Committee publication · Correspondence · 22 April 2026
Correspondence from Dr William Barter, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, re: Drayson Partitions, 31 March 2026
From: Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Inquiry: Scientific research funding
Summary
Dr William Barter and 41 colleagues from the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics write to challenge the government and UKRI's reinterpretation of the Drayson partitions (established in 2010 to protect STFC funding streams). They argue that Lord Vallance and Prof Sir Ian Chapman's March 2026 letter misrepresents 17 years of settled policy: the partitions have historically protected PPAN research grants separately from international subscriptions like CERN, not exposed them to tension against each other. The academics contend this redefinition risks destabilising UK particle physics research and violates the Haldane principle by proceeding without scientific community consultation.
Key findings
- Lord Vallance and UKRI's letter proposes to 'tension the PPAN grants portfolio against' large international facility subscriptions, a 'fundamentally new interpretation' contradicting 17 years of settled consensus.
- Historical evidence (2016–2020 STFC Delivery Plan and 2024 CERN presentation by Prof Mark Thomson) confirms the three partitions kept International Subscriptions, UK National Facilities, and Core Programme (PPAN grants) in separate protected streams.
- The separation is functionally necessary: international subscriptions are treaty-governed and external to UKRI control, while PPAN grants enable UK exploitation of those facilities; merging them into a single 'tension' exposes grants to cuts when subscription costs rise.
- The stability created by the Drayson partitions enabled UK particle physics to recover from the 2008 STFC crisis and build international research excellence; eroding this protection threatens long-term capability and economic impact.
- The academics call for formal consultation with the PPAN community and adherence to the Haldane principle before any redefinition of the partitions, warning that opaque policy change risks loss of scientific consensus and cross-party stability.
Tone
CriticalTopics
Key actors
Dr William Barter, Lord Vallance, Prof Sir Ian Chapman, Prof Mark Thomson, University of Edinburgh, UKRI, STFC
Notable line
“This is a fundamentally new interpretation of the partitions that goes against 17 years of long-standing consensus around science funding that has survived multiple …”
Key Quotes
“… it is appropriate to tension the PPAN grants portfolio against [subscriptions for] large facilities, such as CERN or ESO”
“Government established three budgetary partitions for STFC in 2010; these protect each area of our programme by avoiding the transfer of financial pressures from other areas.”
“… https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~wbarter/SITC/STFC_Intro-rECFA.pdf. See Slide 5 for the relevant information. "International Facilities" (including CERN), "UK Facilities", and the "Core R&D Programme", with "[p]artitions…in place to ensure balance is maintained across the overall portfolio".”
“This separation of international subscriptions and research grants in different partitions is not arbitrary, but a direct consequence of how they are set and the different roles that they play.”
“If the two investments are not protected within different streams, then to make short-term savings when international subscriptions rise, deep and damaging cuts end up being made to grants.”
“In line with the Haldane principle, it is imperative that such reappraisals are carried out in broad consultation with the relevant scientific community, ensuring that any new consensus that emerges carries the support of the community and remains above and beyond party politics.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