Research Councils (Hansard, 11 November 1988)

§ Mr. Kenneth Baker

I have written today to Sir David Phillips inviting the board's advice. The following is the text of my letter:

The Science Budget 1989–90—1991–92 1. When I met the Board in February I said that I hoped that it would be possible to give greater priority to science in this year's Public Expenditure Survey. The Government's decisions, which I announced on 1 November, have done this, and provide resources in large measure commensurate with the advice that the Board gave me in May. These decisions reaffirm the Government's commitment to maintain and enhance the strength and quality of the science base. I now seek the Board's advice on the allocation of this substantially enhanced provision for the Science Budget. 2. For 1989–90 the Science Budget will be £825 million. this is 16.5 per cent. higher than the figure for the current year; and 13.1 per cent. higher than the planning figure set in last year's Public Expenditure Survey. It represents a real increase of 11 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1989–90. The planning figure for 1990–91 has also been increased substantially and now stands at £837 million. The planning figure for 1991–92 is £855 million. These two planning figures will be subject to review in the annual Survey in the normal way. 3. The settlement will increase Science Budget expenditure in relation to GDP from 0.150 per cent. in 1988–89 to 0.162 per cent. in 1989–90. By 1989–90 the Budget will have increased over the decade by more than 26 per cent. in real terms. 4. The Government's decisions take account of the detailed and persuasive advice submitted by the Board in May and of our policy progressively to redeploy public funds from the support of near-market research—which is properly the responsibility of industry—towards the support of basic and longer term strategic research. 5. The Board's advice covered a wide range of activities. Whilst we have not been able to meet your recommendations in full, the additions I have announced should make possible significant progress in each of the main areas identified by the Board—the reshaping of the science base, and new scientific opportunities. They also have regard to certain programmes to which particular factors apply. These have individually attracted Parliamentary interest and I have informed the House this week of the present position and the implications of this latest settlement. Copies of my statements are enclosed. 6. The Government attaches great importance to each of the two main areas advocated by the Board for high strategic priority; and looks forward to receiving the Board's advice on the detailed distribution of funds for these purposes. In particular I welcome the important start that has been made in establishing Interdisciplinary Research Centres and I hope that similar progress might be possible in 1989–90. For the later years I would invite the Board to take stock and give me further advice next year. 7. I would see it as important, in parallel with this, to sustain and develop the world-class science done in the Research Councils' own establishments, building up their links with higher education institutions. This will call for further reshaping of Councils' own facilities, and I shall look to the Board next year for further advice on the progress being made. 8. Under your other main head—new scientific opportunities—I have, as you will know, already allocated an extra £14 million this year for selective re-equipment, through the Research Councils, the UGC and the Royal Society. The Board will wish to consider what further provision would be right, having regard to the burgeoning scientific opportunities which you have identified as well as to the nation's vitally important need for an adequate supply of highly qualified scientific manpower. My hope and intention is that the scientific community should keep alive that excitement and excellence, particularly in basic science, for which the UK is rightly renowned and which must continue to beckon our able young people if the UK is to benefit as it should from the resources the nation devotes to science. 321W 9. Finally, the detailed figures take account of a number of minor considerations, some of them technical. These include: VAT on construction costs; expenditure on EC research programmes; and possible costs for AFRC arising from reductions in the funding of near-market agricultural research. There is also provision (not included in the figures above) to cover capital expenditure arising as a direct consequence of the sale of PBI assets last year. My assessors will be ready to explain these items to the Board. 10. In view of Parliament's continuing interest in the Science Budget and in the work of the Board I am publishing the text of this letter in a Parliamentary Answer.