House of Commons - Astronomy and Particle Physics - Science and Technology Committee

Astronomy and Particle Physics - Science and Technology Committee Contents

2 Reductions to the astronomy budget

An over investment and strategic planned withdrawal?

22. Given the relatively large reduction in astronomy funding over the next four years compared with the overall STFC budget settlement, the first question we had to consider was what the reason for this was. On 19 January we asked Professor Keith Mason, Chief Executive of the STFC, about these future reductions in funding for astronomy. He said that decisions made over the past decade prior to, and following, UK accession to the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in 2002 had resulted in a planned period of higher spending on astronomy:

when we joined ESO in 2002-03 we still had commitments to a range of other ground-based observatories. So we recognised that in joining ESO we would be over-investing in astronomy for a period of a decade because we had to stay in these other facilities. As we withdraw from those facilities, the astronomy budget will go back down to what it ought to have been if we had been able to make that transition suddenly.[26]

23. Professor Mason also said in January that the STFC's planned withdrawal from Northern Hemisphere ground-based infrared and optical astronomical facilities, announced in 2009, was the result of a long-term strategic decision to concentrate resources, dating back to the plans made prior to ESO accession:

It's really a scientific dilemma. [Do] you concentrate your resources in producing the very best facilities that might be in a single location, or do you spread those resources in order to cover a broader set of activities? [The] strategic decision that was made a decade ago was to recognise that we do need to concentrate and stay at the forefront of activities. We had a choice to make. Do we do that through ESO or by some other means? I think the right decision is to do it through ESO.[27]

24. The thrust of both these statements was disputed in the evidence we received.[28] That is:

a) that there had been a planned period of over-investment in astronomy following accession to the ESO; and

b) that the STFC was concentrating its activities on the ESO for scientific reasons which would result in withdrawal from Northern Hemisphere facilities.

25. On the first point, the Royal Astronomical Society stated that this was contrary to the "recollection" of UK astronomers at the time, and was "not supported by any documentary evidence that we are aware of",[29] and it also questioned whether withdrawal from Northern Hemisphere facilities was part of a long-term strategy following ESO accession:

When the UK joined ESO it was recognised that we would scale back our involvement in some facilities [but] the plan now being implemented goes far beyond that. The decision to implement a complete withdrawal was made for financial rather than scientific reasons, in contrast to the statement made to the Committee.[30]

26. However, it was acknowledged by Professor John Peacock, Head of the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Astronomy, that there was to be an implicit temporary increase in astronomy spending in the years following ESO accession. While he refuted the notion that, prior to the financial problems caused by the STFC's formation in 2007, there had been any strategic plan to reduce investment and activities in the coming years, he said that:

A pulse of money went into UK astronomy which was always intended to be temporary. When we joined ESO, we immediately had access to their telescopes that had been created over decades. As well as paying your annual subscription, there was a back payment to buy our share of ownership of those things. Even in 2002, when this happened, you could see a spreadsheet where there was this pulse of several millions a year, which, yes, was over-investment, and it was scheduled to stop about now and it has.[31]

27. We understand that much of the capital reduction in the astronomy budget in the three years after 2011/12, as set out in Table 2 at paragraph 13, is explained by the ending of the UK's additional contributions, as described by Professor Peacock, that were part of the price of ESO accession and will amount to around £10 million in 2011/12, the final year for which such a payment is required. In other words, that is why the ESO capital budget falls from about £18 million in 2011/12 to about £7 million per year from 2012/13. The UK's additional contributions to ESO, totalling €72 million over the period 2004/05 to 2011/12,[32] represent the UK's agreed share in capital investment and fitting out costs which had already been incurred for the ESO's Very Large Telescope.[33] It would have assisted us if the STFC had explained to us such specific consequences of joining the ESO.

