---

Science Budget

There was an article in The Guardian on 20 May that recaps the debates. It set out:"““When Daresbury lost the Diamond facility to Harwell, Lord Sainsbury, the science minister at the time, gave an assurance that if 4GLS””—" a fourth-generation light source—"““were built, it would be sited at Daresbury. On the loss of Diamond, Sainsbury said””—" at the time, I think—"““'If people in a particular research establishment come up with a brilliant new way of doing things, it is not a clever strategy when it comes to building the thing to take it away and put it somewhere else. It is not a good way to motivate people to come up with new ideas.'””" One would think that that combination suggested that he was clear that, if he were still science Minister he would direct funding towards Daresbury. However, he goes on to deny—now, I think, as I assume these are contemporaneous comments—"““that too much funding is concentrated in the golden triangle””," and he says:"““I think it would be wrong to try and distort the research council process. It is difficult to ask people to allocate funds on two sets of criteria. Either it is done on the excellence of the research or it is done on other criteria.””" Actually, it could be done on a mixture, as long as that was made clear, and regional factors played a part. I resented the allegation made in Westminster Hall on 1 April by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) who, without informing me that he intended to make the point—I have informed his office that I intended to complain about it—said that I had called for Daresbury to be closed. Members of the Committee who attended the evidence sessions and the visits will know that my concern was that the Government should be clear and honest with Daresbury about its future, because we are dealing with people and their careers. The people to whom we spoke said that the Government said that it had a bright future, but the decisions made by the STFC told them otherwise. That is why it is important that the Government are willing to engage with the Committee's recommendation to start a debate, perhaps through a White Paper, on regional policy on science. It may be that the Minister does not know the answer, and the Government should not be criticised for not having the right answer, but we should at least have the debate. I turn now to the recommendation made about the research council itself. Questions are always raised in Select Committee inquiries about who is to blame, and the temptation is to blame the research council staff—and we strongly criticised them. However, the danger is that that is seen as scapegoating someone who has to make difficult decisions. It is true that the Committee said that those decisions were made badly, but sacking the management is not necessarily the answer, because the problems will live on. I was concerned that the STFC may have misinterpreted one of our recommendations, which was to improve communications. I do not think that that meant that it should improve its spin. The announcement sent by e-mail on 3 July included a list of highlights of the STFC funding programme, and I looked down it to find some lowlights, because I expected that some of the cuts—some of which have been confirmed and are uncontentious—would be mentioned. However, none of the cuts was mentioned except the ExoMars mission, on which it states:"““The ExoMars mission…is supported by STFC through its subscription to the European Space Agency's Aurora Programme.””" However, that disguises the planned and agreed cut. I even waded through the executive summary of the report, and no mention was made of cuts. Then I went to the individual pages, and it is hard to find the answer for some of the projects. On solar-terrestrial physics, the implementation document merely states:"““The agreed programme of support for STEREO PLS will be continued.””" It is my understanding that the agreed programme of support is actually a cut. It states:"““The agreed programme of support for Hinode PLS will be continued””." That is another cut. The document also states:"““The agreed programme of support for Cluster, SOHO PLS and the UKSSDC will be continued””," which is another cut. I am not criticising the decision, but the STFC should be more open. We have communication, but it is the wrong kind of communication. It is unclear whether Daresbury will receive significant investment in respect of the ERLP-ALICE project for the future. The Committee's report was a balanced one, and—notwithstanding that I am a member—I think that it should be congratulated. The contributions that we have heard today should focus the Minister's mind on the challenge he faces to restore the confidence of the physics community in those who govern its budgets.