Memorandum submitted by Prospect (FC 16)
INTRODUCTION
1. Prospect is a trade union representing
122,000 scientific, technical, managerial and specialist staff
in the Civil Service and related bodies and major companies. Our
members are professionals, managers and specialists across a diverse
range of areas, including agriculture, defence, energy, environment,
communications, heritage, justice and transport.
2. We welcome the opportunity to submit
evidence to this inquiry. Our response to the themes identified
by the Select Committee is set out in the following paragraphs.
Some of these are ongoing issues, of key concern to Prospect members,
and require urgent resolution.
The process for deciding where to make cuts in
SET spending
3. We would emphasise that there is actually
a strong case for increasing expenditure on SET, and note that
this sentiment was supported by the Prime Minister in his Romanes
Lecture at Oxford in February 2009: "Some say that now is
not the time to invest, but the bottom line is that the downturn
is no time to slow down our investment in science but to build
more vigorously for the future. And so we will not allow science
to become a victim of the recession—but rather focus on
developing it as a key element of our path to recovery".
4. Whilst Prospect accepts that priorities
can and do change, we object to the fact that major decisions
have been taken—for example about site closures, transfer
of functions and significant cuts in funding streams—with
no central knowledge by government of the location, functions
or specialist expertise it employs. Hence there is no clarity
of what capability is being lost or whether retained capability
will be sufficient to cope with future demands. Recent work by
Government Skills demonstrates that departments and professions
are unable to collectively provide work force data that is accurate
enough to facilitate effective work force planning. A number of
professions, including science and engineering, have identified
work force data as being a key issue for them in making progress
against their aspirations.
5. Recent examples of poor decision making
include:
6. Closure of the world-renowned 192-hectare
Wellesbourne site of Warwick HRI, formerly Horticulture Research
International, by the University of Warwick. All research work
will be transferred to a new School of Life Sciences on the Warwick
main campus from 2012. Thirty per cent of staff will be made redundant,
including principal investigators, research and support staff.
WHRI employed about 35 academic staff at principal investigator
level, together with 175 research and support staff, plus PhD
and MSc students. It was ranked as the UK's top university department
for agriculture, veterinary and food science in the 2008 Research
Assessment Exercise.
7. In Prospect's view, the university's
decision was made on the basis of a report that:
— Did not present a coherent case on economic,
public health, food security or environmental grounds;
— Took no account of funding sources available
from Defra, the Technology Strategy Board or industry;
— Focused on basic research, instead of
key disciplines in agricultural science that the Royal Society
has recognised as being in urgent need of investment;
— Ignored the translation of research into
practice, a key aim of Government and the Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council; and
— Had no policy for engagement with industry
or to seek multi-donor funding.
8. Only 11 days notice of the proposals
was given to staff via their union, and there was no prior consultation
with policy makers or funders (Defra, BBSRC or the Agriculture
Development and Horticulture Advisory Board).
9. At the National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
discussions are currently underway to alleviate the consequences
of proposals for significant funding cuts from the parent Agency—the
National Measurement Office (NMO). A likely funding cut of around
10% could not be sustained without job losses and the corresponding
loss of scientific capability, with in excess of 40 posts at risk.
This would inevitably mean choices about the retention of scientific
capability and perhaps decisions that will be regretted in the
future when immediate cost pressures ease.
10. This is despite the existence of a significant
body of evidence illustrating the impact of measurement science
as uniquely practised by NPL. Economists from the Department of
Business, Innovation and Skills estimate that every £6 million
spent by Government on measurement technology delivers £410
million of economic impact to the UK, so any cuts are correspondingly
magnified. In addition the Advisory Group from the Royal Society
and Royal Academy of Engineering appointed by the Secretary of
State to oversee the quality of science from NPL, although pleased
by the work undertaken, has been increasingly concerned that the
investment is insufficient to enable NPL to provide a critical
mass to have a real impact in emerging areas. Professor Ian Shanks,
Chairman of the Advisory Group, said that the potential loss of
science capabilities would significantly impact on NPL's ability
to meet the challenges of metrology support to data security,
health-care, advanced manufacturing, low carbon and environmental
issues—topics of central interest to Government where NPL
could have a real impact for the benefit of the UK.
