Research Councils (Hansard, 30 April 2002)

§ Ms Hewitt

My noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation has today announced the outcome of the Second Stage of the Quinquennial Review of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC).

The first stage of the review recommended that the second stage of the review should focus on the issues associated with the implementation of a strategic 738W ownership model, to encourage collective ownership by the user research councils of CCLRC's large facilities, addressing in particular the implications for the status of CCLRC and its accountability to Ministers and Parliament.

The second stage of the review has been led by the chief executive of the CCLRC, Professor John Wood and conducted under the guidance an external review board chaired by Sir Peter Williams, and the Office of Science and Technology. The review has been conducted in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance and Cabinet Office and Treasury officials have had an opportunity to comment on the draft report and its recommendations.

The principal recommendation is that for its core business the CCLRC should remain a non-departmental public body (NDPB) and a research council. In addition, CCLRC should be given a strategic role, as identified in stage one, to act as a national focus for large facilities for neutron scattering, synchrotron radiation and high power lasers on behalf of the research councils UK. Further, it should also co-ordinate the development for research councils UK of policies and strategies for the provision of access by UK scientists to leading edge large-scale facilities in these scientific areas, both nationally and internationally. The co-ordination and provision of strategic advice would be carried out separately from the day-to-day operation of CCLRC owned facilities.

There should be a common scheme for access to the large facilities for researchers sponsored by all the research councils. For those proposals that successfully undergo competitive peer review, there will be a "free at the point of access" arrangement.

CCLRC's funding arrangements should alter so that CCLRC receives direct funding from the Office of Science and Technology for providing, operating, maintaining, developing and upgrading its large facilities and their instrumentation. This would be on the basis that, a rolling medium term plan for the operational requirements of the large facilities be prepared by CCLRC and endorsed by research councils UK. This arrangement would ensure that the chief executive of CCLRC as accounting officer is clearly and visibly accountable for the value for money of all aspects of the delivery of science from these large facilities. In addition, there will be an external review of CCLRC's cost base and financial processes in advance of the changes to the funding arrangements.

I warmly welcome these recommendations and offer my thanks to Professor Wood and the review board.