Government funding for RCIs

1. (Recommendation 7) We recommend that the OSI examine mechanisms for identifying and providing guaranteed funding for nationally important datasets and long-term monitoring activities in order that this vital information will continue to be available to inform future research and policy. This would be particularly important in the case of closure of institutes where responsibility for such work may have to be transferred to a new body but it may also help to maintain the sustainability of existing RCIs by giving security of funding for part of their operations. (Paragraph 45)

OSI operates a robust mechanism in the Performance Management System for the Research Councils, which supports the allocation of the Science budget to deliver priorities set out in each Council's Delivery Plan. Each Research Council undertakes regular review of the science relating to national capacity and of the performance of their Institutes.

Research Councils will, amongst other things, need to identify their plans for national datasets in their Delivery Plans. At a high strategic level these priorities will be discussed and agreed during the allocations process to ensure that all research of national importance is given the correct priority in future planning and strategy. Research Councils have to make a wide range of decisions about how best to invest their funds. Decisions about datasets and monitoring capabilities are no different in this respect and the Government does not regard these as needing a special scrutiny between Spending Reviews.

Departments need to ensure that they have the ability to draw on scientific expertise, information and infrastructure so as to enable them adequately to meet their policy and delivery needs, and they should take a longer term strategic view of those needs. It is, therefore, for departments to decide whether they have a need for a particular data-set or longer-term monitoring activity, and, if so, they should work collaboratively with others to ensure that these are sustained and funded. The Government's departmental science reviews, conducted by the GCSA, look to ensure that departments have a clear strategic approach to their science needs, looking to future as well as current demands. The Government does not believe that a specific mechanism addressing datasets and monitoring, is required in addition to these reviews. Departments should address their specific needs on a case by case basis with the RCIs, involving the Chief Scientific Adviser to the department and the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser where appropriate.

2. (Recommendation 8). We recommend that the Government examine the proposal that departmental research budgets, once set, should be ring-fenced for the spending period. (Paragraph 45)

The Government keeps the management of R&D expenditure across Government under ongoing review, in line with the goals set out in the ten-year Science and Innovation Investment Framework. Departments' R&D budgets will be considered in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

3. (Recommendation 17) We recommend that the OSI be given formal responsibility for developing a mechanism for better two-way dialogue between the Government departments and the RCI sector and their parent Councils in order to improve co-ordination of the strategic direction of RCIs and to protect national scientific capabilities in strategically important areas. (Paragraph 77)

DIUS facilitates dialogue between Departments and the Research Councils and their Institutes, where it is appropriate to do so, and will continue to perform this role. The Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government has a cross Whitehall role, is responsible for the quality of scientific advice within Government and for advising on Government Science and Technology (S&T) policy. He has responsibility for the Government's guidelines and policy making on S&T and for their implementation. His office has responsibility for oversight of and discussions with other government departments to ensure continuity and coverage of priority areas, including national capability that is not provided in RCIs. DIUS recognises the need for other Departments to set their own delivery priorities and it recognises the importance of the Research Councils setting their strategic direction. The protection of national scientific capabilities is best served by Departments continuing their direct relationship with the Research Council Institutes.

4. (Recommendation 21) We recommend that Defra make it an absolute priority to reach agreement with BBSRC on the implementation of RIPSS and to report back to the Committee by the time of the Government's response to this Report on the steps they have taken to secure agreement. (Paragraph 96)

Defra fully acknowledges that it has a responsibility to support the sustainability of the research base in areas of relevance to its current and future activities, as defined by RIPSS, and fully appreciates the contribution of the RCIs to meeting its needs.

Close and frequent dialogue between Defra, the BBSRC and its RCIs is vital to ensure that both the sustainability needs of the research base, and the evidence needs of policy-makers, are fully and properly met. Defra are committed to furthering their strategic dialogue with the BBSRC and a new joint high level forum will be discussing both organisations' needs in mid July 2007. The forum's prime aims are to:

i.  - develop a shared understanding of the strategic priorities of BBSRC and Defra and how those priorities are set;

ii.  - explore how we can further align strategic priorities for mutual benefit.

Developing this mutual understanding is vital to achieving the correct balance in research investment to enable Defra to meet its priorities associated with ensuring the UK properly tackles climate change and has a sustainable natural environment, and to ensure needed elements of the research base are adequately supported now and in the future.

Reaching an agreement is therefore dependent on both Defra and BBSRC finding a mutually acceptable position, but Defra will endeavour to ensure that agreement is reached for the next financial year.

Additionally, Defra welcome and support the BBSRC's leadership in the current assessment of the UK's land-based facilities. Defra will need to draw on this as it conducts its own assessment of its longer term capability and capacity needs. Defra will be exploring how it can most effectively co-operate with the BBSRC and other major partners on this at the coming forum. The outputs of this assessment will be a key input to any agreements with the BBSRC or its RCIs.