STFC clarification

28. When we asked the STFC again at the evidence session on 16 March about the planned period of over investment and associated withdrawal from some non-ESO astronomical facilities, what he did was "clarify" his previous remarks to us.[34] Professor Mason said that plans for withdrawal from non-ESO facilities had been a financial rather than scientific strategy, and cited a 2001 PPARC paper proposing UK accession to the ESO which was considered at a PPARC Council meeting on 5 December 2001:[35]

Perhaps it would be helpful if I quoted to you from the papers that were looked at in 2001, on 5 December, from the PPARC Council meeting, concerning the accession to ESO. [It] says: "Note that the above programme represents the first phase in re-shaping PPARC's investment in ground-based astronomy facilities over the next decade. The long-term strategy will see PPARC withdraw from the [Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), UK Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) and the Isaac Newton Group of telescopes (ING)] by the end of the decade." So that was the financial strategy that PPARC adopted in 2001 as part of the arrangements for the affordability of entry into ESO.[36]

29. We have now been given sight of the quoted document and its annexes, all of which are published in the written evidence to this report.[37] The document does provide details of the long-term financial restructuring required following ESO accession and the consequential planned withdrawal from those ground-based facilities detailed above. However, we note that it did not include any indication of eventual withdrawal from the Gemini Observatory. Indeed, Annex 2 to the document, which provided further background to the proposed strategy for the ground-based programme, prioritised UK involvement in Gemini alongside the ESO.

30. The 2001 PPARC paper also detailed the additional contributions to ESO required up to 2011/12 and laid out how savings of around £5 million by 2005/06 would be made from restructuring operations at other ground-based astronomical facilities in order to finance an element of the additional ESO contributions, with these savings rising to over £11 million by 2011/12. Annex 2 to the document reiterated that the long-term consequences of adopting this financial strategy would mean withdrawal from the facilities quoted by the STFC above.[38] Annex 3 to the document detailed the then PPARC Science Committee's recommendations to the Council following consideration of the proposed strategy:

After a detailed discussion, [the Science Committee] formed the opinion that the savings described [effectively] meet the requirements necessary for the UK to proceed to ESO membership, whilst in the medium term permitting focussed and highly cost effective participation at a reduced level in the world-class science output from existing facilities.[39]

31. Following our evidence session on 16 March, five of the astronomers who appeared before us that day submitted a supplementary memorandum pointing out that:

the position advocated by [the STFC] is not incorporated in subsequent strategy documents (for example, the 2005-2008 delivery plan). [The] UK astronomical community has made more than double the savings identified as needed in order to join ESO. [The] statement of the STFC Chief Executive does not correctly reflect the clear strategic position developed with regard to the non-ESO telescopes at the time of ESO accession. [The] idea that this process might be overturned by a single sentence [as quoted by the STFC] in a paper developed by the PPARC Executive is hardly credible, unless one favours the sort of decoupled decision-making that has been strongly criticised as an undesirable trait of the early days of STFC.[40]

Conclusions

32. Given the evidence and documentation presented to us, we accept that there was a stated long-term intention to withdraw from some facilities following ESO accession. We note and welcome the clarification by the STFC that this was a financial rather than scientific strategy.

33. However, while ESO accession required some strategic restructuring of UK investments, as set out in the 2001 PPARC papers, the strategic decision does not provide cover for all future reductions in spending on astronomy. We find it inexplicable that the planned withdrawals detailed in the 2001 PPARC papers were not incorporated into all subsequent PPARC and STFC policy documents. This would have given the UK astronomical community the opportunity to challenge this policy in more detail, particularly as it was suggested to us that more than double the savings had been made than were required to join ESO. Unfortunately, this failure by STFC to communicate is chronic and typical and is the reason why its client communities have such a low opinion of it.

34. For the benefit of transparency, we recommend that the STFC make publicly available all PPARC and STFC council minutes and strategy documents which discuss UK spending on, and involvement in, ground-based astronomical facilities over the last ten years.

Withdrawal from ground-based astronomical facilities

35. The extent of the UK's future withdrawal from non-ESO facilities increased two years ago following the STFC's 2009 prioritisation programmes (as described in paragraph 5), and the consequences of this are apparent in some of the reduction in astronomy spending over the next four years shown in the Table 2 at paragraph 13. Following the prioritisation programme, the STFC announced[41] it would be withdrawing from facilities including Gemini (from 2012), the ING telescopes (from 2012), the Liverpool telescope, the JCMT (from 2012) and the UKIRT.[42] The STFC told us in January that following withdrawal from such facilities, its future ground based astronomy strategy would be focused through the facilities operated and developed by the ESO.[43]

IMPACTS OF WITHDRAWAL

36. These withdrawals would mean that, within a few years, the UK and its astronomers will not have any direct access to ground-based optical and infrared observatories in the Northern Hemisphere,[44] although the UK will continue to be involved in a number of space-based observatories which observe objects across the whole sky.[45] There are also a number of radio observatories in the Northern Hemisphere which the UK will continue to have access to.[46] Thus, while UK researchers will be able to study objects in the northern part of the sky using these observatories, they will have no optical or infrared facilities with which to follow up their work.[47] The Royal Astronomical Society said withdrawal might mean UK scientists who make discoveries using a space based or radio observatory would see leadership of their work pass to peers in other ESO member states such as Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Spain, who all plan to retain access to other optical and infrared facilities in the Northern Hemisphere.[48]

