Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Grand Committee

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will see some merit in both these amendments, even if we might disagree at this stage about the drafting.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 1 and the amendments in this group that are about giving a purpose to ARIA associated with climate change and the environment. I declare my interests as a non-executive director of Frontier IP and the chair of BGF’s Clean Growth Advisory Board.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has indicated, ARIA’s success or failure will depend, crucially, on recruiting outstanding programme managers. These people will need to be interpreters and matchmakers well networked in industry and academia, with an excellent understanding of science and technology, strong lateral thinking skills—many of the things the noble Lord has already mentioned. They will also need to be tough risk-takers, but not gamblers. They will be hard to find, yet finding the right people is going to be critical to this success. Finding them will be the first constraint. Inevitably, they will have specific areas of expertise.

With a limited initial budget, focusing ARIA, at least initially, on the critical challenge of climate change and the environment will be a great way both to help address our greatest challenge and to support the UK economy. But it will also provide a valuable focus for the recruitment of these key individuals—the people who initially occupy these absolutely fundamental posts.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I would like briefly to intervene on this important group of amendments and should declare an interest as a member of the board of UKRI, which is very relevant to the issues we are currently considering. I am not acting as a spokesman on behalf of UKRI, but drawing on the experience that we have had there.

I welcome any attempt to bring greater diversity and innovation to our funding landscape. We do not want a monolith; we want lots of different ways of getting funding and lots of different requirements. Anything that adds to the diversity of the funding landscape I welcome as a good thing. However, I have two or three questions on which I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance.

First, the task of ARIA is often described as high-risk, high-reward research. In a way, Clause 3, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley, has referred, is an attempt at setting out in legal prose “high risk, high return”. It is great that ARIA will have that as its objective, but my one concern when I hear this language is the implication that all other public funding for R&D could not be high risk and high return and that it is in some sort of boring bureaucratic pot where everything is safety first and low return. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that it is also perfectly possible for the agencies of UKRI and indeed other sources of public funding for R&D also to engage in high-risk, high-return research. It would place too much weight on ARIA’s shoulders and eliminate diversity if we said that it is the only agency that can act in that way. Having that authoritative assurance from the Government would be of great value in ensuring that our whole research ecosystem carries on performing in an innovative way.

Secondly, I want to reflect on the lessons that can be learned from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, to which my noble friend has also referred, and seek another assurance from the Minister. When Theresa May’s Government put substantial funding—over £2 billion—into the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Innovate UK, the main agency for delivering that programme, travelled to America to look at what ARPA did. It said, “These programme directors at ARPA are fantastic—we should have the ARPA model of programme directors in order to deliver the Government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund”.

I can remember the debate that took place. The Treasury said “Hang on, how much are these programme directors going to be paid? They can’t possibly be paid more than is set by our pay rules”—the pay limit was, I think, £100,000. The Treasury then also said, “We need a committee to scrutinise that the money is being well spent and, to ensure it is making progress, a monthly report would be about right”. Then BEIS, which I do not think completely trusted the Treasury and saw this as a BEIS operation, said, “BEIS also needs to have a committee that meets to scrutinise the success of this programme director; we have slightly different criteria from the Treasury, so our committee should meet once a month”. It averaged out—at the start; it may have got better—that every fortnight there was some supervisory committee or other checking that this programme director was delivering the objectives.

That is the slow, painful process of bureaucratic accretion. It is marvellous that ARIA is, we are assured, going to be free of all that. It would be quite good, however, if other parts of research funding could also be free of those constraints. Indeed, the Government have several reviews on at the moment that are relevant to this, including the Tickell review of bureaucracy and a new grant review of UKRI.

I also hope that the Minister can assure us that, wherever possible, especially if these proposals emerge from two reviews set up by the Government, freedoms being extended to ARIA will also be enjoyed by agencies working under UKRI or other departmental bodies. The problem of bureaucracy must be solved across the whole swathe of R&D funding, not just by creating one institution outside the constraints that everyone else has to work under. I would like an assurance that lessons are being learned, both for the functioning of ARIA and from these two reviews now under way.

Thirdly and finally, we can already sense—not least from the opening presentation from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on the purpose of ARIA—a fascinating debate about missions versus technologies. I have frequently had that debate with my friend Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who has brought the language of missions into public policy, which is excellent. However, I always say to her that the Kennedy moonshot did not arise because a bunch of PPE-ists—speaking as one myself—sat around saying, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we sent someone to the moon? That would really get the media’s attention; let’s do that, Mr President”, but because of prior investment in general-purpose technologies, including rockets. It was a deep understanding of what the technologies might be capable of that led to the formulation of the mission.

One can resolve this by wordplay, by making “backing technologies” one of the missions, but the point made earlier about preventing and creating technological surprise tells us that, really, DARPA was always envisaged as driving American leadership in technology. We have the opportunity to choose missions only because of prior investment in underlying science and technology, which turns those missions from empty fantasies into deliverable objectives.

I very much hope we will have an assurance from the Minister during the course of our scrutiny today that ARIA will strike a happy balance. It should be able to fund general-purpose technologies without knowing exactly how they will prove useful, while suspecting that something of that power and significance will have use. It may also wish to fund specific missions or challenges, but it would be a strategic mistake to put all its eggs in one basket. It is the interaction of technological investment capabilities with missions and challenges that really drives innovation. I very much hope that ARIA will pursue both approaches.

Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the order today, including what from our debate are proving challenging targets. I shall restrict my remarks to putting a specific question to my noble friend. Is it not the case that, in the short term, emissions will rise, particularly in the context of hydraulic fracturing for methane gas—an issue raised by other noble Lords? It is generally recognised that it is an inevitable result of fracking that methane will leak out of the natural gas wells at two stages: first, during the well being hydraulically fractured and the methane escaping; and, secondly, during the drill-out following the fracturing, when methane is released into the atmosphere. It is also generally understood that methane can be far more powerful than CO₂ in its role in increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the inevitable warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Will my noble friend take the opportunity in summing up the debate on the statutory instrument this afternoon to explain how we are going to meet our targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by 2020 without inevitably increasing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by continuing to pledge to fracture in the immediate future?

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I offer the Minister my strongest support for the order.

