Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill because it is both urgent and important. It is urgent because, as the history of Wylfa recently demonstrated, the lack of ability to provide funding for new nuclear energy has become a serious obstacle in the way of new building. That applies whether it is a big site or project or SMRs and AGRs.

We need the Bill because, as the Minister has said, it provides an alternative funding method that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, has been used for other utilities—it is not quite the same, but nevertheless there has been good experience. We need to get it on the statute book as soon as we can, with early commencement, so that the detailed work on financial flows via the RAB model can go ahead, with some prospect of Sizewell and other possible nuclear sites coming on stream in a reasonable timescale. It is not too much to say that, absent a Bill like this or the funding method that it would give us, it will be very difficult to support and fund Sizewell. So the stakes are high.

I am not an expert on funding mechanisms and will not compete with those who are more competent than I am in discussing them, but I will make a couple of points. As the Minister said, the RAB model enables private sector capital to be brought in, reducing the burden on the taxpayer. As has also been pointed out, we do this by getting a contribution from the consumer—this reduces the loan element and drives down the overall cost. There has been comment on this aspect both in this Chamber and in the other place, and I share the concern that the consumer should not be taken for a ride. The experience in South Carolina was cited, certainly in the other place. It is fair to say that any method of finance can be discredited by poor management and, indeed, fraud.

But the concern for protecting the consumer is legitimate, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be due diligence on the project costing so that we are not faced subsequently with unprovided cost overruns. I hope that he can also tell us that incentives will be placed on the builders to keep costs down and that they will be real and effective.

I said that I thought the Bill was important as well as urgent. The truth is that this country is not going to achieve its statutorily embedded climate change goals of net zero by 2050, nor the decarbonisation of electricity production by 2035, without a contribution from nuclear energy generation, which, as has also been said, is at the moment declining. We need that base power when renewables are not performing. I know there is a big divide on this issue, but it is not just the Government who say we need it; so does the Climate Change Committee. We need the contribution of nuclear-generated power. Frankly, Parliament cannot deny the means to the end that it has ordained.

We need to bear in mind something else that is often forgotten. In a data world, we need a much greater quantum of electricity, above all, to power the world that we are going into, which is going to be so desirable and green. If we want the greenness, we need to provide the means to get there.

I also strongly suspect that, for the foreseeable future, which is quite some time, the era of cheap energy is over and that people will take a different view of what the appropriate strike price is likely to be in an upwards direction.

Lastly, I have a couple of thoughts on safety and security. The UK’s record on nuclear safety is of the highest order and we can have confidence in it. I do not come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who legitimately mentioned this issue. We already have sound methods for dealing with nuclear waste, but it is absolutely true that we must find a permanent solution. I hope the Minister will confirm that finding that solution remains a high priority. It is important for future generations to be able to cope with the outcome of nuclear power.

On security, if ever the world needed a demonstration that high dependence on international energy markets carries a considerable risk to the economy, Mr Putin is giving us a masterclass. Do we really need more persuasion that we must exploit our undoubted ability to become more self-reliant in energy? Secondly, as discussed in the other place, there is the participation of foreign state money in funding nuclear energy plants. I am not in favour of a blanket ban on this, but I am sure the Government need to be vigilant on the issue and use, if necessary, the power of the special share and the terms of the recently passed foreign investment Act. That is what those bits of legislation are there for. I hope the Minister can assure us that, if we are going to counter it, this would be the case.

Off-site Manufacture for Construction (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, some clear themes have already emerged from the discussion of this report in the remarks of noble Lords who have spoken, so I can be brief. Before adding a few thoughts, I will say how good it is to have Members of the House with personal experience of the construction industry participating in this debate. I thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the way in which he guided our deliberations. We also had excellent support from our clerks.

