House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Work of Research Councils UK Sixth Report of Session 2004–05 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2005 HC 219 Published on 23 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of Science and Technology and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dr Ian Gibson MP (Labour, Norwich North) (Chairman) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Dr Brian Iddon MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Robert Key MP (Conservative, Salisbury) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Dr Andrew Murrison MP (Conservative, Westbury) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Bob Spink MP (Conservative, Castle Point) Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/s&tcom A list of Reports from the Committee in the present Parliament is included at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Chris Shaw (Clerk); Emily Commander (Second Clerk); Alun Roberts (Committee Specialist); Hayaatun Sillem (Committee Specialist); Ana Ferreira (Committee Assistant); Robert Long (Senior Office Clerk); and Christine McGrane (Committee Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e- mail address is: [email protected] The Work of Research Councils UK 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Background 6 Establishment 6 Mission and aims 6 Organisation 7 Reviews 8 3 Relationship with OST 10 Previous arrangements 10 New arrangements 11 Independence of RCUK 12 Joint Strategy Group 15 A voice of their own 15 Leadership 17 4 Strategic role of RCUK 20 Role in Higher Education policy-making 20 Skills shortages 21 Allocation of the DGRC’s discretionary fund 23 Regional role 24 European dimension 25 European Research Council 25 EU Framework Programmes and full economic costs 25 Large facilities 26 5 Joint working 28 Setting the strategy 28 Balance of funding 28 Success rates and demand management 30 The Treasury and performance management 30 Multidisciplinary research 31 Peer review 32 Science in Society 33 Administration 34 Joint Electronic Submissions 36 6 Conclusion 38 Conclusions and recommendations 39 ANNEX A: Recommendations of the 2003 Research Councils UK Review 42 2 Optional header ANNEX B: OST 2004 Review of Research Councils UK: Recommendations and Implementation Plan 43 Formal minutes 47 Witnesses 48 Written Memoranda 48 The Work of Research Councils UK 3 Summary This Report completes our scrutiny of the Research Councils, which we have carried out over the course of this Parliament. We have found that the failure of OST to establish clear objectives for RCUK on its establishment in 2002 hampered its efforts to achieve a profile and a place in the policy- making framework that might have been expected. We welcome the reforms that have been made to the structure of RCUK in response to the OST’s 2004 review of the organisation but we do not believe that they have gone far enough. The distinction between the roles of the Director General of the Research Councils (DGRC), on behalf of Government, and that of the Research Councils, which remain outside Government, has still not been clearly made. We have recommended a slight change in existing arrangements to make the distinction clearer. We have also criticised Government for being reluctant to allow Research Councils to express their views independently. We have found that RCUK has performed a valuable service in promoting best practice across the Research Councils and the harmonisation of administrative procedures. However, we have not been persuaded that it is doing enough to exert influence on behalf of the Research Councils across Government. We have argued that the appointment of an independent, high profile figurehead for the organisation would be likely to increase its visibility and influence and that OST should review the existing position after a further two years. In the longer term, we would like to see RCUK assuming complete independence in determining scientific priorities. Government should fund the science it needs directly rather than seeking to influence the Research Councils’ priorities. We have argued for a system in which the value of R&D is firmly entrenched right across Government and the Research Councils are left to pursue long term scientific goals rather than those of the Government of the day. We believe that this would be a better model for the successful stewardship of the UK research base and the use of science by Government. The Work of Research Councils UK 5 1 Introduction 1. Shortly after the Committee’s establishment in the 2001 Parliament we identified as one of our core tasks scrutiny of the Research Councils. We set ourselves the target of scrutinising all seven by the end of the Parliament and we have now met this aim.1 Our scrutiny would not be complete without a look at Research Councils UK (RCUK), the umbrella body established in 2002 to provide strategic focus and a single voice for all the Research Councils. As well as examining the effectiveness of RCUK itself, we aimed to follow-up on some of the themes that have emerged during our scrutiny of the individual Research Councils for which RCUK has some responsibility. We formed an initial view in our 2003 Office of Science and Technology (OST) Scrutiny Report that RCUK had been a “useful initiative” and looked forward to monitoring greater collaboration between Research Councils and the convergence of their administrative procedures.2 This Report fulfils this intention. 2. We announced our inquiry on 15 November 2004. We received a comprehensive memorandum from RCUK setting out the steps it had taken towards implementing the recommendations we have made with cross-Council implications as well as commenting on our other specific areas of long-standing interest. Although we invited written evidence, and received five other submissions, we were aware that many of the organisations most likely to submit evidence had already participated in the OST’s own review of RCUK, which took place during 2004 and resulted in the publication of the Ruffles Report in October that year.3 Whilst our own inquiry was somewhat wider than OST’s review, we nonetheless sought to minimise duplication and workload by asking OST for the evidence gathered by the Ruffles Review team as part of its work. We are very grateful to OST for providing this material, which we have drawn upon in our own scrutiny. 3. We held one evidence session, on 2 February, with the Chair of the RCUK Executive Group, Professor Ian Diamond, and Helen Thorne, Head of the RCUK Secretariat. We are grateful to those who submitted written and oral evidence, but particularly to RCUK for its detailed written memorandum and prompt answers to follow-up questions. 1 A complete list is contained at pages 43-44 below. 2 Fourth Report of Session 2003-04, The Office of Science and Technology: Scrutiny Report 2003, HC 316, para 37 3 OST, OST Review of Research Councils UK, July 2004 [hereafter referred to as the “Ruffles Review”] 6 The Work of Research Councils UK 2 Background Establishment 4. The establishment of RCUK followed directly from the 2001 Quinquennial Review of the Grant Awarding Research Councils (QQR). This review concluded that the Research Council system was working well; that there was real strength in diversity from having separate Councils; and that Councils had made good progress in working together in many areas. However, the QQR also identified the need to embed a culture of collective responsibility and collaboration within the Councils to enable them to increase their influence on national and international strategy and policy development. It also wanted them to work with their stakeholders in a more collegiate fashion. It recommended the establishment of RCUK as a means of achieving these outcomes.4 Specifically, it identified five aims for RCUK: i. Increase the collective visibility, leadership and policy influence of the Research Councils; ii. Provide a single focus for collective dialogue with stakeholders, especially universities, business, other major science funders and the EU; iii. Promote earlier, more active and inclusive involvement of the Research Councils in policy and strategic development and decision-making for the UK science base and international programmes; iv. Secure greater cohesiveness and collective working amongst the Councils and OST, where this is necessary or desirable to achieve scientific or strategic goals; and v. Secure greater harmonisation or commonality of operational and administrative functions where this is to the advantage of the stakeholder community or will improve the collective efficiency or effectiveness of the Councils.5 Mission and aims 5. Accordingly, RCUK was established in May 2002. It is a strategic partnership between the UK’s seven Research Councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB), which is due to become a Research Council in April 2005.