I remind the House that we are being asked to sign up to a new target, not a new cost. I want to dispel a few misconceptions. The Committee on Climate Change identified the range of costs needed to meet the net zero target as between 1% and 2% of GDP. Those costs are not costs to the Exchequer. Yes, there will be a role for public funding in some areas, such as to avoid a competitiveness impact on the UK manufacturing industry, but the vast majority of the changes will, and should, be delivered through private investment.

I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Committee on Climate Change. In our report, we compare resource cost estimates to GDP to give a sense of scale. It does not follow that the estimates have an impact on GDP. The impact on GDP could easily be positive, as we shift away from using imported fossil fuels, for example, or as we develop newer industries that will boost our productivity and growth as an early supplier of new, low-carbon technologies globally. We need to be very careful in how we think about the numbers.

However, as many noble Lords have indicated, and as the CCC said in its net zero report, changing the target is just the first step and, in many ways, is the easy part. The real challenge will be the swift ramp-up in policy that needs to follow. I have had the honour of being the sector champion for the offshore wind sector deal as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. As the Minister is aware, a major renewable energy conference is under way in London; I believe that he spoke at it today. The conference is exciting; for example, it shows the impact of our investment in offshore wind on UK jobs and companies.

Will the Minister consider a swift and simple indication of the Government’s policy intent to deliver this new net zero target? A simple indication of intent would be removing the six-gigawatt cap for the next round of CfD auctions while offering no additional funding. The offshore wind industry is ready to respond to such an indication. This would be a win-win. It would show the Government’s intention to act swiftly; it would help to create more jobs; and it would deliver more zero-carbon electricity at no additional cost to the Exchequer or the consumer.

[Lord Lilley]

My Lords, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

We are debating the consequences of a departing pledge by the outgoing Prime Minister; it is probably the most expensive leaving present in history. Harold Macmillan said that when both Front Benches are united, they are almost invariably wrong. It is in that context that I rise, with some trepidation, to show that at least some scrutiny is going on. Macmillan’s point was that, where both sides agree, you do not get proper scrutiny and the normal adversarial approach of our Houses of Parliament does not apply—that is, we do not look with enough rigour at what is going on. That is particularly true if, as was the case in the House of Commons, this House eschews any serious consideration of cost on the grounds that the higher the cost, the better—almost—because it shows how virtuous we will be. That was certainly the attitude during the passage of the original Act in 2008.

My principal plea is for a proper impact assessment of the order. I say that with some feeling: I came to this issue because in 2008, when the then Climate Change Bill was before the House, I went to get a copy of the impact assessment and was told by the Vote Office that I was the only person who did. I was the only person who read it and raised the issue of cost throughout the Bill’s proceedings. That is why impact assessments are important. I read the impact assessment and discovered that, at that stage—when the target in the draft Bill was a 60% reduction in emissions—it showed that the potential costs were twice the maximum benefits. If the costs of something exceed the benefits, you do not do it. That does not mean that the target was wrong; it means that you look for more cost-effective ways of achieving that target. But we did not; we ignored it. We ploughed ahead anyway—and went further: we raised the target from 60% to 80%. One would normally expect that to increase the cost disproportionately, because the things you have not done would be costlier than the things you would do to meet the lower target, and the benefits would rise less than proportionately, because you would get the greatest benefits from the early reductions in global warming and fewer benefits from any incremental reductions.

After we passed the Act, the Government did produce an impact assessment—under much goading from me. Sure enough, it showed that the cost of meeting the target was going to double, but it also found that the benefits were going to increase tenfold. They found £1 trillion of benefits previously overlooked and ignored by the people who had produced the original impact assessment. That must surely raise a feeling of unreality in the minds of people considering this. If you can conjure £1 trillion of benefits out of nowhere, we really are dealing in extraordinary detachment from reality and normal accounting.

I want to see a proper impact assessment this time, even if we did not get one originally and the one we eventually got lacked credibility.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the words of others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for securing this debate on what has turned out to be a very special day. I also declare my interest as vice-chair of the Committee on Climate Change and chair of its adaptation committee.

I want to talk about the lesser-known part of the Climate Change Act that covers climate change risk, and the actions that government must take to address it to keep the people of the UK safe in the face of a changing climate. However well we do on mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and even if we could cut them to zero by 2025, as Extinction Rebellion would like, or to the much more realistic target that the CCC has recommended today of 2050, we have to recognise that the climate will go on changing because of the lag in the climate system.

It will continue to get hotter. The threats of droughts and fires will continue to increase. Extreme weather events, such as the short periods of very intense rainfall that cause flooding, will continue to become more frequent. Sea levels will continue to rise, contributing more damage to coastal areas. Adaptation, ensuring that people, but also animals and plants, can continue to live safe and healthy lives in the face of these changes, will remain a critical area for policy, investment and action.

Section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament every five years containing an assessment of the risks to the UK of the current and predicted impact of climate change, and to take into account the advice of the CCC, which is the climate change risk assessment—the CCRA. The current CCRA—our second—was laid before Parliament in 2017.

Under Section 58 of the Act, the Secretary of State has a duty to lay programmes before Parliament, setting out the objectives of Her Majesty’s Government in the UK in relation to the adaptation to climate change; the Government’s proposals and policies for meeting these objectives; and the timescales for introducing these proposals and policies, addressing the risks identified in the most recent climate change risk assessment. This is called the national adaptation programme. Every other year we on the CCC review the progress on delivering the NAP. Our current NAP was laid before Parliament last year, and we will review it formally later this year.

The CCC’s advice to the Government on climate change risks, based on an extensive evidence report, identified 56 key risks and opportunities for the UK which should be addressed in the next five years, 38 of which were classified as “more urgent”— that is, where more action or more research was needed in the next five years. In our first scan of the 2018 NAP, the CCC has already pointed out that half of the 56 key risks are not covered by formal NAP actions, and that includes 16 of the risks identified as “more urgent”. I am not going to list these—our formal report in the summer will cover them in detail—but I want to highlight those particularly pertinent to this debate: the international aspects and the international risks, which include global stability and the global economy.