In our discussions, members of the committee had the sense that we were tackling something very immediate in its nature and in the issues that it presented, but also something with very long-range consequences. We are pleased that the response of the Government, who have a key role to play, has been gratifyingly positive. But, as with so many things in life, it is the implementation of the proposed strategy—in this case for a construction centre—that counts. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will tell us just how far things have got to date. We need to know that a beginning has been made on the sector deal.

One of the striking things about the construction industry, as other noble Lords have remarked, is that it is very big. It represents 8% of GDP and 10% of employment, and these are big figures. It is twice the size of the car industry, but its image, of course, is very different. I think noble Lords have commented on image, which is on the whole rather negative. Sometimes you can get an undeserved image, but I fear that in this case it has to be regarded as related at least to a large part of reality. The construction industry does have a reputation for late delivery, variable quality and low margins. That, on the other hand, hides some of its outstanding attributes. The quality of British architecture and engineering, and the much more positive record in the construction of large projects and high-rise buildings, tends to get obscured by this more general negative reputation.

Low-rise construction, on the other hand, and general building, is a different story. It is badly capitalised and characterised by lack of leadership, the workforce is in decline—as other noble Lords have mentioned—and there are more leaving the industry than entering it. That problem is undoubtedly already, I fear, being deepened by Brexit. It is an industry with an inadequate skills base, insufficient opportunities for training, a fragmented structure, slow and unreliable supply chains and a cyclical work pattern. All these things add up to that conclusion. In short, it is old-fashioned and underperforming. As other noble Lords remarked, it lacks appeal for young people to make a career in it. That is something we need, obviously, to change.

In such a situation, it is not surprising that the construction industry is not in a position to respond to the challenges of the housing crisis. This is not the place to discuss the housing crisis, which is a very big topic and which has built up over many decades and has several roots, including planning delays and other factors that certainly go well beyond the scope of the construction industry to deal with and remedy by itself. This has to be a national effort, involving the Government in a central role. The lagging rate of build that we are experiencing, which aggravates that crisis, is part of a fundamental problem. We are not going to achieve, or the Government are not going to achieve, the aim of 300,000 houses a year in the absence of major improvement. Without change in the profitability of the industry, its outlook will remain very mediocre. This dim outlook for both industry and customer need not be the case. We have the opportunity to make a major change, and that was what the committee focused on.

We paid an interesting visit to Laing O’Rourke’s manufacturing site. It gave us an idea of the industrial changes that could transform the industry and its prospects, including energy-efficient modules produced off site which could be assembled on site in different formations. The point has been made, and I think it is an important one, that off-site manufacture does not mean boring buildings. It can actually mean rather more attractive buildings, because the modules can be assembled in different ways and you can produce something that is less uniform than a lot of the construction that is done on site. It also provides the potential for significantly higher quality and build for the same price, more reliable delivery, less risk to the health and safety of the workforce, and much higher productivity overall. So it is a very good prospect.

However, the outcome can be achieved, as other noble Lords have remarked, only by a changed relationship between the client and the builder—in other words, a different business model. To operate fast on site, detailed planning has to take place at a much earlier stage of the contract. Much of the expenditure which would take place in the traditional model only at later stages, when you come to the fix, have to occur much earlier. Thus, significant flows of cash also need to take place at an earlier stage, with obvious implications for both client finance as well as the builders. That applies whether it is public or private sector activity. Certainly we need to move to a way in which, when we look at the whole question of costs, we are looking at value and whole-life costs as an important part of the cost implications.

The challenge lies in how we get from where we are now to where we need to be to achieve the goals that the Government have in mind. They want to see a 30% increase in the speed of construction, a 25% reduction in costs and an increase in energy efficiency. I am sure that we all endorse those goals, but they are very ambitious and imply a revolution in construction. It is a question not only of how we build but of important ancillary issues such as the provision of adequate finance to underpin the structural changes and a much more highly trained and productive workforce. That in turn implies the provision of training and apprenticeships, which is currently lacking. The point has been made by other noble Lords and it is of fundamental importance. We also need to see greater innovation both in the construction process and in design. Standardisation has also been mentioned as an important factor. Those are the kinds of things that bring talent into the industry, encourage women to participate, and change the face and the perceptions of the construction industry over time.

