Correspondence between the Committee and
the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, regarding
the Government's Response to the Committee's Report on Science
Budget Allocations
Letter from the Chairman, Phil Willis
MP, to the Rt Hon John Denham MP, Secretary of State for Innovation,
Universities and Skills
SCIENCE BUDGET
ALLOCATIONS
The Committee has considered the Government's
Response to its Report on the Science Budget Allocations and has
a number of concerns. One general point is that the Government
has, on several occasions, answered on behalf of the Science and
Technology Facilities Council (STFC), rather than let it speak
for itself on recommendations that are specifically relevant to
it. Incidences where this has happened are noted below in a point-by-point
consideration of the Response. We have written to STFC separately
to ask for responses where we feel they would be helpful.
Conclusion 4, para 28
The Government has rejected our recommendation
that documents prepared for bilateral negotiations between the
Government and the Research Councils should be published as a
matter of course. The reason given is, to paraphrase, that some
information is commercially confidential and that the openness
would put at risk "candid discussion and robust appraisal"
during the allocation process. The first of these concerns did
not prevent the release of the documents under the Freedom of
Information Act and therefore should not prevent DIUS from releasing
them as a matter of course. Commercially confidential information
could always be removed prior to release. The second concern simply
does not hold: we did not ask to see transcripts of discussions,
but documents relating to the discussions. Further, keeping the
negotiations confidential opens the Government up to accusations
that it has inappropriately influenced the decisions that Research
Councils take.
Conclusion 6, paras 38-40
We welcome the Government's willingness to make
a statement on the Haldane Principle. It is not clear why the
Government goes on to discuss peer review in this section, since
peer review was not mentioned in recommendation 6 or its preceding
text and was discussed later in the report. Be that as it may,
the Government's assertion that we criticised "the outcome
of STFC's peer review process" and "those researchers
who have undertaken it" is an inaccurate paraphrasing of
the serious concerns we raised in relation to STFC's peer review
system and decisions made by STFC. We did not criticise the outcomes
of STFC's peer review. Specifically:
(a) on the International Linear Collider, we
did not comment on the scientific justification for withdrawal,
but raised some concerns that had been put to us during the inquiry;
(b) on Gemini, we did not consider the merits
of STFC's decision, but the way it went about making its decision,
or as it turned out, indecision, public;
(c) on solar-terrestrial physics, we questioned
Professor Mason's explanation for the withdrawal of funding, and
suggested that STFC renege on that decision until its community
had been properly consulted.
Neither did we criticise the members of the
peer review panels. On the contrary, we acknowledged that STFC's
peer review committees "have a difficult job to do"
and that "we do not doubt the integrity of the individuals
who make up those Committees" (p 32 of our report).
Conclusion 7, para 45
In response to our suggestion that the Government
has failed to protect both the existing and planned research base
by allocating insufficient funds to cover FEC and the new bodies,
the Government has responded that: "the cross-Council programmes
and research with the new bodies, are just as much Research Council
activities, as any other [punctuation sic]." We have two
concerns. First, we did not mention the cross-council programmes
in this context. We said that insufficient funds were allocated
to cover FEC and the new bodies.
Second, the new bodies were specifically created
to promote the translation of research into wealth, which has
been supported by this Committee. It is clear from our report
and the Government's response that these new bodies are partially
supported by a reallocation of money away from the existing research
base towards translation. For example, the Government says in
its response that "It is the role of Government to encourage
the research base regularly to assess and adjust funding to take
into account shifting priorities" and "It would not
be appropriate to adopt an approach that only funded new initiatives
after all existing activity is maintained" (para 43 of the
response). This is precisely our concern. The Government has repeatedly
reassured the science community that basic science will not be
cut because of the increased emphasis on translation. The Government
appears to have changed its stance.
Conclusion 8
The Government welcomes our recognition that
STFC was formed without a budget deficit, but dismisses the fact
that, in the words of Keith Mason, "the baseline budget allocation
to [CCLRC...] was not fully raised to compensate for the running
costs of Diamond and ISIS Target Station II" (para 37 of
the report). To dismiss this observation on the grounds that Research
Councils are only permitted to plan according to a flat cash settlement
is not acceptable for two reasons. First, the building of Diamond
and ISIS TS2 are national facilities, built with the blessing
of the Government. The real running costs of these facilities
have been known for a long time and CCLRC's baseline budget allocation
should either have been set to rise to meet the requirements of
the new facilities or the Government should have raised concerns
about CCLRC's ability to fund the projects in the future. Second,
STFC has inherited a shortfall in CCLRC's projected budget. The
fact that STFC did not inherit an existing budget deficit does
not negate either the problem nor the Government's responsibility
for the budgetary shortfall.