As we have heard, climate change will impact populations, economies and livelihoods around the world. An increase in extreme weather impacts can be expected to cause widespread loss of life and severe humanitarian crises. Patterns of agricultural production will be disrupted and, over time, will have to change. We will import impacts to the UK through the price and safety of food and other commodities, changes to the patterns of trade, disrupted supply chains and risks to overseas investments. An increased frequency of weather extremes will disproportionately affect low-income populations, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has reminded us, and countries such as the UK will increasingly be called upon to provide more humanitarian assistance. Efforts to build state stability and long-term resilience could be undermined. Further research is urgently needed to understand whether our current approaches to aid and development are contributing effectively to the long-term resilience and stability needed. We need to be aware of the danger that the need for humanitarian assistance, in response to an increasing number of extreme weather events, could shift international aid away from long-term development.

Climate refugees and climate-driven migration are likely to become increasingly problematic, with potential impacts on extremist politics in developed nations. Overall, the research evidence indicates that the key international risks to the UK all fell into the “more urgent” categories, with more action needed on weather-related shocks to global food production and trade, risks from climate-related human displacement—refugees—and more research needed on imported food safety risks, long-term changes in global food production, risks to the UK from international violent conflict, and risks to international law and governance.

None of these has any formal actions in the NAP. While the three relating to food production are mentioned in passing, the three relating to migration, conflict and the breakdown of international law and governance are not mentioned anywhere in the 2018 NAP. The first national adaptation programme, in 2013, set out the laudable aim of:

“A society which makes timely, far-sighted and well-informed decisions to address the risks and opportunities posed by a changing climate”.


The second NAP endorses this aim so why does it appear to ignore the international risks, especially as the UK, through our Prime Minister, is the global lead on resilience for the UN Secretary-General’s special summit on climate change this September?

The international risks are particularly difficult and sensitive: food security, refugees and migration, violent conflict and the breakdown of international law. But we as a society need to discuss these issues so that we can make well-informed decisions about how we want to address them. Some of these risks fall well outside Defra’s departmental remit but so do many of the climate risks to business, communities and infrastructure. Like climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation needs to be a cross-government priority. My questions for the Minister are: first, how do we ensure that adaptation is a priority right across government; and, secondly, why does our national adaptation plan appear to overlook the significant and serious international climate change risks to the UK, despite the positive lead we are taking on resilience to climate change?

Climate Change

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as vice-chair of the Committee on Climate Change and chair of its Adaptation Committee. I repeat the thanks expressed by others to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing this important debate to the House today.

This week started with a stark reminder that the climate is changing. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Rees, about the debates at Davos. Tuesday’s City A.M. paper reported on its cover that 2017 and 2018 have been the costliest back-to-back years for economic losses from catastrophic weather events, at a financial cost of over half a trillion pounds and with a much greater human cost. We had Hurricane Michael in the US, Typhoon Jebi in Japan and Typhoon Rumbia in China. The Camp Fire in California was the state’s deadliest and costliest fire on record, destroying the town of Paradise and costing some $12 billion. The California fires have also resulted in the largest corporate bankruptcy to date due to climate change—the Pacific Oil & Gas corporation. Insurers globally are now looking at how and whether they can continue to insure against risks that result from the impact that we are having on our climate. Closer to home, the “Today” programme on Tuesday informed us that a record number of wild flowers were in bloom on New Year’s Day this year. Literally thousands of species in the UK were observed flowering—charming but ominous.

It is good, therefore, to have a debate on the impacts of climate change where we can consider what needs to be done to ensure that we maintain people’s well-being and livelihoods in the face of the changes ahead. We should remember that, even if we could stop all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, which we clearly cannot, the impacts of the emissions and warming that have already taken place will continue to develop over the next century: ice will continue to melt, sea levels will continue to rise and the weather will continue to change.

If that is what 1 degree of warming delivers, we do not want to imagine what the 4 degrees or so of warming that we are currently on track for by the end of the century will bring, and we certainly do not want to leave future generations to cope with the consequences. As people have said, it is critical that we meet our commitments made at Paris in 2016 and make our contribution to keeping warming well below 2 degrees, with an ambition of limiting it to no more than 1.5 degrees. We should take a global leadership role in demonstrating that this can be done and we should support others to do so.

We may not want to think about what 3 or 4 degrees of warming could mean, but that is just what we have to do on the Adaptation Committee. Using the latest scientific evidence and excellent modelling from the Met Office, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, we work with leading academics and consultants to produce the UK climate change risk assessment evidence report every five years. This forms the basis of the Government’s risk assessment for the national adaptation plan.

We hear, as we have in this debate, a lot about the risks overseas—the typhoons and forest fires, and the impact of sea-level rise on small island states. These are all critical but I want to talk about the risks at home. The climate change risk assessment identifies the following six areas of serious risk to the UK: flooding and coastal change; health and productivity effects from high summer temperatures and heatwaves; water shortages for households, farmers and industry; risks to our plants, wildlife and beautiful places; risks to food in respect of both production and trade; and risks, as we have heard recently, of new pests, new invasive species and new diseases taking hold.

I turn now to the effects even closer to home, by which I mean, like the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, at home. One in six properties in the UK today is at risk of flooding: river flooding, coastal flooding or surface water flooding from drains overwhelmed by the increasing incidence of intense rainfall. Yet there is no requirement for property-level flood resilience measures, even in new homes being built on the flood plains of the south-east. Some of our most recent research for the Adaptation Committee shows that a few measures installed during building, at almost zero cost, could save thousands of pounds in damage and get people back into their homes much more quickly after a flood event. As we approach 4 degrees of warming, a tripling of UK flood damage is predicted.

Some 20% of UK homes overheat already in a cool summer, and the Government’s own research shows that all new-build homes are likely to be prone to overheating. But there is no legal requirement to consider overheating in new homes. Average summer temperatures in the south of England have a 50% probability of being 4 degrees higher than today and a 10% probability of being 6 degrees higher than today by 2050—and those are just average temperatures. By 2050, the summer of 2018 will not be seen as a hot summer; it will be the norm. Currently, we have around 2,000 heat-related deaths per year in the UK; by 2050, it is likely to be well over 5,000.

On the current path to 4 degrees of warming, unless we take additional action much of England is predicted to see severe water shortages by 2050. If we reduce our current per capita water consumption from 140 litres per person per day to around 90 litres, as well as addressing leaks and improving industry water efficiency, we can avoid this problem. It can be done. We have some of the highest water consumption per head in Europe; in Belgium, people already manage on just over 100 litres of water per person per day. All these problems can be addressed. We cannot prevent a level of climate change but we can ensure that we have the right measures in place to keep people comfortable and healthy, keep businesses working and keep food growing. Clear objectives are needed from government, with measurable time-based targets supported by committed investment and strong, enforced policy and standards.

