Science and TechnologyWritten evidence submitted by Robert Culshaw

Background

1. From January 2006 until July 2012 I was Deputy Director of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), with responsibility for all its operations (including marine) and for its safety in the Antarctic and South Atlantic.

2. Prior to that, I served in the FCO, where my last post was Director for the Americas and the UK Overseas Territories (including associated waters).

Purpose

3. I wish to convince the Committee that merging BAS with the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) in Southampton, or managing the two BAS ships from Southampton, would expose British nationals in the British Antarctic Territory and the adjacent maritime region (including South Georgia) to greater risk. It would also pave the way to weakening the British presence in this strategically important area. It would not save money or increase efficiency.

Evidence

(a) Safety

4. I attach at Appendix A my input to the NERC consultation on its BAS-NOC merger proposal.1 Having had personal experience of directing the BAS response to crises in the Antarctic and South Atlantic, I am sure that to involve managers in a different UK location with little or no knowledge of the Antarctic would weaken the UK’s ability to promote safety and save lives in the region. The paramount need for safety must drive the organisational decision. That means continuing to give the BAS Director in Cambridge complete authority over all the BAS physical assets in the Antarctic, as has been the case for several decades. The integrated nature of BAS polar and South Atlantic operations (including close collaboration with the Royal Navy) has proved its value and should not be disrupted.

(b) UK presence

5. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) took decisions in Spring 2011 to close the Signy Island research station in the Antarctic and dispose of one polar ship (the Ernest Shackleton).They were prevented from doing either in this Comprehensive Spending Review period, but the merger now being proposed is designed to make reductions of that kind in the UK presence easier and less visible after April 2015. Since a significant part of that presence is maritime, and linked to the delivery of UK polar marine science, I think this is a proper subject for the Committee to consider.

(c) Finance and efficiency

6. NERC’s own consultation document demonstrates no financial savings from the proposed BAS-NOC merger.

7. NERC has in the past decade conducted three internal Reviews of its ship management. The most recent reported in Spring 2012. I recommend that the Committee should ask to see those Reviews. They all conclude that no significant financial savings or efficiencies would result from a single management, and they recommend that BAS should continue to have responsibility for the two polar ships.

8. I would be glad to amplify this evidence, orally or in writing, if that would assist the Committee.

October 2012