Much hangs on the ability of the joint government/industry Construction Leadership Council network to work successfully towards the reforms that we want to see, including the ancillary things that I have mentioned, as well as the availability of capital and mortgage finance, and the releasing of land from stifling planning procedures. This is a very broad canvas that one has to operate on to get the results that we would all like to see. Therefore, I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies, he will say something about these contextual factors, which have the potential to enable the industry to move forward and whose absence will constitute blockages.

As has been said by other noble Lords, a number of central government departments that have significant building programmes have committed themselves to a presumption in favour of modern construction methods. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what this commitment is intended to mean in practice—how much weight “presumption” will bear, what tangible changes we can expect as a result of it and how its attainment will be monitored. Another noble Lord mentioned monitoring. That is how we can really assess whether anything is happening, and it would be very helpful if the Minister would commit to reporting to Parliament on progress.

If government departments act on the leverage that they have at their disposal, not only will that be in the immediate public interest but it will also, frankly, be in the long-term interests of the industry. When I talk about government, it is not just central government that has to be involved; local government is a big sponsor and purchaser of construction generally, and in particular of housing, and they have to be on the same wavelength. This needs to be an all-government effort.

Bringing the construction industry into the 21st century, if I can put it in that way, is a big, although not impossible, joint task. It requires us to get down to the last. It also requires—this is the sense of our recommendations and has been endorsed by what has been said in the House already—a partnership of trust and determination between government and industry across a wide range of issues, and, as other noble Lords have also said, that partnership needs to be able to survive changes of administration and personalities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

In the example that my noble friend has just given, in any competition where there is more than one potential supplier and one of them offers a much higher degree of commitment to off-site manufacturing, will the Government choose that contract even if it is more expensive—not outrageously more expensive, but potentially more expensive than something more traditional?

[Lord Henley]

I am not going to give any guarantee, if that example was in a competition, but I will certainly pass it on to colleagues as a matter to consider in such an eventuality. I was trying to stress what the presumption was, what it meant and how we will make use of it.

I also give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that we will continue to work with local authorities and housing associations to ensure that they take these matters on board. I hope that he will be content with the words I use about “working with” and consider that that is the right way to go about it.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. If I may make a pun, it has been genuinely constructive. I think I am the first one to make that pun, which rather surprises me given the 12 speakers, but there it was. It has been constructive, but I hope that the Government have also given sufficient assurances that we wish to be constructive in this. We believe that our commitment to the technologies in this field is one that we can be proud of.

Life Sciences Industrial Strategy (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow our chairman in discussing our report on the life sciences strategy. I echo his thanks to our witnesses and to the clerks and advisers to the committee. I suppose that it is proper to say that all activities that one engages in when serving on a committee are interesting, but the reality may not always fulfil that. However, on this occasion I can say with pleasure and honesty that this was a particularly interesting subject to tackle, and one that is of importance.

The chairman has outlined the reasons why the strategy needs to be taken seriously. Before discussing some of the issues he mentioned, I want to say a word about the strategy’s place in the industrial strategy as a whole. We need to bear in mind that when taken as a whole, the industrial strategy is the centrepiece of the Government’s approach to the fourth industrial revolution, which is vital to this Government’s future prosperity. The industrial strategy and the various sector deals that will be published within its scope will be the main vehicle for collaboration with business and academia, which are the Government’s essential partners in the strategy. Obviously, the strategy will be the primary framework for public funding. The backdrop of Brexit only increases the importance of this national undertaking.

The Life Sciences Industrial Strategy is an excellent document, I have to say, for which we are indebted to Sir John Bell. It is one of the main strands of the industrial strategy and one where, as he rightly says, the UK has many of the assets needed to make this a leading element in its future prosperity and welfare. Sir John notes that,

“gains in health outcomes … will depend on … new scientific platforms … These will include digital tools, robotics, artificial intelligence … and gene therapy”,

and other therapies. He also said, rightly—the chairman also made this point—that transformation of the NHS is,

“a crucial objective over the next twenty years”.