I conclude by asking the Minister to ensure that the objectives in the national adaptation programme are clear and measurable. As these objectives are, in the main, those of the 25-year environment plan, I ask that they appear in the environment Bill and other related Bills. While a big step in the right direction, the current proposed indicator framework for the 25-year environment plan has no measurable targets, only directional indicators. We know that the climate is changing, and increasingly we can predict how it is changing, but we are not responding strongly enough.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

My Lords, I am sorry to say this again, but could we please stick to our allotted times?

Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactors

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, clearly, in any assessment of new SMR technology, safety and non-proliferation will be crucial. The regulatory and policy aspects of developing SMRs are very much at the front of the Government’s mind.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a proud former Rolls-Royce engineer and, as a result of my employment, a Rolls-Royce shareholder. Given the news that the EU is now excluding the UK from new collaboration, the growing evidence of the challenge of financing major nuclear power station development and the importance of low-carbon energy technologies to global decarbonisation, does the Minister agree that our exit from the EU provides an excellent opportunity to support UK technology and jobs—including in the steel industry, which we will be talking about tomorrow—and to address a major global export market through government support for the Rolls-Royce-led small modular reactor programme? I suggest that that would be a great feelgood message for after the election.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

As the noble Baroness knows, Rolls-Royce is one of the 32 companies which have submitted a proposal. There is no doubt that if we could build SMRs on a modular basis, much of the work could be done in the UK. We may have lost out in the race to build big nuclear plants, but companies such as Rolls-Royce and others in the UK could compete effectively on SMRs and we could then export them around the world. But there is no point embarking on that new technology until we are sure that it can deliver low-carbon energy at an economic cost.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I give my strong support to the government amendments in this group that allow for larger research councils, including an executive, and make it clear that our research can aim just to advance knowledge. I am very much an applied scientist, but I think it is hugely important that people are able do research that is just about moving forward the frontiers of their subject, even if we may not know for many years whether it has any purpose or practical application. I am delighted to see that such a provision has been included. I thank the Minister for not only listening to the comments of noble Lords and the research and innovation community, but responding to them.

I also add my support to Amendments 164A and 166A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, which would add a senior independent member to each council. I encourage the Minister to adopt that approach among the many other excellent improvements that he has already made.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, echo the thanks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, to the Minister, the Bill team and the honourable Member for Orpington for the fruitful discussions and for listening to the points we raised at earlier stages of the Bill. I strongly support the government amendments in this group. There are two amendments with my name on them, which have already been discussed: on the establishment of an executive committee of the executive chairs of the research councils. I should declare that I am a former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, so I have first-hand experience of this issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, both mentioned the importance of Amendment 181, which sets out that one of the research councils’ objectives is the advancement of knowledge. In fact, I would go further and say that the core objective of research is to advance knowledge. The fruits of that may be to improve the economy or quality of life but, as I said at Second Reading, one can never predict where those fruits will grow. I quoted the words of Nobel Prize winner Andre Geim, saying how important the advancement of knowledge for knowledge’s sake was in helping to promote the well-being of society and of the economy.

Amendment 164A concerns a senior independent member. I would have preferred to have a non-executive chair because I know from my own experience as the chief executive of a research council that it is quite hard to fill the roles of both the chair of the board and the proposer of initiatives to the board, but I understand that for various reasons the Government are not willing to go down that road. The role of the senior independent member who can be a mentor to the executive chair, and in difficult circumstances perhaps chair the board if it wishes to take the executive chair to task, is an important addition.

Also from my own experience, I strongly support the notion of lay members on the council as set out in Amendment 165A. There were occasions when I was the chief executive of the NERC when disputes between the warring factions of the academics—the earth scientists, the oceanographers, the ecologists and the atmospheric scientists—became so severe that I had to call upon the lay members to act as brokers in order to resolve them. I can hear the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, laughing at that remark, so obviously he has seen that kind of phenomenon before. The lay members of the research councils will have a key role to play and we should certainly support their inclusion among the 12 board members.

That is all I want to say at this stage, other than to repeat my thanks to the Minister and to noble Lords on these and other Benches with whom I have worked in trying to improve the Bill; I think we have significantly improved this part of it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

166: Schedule 9, page 105, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) In the case of Innovate UK, the Council must have a non-executive Chair, and the non-executive Chair and the majority of the Council members must be from science-related business backgrounds.”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 166 and support the other amendments in this group, which focus primarily on ensuring that Innovate UK—a very important business-facing council which is joining a group of academic research councils in UKRI—retains its unique character, strong business focus and ability to act in different and innovative ways. Innovate UK is, for good reason, a very different organisation to the other research councils.

My Amendment 166 goes beyond the earlier proposal for senior independent members. I was delighted to hear the Minister’s response on that, and I very much welcome the approach he will take on senior independent members. My amendment proposes that Innovate UK retains a non-executive chair and that a person appointed to the role be a senior figure from business.

Most of Innovate UK’s funding goes to companies, not to universities or research institutes. This funding is used to support innovative and strongly product and process-focused research and demonstration. Innovate UK’s support has direct economic benefit and will be all the more critical as we exit the EU, with a change in relationship to the industry-focused programmes of Horizon 2020. Innovate needs to retain its strong business voice, both inside UKRI and, critically, also outside it. That voice will be very much amplified if Innovate is chaired by a leading industrial figure and has a majority of business members on the board. This is the purpose of Amendment 166.

Government Amendments 173 and 183 are enormously welcome, recognising the need for UKRI and Innovate to be able to provide a wide range of forms of support to new products and companies, which could include investing in and forming companies as well as giving grants and loans, reinforcing Innovate’s role in supporting UK business—as indicated in Amendment 183. I beg to move.

