1. PPD Staff Meeting (15 March 2011) Norman McCubbin Director of Particle Physics Department

2. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 2 Topics H&S (Martin G); Update on STFC and PPD issues (Norman McC): –Arrivals and departures; –STFC developments in last 6 months; –Future developments and issues for PPD Aim to leave adequate time for discussion and Q+A

3. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 3 Arrivals + Departures Over last 6 months: –Denise Small has moved to a post in CLF; –Steve Fisher has moved to eScience department; –Blair Edwards (Zeplin/Dark Matter) has left for post-doc in USA; –Nick Grant (T2K) has left for post-doc at Lancaster; –Jacopo Nardulli (LHCb) has left for a CERN Fellowship; –Jane Mackenzie was recruited and has started at the UKLO (CERN); –Confirmation of next phase of GridPP funding has allowed established posts for Alastair Dewhurst, Andrew Lahiff and Raja Nandakumar. And over next few weeks: –Antony Wilson will move to eScience department; –Marcel Stanitzki will leave for DESY; –Mike Tyndel will retire... to the Mediterranean! –We’ll be marking these departures appropriately...

4. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 4 STFC over last 6 months (1) The CSR outcome announced in October 2010 was considered significantly better for Science than the “worst fears”. (And it certainly was better than some of the scenarios STFC was being asked to consider during summer 2010!) The detailed settlement to each Research Council, including STFC, was then worked out, leading to the announcement (Staff Forum 20 th December) and publication of the 4-year Delivery Plan (by each RC) just before Xmas. Further details have followed through in.brief and in various staff meetings. It is, as ever, not completely straightforward to work out how STFC has fared (because, for example, some of STFC has “moved” to the new UK Space Agency), but “Resource” (Intn’l Subs + UK facilities + “core”) is ~flat in cash over the 4 years, whilst “Capital” was cut harder initially and is squeezed over the 4 years. (“Administration” is handled separately.)

5. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 5 STFC over last 6 months (2) The Delivery Plan spells out the “big picture”, but is, deliberately, not very detailed. More detail will come in the Operating Plan for 2011/12, which is now being worked out. (In principle this has to be ready for April!) STFC’s “resource” allocation includes an extra £18M in 2011/12 for “re-structuring”, and this money is apparently available in 2011/12 only. It has been made clear that re-structuring means redundancies, as STFC’s allocation and planned programme balance over the CSR period only with a reduced staff complement. Any redundancy exercise is a two-step process: 1) call for volunteers for “early release”, followed, if necessary, by 2) compulsory redundancies. (For the latest on redundancy terms, see in.brief of 2 nd February 2011.)

6. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 6 Issues for PPD (1) Turning to PPD, the Delivery Plan signals the intention to “foster a complementary partnership between STFC and universities by increasingly focusing the capabilities of STFC’s in-house researchers on technology, instrumentation and detector development, leaving university scientists to concentrate on scientific research.” This statement (and similar) in the DP was followed up by some explicit, public remarks by John Womersley that are much more sharply focussed on PPD: “In the short term, expect a significant impact on staffing especially in the Particle Physics Department at RAL.” I emailed PPD staff about this on 3 rd February.

7. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 7 Issues for PPD (2) As I stated in the 3 rd February email, PPD DOES have a non-zero number of staff in unfunded posts, but if we look at the funding we’ve got for 2011/12 (and it’s very similar for 2012/13) that unfunded problem is relatively small. Latest 2011/12 numbers (including effect of Marcel leaving,  ) are 69 fte to fund and 63fte of funding available (PPGP, PPRP, GridPP, ‘indirect’). And there are other consideration and effects that reduce the gap even more. So, funding is certainly an issue.... But the larger issue is the direction that is being proposed by senior management for PPD in the future.

8. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 8 Issues for PPD (3) (PPD Senior Staff and staff at CERN have already heard much of what follows.) This direction is to implement the DP’s increasing focus of “the capabilities of STFC’s in-house researchers on technology, instrumentation and detector development,..” to an extent that will reduce further the department’s involvement in physics analysis. The “physics” leadership would reside principally in a small number of joint appointees (with universities), and these people could apply for PPGP support for analysis though their university. Although PPD does not currently engage in very much physics analysis (we would like to do more), this further down-grading of physics analysis would change markedly the character of the department. Most importantly, we (= PPD Senior Staff +..) believe this change will damage our future ability to carry out just the kind of detector- related role that is mentioned in the DP, and that is very much part of PPD’s traditional role! (Tight connection physics  detectors.)

9. PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011 9 Issues for PPD (4) The other aspect to the proposed change is to “top-slice” the funding for much or all of the effort associated with our detector- related activities, and remove it from the PPGP/PPRP funding arena. This has advantages, but there is some divergence of views within PPD. My own view is that, on balance, this is NOT a healthy direction for funding if we wish to continue to be more-or-less a “peer group” with the universities, collaborating in “research” and experiments on a roughly equal basis. (In my opinion, if we want this then we have to be seen to be funded in more-or-less the same way...) So, there is a vigorous discussion (!) going on between STFC Senior Management and PPD (represented by Claire S-T, Stephen H. and me). I do not know exactly how this will finish up, but there are other possibilities, and we are arguing for them. I hope we arrive at a broader consensus.

10. 10 Issues for PPD (5) I am very conscious of the fact, and regret, that much of the above can only add to people’s sense of uncertainty....... And all this during a time when PPD staff continue to “go the extra mile” – be that in support of experiments, or dealing with the SSC! (Or a myriad of things in-between..) However, I felt I should expose the situation to you fairly and frankly. As to my own position, we do now know that it is “most unlikely” that I will be replaced by an external recruitment. My official retirement date is 30 th June 2011, and I am extremely reluctant to extend that (again!), and indeed it’s not even clear I can. Beyond this meeting, please do feel free to discuss these issues with your line management, and, as usual, my door is generally “open” during working hours. 10 PPD Staff Meeting; 15 March 2011