Several people, including the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, have used the word “crucial”.

There is no doubting the opportunity that lies before us. It is one where doing good for mankind can go hand in hand with wealth creation, which is not always the case. Sir John says that the UK is “powerfully positioned” for this, but in my view, that is only the case if we get organised. Having the necessary assets is not the same as using them to good purpose or maximising their potential.

The fourth industrial revolution, where data is key, demands integration. One of the themes that emerges from discussion of the strategy is that integration of the various elements in it is crucial to its success. You need to integrate the resources, the organisation and the outputs. It will not work unless you do that. It demands funding to underpin the science and technology. All of these things succeeding necessitates real partnership between government and business and the creation of a business-friendly environment. It obviously requires new skills in quantity and quality that have hitherto been highly desirable but are now absolutely essential.

This is a huge undertaking since its scope involves most, if not all, departments of central government and the active involvement of local authorities. Industry and government will have to work much more closely together than has historically been the case. We must also get regulation right. All those things are intertwined; they depend on each other. Finally, our education system will need to change in fundamental ways both to meet the demands of something like the life sciences strategy and, more generally, for the industrial strategy as a whole.

The life sciences strategy, coming early and being so important, is something of a test case of our ability as a nation to turn a good strategy into a comprehensive implementation plan. In their reply, the Government were keen to demonstrate how much progress had already been made since the strategy was announced and since the committee wrote its report. It is fair to say that their reply contained a large number of initiatives. However, I do not understand why Ministers maintain a refusal to adopt the strategy as their own. In official documents, they appear to accept it as the blueprint to which they will work, but they still refer to it as “Sir John Bell’s strategy”. I hope that they regard it as the Government’s strategy as well because it matters whether people consider that they have ownership, which means responsibility for success. Psychologically, the notion of ownership of this is quite important.

Sir John says in his report that the UK has considerable strengths in the life sciences. Thanks to the NHS, we have unparalleled longitudinal data to which we must organise properly controlled access. The chairman is absolutely right to say that we must take preventive action immediately to prevent the wrong things being done at the moment. We underspend on R&D by international standards but we get a good bang for our buck precisely because we have for some time been well and intelligently organised through the research councils, and now UKRI. That is an example of how we can maximise our assets if we are well organised, and the reverse is also true. Given the importance of technology, we need to continue to strengthen the research relationship with business, turning it into a strong triangle with academia. They seem to be key partners for the future.

On the skills front, although an important start has been made in recognising the importance at school of STEM subjects and revising parts of the curriculum, there is still a long way to go. It would be good to hear more from the Department for Education about its plans and how it will contribute to this country’s ability to respond to the scientific and technical skills we will need. Finally, as the chairman said, we must get immigration policy right.

The translation and commercialisation of innovation has historically been one of our weaknesses. They are being addressed in a number of ways including, with Treasury support, a focus on patient capital. As said by the chairman, in their reply welcoming the committee’s conclusions on this subject, the Government sadly misunderstood what we said. Increasing entrepreneurship skills is undoubtedly important; the Government made that point but the committee was making a slightly different one. We meant that in a country with developed capital markets of the sort in the United States, in the UK, unlike in the United States, there are too few investors—that is who we were talking about—with sufficient understanding of science and technology to have the confidence to invest at early stages so that a start-up can become a scale company and remain in this country. Our point is that we are not bad at start-ups but we are still quite poor at getting from start-ups to scale companies. That is where investment in this country is very important so that companies remain here instead of going abroad or being bought up. That is an important part of the long-term future of the life sciences strategy. I cannot help feeling that although Sir John Bell’s vision of several British unicorns is very enticing, it remains distant.