11. Helpfully discussions are currently
in progress, leading to a Ministerial commitment to review the
processes and evidence base that led to the reductions in NPL's
funding from NMO and NPL's success in attracting additional funding
from other areas that could have mitigated these shortfalls. However,
at the time of writing the redundancy process is ongoing and key
scientific staff could be lost in a few weeks time. Further Prospect
would emphasise that, although we hope that the situation may
still be retrieved, in fact there is a clear responsibility on
the part of Government to ensure that consultation takes place
in an appropriate manner at the time decisions are being discussed
and most certainly when economic decision are made that will clearly
have an effect on employment.
The decision in the ECJ last year (Akavan
Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and ors v Fujitsu Siemens Computers)
made it clear that the obligation on employers to consult arose
when there were "strategic decisions" or "changes
in activity" that may lead to redundancies. The Government's
position stems from decisions made in summer 2009, and our understanding
is that the NMO were also aware of the position at this time.
Yet, despite this there was no consultation with Prospect until
November of 2009, some four months after the decisions were made.
12. We would also like to draw to the Select
Committee's attention the risks currently surrounding the proposed
redevelopment of the Institute of Animal Health's Pirbright site.
Prospect members at both IAH Pirbright and Compton welcomed the
decision announced in September 2009 to invest £100 million
in the Institute, but there is now concern that pressure on the
public finances will mean that there may not be sufficient funds
to complete the redevelopment in the timescale required or to
the high standard for the laboratories and other facilities needed.
This is particularly sensitive given that Pirbright was the source
of the 2007 FMD outbreak. Members are concerned that corners may
have to be cut or, alternatively, that progressing with this redevelopment
at a time of wider budget cuts will place all other Institutes
and programmes under strain.
13. Prospect's view is that without effective
cross-government scrutiny irrecoverable damage can result to our
science base, and it is clear that in the case of NPL real commercial
impacts will follow. As long ago as 2006 Prospect published a
Charter for Public Science identifying, among other objectives,
the need for a clear strategic vision for UK science and a Cabinet
Minister with authority and accountability for public sector science—with
a similar Ministerial role in the devolved administrations. We
therefore very much welcome the Government's decision to establish
a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science and Innovation and we welcome
the fact that the Science Minister, Lord Drayson, attends Cabinet
meetings. However, more could be done immediately to make sure
that Lord Drayson's Cabinet level role includes cross-cutting
accountability for public science and is not simply to act as
an exponent of science in Cabinet, important though that is.
What evidence there is on the feasibility or effectiveness
of estimating the economic impact of research, both from a historical
perspective (for QR Funding) and looking to the future (for Research
Council Grants)
14. Laboratory staff and university researchers
are scientists, not entrepreneurs. Whilst the economic impact
of scientific research is important, to allocate basic research
funding based solely upon perceived economic outcomes is counter-productive.
Research should be funded according to scientific merit. If the
current trend of modelling the UK's SET base as the R&D arm
of industry continues, with no "blue sky", curiosity-driven
research, we will be unable to compete scientifically with our
peers overseas.
The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
15. Prospect believes that science and technology
have a crucial role to play in identifying high quality and sustainable
investment opportunities that would help to lead the economy out
of recession. We welcome the fact that recent Government policy
statements reflect this priority. However, the same commitment
must extend to funding for blue-skies work and pure research and
development, which must come from an adequately funded and motivated
public sector science base. Public science must provide a measure
of stability to preserve the UK's technical capacity through short-term
fluctuations in demand. In practice, world-leading UK programmes
including research into breast cancer, agri-engineering and animal
diseases have been closed. Research on the impacts of climate
change, pollution and biodiversity all struggle for funding. The
level of core funding for research institutes leaves many of them
highly vulnerable to shifts and reductions that owe more to short-term
changes in departmental priorities than to the quality of work
being undertaken.