[Lord Oxburgh (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 173A. On the face of it, it appears that the provision, under “Supplementary powers”, in paragraph 16(3)(b) of Schedule 9 prevents the research councils from doing a number of things that are important to their fundamental function. Clearly, they should be able to continue to do them. I hope the Minister will be able either to explain to us that this amendment is unnecessary because of provisions elsewhere in the Bill that I have not spotted or to accept that this is something that needs to be changed.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope this reassures the House of two things: first, that we do not intend to inflict any undue process on UKRI and its councils; and, secondly, that they will continue to have delegated autonomy over matters pertaining to their subject areas. In summary for this group addressing Innovate UK and UKRI’s financial freedoms, I kindly request the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate and the Minister for his detailed response. I recognise from what he said that we have a strongly shared objective of retaining the different role and character of Innovate UK. In the light of the government amendments, which go a long way towards doing that, and of his earlier and very positive assurances on an important role for senior independent members of the councils, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 166 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

479A: Schedule 9, page 101, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
“(a) a non-executive chair,(b) the Chief Executive of the science and humanities Council or of Innovate UK, as appropriate, and(c) at least four and not more than eight other members (the “ordinary Council members”).”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, in moving the amendment, which is also in the name of my noble friends Lord Krebs, Lord Mair and Lord Broers, I will speak also to Amendments 481A, 481B to 481D, 482A and 482B.

Bringing the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England together in one organisation, UKRI, opens the possibility of achieving some important benefits, in particular in the areas of: interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research, which have not always been well served by the current structure of the research councils, and where many researchers attest that some of the most exciting and potentially far-reaching current developments are happening today; in further improving the links between academia and business; and in making a stronger case to government about the importance of research and innovation to the future success of the UK, to secure the levels of funding that will keep the UK at the top of the league tables for our research while moving us up in terms of innovation—the kind of achievement we have seen today, with the recently announced funding, which we have all been celebrating—thereby ensuring that our outstanding research translates into profitable business for the UK. That is all positive, but for this to be successful the new UKRI organisation will need the existing councils to maintain their own strengths and their diversity while it works more effectively across the councils. The amendments in this group focus on ensuring that we preserve the good things about the councils today while adding the benefits UKRI can bring.

Amendment 479A relates to the structure of the individual councils. Today, they have distinguished independent chairs working with chief executives and relatively large councils made up of distinguished academics, businesspeople and other members. The independent chair is in line with Sir Adrian Cadbury’s advice on governance in his 1992 report: it avoids the concentration of power in one individual, while allowing the chief executive to both present to, and listen to, the high-quality debate at council meetings, without at the same time having to manage the meeting; it ensures that views which the chief executive may not agree with are well aired and discussed; that all relevant issues are included on the agenda; and that all council members are enabled to play their full part. Sir Adrian was looking at the problems of the finance sector but the general principles are valid here too. If these councils are to be engaged in important business, as we all intend they should be, these principles are of particular concern. The presence of an independent chair, rather than a research council head in the role as executive chair, will give the council roles higher perceived status than simply of an advisory board reporting directly to the chief executive. That will help to maintain the high quality of individuals who compete for appointment to these roles. It will also give the chief executive a critical friend and mentor and provide the council with a senior independent voice into the chief executive of UKRI if the council is concerned about the way things are going.

That is particularly important as regards the independent chair of Innovate UK. At Second Reading, many speakers from all sides of the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Garden and Lady Rock, and my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers, emphasised the importance of maintaining the business focus of Innovate UK. This was captured in the royal charter of its predecessor, the Technology Strategy Board, which was a body established,

“for purposes connected with research into, and the development and exploitation of, science, technology and new ideas”,

for the benefit of,

“those engaging in business activities in Our United Kingdom”.

Amendment 481A would ensure that the independent chair of Innovate UK came from business, along with the majority of ordinary council members, in line with the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Amendments 481B to 481D would introduce consequential changes.

Amendment 482A would require UKRI to establish an executive committee including all the councils’ chief executives. This seems, in any case, very likely to be something that any new chief executive of UKRI would want to do, but putting it on the face of the Bill, giving it recognition as a key part of the governance and indeed the intelligence of UKRI, would reassure the community in relation to the ongoing importance of the individual research councils. It would also emphasise the important and influential roles of the heads of the new research councils. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I must remind the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 480 and 481 by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I think the challenge comes from two places. First, the executive chairman would be on the executive committee of UKRI so it will be challenged there. Secondly, there will also be challenge—or support, where required—from the UKRI board. I hope that I have provided reassurance on the proposed governance structures and powers regarding the councils, and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response, and in particular for his commitment to the Haldane principle and his assurance about the continued importance of the individual research councils within the new organisation. I also thank the other noble Lords who spoke powerfully in this debate for their contributions in support of both my own and the other amendments.

I really believe that UKRI can be a success but achieving that will need strong, autonomous and diverse councils working together. Governance changes do not need to remove independent chairs. Just about every major company in the world these days operates a matrix structure where people manage dotted and solid-line accountabilities and responsibilities. Managing that is not beyond the very best of science, innovation and business in the UK. I hope there will be some further reflection as the Minister withdraws to his room of many mirrors. I am glad that he will at least consider the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Broers, of a senior independent director. I wonder if that senior independent director might still grow into an independent chair of a board.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister will also reflect on the size of councils, because they are diverse and will need to be of different sizes. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, the EPSRC distributes a lot of money across a very diverse collection of engineering, science and mathematics subject areas. It is very important that both the business and academic communities can be present on the council in order for it to make good decisions.

I am also delighted to hear that the Minister will reflect on whether an executive committee should be put in the Bill.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I did not say that I thought the executive committee should go in the Bill. I felt that it was not necessary for it to go in the Bill because it will just be part of normal, good operational governance.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I beg the Minister’s pardon. I misheard him. I thought he said he would reflect on that further and I thought that might mean it would appear in the Bill. Since it is so necessary, I do not see any reason he would not put it in the Bill because it would provide so much assurance to the community about the importance of the research councils. Of course, we would expect such a committee to play a key role in strategy.

As I think the Minister can tell, I am looking forward to hearing more about potential government amendments in this area and I hope that they will not disappoint us. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 479A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I rise to speak to Amendments 490C and 490D, which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Krebs, and Amendments 495A and 495B, which are tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers. These amendments concern the roles and responsibilities of the science and humanities research councils.