So what about NHS transformation, which Sir John says is crucial? Like the chairman, it is here that my anxieties begin. The Government’s reply announces various strategies and initiatives aimed at increasing the capacity of the NHS to innovate. It is very good news that they understand that getting the NHS to increase its capacity to innovate is at the heart of things. For instance, there is the creation of a single NHS Innovation and Life Sciences Group, as well as that of something called the AAC under the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. I gather that the AAC is committed to helping with the Accelerated Access Review. I could mention a number of other acronyms that are cited as having contributions to make to better and faster innovation take-up in the NHS, all of which are welcome. However, the Government have rejected mandating take-up and it is hard to see how the myriad initiatives proposed will do better at removing the blockages in the system than has been the case in the past. The problem is that the NHS trusts are becoming ever more financially strapped and lack the time and financial headroom to give priority to new ways of doing things at the expense of existing contracts and obligations. One can understand and sympathise with the task of the trust manager. He does not want to be put into special measures, so of course he is going to go for his contractual obligations of the day. That is very hard to reconcile with the demand to innovate and do things differently when you do not have the resources.

The committee spent a good deal of time taking evidence on governance issues. Those were related to the implementation of the strategy as a whole and within the NHS. What our witnesses said left me— and I think many other noble Lords—feeling worried, and unconvinced that those who spoke felt confident about their role. Sadly, I do not think that the Government’s reply provides enough comfort in this area.

This is what is proposed for implementation. The Government are setting up two huge committees. The Life Sciences Council, with no fewer than 27 members, appears largely advisory, although it does not say in the reply to whom the advice will actually go—presumably it must be somewhere in government as well as somewhere in industry. Then there is the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board, on which my noble friend the Minister sits as co-chair. That, as its title implies, is charged with implementation and delivery of the strategy via—it would seem—a series of sector deals. This body has 24 members and it will meet quarterly; the membership is axed towards Government and the NHS, which I think is right, but I wonder about some of the other detail.

I would not claim that the committees’ recommendations—we made a number which the Government’s reply does not discuss—were the only possible governance structures. But we did try to suggest ones that had a chance of driving the bus. The Government have not taken them up and have gone ahead with what they intended to do in the first place. I have been inside government and on boards long enough to know that boards of over 20 people, which is well above the Government’s own recommendations for good governance, meeting only intermittently will find it very difficult to generate the necessary sense of ownership, focus and cohesion to drive implementation, and this really worries me.

Moreover, it is not clear how this big board will direct those below it. To deliver its central role, the NHS needs something more than lots of initiatives at varying levels of seniority and influence. The numerous NHS witnesses the committee spoke to had only part of the picture under their personal control, or, if they had a bigger part, were often not clear on the extent to which the strategy would affect their responsibilities. The practical difficulties they faced on a daily basis loomed very large with them. I also worry that the lack of metrics in the Government’s approach reduces the incentives to adapt.

I have been quite critical but I think this is a very good and important strategy which I hope will not, through lack of drive and delivery, fall below its potential and our expectations. In so complex a landscape it is easy to lose the thread, and in my view a small senior committee—largely but not exclusively a government steering committee—is needed to get on with the job on a day-to-day basis, and I hope something like that will evolve. Such big projects cannot be treated as business as usual—they have to be driven.

So I have a plea to put to my noble friend the Minister, to which I hope he will reply in terms when he comes to respond. In his capacity as co-chair of the implementation board, I hope he sees to it that the milestones mentioned and which the Government are going to engage—a road map, a timetable and a plan—will be set by the committee, against which progress can be measured. This will go a long way towards ensuring there is a measured tread. I hope he will also take a view after a period of time as to whether the governance system is delivering, and advise accordingly. He will be in a unique position to take on this task, and I hope he does, because the UK cannot afford to fail to seize the opportunity of becoming a world beater in life sciences.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

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

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments. I am afraid I did not speak in the Second Reading debate—I was detained unavoidably elsewhere—so I express my interest as having recently retired from 19 years as the scientific adviser of the Association of Medical Research Charities. I clearly outlived my usefulness there. I am also a member of boards of a number of medical research charities.

