44. Research Objective 4 from the Science Budget 2003-04 to 2005-06 is "to maintain access for scientists working in the UK to the necessary major facilities, databases and supporting laboratory infrastructure that will enable them to deliver world-class research" (see Table 1).

45. The OST's Large Facilities Roadmap says that options for the realisation of a next generation neutron source for Europe are a power upgrade to the ISIS facility (at the Council of the Central Laboratory Research Councils's (CCLRC's) Rutherford Appleton Laboratory); a green field 5 Mega Watt + 5 Mega Watt short and long pulse source (the 'European Spallation Source' (ESS)) or a long-pulse only source with the potential to achieve power levels significantly greater than 5 MW. These and other scenarios, it says, will involve extensive co-operation on neutron policy at a European level.[55]

46. ESS could be the best neutron source worldwide for practically all classes of instruments. A number of countries, including Germany, Britain, France and the Scandinavian countries, are interested in hosting the facility. Yorkshire Forward and the White Rose Consortium is proposing Burn Airfield, near Selby, North Yorkshire, as the site for the ESS.[56] CCLRC's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire is another option for a UK bid. Sir John Taylor told us that the OST will canvass "potential providers and the science community to understand what the real time line for producing the next generation source is going to be".[57]

47. The Large Facilities Roadmap states that the UK needs to take a "strategic position as to the best way to maintain access [to large facilities] for researchers and also to manage and fund the investment". It is hard to disagree with this statement; however, we judge that the document fails to make the case for hosting a range of large facilities. On the ESS, the OST told us that at a meeting between Lord Sainsbury and the White Rose University Consortium in July 2003 "it was agreed that the UK would take a more pro-active role and lead the agenda in deciding on the timing/location of a next generation neutron source within Europe".[58] We agree that we should be taking the lead; as Lord Sainsbury acknowledges "neutron sources is one of the areas where we have world leading competence".[59] The Government should acknowledge that the UK science community can benefit from the close proximity of large facilities, and that the prestige and profile of UK science can be enhanced. We urge the Government to provide the political will, and where necessary the finances, to support such ventures.

48. We will be pursuing this issue with the CCLRC during the Committee's scrutiny session on 29 March 2004.

Fusion

49. The Committee expressed its support for fusion research in its Report Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy.[60] As we noted in that Report, Sir David King has been active, and influential, in providing impetus to fusion development, for which we congratulate him. Currently, the world's most advanced reactor is the EU's JET facility at Culham in Oxfordshire, which is due to close at the end of 2004. The next stage in the development of fusion is the ITER reactor, which requires a major international collaboration. There are now two bids for the site: Japan and France.

50. The OST told us that it believed that ITER should be built in Europe "where it stands the greatest chance of success".[61] The European Commission has decided that the French site at Cadarache was preferred. The US says it considers the Japanese bid to be superior.[62] Both these judgements are, we suspect, subjective and the decision will be a political and not a scientific one. We welcome the Government's recognition of the benefits to the UK from building ITER in Europe and urge it to press the French case. The decision will inevitably be a political one but the science—and thus the success of the project—must not be compromised. Already, Spain has been invited to host the administration of ITER if France is successful. We urge the Government to resist any suggestion that the ITER project should somehow be split between France and Japan.

56   The White Rose Consortium comprises the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York Back

57   Q 42 Back

58   Ev 16 Back

59   Q 41 Back

60   Fourth Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2002-03, Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy: Research, Development and Demonstration, HC 51-I, paras 189-191 Back

61   Ev 16 Back

62   Luncheon Address to the Keidanren Tokyo, Japan, by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, 9 January 2004. Back