The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
16. Prospect has yet to understand the full
implications of the announced cuts. Nevertheless, the impact of
the cancellation of projects that have been found to be excellent
by international peer review undermines our status as a first
rate scientific nation. For example, the New Light Source project
would have propelled the UK to the forefront of a revolution taking
place in the physical and biological sciences—the ability
to study molecular interactions in real time. Instead, this new
frontier will be explored by our competitors in the United States
and Germany, who have significantly increased their science budgets
in response to the financial crisis. There is also the risk of
under-utilisation of UK investment in large capital projects only
now coming on-stream, for example Diamond Light Source and the
next-generation ALICE prototype accelerator at Daresbury. It is
too early to assess what, if any, impact there will be on STFC
staffing.
The scope of the STFC review announced on 16 December
and currently underway
17. Any re-organisation of the functions
of STFC must ensure integrity and continuity for the Daresbury
and Rutherford laboratories. These institutions are national scientific
assets which have been built up over 50 years. The staff who operate
and maintain the facilities contained within these labs are unique
in terms of their expertise and skills. The STFC review is expected
to conclude by the end of February, with the aim of quickly implementing
its recommendations. Whilst Prospect has welcomed Lord Drayson's
intention to resolve the tensions that inevitably rise from vesting
responsibility for international subscriptions and research grants
in the same organisation, we are concerned that whatever the outcome,
it is already being made clear that there is unlikely to be any
more money available.
18. It is demoralising for laboratory staff
to suffer cuts to investment in scientific facilities and research
whilst large amounts of the laboratory budget are wasted on the
poorly conceived and executed outsourcing of ancillary services
that is the RCUK Shared Services Centre. Latest information is
that the estimated cost of this project has spiralled from £40
million to somewhere between £132-140 million. STFC is responsible
for just over 25% of the cost of SSC and so, based on the original
costing would have been responsible for £10 million of cost.
In practice, STFC is likely to be asked to pay about £35
million—not far short of its £40 million budget deficit.
19. The recent financial crisis has placed
immense pressure on STFC's budgets due to their agreed commitments
to international subscriptions to facilities such as CERN. The
actual cost in pounds sterling is subject to exchange rate fluctuations,
and because of the "banking crisis", this further reduces
the funds available to support the UK's own national laboratories
and universities. Whilst the Government has acknowledged that
our economy cannot continue to be based on the provision of financial
services, with a vision of science and innovation replacing financial
services as our economic foundation, it is clear that the SET
community are quite literally paying for the greed and failings
of the financial sector. STFC is an organisation of scientists,
not bankers, so STFC should not have to fall victim to these fluctuations
once our overseas commitments are agreed.
20. Delivering world-class, cutting-edge
SET is hard enough in itself. It does not benefit in any way from
the unending pressure on budgets, staff and infrastructure which
has repeatedly lead to these highly public and undignified struggles
for limited resources, often punctuated by misleading coverage
in various news media. This damages staff morale, the public perception
of science and its societal value, and makes it harder to encourage
new people to enter science, thus ultimately causing massive damage
to science itself. It is essential to ensure that sufficient funding
is placed into SET budgets; the appropriate structural divisions
within the SET community are made; and that there is a stable
and capable management structure to create the right environment
for true science and innovation to flourish in the UK.
The operation and definition of the science budget
ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be a similar
ring-fence for the Higher Education Funding Council for England
research budget and departmental research budgets
21. Prospect strongly supports the continuation
of a ring-fenced Science Budget, though stronger safeguards are
needed to ensure that the ring-fence cannot be breached in response
to short-term financial pressures. There is overwhelming evidence
of the need for a similar ring-fence for departmental SET budgets.
22. The Government's 2009 SET Statistics
show that whilst Science Budget expenditure has grown significantly
over the last 10 years, with the exception of the Scottish Government
SET expenditure by civil departments has fared much worse. Table
1 shows that overall civil departments' SET expenditure fell by
18.2% in real terms over a 10-year period from 1997-98 and of
28.1% between 2006-07 and 2007-08. DEFRA's expenditure on SET
fell by 17.5% over the same 10 years and very sharply, by 51.2%,
between 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Department for Transport similarly
suffered a 53.6% cut in SET expenditure between 1997-08 and 2001-02
which has not been restored. Growth of 20.2% in NHS set expenditure
in the 10-year period from 1997-98 masks a 33.8% cut elsewhere
in the Department of Health over the same period. A 28% overall
cut in MOD's SET expenditure over the 10 years from 1997-98 includes
a cut of 12.4% in research expenditure and a cut of 33.1% in development
activities. SET real terms expenditure in the Devolved Administrations
increased sharply in the five years from 1997-98 to 2001-02, by
82.2% in Scotland and 90.9% in Wales. However, there has been
no growth in SET spending in Scotland since 2005-06 and, as a
consequence of progressive cuts in Wales since 2001-02, SET expenditure
by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2007-08 was 45.5% lower than
in was in 1997-98.