It seems incredible that the charity sector is not mentioned and represented in this group of activities. We know that Cancer Research UK funds the majority of research into cancer. The British Heart Foundation funds the majority of research into heart diseases. It has buildings and professors of cardiology. The Wolfson trust funds a large number of research buildings in universities around the UK. Arthritis Research UK funds the majority of research into arthritis. There is also the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, where a huge amount of work is going on, supported solely by the research charity sector.

Another element to this is that many of the charities are funded solely by raising funds from the public—from patients and their carers. In a way they represent that constituency. It is a vital sector, yet they are not represented in UKRI. We must correct that. I hope the noble Lord will take these amendments seriously.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, a number of points have been raised in this group of amendments. I hope when he replies my noble friend the Minister will not lose sight of the extremely pertinent questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the ability of research councils to form partnerships and to do so without having to seek permission.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very good, sharp little debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Given his previous background in your Lordships’ House as a spokesman on behalf of the Department of Health, presumably he will speak with a bit more direct experience than would otherwise be expected. It must be very clear that, whereas in the first two groups of amendments we were talking about the mechanics and he was able to guide us away from any suggestion that the Bill might be amended, he is now firmly up against the fact that the culture is sorted here, but the mechanics are not. We will have to look very hard at the points made, with some force, by all those who have spoken.

We have signed up to most of the amendments in this grouping and support the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Sharkey. They made it absolutely clear that what we are talking about is completely different from desirable changes. It is about ensuring that the huge success we have seen in the development of research—particularly medical research, but it applies to other research councils—is wired into the structure. We must have an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case.

What was not said, but is available for those who have read the briefings, is that the current situation is also of concern to charities. They feel that they have been slightly taken for granted. If there had not been the change proposed here for UKRI they would probably have come forward with suggestions that they should have been brought in at this stage, if they had not been before, to the Medical Research Council and others. That is not a new initiative; it has been a bit of sand in the oyster for some time. It would be appropriate to do as they suggest. We have already been reminded that the Nurse review made it clear that charities felt that, given,

“the overlap in their interests with the Research Councils, it is important that strong contacts are developed and maintained between the Councils and the charitable sector”.

Indeed, Sir Paul, in the final section of his report, says:

“To facilitate such interactions and to ensure that proper knowledge and understanding of the entire UK research endeavour is maintained, I recommend particular care is paid to ensuring there are strong interactions between the charitable research sector and the Research Councils”.


That is a coded phrase, but it is fairly clear that his intention would be that charities, which make so much of a difference to what we are doing and bringing in patients—they have been doing this for so long and have so much experience to offer—should be hard-wired into what we are about.

Our Amendment 486A is subsidiary in a sense because the primary purpose of these amendments is to make sure that charities are involved going forward. One amendment, which we support, suggests that the mechanics of this should be done by continuing the arrangement that those charities which currently fund jointly with research councils should be able to do so and there should be nothing in the Bill to prevent that. We suggest that, in looking at this, the Government might also look at the question of making sure that the UKRI has that capacity as well and there is no problem in any legal framework about it. We support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel]

Perhaps I might expand on that. I had always assumed that the research councils will be able to form partnerships. If what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, just said is true, the Minister needs to emphasise that because it changes the whole working relationship between the research councils and UKRI.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Could there not be a delegated authority to do this?

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

The Minister asked me to withdraw the amendment but I think we have started a whole new debate—this letter will be very interesting when it appears. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly for nuancing the whole issue of taking something back for Report for stiffening up, which is a very nice phrase and we look forward to this stiffening up on Report. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. I assure him that he has not outlived his usefulness. There is a great deal of usefulness still to come.