Amendments 490C and 490D would ensure that the science and humanities research councils are able to exercise the functions of UKRI in their fields without any additional constraint from UKRI, which is important for the autonomy of the research councils. Clause 89(1) currently restricts them exercising those functions of UKRI in such fields of activity “as UKRI may determine”. Amendment 490D simply removes the implied additional level of control by leaving out “as UKRI may determine”. This helps to strengthen the autonomy of the research councils in the new UKRI structure which noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Finlay, Lord Patel, Lord Kakkar and Lord Rees, and the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, spoke so passionately about at Second Reading.

Amendment 495A echoes the concerns that we have just been hearing about and reflects the focus of a number of amendments in this group that I strongly support. The research councils in Clause 89 are very focused on contributing to economic growth and quality of life, both of which are clearly very important. However, as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Cameron, basic or pure research, whatever you like to call it, whether in sciences or humanities, is the pursuit of new knowledge for its own sake and as a contribution to scholarship, knowledge and understanding more widely without a current economic purpose. That is critical for a healthy research base.

Amendment 495B, which is tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers is to help ensure that Innovate UK’s business-facing function remains clear and distinct from those of the humanities research councils. In Clause 90, Innovate UK is specifically prohibited from doing the research councils’ role of carrying out research, which seems appropriate. This amendment would prevent the research councils duplicating Innovate UK’s functions so that those important functions remain clearly business-led.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I shall briefly speak to some of these amendments. I think the Government, perhaps through infelicitous drafting, are creating unnecessary anxieties, given the way that these clauses are currently formulated. I particularly welcome two of the amendments. First, Amendment 484AB tackles a rather peculiar feature of Clause 87, which may well be due to the way in which the parliamentary drafting developed. The phrase,

“research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas”,

is not the way in which the science and research community would list its activities. It is regrettable that social science is not specially identified in that list. We are all familiar with the term “arts and humanities”. Many of us are lay people, but we nevertheless understand the distinction between life sciences and physical sciences. This is a rather peculiar way of formulating it. I suspect a parliamentary draftsman said, “Well, social sciences are a science, so they must be covered by ‘science’. We don’t need to say ‘social sciences’ as well”. I suspect that that is the conversation that happened. We have ended up with something that, for people in this community, looks a rather peculiar list. It would be better if it were closer to the way in which we think of the range of research activities carried out in the UK.

Secondly, Clause 89(4) currently lists,

“contributing to economic growth … and … improving quality of life”.

Again, that seems to promote unnecessary anxieties. It has not been my experience that any science Minister from any political party represented in this Chamber believes that there is no value in pure research. I do not think that people sit around saying, “All we’re interested in is the immediate consequences for economic growth”. There is a great story about Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, receiving a brief advising her not to invest in the large hadron collider because it does not have any useful economic effect. She scribbled on the brief, “But it’s very interesting, isn’t it?”, and the public funding went ahead. That is the approach that I hope all of us take to science funding. I do not believe it will be any different under this new structure. However, it would tackle a concern if the Bill were explicit that, alongside the promotion of economic growth and the quality of life, we also believe in simply extending knowledge and research in this country.

There may be other areas. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, about what can also be improved on. These are unnecessarily narrow formulations that do not adequately capture what the Government intend with the new structure. As we have heard the Minister’s willingness to reflect, I hope that this is an area where he reflects with particular energy and concentration.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

482C: Schedule 9, page 105, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) form, participate in forming or invest in a commercial arrangement including a company, partnership or other similar form of organisation for the purposes of supporting economic growth through commercialising research or promoting university-business collaboration (up to a financial limit determined periodically by the Secretary of State).”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 482C, I wish to speak also to Amendments 490A, 495C and 495D in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers. All these amendments relate to the issue that I and others highlighted earlier of the need to maintain and strengthen Innovate UK’s business focus within UKRI, and, in delivering its support to businesses of all sizes and stages of development, ensuring that Innovate UK is itself able to innovate in the forms of support it can deliver, so that they are appropriate to the need and scale of the business.

As we heard earlier, Schedule 9 states that UKRI is not allowed to enter into joint ventures, or form or invest in companies, partnerships or similar forms of organisations without the specific consent of the Secretary of State. These are just the kind of things that Innovate UK has done, does now, and which it is likely to want to do more of as it extends its activities in the future. The very successful catapults, for example, are companies which Innovate UK has formed, appointing their initial chairs and non-executive directors and funding them. Indeed, I understand that Innovate UK has recently appointed a chief investment officer to look at opportunities to support new technology-based companies. Schedule 9 appears to constrain this type of innovative business support rather than encourage it. The amendments would remedy this while still leaving an appropriate level of oversight and control with the Secretary of State.

Amendment 495C also supports the business focus and autonomy of Innovate UK within UKRI. It would transfer back from UKRI to the Innovate UK council, with, I hope, its independent chair, the determination of which of the UKRI functions Innovate UK should exercise to increase economic growth in the United Kingdom.

These are very important aspects of ensuring that Innovate UK can continue to provide innovative business-focused support to UK economic growth. I beg to move.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments standing in my name. Briefly, the context is of course that Innovate UK is a good thing that is making real progress, and we do not want to see anything that constrains it, particularly within this legislation. However, it is worth looking at the Government’s case for its inclusion in UKRI—we will deal with some of its merits later—and what that means for its operating method and efficiency, and whether it meets the right objectives. That is also about ensuring that Innovate UK has the right basis for entering it, which is what our Amendments 482D and 495E relate to. The efficient use of the interrelation between business and research is aptly put by the question I will ask having visited Harwell, where there is a fantastic facility. Particularly with regard to space, where we have a huge emerging industry, we have invested in a chamber to be able to test products as they would wear in space. There is a five-year waiting list, even though construction has not been completed yet. Therefore, where in the research world is the case made to extend those facilities and make them more available? That is part of what we are looking at here.

Amendment 495F would require Innovate UK, when exercising the functions required,

“to maintain its focus on assisting businesses”.

As well as some people having concerns about Innovate UK affecting the way the research is seen, we want to make sure that Innovate UK is established with the right focus and that its priorities and funding will not be excessively influenced by its proximity to the research councils and Research England.

One of the other issues on which we would like clarity from the Minister is how other elements, which have a strategic focus on these issues, relate to this. One is the role for the Council for Science and Technology, which is known by the acronym CST and sometimes dubbed “Charlie Sierra Tango”. It advises the Prime Minister on science and technology policy issues, which cut across the policy issues of government departments. It is housed in BEIS, and it is the most significant location where issues of science, technology and the interface with business are addressed by government. It would be logical for it to be proactively charged with the role and responsibility to look at this issue. We will be interested to see where it fits in.

