now been established by the RDAs and that there was further interaction via the Funders' Forum, the Technology Strategy Board and the Regional Innovation Science and Technology Group.[91] A particular focus for this interaction has been the knowledge transfer agenda. Research Councils have always developed their own relationships with RDAs as they see fit. Professor Diamond argued that the added value that RCUK provided to this interaction was in ensuring that contacts with RDAs by one Research Council were shared across the board, as necessary.[92] He said that "RCUK is providing the essential glue that enables interaction to take place".[93] In time, he believed that RCUK would provide a focal point for RDAs to make contact with Research Councils.[94]

47. We have found in other inquires that the scientific expertise available within RDAs was patchy. We are pleased to note that six Science and Industry Councils have now been established and that the Research Councils are represented on them. We believe that, if RCUK is to have a role in developing relations with RDAs, then it should be the recognised point of contact for RDAs, in line with Professor Diamond's expectations. Thus far, there has not been sufficient clarity in the role of the individual Research Councils and RCUK in developing these relations. This is one of the consequences of the failure to give RCUK a clear sense of mission at the outset. We recommend that RCUK include clear objectives in its delivery plan for its relationship with RDAs. We will look closely at how these relations have developed the next time that we scrutinise RCUK.

European dimension

European Research Council

48. RCUK has a role in representing the interests of the Research Councils on the international stage. Over the last two years we have been following closely the development of the proposal for a European Research Council (ERC), to allocate funding for research on a pan-European basis. In our Report on the UK and European science policy in 2003, we called for the Government to develop a firm position on the proposal, in consultation with the research community.[95] This position is still developing: Lord Sainsbury has indicated some opposition to placing industry-related research and basic research under the same funding umbrella.[96] It has not yet been agreed whether the funding for an ERC would come from the EU budget or out of the existing budget for the Framework Programmes, nor whether money would be allocated on a quality only basis, unaffected by geographical or political considerations.[97]

49. The RCUK view on the ERC is refreshingly clear. Professor Diamond told us that "The European Research Council is a good thing if it gives new money".[98] He outlined his preference for a blue skies response mode competition across Europe, with no requirement for international collaboration. He favoured basing allocations on scientific excellence rather than on the juste retour principle of the Framework Programmes and told us that he had been making this case to the European Commission.[99] If there is to be an ERC we would fully support this mode of operation. We share the concern of RCUK that any money allocated to the ERC might be taken from existing Research Council allocations. This would not be in the best interests of UK science. We trust that the Science Minister is making this case within Government on behalf of the Research Councils and we look forward to a more detailed statement of the UK position in the near future.

EU Framework Programmes and full economic costs

50. One of the detailed points that will need to be established in respect of the ERC is whether or not it will pay the full economic costs (FEC) of research, as opposed to only the direct costs that are paid under existing EU Framework Programme (FP) grants. Professor Diamond told us that the case was being made, but it seems unlikely to be successful, given the general lack of enthusiasm in Europe for funding the full economic costs for FP grants.[100] In its evidence RCUK acknowledges concerns about the impact of the change to the payment of full economic costs by UK Research Councils. Following a review of the sustainability of the research base, the Government is moving towards the payment of the full economic cost of research, rather than the proportion of the projects' indirect costs which the Research Councils meet at present. In order to pay a greater proportion of the full costs of research, Research Councils have been awarded a further £120 million a year from 2005-06, with another £80 million allocated in SR 2004 to cater for 2007-08 onwards. It was announced in January 2005 that Research Councils would be paying 80% of full economic costs from September 2005, with a target of moving towards 100% of the full economic costs being paid by the Research Councils by early in the next decade.[101]

51. UK participation in FP activities is one of the areas that might be adversely affected by the move to full economic costs. We have already recommended that Government makes funding available to meet the indirect costs of EU-funded research to maintain existing UK participation levels.[102] Ministers have agreed that a number of measures will be identified in order to monitor the full effects of the introduction of FEC.[103] We heard that the results are due shortly but that the preliminary findings suggest that there will be no adverse effect on UK participation in FP activities.[104] We welcome the work that Research Councils are doing to measure the impact of the move towards funding the full economic costs of research and look forward to the publication of the full findings of its monitoring exercise.

Large facilities

52. One of RCUK's functions is advising OST on the Large Facilities Road Map, which sets out the priorities of the research community for investment in facilities and projects over the next 15 years. It relies principally on the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC) in providing this advice. The CCLRC, as the operator of a number of large scale facilities, is the provider of strategic advice to Government on large scale facilities, both in the UK and overseas. In our Report on the CCLRC we recommended that RCUK was the more natural provider of this strategic advisory advice, on behalf of all the Research Councils. The Government rejected this proposal, arguing that it was for individual Councils, including CCLRC, to provide advice, although it did accept our conclusion that CCLRC's strategic advisory body should be given a greater independent element.[105] The Large Facilities Road Map is due to be revised in 2005. RCUK has been asked to undertake a prioritisation exercise following this revision, to identify those projects which are likely to move into a capital construction phase and thus need further funding. This prioritisation will take place according to criteria agreed by RCUK and OST and is likely to be complete by the end of 2005.[106] The DGRC will use this analysis to advise Ministers on future Spending Reviews.

53. There is also a Large Facilities Capital Fund. This is used to support large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects in UK universities and Research Council institutes which fall outside the funding remit, or capability, of any individual authority. Suitable projects are very expensive; have long lifetimes and multiple users, both nationally and internationally; and are interdisciplinary. It is usual for such projects to be funded from multiple sources, including Research Councils, other government departments, charities and international bodies. Recent projects that have received support from this fund include the ISIS second target station, a new marine research vessel and the Diamond synchrotron.[107] The fund is worth £95 million a year.[108] Allocations are made by OST, on the advice of the Research Councils, with Treasury approval required in certain circumstances. RCUK states that "Approval by DTI Ministers is required in most cases, and if the project is above the DTI's delegated powers, or requires funding from beyond the current three-year Spending Review period, approval is also required from HM Treasury."[109]

54. Professor Diamond told us that RCUK had no role in co-ordinating applications by the Research Councils to this fund. We raised with him the potential bid by MRC to the fund in support of the move of its National Institute for Medical Research to a central London site. He told us "it is not for RCUK to second-guess those decisions; it is for the individual Councils to make those decisions as best they see fit."[110] We found it difficult to accept that RCUK had no role in respect of these bids, given that they normally are in support of projects already on the Large Facilities Road Map, on which RCUK does advise OST.[111] We were therefore pleased that Professor Diamond's oral evidence was supplemented by additional written evidence. It said that "RCUKEG considers both the science case and business case. Where there is a request to draw upon the large facilities capital fund, it is the role of RCUKEG to recommend to OST whether funding should be made".[112] We are pleased to see that RCUK does play a role in the allocation of the Large Facilities Capital Fund as well as advising on the development of the Large Facilities Road Map. Once RCUK has developed along the lines we have outlined earlier and assumed greater independence, we would like to see this fund being allocated exclusively by RCUK.

59 Ruffles Review, para 66. Back

60 Ev 75 Back

61 Ev 75; Q 55 Back

62 Ev 75 Back

63 Q 55 Back

64 Ev 29 Back

65 Ev 30 Back

66 Q 56 Back

67 Q 61 Back

68 Ev 28 Back

69 Q 61 Back

70 Second Special Report of the Committee, Session 2003-04,Government Response to the Committee's Ninth Report, Session 2002-03, The Work of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, HC 171, p 8 Back