This has been a hugely interesting debate. Two things have emerged from it. First, recognising the importance of the charitable sector for research, particularly medical research, by the councils themselves or indeed UKRI is something that has to be addressed. I hope the Minister will address it when it comes back on Report. Secondly, partnerships are now a fundamental issue. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The understanding of most people in this Committee—other than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—was that the councils would be able, as they are now, to make their own arrangements for commercial and other partnerships, either with charities or bodies overseas. If that is not to be the case, a whole new bureaucracy has just emerged from this debate. But I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I also support Amendments 479A, 480 and 481A to 481D. I remind the House of my already declared interest as a so-called lay member of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

The case for a non-executive chairman has been made extremely cogently by both the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and my noble friend Lord Selborne, and I hardly need repeat what they have said. Certainly, anyone who has read the corporate code knows that the case for non-executive chairmen is spelled out extremely clearly and cogently and that the notion of having an executive chairman is roundly condemned. The first works much better than the second and avoids conflicts of interest. The two functions are different and should be carried out by different people. Innovate UK will be much stronger in its performance if it is chaired by someone who has a science-related background but is also in the business community. It is crucial that we should make that link.

As to membership, having had personal experience of council membership—I am not the only person in the Chamber so to have done—the EPSRC has one of the bigger budgets and one of the bigger boards. I talked to the chief executive, who told me that there is a limit of 18. He said it operates customarily on about 15 or 16. I do not think the boards need to be quite as large if we have UKRI also on the scene. However, we should be practical about this. All of the members of the board of the council have full-time careers and are doing a full-time job—this is something extra that they do—and some are very pressed indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, is a good example of someone who does multifarious things. The thought that the board can operate with the subcommittees that it has, with the travel it engages in and the consultations that it has with the universities, and that it can do so without having both numbers and variety of people on the board—businessmen as well as people like myself and academics—is fanciful. It will weaken the total structure if one does not allow the councils to fulfil the remit that UKRI is meant to create and enable them to do.

It is important that the Government do not limit the size of the council to that which would make it difficult for it to be effective. I am not going to suggest a limit—if you want to put in a minimum, put it in—but, on the whole, the figure for the councils, certainly for the larger ones, should be in double figures.

[Lord Broers]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 479A and 481A. I understand the concern about the appointment of non-executive chairs because that would introduce an additional level of management, which is clearly undesirable. I feel that the disadvantages of not having a non-executive chair are quite serious, and they have been put extremely well by my noble friends Lady Brown and Lord Mair and by the noble Lord, Lord Willis.

However, one case has not been mentioned. A non-executive chair becomes absolutely critical when the members of a board feel that the CEO is not performing adequately. In that instance, under the current arrangement, presumably it will have to be the UKRI CEO, who would not have watched that person performing as the members of his or her council would have done. Although the UKRI CEO could consult with the members, the UKRI CEO will not be nearly as familiar with the situation as they are. That is, as I say, quite serious.

A possible solution, but perhaps not a satisfactory one, would be to appoint a senior council member in a somewhat similar way to the senior non-executive directors who have become fashionable on corporate boards. That senior member could act as an adviser to the CEO and perhaps chair meetings where there were concerns that the CEO had a serious conflict of interest.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

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

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it is perhaps important to point out that Innovate UK is to be henceforth merely a committee of UKRI. The scope of its work is set out in Clause 90(1), which states:

“UKRI must arrange for Innovate UK to exercise such functions of UKRI as UKRI may determine for the purpose of increasing economic growth in the United Kingdom”.