Conclusion 10
We have asked STFC for a response to Conclusion
10.
Conclusions 12, 13, 14 and 15
On the matter of the relationship between the
Haldane Principle and regional policy, the Government appears
confused. The Government clearly has a regional policy (or should
have a regional policy), since its has repeatedly stated that
it wants "to strengthen science investment at Daresbury"
(para 64 of the response). This desire leads the Government to
have a "specific vision" for STFC to fund science at
Daresbury (para 63 of the response). Whether or not this is a
breach of the Haldane Principle, it is a clear breach of Government
policy, that "Public funding of research at a national level,
through the Research Councils and funding bodies, is dedicated
to supporting excellent research, irrespective of its UK location"
(Science and Innovation Investment Framework, 2004-14, p 146,
para 9.52, our emphasis). In other words, according to its own
guidelines, and arguably the Haldane Principle, the Government
should not be putting pressure on Research Councils to put money
in one place or another (as it has done by repeatedly voicing
a desire to see world-class science facilities at Daresbury and
by outlining its "specific vision for the Daresbury Campus
[to be] a partnership between STFC [and others]"); that is
for Research Councils to decide on the basis of the science. However,
the Government is clearly and rightly determined that Daresbury
should have a bright future. We therefore urge the Government
to reconsider our recommendation that it produce a White Paper
on Regional Science Policy as a basis for discussion as a matter
of urgency.
On paras 66 and 67 of the response, we are concerned
that Government is speaking for STFC. We have asked STFC for a
response to these conclusions.
Conclusion 16
We are concerned that the Government has spoken
for STFC on this matter. We have asked STFC for a response.
Conclusion 17
We are concerned that the Government has spoken
for STFC on this matter. We have asked STFC for a response.
Conclusion 23, paras 94 and 96
In paragraph 94 of the response, the Government
argues that "a decision to withdraw from a particular project
on the grounds that it no longer remains a priority [cannot] justifiably
be described as putting into question the UK's reliability as
an international partner". Which decision is the Government
referring to? It may be that if STFC had only pulled out of the
International Linear Collider it would have had little impact
on the UK's international reputation. (Although we did raise serious
concerns about the manner in which the decision was taken; for
example, according to Professor Peter Main of the Institute of
Physics, the European leader of the ILC project, who is based
at Oxford University, was not given any opportunity to present
his case before the project was terminated [see para 50 of the
report].) However, the clumsy way in which the Gemini project
was handled (outlined on page 24 of the report) does raise questions
about STFC's competency in handling international subscriptions.
In paragraph 96, the Government supports STFC
over Gemini, stating that "STFC has never issued formal notice
to withdraw from the project". This may strictly be true,
but we point the Government to paragraph 53 of our report, in
which we quote STFC: "While we sincerely regret the need
to withdraw from Gemini, the current circumstances leave us no
choice." In the same statement, STFC also said that "We
will [...] be taking steps to issue formal notice to withdraw"
(www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/Gemini-Update.aspx). This has
not happened and STFC has paid the UK's 2008 contribution.
Conclusion 29, para 110
The Government suggests that our decision to
highlight the reduced share that AHRC received in this science
budget allocation was "unhelpful and misleading". The
Government justifies this conclusion on two grounds: that AHRC
has a far lower requirement for non-cash and capital compared
to other Councils, with which we agree; and that the level of
near cash that AHRC received, having taken account of funding
for FEC, was comparable to other Research Councils, with which
we do not agree. AHRC received the smallest near cash increase
relative to FEC in percentage terms of all the Research Councils—in
fact, AHRC, like EPSRC, did not receive a near cash increase big
enough to cover FEC.
It may be debatable whether our comments were
"unhelpful"—unhelpful to whom—but they were
not "misleading": AHRC did receive a reduced share of
the science budget.
We are concerned by the tone of parts of the
Government's response. For example, the Government labels our
report as "unhelpful" three times and in doing so, takes
some of our conclusions out of context. This response was produced
well within the two-month deadline. We believe that a longer period
of consideration may have resulted in a more thoughtful and well-founded
response to our report.
We would appreciate a response to each of the
points we have raised above by Friday 11 July.
June 2008
|