Amendment 495G is our proposal that Innovate UK’s spending is separately reported and evaluated by the NAO, just to make sure, again, that we have that counterbalance.

In the development of the relationship with business and making sure that that function works particularly well, it is narrow just to consider the role of Innovate UK, however esteemed, useful and effective it is. We should be looking at the issues surrounding spin-outs—the commercialisation of university research, and how that works. We should be looking at some of the other elements; for example, research councils supported the Rainbow Seed Fund as a seed fund generator. It is a most outstanding, although small, fund, which has done a terrific job at encouraging investment in our research base and in companies that spin out from it. It will be useful to have some idea of where some of the new institutions, such as the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, which has been announced, will fit in with Innovate UK and its new research framework. Similarly, how will the Small Business Research Initiative fit in?

There are of course other examples. Many people commented on the recent announcements that we were looking for something similar to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—DARPA—in the States, which has had fantastic non-military applications, such as computer networking, graphical interfaces and other things. Will the Government also consider, in the context of what they are trying to achieve, that there is a role for institutions such as Israel’s Yozma programme, which revolutionised Israel’s venture capital industry and has totally transformed its universities and capacity to the point where Israel is investing as a proportion of GDP twice as much in private equity and venture capital as the United States? That has transformed the research capability of its institutions.

Innovate UK is therefore a good thing, it should not be restricted and it should certainly have a lot more functions. However, is that the end of the story, and are there other ways in which research elements that we have already, as well as others, will be considered by the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank my noble friend for that.

Turning to how autonomous and free Innovate UK is, I fully agree it is important that it is able to provide a broad range of financial support, including the sorts of commercial activity listed in the amendments. I assure noble Lords that paragraph 16 of Schedule 9, which provides detail on UKRI’s supplementary powers, does permit UKRI and its councils to make such investments, but with the consent of the Secretary of State. This is not an unreasonable or overbearing condition. It is a necessary one to comply with cross-government rules set out by the Treasury in Managing Public Money. It is also not a change to current practice—such permissions are already required. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, mentioned catapults, but as things are set up, they do require consent from the Secretary of State.

It would not be responsible to cut out ministerial oversight entirely, particularly with regard to commercial activity that potentially carries a significant level of financial and/or reputational risk. Absolutely nothing in the Bill curtails the powers of Innovate UK to enter into joint ventures or investments in the way that it does at the moment. I agree fully with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mair, that commercialising our science, one of the 10 pillars in the industrial strategy, is critical to improving productivity in the UK more generally. The Government fully understand it is important that UKRI has flexibility in this regard. The Secretary of State will specify conditions for such activities, below which UKRI can act without referring back to its sponsor department.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I cannot agree with Amendment 495E, which would risk taking the emphasis away from Innovate UK’s mission to support businesses by giving it further duties that are not reflected in its current charter. However, I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiment behind Amendment 495F. Although the Government strongly believe that the current drafting protects Innovate UK’s business-facing focus, let me assure noble Lords that we will carefully reflect on the comments made in this debate.

On Amendment 495G, as a council of UKRI, Innovate UK will continue to undertake detailed evaluation of the economic impact of its business-led innovation projects. It is right that the organisation is given a degree of flexibility to determine how it reports on its activities, rather than entrenching such detail in the Bill. Let me reassure the House that it is not the Government’s intention to place artificial and unjustified limits on what commercial activity UKRI and Innovate UK may undertake. The Government’s position is very clear that Innovate UK must retain its business-facing focus. I hope that with the assurances I have given noble Lords this evening, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response and other noble Lords who have contributed fully to the debate. I am pleased that the Minister agrees with the principle behind many of these amendments—I hope I have understood him correctly this time—particularly the need for autonomy for Innovate UK and for it to be able to deliver a broad and innovative range of financial support and commercial activities.

The Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State would be able to specify conditions within which UKRI can act, which is specifically indicated in one of the amendments. Perhaps he can write to us with more information about that as it may further allay some of the concerns.

The issue of the autonomy of Innovate UK, and the opportunity and need to have an enlarged brief to deliver the economic growth which we are all keen to see from our science base, are so important that we would like to hear more about the Government’s thoughts in this area. It is an issue to which we may wish to return on Report. However, in the context of the strong reassurance that we have had on this point, and that we will hear more, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 482C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

485A: Clause 87, page 55, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) facilitate, encourage and support the development of activities in higher education providers associated with entrepreneurship, innovation, commercialisation and support of regional economic growth.”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I shall speak to Amendments 485A, 496 and 499A in my name. I welcome the government amendments to include knowledge exchange in UKRI, but I do not feel that they go far enough. The Minister mentioned the Higher Education Innovation Fund, which is currently distributed to universities by HEFCE on the basis of encouraging interactions with industry and business, which includes knowledge transfer, collaboration support for registration of intellectual property, entrepreneurship and a range of other things.

Historically, HEIF has been assessed as delivering a benefit to the UK of £7.30 for every £1 invested. It is mentioned in the new industrial strategy as one of the routes to address the concern that the UK is excellent in research but not innovation. Indeed, the Green Paper is looking to explore the expansion of HEIF. This news will be celebrated by UK higher education institutions of all kinds, from the highly research-intensive to the more applied and business-focused institutions.

I understand from discussions with the Minister of State and the Bill team that HEIF will continue to be delivered by Research England. This is again good news, except that in Clause 91 Research England can provide financial support only for research or facilities for the purposes of, or in connection with, research. This needs to be addressed at the Research England level in Clause 91 and for UKRI in Clause 87.

The government amendments in this group are very much appreciated as they go some way towards addressing this issue by extending the UKRI and Research England support to knowledge exchange. However, I am not quite sure what the definition of “knowledge exchange” is. I believe that HEIF as currently applied delivers benefit some way beyond what one might assume is included in “knowledge exchange”. It is used to support entrepreneurship activities among undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers and university staff. It helps to support initiatives such as “dragons’ den” competitions for start-up companies in universities. It supports working with local enterprise partnerships on business growth in the regions. I am not sure whether all of these activities can be classified as knowledge exchange, but they are all important in ensuring that our universities play a strong role in stimulating innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth locally and nationally.