So I do not think that there is any sense in which UKRI is autonomous. Innovate UK will have no employees of its own—they will all be employees of UKRI—and it certainly will not be autonomous in any sense that I can understand. The question may be whether the result that these amendments are aiming at can be attained only by taking Innovate UK out of UKRI and giving it a separate status. There may be disadvantages in that as well, but, as presently set out in the Bill, Innovate UK is a mere committee of UKRI—and that is not a particularly elevated status. In many aspects—not all, because I have just referred to a special aspect in the clause that I mentioned—it is being treated pretty much as a part of UKRI.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 482C, 495C and 495D. I note what has just been said about the committee status of Innovate UK, and many noble Lords—I include myself—do not regard that as a satisfactory way of running things. We would much prefer it to be a separate entity. If the Government are unable somehow to strengthen the role of Innovate UK within the present structure that they have chosen, there will be a real problem that we will have to tackle on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, said many of the things that I wanted to say, but much more eloquently. He made the absolutely vital point that the functioning of Innovate UK is crucial to the attainment of the Government’s industrial strategy. If that is the case, it will need the powers to enable it to do that. The purpose of Amendment 495C is to give Innovate UK the right initiative that is needed if it is to achieve its objective. Amendment 495D emphasises the central role of Innovate UK in promoting the commercialisation of research. It has to be able to enter into business relationships which underpin that; thus we come back to the problem that has been identified.

The Minister’s remarks will obviously be very important here. If the language is not right, perhaps it can be fixed, but this is an issue of fundamental importance on which I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

[The Earl of Selborne (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, referred to the short inquiry that the Science and Technology Committee undertook earlier this year, just as the Bill was introduced in the other place. It was clear from the evidence that we took from organisations such as BP, the Royal Academy of Engineering and others that they were rather taken by surprise by the way that the Government had implemented the Nurse review in this respect. After all, the Nurse review had been asked to look at research councils. However, when they had participated in the consultation, they had not thought to give their view on Innovate UK because they had not realised that it was part of the agenda. If you read the Nurse review carefully, you will see that it does not make a firm recommendation on this; rather, it states that this is something on which more consultation is required, although there would clearly be benefits from bringing Innovate UK and the research councils closer together—as I think we all accept.

Equally, there are real dangers, which have been referred to. In the letter that I wrote on behalf of the committee to the Minister, Mr Jo Johnson, we said that, if this is to work, the issues of autonomy, funding and business focus simply must be addressed. During any number of discussions that we have had, I have been prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this. I am sure that while the present Minister and the acting chairman are in their roles, they will be very sensitive to the need to keep this organisation business focused. However, we have to make sure that it survives the test of time when very different people are in those roles.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out, autonomy is a real issue. We are talking about what is effectively a subset of UKRI, and UKRI has the last word. That is why, on one of the earlier groups of amendments, I suggested that it was absolutely critical to have on the UKRI board people who understood the Innovate UK agenda. That is not to say that they should be in a majority but, if these two cultures are to succeed in working together, it is clearly absolutely critical that there is a great deal of cross-representation and certainly a strong degree of business understanding, expertise and experience on the UKRI board, as well as on the Innovate UK council.

Again, I am absolutely certain that the issue of autonomy can be addressed by an understanding between UKRI and all its councils. The more I heard the earlier discussion, the more alarmed I became at how the councils could potentially be circumscribed. Clearly, that would be unhelpful. There would be a lack of ability to respond with the sort of flexibility that we heard about in relation to charities. We have a lot to learn from them.

Of course, if the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible, he will probably not abdicate all financial responsibility—I accept that—and, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mair, is asking a lot if he wants to be free of all such restriction. However, again, there can be delegated powers. I hope that the Government realise that if they are going to set up UKRI with its council of Innovate UK, with a much enlarged brief, they will have to consider a completely different remit.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by saying that I agree 100% with the principles behind many of the amendments in this group. It is absolutely right that Innovate UK should have as much autonomy as possible over all matters related to its remit and mission. We are fully agreed on that. However, I disagree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. I fundamentally believe that Innovate UK will be better off within UKRI and that bringing together into one organisation research and the translation of research will create a much stronger one. I also feel that, when it comes to negotiating budgets with the Treasury and the like, again Innovate UK will be much better off within UKRI than if it were a separate body.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am not in fact advocating that Innovate UK should be separate—that battle is over. But, if the Government are going to construct the structure that they now wish, my point is that the structure must enable Innovate UK to do its job. I do not think that the present draft allows that to happen.

[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.