Table 1
NET GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON SET BY DEPARTMENTS
IN REAL TERMS 1997-98 TO 2007-08
| Source | 1997-98
| 2001-02 | 2005-06
| 2006-07 | 2007-08
| % change 1997-98 | % change 2005-06
| % change 2006-07 | % change 1997-98
|
| | |
| | | to
2001-02
| to
2006-07 | to
2007-08
| to
2007-08 |
| BBSRC | 234 | 245
| 331 | 366 | 361
| 4.7 | 10.6 | -1.4
| 54.3 |
| NERC | 199 | 201
| 384 | 361 | 353
| 1.0 | -6.0 | -2.2
| 77.4 |
| STFC1 | 244 | 558
| 430 | 421 | 535
| 128.7 | -2.1 | 27.1
| 119.3 |
| Total science budget | 1,656 |
1,955 | 2,954 | 3,006
| 3,467 | 18.1 | 1.8
| 15.3 | 109.4 |
| Total HE funding councils SET | 1,285
| 1,688 | 1,984 | 2,085
| 2,181 | 31.4 | 5.1
| 4.6 | 69.7 |
Total science & engineering base SET
2,941
| 3,643 | 4,938 | 5,092
| 5,648 | 23.9 | 3.1
| 10.9 | 92.0 |
| DEFRA2 | 177 | 260
| 296 | 299 | 146
| 46.9 | 1.0 | -51.2
| -17.5 |
| DFT3 | 192 | 89
| 90 | 89 | 89 |
-53.6 | -1.1 | 0.0
| -53.6 |
| Dept Health | 573 | 578
| 646 | 673 | 689
| 0.9 | 4.2 | 2.4
| 20.2 |
| Dept Health excluding NHS | 74
| 68 | 46 | 50 |
49 | -8.1 | 8.7 |
-2.0 | -33.8 |
| BERR4 | 427 | 420
| 308 | 265 | 1
| -1.6 | -14.0 | -99.6
| -99.8 |
| Scottish Government5 | 90 |
164 | 215 | 214 |
214 | 82.2 | -0.5 |
0.0 | 137.8 |
| Welsh Assembly Government6 | 22
| 42 | 34 | 10 |
12 | 90.9 | -70.6 |
20.0 | -45.5 |
| Total civil depts | 1,685 |
2,035 | 2,021 | 1,918
| 1,379 | 20.8 | -5.1
| -28.1 | -18.2 |
| MOD research | 702 | 638
| 615 | 632 | 615
| -9.1 | 2.8 | -2.7
| -12.4 |
| MOD development | 2,178 | 1,719
| 1,976 | 1,492 | 1,457
| -21.1 | -24.5 | -2.3
| -33.1 |
| Total defence | 2,879 | 2,356
| 2,582 | 2,124 | 2,072
| -18.2 | -17.7 | -2.4
| -28.0 |
| Grand total | 7,927 | 8,481
| 9,926 | 9,510 | 9,455
| 7.0 | -4.2 | -0.6
| 19.3 |
| Grand total excluding NHS | 7,428
| 7,972 | 9,326 | 8,887
| 8,815 | 7.3 | -4.7
| -0.8 | 18.7 |
Notes:
1 Formerly PPARC & CCLRC; 2 Formerly MAFF; 3 Formerly
DETR; 4 Formerly DTI;
5 Formerly Scottish Executive; 6 Formerly Welsh Office.
Source: 2009 SET Statistics Table 2.2.
23. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, it is of concern
that the most recent information about departmental expenditure
on R&D, shows some significant shortfalls when compared with
CSR expenditure plans for 2007-08. Again there are significant
shortfalls in expenditure by civil departments including DEFRA,
the Health and Safety Commission, Department for International
Development and the Welsh Assembly Government. There is also a
substantial cut in MOD expenditure on development.