My amendments would go further than the Government’s proposals to ensure that the excellent work done under HEIF can continue—and, indeed, to allow Research England to distribute other such funds in future with equally broad scope for encouraging university-business links and entrepreneurial activities. I do not believe that these amendments have different objectives from those of the Government, but I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the wording of the government amendments could go further to ensure that they cover the quite broad scope of HEIF as it is currently very effectively used.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who described the wide range of activities undertaken by universities under the banner of knowledge exchange—and, beyond that, the contribution that they make to their local communities, to entrepreneurship and to local economic growth.

The Bill makes clear that Research England will retain HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange functions. This will include distributing higher education innovation funding. This vital block grant for universities in England represents an important source of stability to the sector, allowing maintenance of facilities, core staff, support for postgraduate students and a degree of entrepreneurial research activity. Research England and the new Office for Students will act together to deliver HEIF—an example of the close joint working between the two bodies and their shared remit to support business-university collaboration. The Office for Students will continue to encourage student activities such as entrepreneurship training.

The Bill ensures that UKRI will be equipped to continue to support universities to continue to play a critical role in their communities, including through knowledge exchange.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I thank the Minister for his reassuring response. I am keen to know how the OfS and Research England will work together to deliver HEIF funding, because, as the Minister will know, there is a very precise formula for delivering HEIF funding relating to things such as the amount of university-business research collaboration undertaken by universities. It is important to understand how work will be done between the two organisations to continue to deliver this funding. Will the Minister include that in one of his letters? In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 485A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I shall speak to a couple of amendments that are worth addressing, but I associate myself with the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which have a great deal of merit.

In Amendments 495J and 500ZA, we believe we are dealing with a drafting error that currently makes ineligible independent research organisations for financial support as well as a higher education provider. We think that that excludes museums and is probably a drafting mistake, so we would be very grateful to get some clarification from the Minister about whether museums would be incorporated.

One of my sons is a big fan of a TV programme called “The Big Bang Theory”, which is the story of some young people in America who in the main, as is the vogue of the time, are what you would consider to be “geeks”. The episodes start with the name of a scientific principle, theory or experiment, so prior to this debate my son believed that my interest in the Haldane principle was about “The Big Bang Theory” as opposed to the autonomy of research councils.

The Haldane principle is one that everyone holds dear. There has been a great deal of debate about whether a more explicit reference to it should be in the Bill, and I think there is a broad consensus towards that view. I hope the Minister considers the two amendments on that issue. I am not particularly prissy about the drafting but I am sure everyone in the research and science community would be very interested to have it confirmed by the Minister if that were something the Government were keen to do.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I support Amendment 489 from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and shall speak to Amendments 503A and 505A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Krebs. Amendment 503A follows on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, about the Haldane principle. At Second Reading many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Kakkar, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, urged the Minister of State to be bold and take this opportunity to, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, put it,

“hardwire the arm’s-length, Haldane principle into the Bill”,

or, rather more to my taste, as Lord Waldegrave said more simply,

“let us at least try to put the Haldane principle on the face of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; cols. 624-27.]

In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, when he was Minister for Universities and Science:

“The Haldane principle means that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review … Prioritisation of an individual research council’s spending within its allocation is not a decision for Ministers”.


He said the principle was,

“vital for the protection of academic independence and excellence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/10; col. 138WS.]

Its presence in the Bill would remove many of the other concerns about the autonomy and operation of the research councils in the new UKRI organisation. Amendment 503A would put a specific reference to the Haldane principle in the Bill in relation to the Secretary of State’s direction to UKRI.

Amendment 505A picks up the important issue of ensuring the continuation of the dual funding model for research. It seeks to assure that the streams of funding for research grants, distributed by the research councils, and for QR, distributed on the basis of the results of the research excellence framework by Research England, could not be redistributed or used for cross-subsidy. It is important that the two funding streams remain distinct and complementary. In addition to the eloquent support from the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Kerslake, for the dual funding systems in their Second Reading speeches, Sir Paul Nurse commented in the Nurse review, on which much of this part of the Bill is based, that having QR in addition to research grants was:

“one of the reasons behind the UK’s success in research and these separate funding streams should be preserved”.

These two streams should be evaluated and distributed in separate and complementary ways, as should other funding streams such as HEIF, as we heard earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

490B: Clause 88, page 56, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) In exercising the power under section 87, UKRI and the Research Councils must operate fair, open and transparent competitions for funding.”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, Amendment 490B stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Krebs.

Both Amendment 490B and the other amendment in the group, Amendment 505D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, seek to ensure that UKRI and the research councils operate “fair, open and transparent” funding and assessment processes. Such processes would ensure that the principle of supporting excellence wherever it is found is maintained, allowing for change and supporting strong competition and new entrants in areas of research—the very focus of much of the Bill. It aligns with the following description by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, of the Haldane principle:

“Ministers should not decide which individual projects should be funded nor which researchers should receive the money. This has been crucial to the … success of British science ... Overall, excellence is and must remain the driver of funding decisions, and it is only by funding excellent research that the maximum benefits will be secured for the nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/10; cols. 138-39WS.]


This amendment is about ensuring that we fund excellence in our university research system wherever it is found. I beg to move.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for raising this issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

The vast majority of research council grants are allocated through open and rigorous competition between all eligible institutions, which ensures that the principles of fairness and good use of public money are upheld. While I agree with noble Lords about the importance of open competition, the precise mechanism of how this is put into operation is a matter for the current and future independent funding bodies. This is consistent with the important principles of subsidiarity of decision-making and Haldane, which we have committed to defend through this Bill.

Further to this, these amendments would place an undue restriction on UKRI and the research councils by requiring that all their financial support must be allocated through open competition. This is not always suitable. For example, research councils also have an important role in providing core funding to support unique underpinning infrastructure, such as institutes and facilities. While I agree that the majority of council funding should be allocated through open competition, I feel that such a strict requirement is not consistent with the important principles of subsidiarity of decision-making and would hamper other important areas of council activity. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I thank the Minister for his response and for his commitment to the principle behind the amendment. I also thank him for his earlier strong support for the Haldane principle and for perhaps setting a challenge to the team of determining whether it is possible to encapsulate this in law. In the light of these reassurances and the very strong commitment we have heard today to Haldane, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 490B withdrawn.