NERC and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

5. (Recommendation 24) We recommend that all Research Councils adopt a best practice approach to consultation on restructuring which is as open as possible with those affected within the institutes. (Paragraph 109)

RCUK supports this recommendation. Research Councils endeavour to take a best practice approach whenever the restructuring of Institutes is necessary.

6. (Recommendation 25) We are strongly of the view that when restructuring of an institute is mooted by a Research Council, steps should be taken to identify key science programmes which must be preserved. It should be a priority aim in developing business plans that all such science highlighted in this way is helped to find a placement within the UK science base in order that national capacity is not lost as a casualty of the restructuring of an RCI. We recommend that the Research Councils organise their future strategic plans on this basis and also invite views on such nationally important capabilities when undertaking consultations on the restructuring of particular institutes. In the case of CEH, we recommend that NERC prepare and publish an analysis of key skills and capabilities at CEH prior to the reorganisation, together with an indication of how these will be affected by the changes and, where applicable, how they will be replaced elsewhere within the UK. (Paragraph 112)

RCUK supports this recommendation. RCUK acknowledges the potential for restructuring to result in unintended losses of national science capability if key skills were to be lost and agrees that close and constant scrutiny to avoid as much as possible such unintended consequences is essential. Examples of Research Councils with institutes acting in accordance with this recommendation:

·  MRC considers extremely carefully, when reviewing its Institutes and Units, the key scientific programmes and the need to maintain national capacity. The mechanisms include both scientific and strategic reviews. In addition to the proposed re-structuring of NIMR, the MRC has recently undertaken strategic reviews of the Health Services Research Collaboration (Bristol), the Virology Unit (Glasgow), and its investments in Africa (mainly in the Gambia and Uganda). If a unit is to be closed, the MRC will continue to support the approved scientific programmes in other ways, and will transfer nationally important infrastructure (including, for example, data sets) to other suitable locations. See also MRC's original written evidence to the Committee (Vol II, p132 -134).

·  This approach has been followed by BBSRC Council in its recent review of the delivery of the Institute of Food Research's science strategy. Following the decision to close the Silsoe Research Institute in 2006, a consultative approach was taken in relation to the resultant restructuring; the soils group was moved to Rothamsted Research and the animal welfare group was moved to Royal Veterinary College, with appropriate programme funding provided by BBSRC.  

·  NERC undertakes a detailed analysis of science delivery when considering any restructuring of its Institutes. NERC continuously identifies areas of high scientific priority as research is commissioned across its centres and programmes. For staff who are unable to move or stay with CEH, NERC is providing support to find other appropriate roles. This is being monitored so as to identify any key skills that might be lost to the UK as a whole, as a consequence of the restructuring. CEH has carried out a detailed analysis of key skills and capabilities needed for delivery by CEH of its key science and have matched staff to these. Where CEH requires additional skills it is recruiting actively to fill any gaps.

Research Councils and RCI

7. (Recommendation 32) We support the OSI's role in intervening where the sustainability of an RCI is in doubt and believe that this could usefully be deployed in cases of serious concern over the restructuring of an institute, without compromising the autonomy of the Research Councils. We also recommend that the impact upon UK science be expressly examined by the OSI when considering any bids for funding to assist restructuring of RCIs. (Paragraph 147)

DIUS requires the Research Councils to include in their Delivery Plans the impact on science of their funding priorities for the relevant period, including that arising from any restructuring of their Institutes. Research Councils will consider a full business case for any major changes to Institutes, including a risk assessment exercise. DIUS would expect to discuss any such plans with the relevant Research Council, and satisfy itself that the Council had fully explored the potential impact on the UK science base. The Government's approach remains that Research Councils should retain responsibility for the management and organisation of their Institutes, including any decisions to restructure, expand, contract or relocate them.

8. (Recommendation 33) We recommend that the RIPSS agenda should be binding on Government departments and that the OSI be given responsibility and the means to intervene where it judges that a department is not fulfilling its responsibilities under RIPSS. (Paragraph 149)

DIUS considers that its role in relation to RIPSS strikes the correct balance between its role in promoting best practice, and the Department's own responsibility for properly funding the science on which they depend to delivering their priorities. DIUS does not agree that its role in respect of RIPSS should be changed in line with the Committee's recommendation.

Co-ordination of policy on RCIs and protecting the UK science base

9. (Recommendation 35) We recommend that the OSI be given the responsibility, and the resources, to monitor the state of national research facilities and the skills base within the RCI sector and that a formal mechanism be devised whereby the OSI issues an impact assessment when a department sets a science budget or alters its priorities or spending decisions or a Research Council plans changes to one of its RCIs. (Paragraph 154)

The Government does not agree that DIUS should have this responsibility, which would be inconsistent with its policy of encouraging closer cooperation, where appropriate, between other Government Departments, and Research Councils and their Institutes, and the responsibility for individual Research Councils to ensure that their Institutes are fully integrated within their overall Delivery Plans.

July 2007