Social Science Research Council (Hansard, 18 October 1982)

§ Sir Keith Joseph:

I have written to the chairman of the council conveying my decisions on those recommendations which were addressed to me. The full text is as follows. The letter was dated 14 October. Dear Mr. Posner, I am writing to you about Lord Rothschild's Report on his enquiry into the SSRC (Cmnd. 8554). Most of Lord Rothschild's recommendations are addressed to the Council itself arid I know from what you have told me that the Council has already acted upon some of them and is actively considering the others. I welcome this and should be pleased if you would let me know about your further progress. Those recommendations addressed to me concerning the retention of the Council and its continuing responsibilities (2 and 16) I accept. I shall however wish to consider with the Council certain matters in particular concerning its title and the systems by which it makes postgraduate awards for studentships. As to the former I should be grateful if the Council would consider whether its name might not more accurately reflect the range of studies and methods embraced by its work. On the latter my hope is that, recognising that this breadth of activity is always likely to require some variety of method, your Council should sympathetically consider some change of emphasis to increase the freedom of students themselves to choose which institutions to attend, to emphasise your necessary concern for quality, and to secure some administrative savings to the benefit of the work you support. On future finance for the Council Lord Rothschild recommended (4) that "The SSRC's budget should not be reduced in real terms below its 1982–83 level for a minimum period of three years." The Government is not prepared to accept that recommendation in those terms. The first reason is a point of principle: the Government must maintain its right to review public expenditure from year to year. But there is a second reason. The Government believes that within the Science Vote relatively higher priority should be given to work in the natural sciences—particularly to sustain a flow of the best young research talent—and relatively lower priority to work in social studies. I therefore wish to see over the next three years a corresponding and steadily rising redeployment within the Science Budget of some of your Council's resources, this money to be applied—as the Advisory Board for the Research Councils may advise—towards the Government's aim of providing money for new blood for research in the natural sciences particularly in universities. If carefully directed to the most able young researchers, quite modest amounts of money will have significant effect. In the present year your Council receives £20.9M from a Science Budget of £477.9M; that is, 4.4 per cent. of those funds in the field of the Advisory Board. The comparable figure 1978–79 was 5.6 per cent. I cannot yet give you a firm figure for your allocation in 1983–84 but I owe it to you and your Council to indicate my intentions as clearly as I can at this stage. For the next three years the ABRC—provisionally and necessarily in advance of public expenditure decisions—has recommended 39W allocations of £23.3M in 1983–84, £24.5M in 1984–85 and £25.5M in 1985–86. (I recognise that in making these proposals they had regard to the special difficulties you face in 1983–84 consequent on forward commitments incurred as a result of the changes in your budget in recent years.) Compared with the total of these allocations (73.3M) I wish to see a contraction in the volume of your work to release £6M in all over the three years, to be applied as I have indicated, beginning in 1983–84 and rising steadily in the following two years. I want the redeployment to happen as quickly as possible consistent with orderly adjustment, taking account of your legal and moral commitments, and without interrupting the exercise of your main functions of supporting research and making postgraduate awards. It is my intention that when the volume of contraction to a smaller base has been realised the Council could count on a period of real stability, at that lower level at least; as with the Science Budget as a whole, the ability to achieve this will depend upon the performance of the economy and the extent to which costs can be controlled. Let me enlarge on the context in which I see these changes occurring. Lord Rothschild recommended that there should be no further enquiries into the SSRC, apart from the recommended extensions to his enquiry and those required by Parliament, for a minimum period of three years (5). I can say that the Government has no further enquiry in mind apart from its normal business with the Research Councils and their administrative costs and efficiency, which are properly a matter for continuing oversight by us both. You have told me that your Council has seen a greater role for private funding from industry and foundations; and has been encouraging this. I welcome such a trend, as I welcome steps that you are taking in response to Lord Rothschild's recommendation to improve your links with industry. As you say, boundaries within the system of funding for research in your field are not immutable and can properly be expected to move over time in either direction. Without having any particular changes in mind, I am glad to learn that you would see such adjustments as being matters for consideration by the Department, the Council and other interested bodies from time to time. I think it right to say once again that I clearly understand and respect the constitutional relationship between central government and your Council as established by your Charter and the Science and Technology Act 1965. I fully accept that within the funds voted by Parliament and subject to the normal requirements of accountability it is for the Council to determine its priorities—in the light of all the representations made to it including those of central government—and (short of a direction) to decide how to spend its money accordingly. I say this because I recognise that achieving the adjustments I have outlined above will require difficult and controversial decisions in which it will be important for our separate roles to be sustained. Finally may I speak on a more personal note. I am very conscious that you and your Council have gone through a difficult time in recent years and are still without prospect of much calmer waters. I have greatly appreciated the care and dedication that you and the Council members bring to your work. As I have said, I see a continuing role for the Council in the support of research and postgraduate training.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Joseph