2. Over the past year
• New management in place at STFC
• Major Projects delivered
– E-infrastructure, Catapult, ELI,…
• Scientific Successes
– Higgs!
– KMOS, first light with DES, Diamond 10th anniversary…
• Continued momentum
– ESA at Harwell, SKA, Hartree Centre
4. Triennial Review
David Willetts announced the launch of the Triennial Review of the
Research Councils in a Written Ministerial Statement on 9 January
The review is a Cabinet Office initiative and will be conducted in two stages:
• Stage 1 will assess the core functions of the Research Councils, the need
for these functions to continue and the structural options for continued
delivery of these functions.
• If the conclusions of Stage 1 are that the Research Councils should
continue as NDPBs, Stage 2 will examine corporate governance.
• BIS aims to complete Stage 1 of the review within six months and
anticipates producing a report and conclusions of the whole review by
early September
This is not a review of the policy of funding basic research, to which the
Government remains committed
5. Triennial Review - continued
Overall Programme/Project Management
• Ceri Smith, Richard Ney,
Helen Huxtable
Core Review Team
• Paula Croft – EPSRC and RCUK
• Bill Wells - Economic Analysis
• Vivien Brighton - MRC
• Iain Mansfield – STFC
• Sarah Tyrell – AHRC and ESRC
• Isobel Pastor – NERC
6. Triennial Review - continued
• Cabinet Office put a lot of store in the views of
stakeholders
• Meetings with key stakeholders set up over February,
including the Chairs and CEOs of the Research Councils;
Government; businesses; UK Charities and National
Academies; and Select Committees. The panel is seeking
meetings with other key stakeholders from Universities,
TSB and HEFCE, and the International Community
7. Triennial Review - continued
• Review team are hosting roundtable discussions on 6 and
8 March and attending a number of external group
stakeholder discussions.
• 'Call for Evidence' is on the BIS website
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/triennial-
review-of-the-research-councils-call-for-evidence
8. Triennial Review – why should you care?
• Need to recommend some change (“a pound of flesh”)
– Previous reviews of this type led to creation of RCUK and SSC
• Review is asking fundamental questions about how
research is funded in the UK
– How many research councils?
– How should they be governed?
This will affect you all!
9. Spending review
• There will not be a full CSR until after the election
• The 2013 Budget will announce a Spending Review to set
budget levels for 2015/16
• It is expected that the overall envelope for financial year
15/16 will be announced, at the level of the settlement
for individual departments. The total BIS budget (including
the Science and Research budget) will likely be
announced, but no more detail within that.
10. News on spending review - continued
• There will then be a process following the Budget to
decide spend for 15/16 within departmental allocations.
(this includes the Science and Research budget within the
BIS allocation)
• The starting point for the 15/16 budgets for departments
is that they will continue along their present trajectory
(for capital, resource and admin). This means further cuts
to the overall BIS budget, and does not prejudge what will
happen to the Science and Research budget within that,
although the starting point would presumably be
continued flat cash.
11. News on spending review - continued
• Demonstrating efficiency and linkage to economic growth
will continue to be essential.
• There is unlikely to be significant additional
capital/resource spend announced in the spring Budget.
12. Government context
• Deterioration in public finances over
past year
• National debt £1.1 trillion predicted to
rise to £1.4 trillion by 2014
• Bank of England cut growth forecast
• ONS data shows that public borrowing
has exceeded official estimates for
every month this financial year
• Budget deficit up on last year
13. Total Research Council funding
2011 - 2015
2010 Comprehensive Spending Review to set
3000 Spending Review budget for 2015/16
2500
2000
we
1500 are
here
1000
500
0
Baseline 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
14. Implications of CSR10
• Flat cash was relatively good result
• But inflation is well above 2% target, power costs,
unexpected additional charges (CRC tax, OA publishing)…
• Two years in
– 4.4% loss of purchasing power to end of 2012/13
• Another two years
– Additional 5% or £26 million
15. Impact of Flat Cash
Loss of purchasing power
60
50
40
£m
30
20
10
0
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
International Subs UK Facilities Core Programme Administration
• BIS sponsor team suggested we model 2 more years flat cash
• The results are not pretty
16. Summary
Triennial Review
• Take it seriously – it’s asking fundamental questions and is likely
to propose changes
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/triennial-
review-of-the-research-councils-call-for-evidence
Spending Review for 2015/16
• Another year of flat cash will be very tough; reduced funding
even worse
• We’ve been working hard to be ready – but it won’t be easy
Most important thing we should all be doing is selling the
excellence and importance of our science
Editor's Notes
Two phases to the reviewPhase Iidentifies and examines the key functions considers whether the functions are needed if so examines how the functions might best be delivered report to ‘challenge panel’ and then MinistersIf the current delivery model is ok thenPhase IIexamines whether the body’s control and governance arrangements are in accordance with the recognised principles of good corporate governance
Two phases to the reviewPhase Iidentifies and examines the key functions considers whether the functions are needed if so examines how the functions might best be delivered report to ‘challenge panel’ and then MinistersIf the current delivery model is ok thenPhase IIexamines whether the body’s control and governance arrangements are in accordance with the recognised principles of good corporate governance
Two phases to the reviewPhase Iidentifies and examines the key functions considers whether the functions are needed if so examines how the functions might best be delivered report to ‘challenge panel’ and then MinistersIf the current delivery model is ok thenPhase IIexamines whether the body’s control and governance arrangements are in accordance with the recognised principles of good corporate governance
Two phases to the reviewPhase Iidentifies and examines the key functions considers whether the functions are needed if so examines how the functions might best be delivered report to ‘challenge panel’ and then MinistersIf the current delivery model is ok thenPhase IIexamines whether the body’s control and governance arrangements are in accordance with the recognised principles of good corporate governance
Two phases to the reviewPhase Iidentifies and examines the key functions considers whether the functions are needed if so examines how the functions might best be delivered report to ‘challenge panel’ and then MinistersIf the current delivery model is ok thenPhase IIexamines whether the body’s control and governance arrangements are in accordance with the recognised principles of good corporate governance