Memorandum from Celia Cook
I am an Assistant Librarian at CEH Lancaster.
I have been an employee of the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) since 1996, having worked previously at the former Institute
of Terrestrial Ecology QTE) site at Merlewood, Grange-over-Sands.
My evidence concerns the reorganisation of the
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH).
I have previously expressed my concerns regarding
this matter to my MP, Tim Farron, who has forwarded them to the
Chairman of the Committee, Mr Phil Willis, MP.
The main points that I raised were:
(a) NERC Council and its associated
committees are dominated by universities. The effect of this in
relation to CEH and its former institutes, ITE, the Institute
of Freshwater Ecology (IFE), Hydrology QH) and Virology and Environmental
Microbiology (P/EM) has been that NERC has pursued a policy of
cutting back these institutes' work and enforcing a policy of
closing CEH sites.
(b) The rationale behind this policy
is not driven by the poor quality of the science or of the facilities
of the Institutes. NERC Council have refused to publish the Science
and Innovation Strategy Board (SISB) report which presumably has
informed its decisions regarding CEH. I hope the Select Committee
will ask for this document to be made public.
(c) The most recent reorganisation proposed
to cut the number of sites from nine to four is far too drastic,
and puts in danger some of CEH's most vital work.
(d) NERC Council have refused to take
any account of the views expressed in the public consultation
on the Strategic Review proposals, 98% of which were opposed to
the planned cuts.
I would like to make some additional points
relating to the above and raise some questions which I hope the
Committee will be able to pursue further:
1. In my opinion NERC has not pursued policies
which have been in the best interests of public finances, because
of ft's policy to cut the Centres and Surveys. For example: between
2000 and 2002 the Council approved the closure of CEH Merlewood
and Windermere sites and their relocation to the campus of Lancaster
University. The least costly option would have been to combine
the sites at Merlewood where the building and grounds were already
owned by NERO. However, NERC Council refused to consider this
and decided to follow Option 4, details of which arc contained
in the enclosed documents. (ENC. 1) NERC (P) 02/15 Annex 1 &
2 Part B. This option was specifically not recommended as being
in the best interests of CEH.
2. NERC agreed to CEH staff occupying part
of a new building project which was planned and managed by the
University. The result was tat NERC/CEH did not have full control
of the building project. There were considerable problems with
the quality of the building work carried out by contractors, particularly
with the laboratory facilities. In addition the running costs
of the Lancaster site, including business rates, proved to be
far higher than originally budgeted. See enclosed copy of the
CEH Business Plan 2005-06 to 2009-10, page 23.(ENC. 2). I am concerned
that NERC did not exercise prudent financial management in its
negotiations with the university. CEH staff are very angry about
this mismanagement which I believe is a major cause of NERC/CEH
Management now claiming tat CEH is not sustainable. I hope the
Committee will be able to investigate this further.
3. The planning and execution of the removal
itself was subject to major changes during the process, which
again caused costs to be higher. As said above originally two
Phases were to be built Phase one for Merlewood, Phase Two for
Windermere staff Merlewood staff completed their planning for
Phase One, but in 2002 NERC Council decided to abandon Phase Two
and all the staff from Windermerere had to be fitted into only
a slightly larger space than that originally designed for staff
from Merlewood, (Option 4). All the designing and planning had
to be done again, and this had a disastrous effect on some of
the facilities for staff particularly laboratories, engineering
workshops and in my own particular case the library service. See
enclosed letter which I have recently sent to the Chief Executive
of NERC giving full details of the four changes of plans that
were imposed on library staff (ENC.3). We now have inferior access
to books, journals and other materials which have been purchased
by NERC/CEH since 1989.
4. Engineering and workshop facilities have
been provided in the Scientific Support Unit at CEH Lancaster,
(which, as detailed in ENC.3 is situated on the far side of the
campus). For the past two years considerable funds have been spent
to bring them up to the most recent health and safety specifications.
Unfortunately, CEH management now are proposing to close them.
This would be an incomprehensible waste of public money.
5. CEH management were fully aware of the
problems with the building at Lancaster and the delays and increased
costs. I was expecting that meetings would have been held with
staff to explain the problems and measures taken to reduce site
costs. I understand that negotiations have taken place with the
university to reduce charges. but at no time has this been communicated
generally to staff. There does not appear to have been any sense
of urgency among our management to make us aware of the fact that
CEH was becoming more "unsustainable". Our annual reports
have been generally most optimistic in their attitude, and give
the impression that improved facilities are being provided for
staff, when in practice this has not been the case. See enclosed
copies of CEH Annual Reports and Science Strategy 2002-07 (ENC.4)
in which I have highlighted significant sections.
6. While the moves involving Merlewood and
Windermere Staff were taking place CEI-J's science was completely
reorganised into five programmes which were introduced in 2004.
A Science Management Audit (SMA) was also carried out in 2004.
These created a great deal of extra work for our staff. Inevitably
some staff took redundancy packages or left during this time and
so there was loss of income due to this. However, we were reassured
by the recommendations of the SMA which slated that a period of
stability was desirable for CEH. See enclosed page from the SMA
Report (ENC. 5). Our Director and Management appeared to endorse
this view in our Annual Report, but a year later NERC Council
decided to ignore this advice and made the decision to conduct
the Strategic Review, making it clear the its aim was to make
even more drastic cuts to the organisation. CEH in general had
been given no time to make its new science structure work and
prove itself financially. Staff at CEH Lancaster in particular
have never had the opportunity to recover from the upheavals caused
by the removals.
7. I was particularly concerned to read
the recently produced CEH Business Plan
2005-06—2009-10 (ENC.2) which on page
26, paragraph 5.1 states:
In 200], Director GEHflagged the unsustainable
position of (EH She presented to NERC Council a proposal to consolidate
C~'EH around four centres of excellence (NERC 0] 54 refers). At
that time Council did not have the funds to support the proposal.
Since that time, C7EH's unsustainable financial model has been
demonstrated to Council on a number of occasions.
It is significant that this does not say that
NERC Council did not support the Director's view, only that it
did not have at that time the finances to carry out the plan.
This view was stated only shortly after the Director was appointed.
I would like the Committee to ask the Director of CEH to produce
the documents which justified this opinion. Instead we were led
to believe that our Director and Executive Board were intending
to retain CEH's geographically distributed structure of seven
sites. Indeed, one more site has been added (a Director's office
at Swindon). The science was reorganised, and in 2004 one more
programme was created: Environmental Informatics. Staff now feel
that our Director and EB have never really had any faith in CEH
and its science. and for the past 5 years have been "treading
water" until the opportunity has come along for them to
carry out the cuts that they and NERC Council originally desired.
8. These are the reasons why I supported the
vote of no-confidence in the Director and Executive Board, which
was passed by Prospect trade union members in April this year
See (ENC.6) and why I wrote the letter to the Chief Executive
of NERC (ENC.3). CEH's research in areas such as climate change,
biodiversity and pollution is at the forefront of public and government
concern at the moment. It is recognised as being of very high
quality. Yet the current reorganisation proposals involve the
reduction in two of these programmes which relate specifically
to these issues (Climate Change and Sustainable Economies) by
incorporating them into the work of the remaining three Programmes
(Biodiversity, Biogeochemistry and Water). Staff feel that they
should be part of an expanding, not contracting organisation.
If CEH is seen to be financially unsustainable, this is largely
because it has been so poorly managed over the past six years.
June 2006
| 