Table 2
| (£ million) | CSR Plan
| Actual | Actual—Plan
| % Change |
| BBSRC | 354 | 358
| 4 | 1.1 |
| NERC | 369 | 339
| -30 | -8.1 |
| STFC | 437 | 531
| 94 | 21.5 |
| Total science budget R&D | 3,186
| 3,412 | 226 | 7.1
|
| Total HE Funding Councils R&D | 2,075
| 2,164 | 89 | 4.3
|
| Total science & engineering base R&D
| 5,261 | 5,576 | 315
| 6.0 |
| DEFRA | 195 | 134
| -61 | -31.3 |
| DFT | 59 | 60
| 1 | 1.7 |
| Dept Health | 696 | 689
| -7 | -1.0 |
| Dept of Health excluding NHS | 44
| 49 | 5 | 11.4,%
|
| HSC | 15 | 12
| -3 | -20.0,% |
| Home Office | 46 | 41
| -5 | -10.9,% |
| DFID | 240 | 129
| -111 | -46.3 |
| Scottish Government | 133 |
133 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Welsh Assembly Government | 34
| 12 | -22 | -64.7
|
| Total civil depts R&D | 1,667
| 1,253 | -414 | -24.8
|
| MOD research | 607 | 615
| 8 | 1.3 |
| MOD development | 1,954 |
1,457 | -497 | -25.4
|
| Total defence | 2,561 | 2,072
| -489 | -19.1 |
| Grand total | 9,825 | 9,258
| -567 | -5.8 |
| Grand total excluding NHS | 9,173
| 8,618 | -555 | -6.1
|
Source: Campaign for Science and Engineering
24. The longer-term trends are also confirmed in Table
3 which shows the contribution of the Science Budget, civil departments
and the MOD to total government expenditure on SET. Science Budget
and HE funding councils" SET contributions have grown, but
departmental expenditure now accounts for a smaller share—both
in relation to civil and defence applications. Allocations to
Higher Education Institutions continue to account for around half
of all research council expenditure, mainly through payment of
grants. Expenditure on research councils" own establishments
accounts for around one quarter of total expenditure, though with
a growing share for facilities rather than institutes. Administration
costs remain at a modest 5%.
Table 3
| Source | 1997-98
| 2007-08 | % change 1997-08 to 2007-08
|
| Total science budget | 22.1
| 38.1 | 16 |
| Total HE funding councils SET | 17.1
| 24 | 6.9 |
| Total science & engineering base SET |
39.2 | 62.1 | 22.9
|
| DEFRA2 | 2.4 | 1.6
| -0.8 |
| DFT3 | 2.6 | 1
| -1.6 |
| Dept Health | 7.6 | 7.6
| 0 |
| Dept Health excluding NHS | 0.9
| 0.6 | -0.3 |
| Scottish Government5 | 1.2 |
2.4 | 1.2 |
| Welsh Assembly Government6 | 0.3
| 0.1 | -0.2 |
| Total civil depts | 22.5 |
15.2 | -7.3 |
| MOD research | 9.4 | 6.8
| -2.6 |
| MOD development | 29.0 |
16.0 | -13.0 |
| Total defence | 37.1 | 22.8
| -14.3 |
Source: 2009 SET Statistics Table 2.5
Whether the Government is achieving the objectives it set out
in the "Science and innovation investment framework 2004-14:
next steps", including, for example, making progress on the
supply of high quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) graduates to achieve its overall ambitions for UK science
and innovation.
25. Experience of the recession may to some extent have
diminished the attractiveness of the financial services sector
as an employment destination for STEM graduates. However, we are
concerned about the implications of recent government announcements
for the numbers and quality of science graduates and the research
output of the UK university sector. We are also concerned that
there is little to incentivise talented STEM graduates to pursue
a career in government science. R&D employment in research
councils has fallen by 9.1% over the 10 years since 1997-98. By
comparison employment in civil departments has fallen by 34.8%
and in the Ministry of Defence by 55.1% Continuing pressures on
SET budgets and on individual terms and conditions will only reinforce
existing negative perceptions.
|