37. Professor Janet Drew, Director of the Centre for Astrophysics Research at the University of Hertfordshire, and chair of the Astronet[49] European Telescopes Strategic Review Committee which reported in 2010, emphasised the role of the ING's William Herschel Telescope in supporting the European Space Agency's future Gaia mission:[50]

What a waste if the UK, who created the William Herschel [one of the ING telescopes on La Palma], could have no part in its further use, with a state-of-the-art instrument. Is all the investment of the past just to be handed over to our European colleagues in a gift of future science leadership?[51]

38. Strong arguments were also made to us about the educational and training benefits of UK involvement in telescopes such as those on La Palma,[52] and the shortcomings of concentration on the ESO from a strategic scientific viewpoint. Professor Peacock argued that as ESO is a shared resource, in order to gain a competitive advantage, the UK needed to retain some of its own telescopes:

which we can turn into specialized facilities delivering data that can be combined with ESO results in a way that is not available to our European colleague-competitors. [There] is ample scientific reason to persist with [Hawaii and La Palma], assuming a very modest level of funding can be found.[53]

39. Professor Patrick Roche, Head of Astrophysics at Oxford University, said UK withdrawal from Northern Hemisphere facilities would make the development of innovative UK-led instrumentation projects "much more difficult".[54] In the case of the ING telescopes, the STFC's involvement allowed UK university teams the opportunity to deploy their own instrumentation, while the ING's William Herschel Telescope was the only available facility where the adaptive-optics technologies needed for the future European Extremely Large Telescope can be prototyped.[55]

FUTURE UK INVOLVEMENT

40. When giving oral evidence, we asked Professor Roger Davies, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, how much it would cost for the UK to maintain some access to Northern Hemisphere observatories. Professor Davies estimated that it would cost the STFC £2-3 million more a year—a "banker's bonus" as Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, President of the Institute of Physics, put it.[56] In its written evidence the Royal Astronomical Society provided detailed figures on the estimated additional cost of maintaining a presence specifically within the ING telescopes on La Palma, which are part-owned by the UK:

Current operational costs for the ING site are around €3.5m (£2.9m) per annum, with €1.3m (£1.08m) of this paid by the UK. This budget has already been pared to a minimum and funds only a limited operation. A more realistic UK contribution for full operations is around €1.5m (£1.26m) per annum. To remain competitive in the future the observatory needs to develop new instruments such as the new wide-field multi-object spectrometer which is now under consideration. A sensible figure for the annual UK budget requirement is €2.5m (£2.1m) per annum. Without an investment of this kind to recover access to northern hemisphere facilities we fear that UK astronomy will be internationally uncompetitive.[57]

41. There are two STFC-owned telescopes on Hawaii, the UKIRT and the JCMT. Professor Peacock indicated that the cost of operating these two telescopes was £3 million per annum, although it was likely this cost would fall further with partnership deals.[58] Professor Mike Bode, Director of the Astrophysics Research Institute at Liverpool John Moores University which owns the Liverpool telescope on La Palma, suggested that its continued operation would require around £250,000 per annum from the STFC.[59]

42. We were told that the current cost of UK involvement in Gemini was around £5-6 million per annum.[60] The Gemini UK National Time Allocation Committee said that ongoing access to Gemini with a reduced partner share would reduce costs to around £2-3 million per annum.[61] However, arguments in respect of Gemini where not so clear-cut. The Ground-Based Facilities Review panel, commissioned by the STFC in 2009, accepted that, on cost-effectiveness grounds, continued UK involvement in Gemini might not be justified, but recommended continued involvement in the ING telescopes, in order to mitigate Gemini withdrawal and avoid the loss of all Northern Hemisphere access. In particular, the panel placed a high ranking on the ongoing operation of the ING's William Herschel Telescope through to 2017.[62]

43. While we received some representations that the UK should continue to be involved in the Gemini partnership, particularly given the UK's investment to date,[63] much of the evidence we received accepted that withdrawal from Gemini was inevitable, particularly as it was not a UK-owned facility and the scientific and financial arguments for continued involvement were relatively weaker than for other telescopes, such as those on La Palma.[64]

