Dear all,

Sorry for delay in forwarding this - Robert Massey's deadline
is now rather close (this Friday). If you have any input to the
RAS' response to the consultation on the science budget,
please let Robert have it at [log in to unmask] or send it
to me.

Thanks!

Sheila Peacock,
list co-owner.

PS it crosses my mind to wonder whether the low oil price is
causing a cutback in the pure and applied research sponsored or
done in-house by the oil industry. Carbon capture and storage
and PhD studentship sponsorship come to mind. To what extent should the
government take up the slack to avoid the loss of expertise
and scientific momentum resulting from such a cutback? I'd
be grateful for comments on this.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Science and Technology Committee Press Release: New inquiry announced
Date: 	Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:14:30 +0000
From: 	Nush Cole <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	undisclosed-recipients:;



Dear Colleagues,

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has announced an inquiry into the science budget, in advance of the announcement later this year of budget settlements for the research councils and UK Space Agency. You can see the formal press notice of this below.

The Royal Astronomical Society is planning to respond, and we would like input from you and your colleagues to help shape our evidence. As a starting point, we will certainly look at areas like the under-provision of resource for new capital projects, the low level of science spending (around 0.5% of GDP) compared with other nations and the impact this may be having on the ranking of the UK in international measures such as citation indices.

Are there though other areas you can bring to our attention, in particular on how astronomy and geophysics will fare with reduced or (less likely) increased spending? If so, please do send me your thoughts.

Note too that I will be on leave from 8-23 August inclusive, leaving very little time after I return to work on this, so please send me any material by Monday 31 July.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Robert

Dr Robert Massey

Deputy Executive Director

Royal Astronomical Society

Office: +44 (0)20 7734 3307 x113

Mobile: +44 (0)794 124 8035

www.ras.org.uk <http://www.ras.org.uk>

From: Science And Technology Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

Sent: 17 July 2015 13:03

Subject: Science and Technology Committee Press Release: New inquiry announced

House of Commons

Science and Technology Committee

NEW INQUIRY ANNOUNCED: The science budget

The new Science and Technology Committee has launched its first inquiry today, into the science budget. Speaking at the Committee’s first evidence session on Wednesday 15 July, the Minister, Jo Johnson MP, refused to be drawn on whether the future budget would continue to receive the protection of the current ring-fence.

Chair of the Committee, Nicola Blackwood MP said:

If the UK is to compete in the modern world it must remain at the forefront of research and innovation. The UK currently spends the equivalent of 1.7% of GDP on science and research, which is some way behind the OECD average of 2.4%. The size and distribution of the science budget that comes out of the Spending Review will be crucial to ensuring that the UK gets the most out of its impressive science base. We are undertaking our inquiry to ensure that science spending decisions take account of that potential.

The 'science budget' has since 2010 been ring-fenced as a separate budget within the BIS departmental budget. The 'resource' (running cost) element of the science budget has been fixed since then at a cash-flat £4.6b a year—around 6% less in 2015-16 in real terms than 2010-11 as a result of inflation. That budget is distributed in two main channels under a 'Dual Support System': to the UK-wide Research Councils (£2.6b) which in turn provide grants for specific projects and programmes, and to the higher education funding council for England (£1.6b) (higher education funding is devolved) which provides block grant funding to universities. The remainder of the science budget includes funding for the national academies (£0.09b), including the Royal Society and British Academy, as well as for the UK Space Agency. Other government departments, notably Health and Defence, also fund research and development outside the science budget. The capital expenditure element of the science 
budget is smaller, at £0.86b in 2015-16, and has fluctuated year-on-year.

The March 2015 Budget announced an inflation-proofed capital budget of £1.1b a year up to 2020-21. The Spending Review, expected to be concluded in the autumn, will set budgets (including the resource science budget) for 2016-17 onwards.

The S&T Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into the Science Budget, ahead of the Spending Review. It took oral evidence on 15 July from Jo Johnson MP, the minister for science, as well as national academies, and will have further sessions in the autumn. The Committee invites written submissions by Wednesday 26 August, including on the following issues:

• The extent to which the current ring-fence arrangements, and the separate arrangements for determining 'resource' and 'capital' allocations, have produced coherent UK science and research investment;

• The extent to which science and research expenditure in Government departments (outside the science budget) complements or competes with the science budget;

• The need for and rationale for any adjustment to the trajectory of future Government expenditure on science and research, and what would be gained from an increase (or lost from a reduction) compared with current expenditure levels;

• Whether the current distributions of the budget between particular types of expenditure and between different organisations is appropriate for future requirements, and achieves an appropriate balance between pure and applied research;

• What level of Government expenditure on science and research is needed:

o to significantly drive the overall level of such expenditure in the economy, through synergies between government and private sector investment (including overseas investment); and

o to optimally balance its benefits against the opportunity cost of government expenditure foregone on other public services.

• Whether the Government's expenditures on aspects of science and research are consistent with other government policies, including the Industrial Strategies and the Eight Great Technologies and fiscal incentive policies for research investment;

• The extent to which any increase or reduction in Government expenditure on science and research will have an impact on the UK's relative position among competitor states.

Submitting written evidence

Submit written evidence via our inquiry page.

The personal information you supply will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the purposes of attributing the evidence you submit and contacting you as necessary in connection with its processing. The Clerk of the House of Commons is the data controller for the purposes of the Act. We may also ask you to comment on the process of submitting evidence via the web portal so that we can look to make improvements. If you have any queries or concerns about the collection and use of this information or do not wish your details to be used for the purpose of collecting feedback, please advise the Committee at [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> providing your full name, address, and if relevant your organisation.

Each submission should:

a) be in Word format with as little use logos as possible

b) have numbered paragraphs

b) include a declaration of interests.

Please note that:

• Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.

• Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.

• Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.

• Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.

More information on submitting evidence to Select Committees.

Further Information:

www.parliament.uk/science <http://www.parliament.uk/science>

Follow us on Twitter: @CommonsSTC

Inquiry page: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/the-science-budget/

Committee Membership: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/membership/

Specific Committee information: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> / 020 7219 2793

Media Information: Nick Davies [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> / 020 7219 3297

Sent via Nush Cole [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>