Volume 1
The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research : sixth report of session 2009-10.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
- Date:
- 2010
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research : sixth report of session 2009-10. Source: Wellcome Collection.
26/48 page 22
![48. We received several memoranda raising concerns about the outcome of the STFC’s reprioritisation, particularly regarding nuclear physics and astronomy.” Many of those who submitted memoranda were in favour of a demerger between the PPARC and CCLRC elements of the STFC.” Lancaster University observed that “putting two councils together does not seem to be working”.*® The Royal Astronomical Society noted that the “merger [of CCLRC and PPARC] was justified on the basis that the previous arrangement ran the risk that the UK did not fully exploit its investment in large scientific facilities. To date, underfunding has led to STFC failing in this regard”. The Institute of Physics suggested that since some of the subscriptions against which grant funding were tensioned were primarily exploited by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (ESRF and ILL), there should be a rearrangement of subscriptions within the research councils. When asked if a demerger would be his preferred option, Professor Brian Cox indicated assent.’ 49. Speaking on behalf of the STFC, Professor Michael Sterling, the Council’s Chairman, disagreed. In response to the suggestion of a demerger, he told us that “we would have to live with that if that was the decision, but I do not think that would be the optimal decision”.'°! He favoured insuring the risk of exchange rate fluctuations at a higher level.’ This was the preferred option of, amongst others, the Institute of Physics, and the UK Nuclear Research Groups. 50.On 24 February 2010, Lord Drayson told us that he would “be making an announcement very shortly”.’* On 4 March, it was announced that from the first year of the next spending review (2011-12), BIS would work with the Bank of England to reduce the exposure of the STFC to exchange rate fluctuations. “Indicative planning” for the funding of large facilities would be extended to cover not only the CSR period in question, but the period afterwards as well. We remain to be convinced that ‘indicative planning’ over future CSR periods for the use of large facilities will be meaningful if the standard principle of planning on the basis of “flat cash’ allocations continues. 51. It was also announced that BIS would in future give separate allocations for the separate functions carried out by the STFC. This was intended to put an end to the structural problem of the STFC’s grant-giving being financially tensioned against its international subscriptions. Furthermore, the UK’s subscription to the European Space Agency would in future be borne by a UK Space Agency.'® The structure of the STFC as established in 96 e.g. Ev 131 [The Royal Astronomical Society]; Ev 138 [UK Nuclear Physics Research Groups]; Ev 140 [UK Space Academic Network] 97 €v 170, para 12 [University of Leeds] 98 Ev 119, para 9 [Lancaster University] 99 Ev 133, para 29 [Royal Astronomical Society] 100 Q 66 101 Q110 102 As above —_ 103 Ev 182, para 27 [Institute of Physics]; Ev 139, para 7 [UK Nuclear Research Groups] 104 Q275 f 105 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, ‘STFC: New arrangements to provide stability in research funding’, 4 March 2010](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32220534_0001_0026.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
