Conclusion 4

UKRI has been slow to take decisive action on rising costs and underperforming projects. We agree that UKRI innovate and must take risks and should expect some projects in its portfolio to encounter problems, not least because it is doing things never done before. It rightly recognises it needs to be able to take appropriate action when these issues occur. It has acted quickly and strategically in some cases, for example it approved the business case for the National Cryogenic Facility within nine months of conceiving the project. It also manages risk on some research infrastructure projects by providing seed funding before deciding whether to go ahead. However, there are still examples of problems persisting without resolution, and a lack of strategic thinking. UKRI cancelled funding for its airborne laboratory five years after deciding to upgrade it, after spending £46 million of the £49 million budget; we believe it could have taken action sooner. UKRI could also have been quicker to realise the Science and Facilities Technology Council’s (STFC’s) plans were unaffordable. The decisions it will soon take to bring spending back under control could have serious consequences for the UK’s skills base, for sites such as the Daresbury research campus, and for the UK’s reputation as a partner in international collaborations such as CERN. recommendation UKRI should set clear thresholds for determining whether it should continue to fund research infrastructure projects. These should be aligned with its risk appetite for the project and take account of the project’s performance and strategic value.