44. The STFC said that ongoing access to STFC-owned facilities might be possible,[65]a point reiterated in the Government's submission:

STFC continues to operate STFC-owned facilities in Hawaii (JCMT, UKIRT) and the Canaries (ING) and it is discussing future management arrangements with new partners (Hawaii) and with Spain (Canaries) which may include access to some if not all of these facilities. STFC's science committees will have to consider the case for continued UK investment in these facilities in competition with other demands on its science programme budget.[66]

The STFC confirmed to us in March that it was now making "efforts to retain access to the telescopes on La Palma".[67]

45. Withdrawal from all Northern Hemisphere ground-based optical and infrared facilities risks, in our opinion, surrendering the UK's prominence in this field to other ESO member states and depriving UK astronomers of a leading role in future discoveries and instrumentation development. It is essential that the STFC re-examine the case for retaining access to those telescope that it owns, especially in light of the relatively small amount of money that would allow continuity. We have concerns that it could be to the detriment of UK astronomy if the UK presence in all ground-based optical and infrared facilities outside of the ESO were to be lost.

Funding of future astronomical projects

46. Turning to future projects, we received evidence expressing concerns about the STFC's ability to commit to future astronomical projects following its budget allocations.[68] The 2009 Ground-Based Facilities Review commissioned by the STFC placed the highest priority on UK participation in two future astronomical facilities—ESO's European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), and the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). The review concluded:

both these projects [have] the potential of exceptionally high public impact, with benefits for the whole UK scientific research programme. Both projects offer great possibilities of technological innovation and knowledge transfer and can offer UK industry cutting edge involvement in the technologies of the future.[69]

47. The STFC's delivery plan published on 20 December 2010 made no specific mention of the E-ELT or SKA, although Professor Mason said in January he was "hopeful" of finding a way of building the E-ELT.[70] Professor Davies told us that the international arrangements for the future of the E-ELT and SKA were getting "very close" to completion:

If we are not able to commit at the time that we are asked, then that will be a major setback. We have leading teams. We have the opportunity to take the lead in some areas. Obviously, if we are tardy in committing, that lead will evaporate. It won't evaporate instantly but it will go. Our staff will move. Other countries will say, "We could do that bit." We will suddenly find that, instead of having a leadership role and doing the interesting things that, maybe, lead on to the next thing, we are back doing something less interesting and not in the lead. So the ability to commit to these projects in a timely manner is fundamental to the health of the subject.[71]

48. We asked the STFC in March if there was any doubt over the UK's ongoing commitment to the E-ELT. Professor Mason confirmed that forward provision had been made for UK participation and the STFC was now waiting for the ESO to publish its plan for the construction of the telescope. He added: "Provided that [the plan] meets our objectives and is satisfactory, and I have no expectation that it won't".[72]

49. We welcome the recent decision to locate the SKA project office at the Jodrell Bank Observatory near Manchester.[73] This will enable the UK to take a leading role in the ongoing development of this project, and reflects the high-regard for UK astronomy and astronomers internationally. This happy conclusion would not have been possible if the STFC had not reversed its original intention to remove funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope at Jodrell Bank, an issue our predecessors had raised serious concerns about.

50. We are concerned that short-term funding constraints may hinder the UK's ability to lead on the ongoing development and construction of priority astronomical projects such as the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) and the ESO's European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), though our concerns were eased by the recent funding announcements. This is an issue we shall keep under review and expect to return to later in the Parliament.

26 Transcript of oral evidence, Spending Review 2010, 19 January 2011, HC618-ii, Q 130 Back

27 Transcript of oral evidence, Spending Review 2010, 19 January 2011, HC618-ii, Q 128 Back

28 See, for example: Ev 41-42, paras 29-31 [Royal Astronomical Society], Ev 43, para 2 [Professor Robert Kennicutt], Ev w39, para 14 [University of Manchester] Back

29 Ev 41, para 29 Back

30 Ev 42, para 31 Back

31 Q 96 Back

32 This equated to approximately £50 million at the time of ESO accession, although exchange rate fluctuations mean the sterling value of the annual contribution has risen over the ensuing years. Back

33 Ev 55 [Science and Technology Facilities Council] Back

34 Q 129 Back

35 Q 129 Back

36 As above Back

37 Ev 55 [Science and Technology Facilities Council] Back