PROFESSOR JULIA GOODFELLOW CBE, PROFESSOR COLIN BLAKEMORE AND PROFESSOR ALAN THORPE

28 JUNE 2006

  Q100 Chairman: What is going to be lost?

  Professor Thorpe: There are areas that they were proposing in work on climate change and the description of the land surface in climate change models where we feel there are strengths in other parts of the NERC community to deliver that are not going to be done by CEH and that was in their original proposals. There are a number of areas like that where we feel there are capabilities elsewhere that can deliver those aspects so we have looked at not only what CEH is going to be delivering but also where the areas that are not going to be done within CEH where they will be delivered elsewhere.

  Q101  Chairman: Will there be any areas that will just disappear?

  Professor Thorpe: We feel that all of the key areas that are CEH's strengths that are high quality and high priority will be continued with. I think the amount of change that CEH is making is actually not as great as perhaps the headlines might portray. For example, the amount of funds which we are allocating for each scientist to do research to support their research within CEH, we have actually doubled that amount in the new plans. That has meant that the scientists are much more able to deliver high quality science from that but that had a knock-on effect in terms of the overall budget.

  Q102  Chairman: You are avoiding my question. Could I ask you to write to us to say which areas of science in terms of research will be lost completely as a result of the restructuring? Julia, you mentioned earlier the issue about the bees and bee diseases. I know from the Harrogate and Ripon Bee Keepers Association where I was stung two weeks ago that they are very concerned about that particular issue. If that is lost, it is lost; we will not replace it. I think we need to know in terms of this inquiry what we are losing but also does it really matter.

  Professor Thorpe: We do not know the complete plan yet because of course we are identifying which staff will be part of CEH in the future; those discussions with our staff are still on-going because there is relocation involved. We are matching the scientific expertise of our staff that remain to the areas of science we want to do. For example, there will be a number of staff who are currently working in one area who will be moved into other areas. The full picture is not yet available but I am happy to send those details which we published at the time of the decision about the areas that are going to be not as strongly figuring in the programme as previously.[4]

  Q103 Chairman: Can I put a hypothetical question to you? If, in fact, NERC structures its science in the way in which it can be opened up for more competitive bidding with the universities therefore more work will go to the universities and not to the institute, which will result in further loss of science being done by the institute and therefore further reductions in the number of institutes you actually require. Is that a possibility?

  Professor Thorpe: Of course it is a possibility. I have mentioned earlier that a number of our institutes are amongst the most successful in bidding for openly competitive funding from NERC and other sources. I would not want to characterise that somehow they are not actually rather effective at that. Of course they are subject to the risk that their success in that may change over the years, but NERC as a whole is looking at the sustainability agenda. It was very much at the core of the changes to CEH; it was to put CEH in a position that was sustainable into the long term. After a period when actually it was finding it extremely difficult, in fact losing resources and money relative to its budget, that sustainability agenda is there all the time but you are absolutely right that they are subject to changes in the outside world funding, also subject to changes in their ability to win openly competitive funding. It would be wrong to say that they were other than rather successful at that.

  Q104  Chairman: There is no agenda there.

  Professor Thorpe: There is not an agenda there at all, no.

  Q105  Dr Harris: We have not had an answer to the question which is that if things go to plan and even if people slot into where you want them to go, what areas will be lost and you said you will give us that information.

  Professor Thorpe: It will be emerging as we know where people are.

  Q106  Dr Harris: Just reassure me, you are not going to describe this as the best ever year for the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, are you?

  Professor Thorpe: Of course this restructuring is extremely difficult but I have emphasised here that there are positive aspects to this as well as negative.

  Q107  Dr Harris: I just wanted to be reassured that you were under no allusions.

  Professor Thorpe: Of course for the people affected it is going to be a very serious matter and I do not take that lightly.

  Q108  Dr Harris: I understand you found an extra £15 million, from £1.3 million to £16.3 million.

  Professor Thorpe: It is actually an extra £1.3 million.

  Q109  Dr Harris: You have also increased the target for commissioned research income.

  Professor Thorpe: Yes.

  Q110  Dr Harris: Was that responding to pressure? Is it based on new data or is it something you had in reserve to try to ameliorate, that you always have a reserve position where you can say to us that it is 160 redundancies and not 200?

  Professor Thorpe: NERC Council looked at the input in the consultation so the change was based on the new evidence that came through in the consultation period. Council felt that the consultation highlighted two things, one was that there was a very strong desire and case made for continuing long term monitoring, particularly in the bio-diversity area. Also the consultation pointed out that there was a risk that some of those data sets and monitoring could be put at risk so council took the view that to mitigate that risk as much as possible it would add extra funding to support those areas in particular so the changes were definitely made in response to those input in the consultation.

  Q111  Dr Harris: This issue of redundancies, you would like people in the areas you are going to keep and build to stay and move sometimes long distances but you cannot control that as we discussed before. How are you going to monitor which people are leaving who would not otherwise have planned to leave? It is still going to be inevitable so this is not a criticism. Are you going to monitor that? Are you going to see whether there is a particular gender bias because women may be less able to leave an isolated Scottish area?

  Professor Thorpe: Absolutely. It is critical for us to monitor this issue. We are approaching this with the unions as well. We have identified a number—perhaps over 80—of key staff straightaway with whom we have been discussing in detail their intentions to move with CEH in the future. Those detailed discussions are coming to fruition and consequently we will know more definitely which staff will move and which will not. I have also mentioned the fact that where we know staff are not going to move with CEH we are discussing with them whether NERC can help in terms of them moving more locally to continue research. You mentioned Scotland, for example, Banchory is one of the stations that is going to close. Aberdeen University is relatively close by and I have recently talked to the pro vice chancellor at Aberdeen University about these issues.

  Q112  Dr Harris: You obviously know I have a constituency interest which might even be more important than the bee keepers of Harrogate. How is it going with the union? I understand that the motions of no confidence were passed in CEH's executive board. I do not know whether that is what you expected or whether things have got better since April when that happened.

  Professor Thorpe: I have met recently with the local union representatives. I meet with the national representatives both formally and informally but I have also met with CEH union representatives as well. Obviously we have to win hearts and minds with our staff to come with us into CEH in the future. I think that was a very helpful meeting. That was relatively recently, about a month ago. Of course there have been difficulties and some staff have been angry about the changes that have been made. I feel we are trying to bring staff on board by identifying the key staff who are going to be part of the future so they can rally behind those areas. You are right that that will not be uniformly successful but we are very closely monitoring the situation and we have a major transition project that is managed with a new project manager and with external representatives on that to manage this as effectively as we can.

  Chairman: Thank you very much indeed Professor Alan Thorpe and Professor Julia Goodfellow. Thank you for an interesting launch to our inquiry.