Horizon Europe: UK Participation

Lord Mair Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I cannot comment on the protocol negotiations in detail. As far as I am aware, they are going well. I realise that my noble friend wants to link the two issues, but they are entirely separate. They are entirely separate agreements. Justifying the EU’s unreasonable position on this helps no one.

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, time is running out. Every university and research organisation in the country will provide examples of projects that are now in limbo. They are not being included in new EU projects because they are seen as a risk. Last week the Science Minister, George Freeman, announced that if the UK does not associate to Horizon Europe, the Government will be ready with a “comprehensive alternative” to ensure strong international collaboration opportunities—the so-called plan B—both transitional and in the longer term. How soon will more details, especially for the longer term, be announced? Does the Minister agree that there is an urgency to ending the uncertainty that is so damaging to our universities and research organisations?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. There is a limit to how long this period of limbo can go on. We have provided guarantees to researchers, and we are funding them in the meantime. The time is approaching when we will need to make a final decision on this.

Catapults (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Mair Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Mair]

To move that this House takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Catapults: bridging the gap between research and industry (2nd Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 218).

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate on the Science and Technology Committee report Catapults: Bridging the Gap between Research and Industry. This topic could not be more important at the present time: there is an increasingly vital need to stimulate the UK’s economy by driving innovation and investment by industry from our science and technology research. I thank the Minister for making time to respond to this debate. It was a privilege to have been a member of this House’s Science and Technology Select Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has asked me to open this debate. I speak on behalf of the committee in thanking him for his inspirational leadership and I am delighted that he will also be speaking in this debate.

The committee was very fortunate to have the benefit of excellent committee staff for our inquiry: our clerk, Dr Simon Cran-McGreehin; policy analyst, Dr Amy Creese; and committee operations officer, Cerise Burnett-Stuart. I thank them all for their hard work in running the committee proceedings so well and for producing the report.

The background to our inquiry was the crucial importance of the UK’s research and development in science and technology for the future economy, and the need to clarify the important role of the catapults in promoting collaboration between industry and research organisations. The Government have set a target that the UK should spend 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027, up from the current level of 1.7%. The current level is significantly lower than the average for EU countries and the average for OECD countries. The Government have committed to increasing public sector R&D spending to £22 billion per year—about 0.8% of GDP—by 2024-25. This is very welcome. However, achieving the overall target will require significant private sector investment, which is expected to be around twice the public sector spending. The 2.4% target therefore represents a very significant increase in private sector funding, some of which is expected to arise through the catapults’ activities. The question is how to achieve this?

In July 2020, the Government published its R&D road map, which reiterated the spending target and sought to build on the UK’s innovation infrastructure, including enhancing the catapult network. Importantly, as well as expecting the catapults to promote increased private sector funding of R&D, the Government also envisage the catapults supporting their levelling-up agenda for regional development. In November 2020, we launched our short inquiry to examine the contribution of the catapults to delivering the UK’s R&D road map, including their role in stimulating long-term private investment and supporting new innovation tie-ups. Our inquiry was not a review of the catapults themselves. We received written evidence from the catapults and we heard oral evidence from all nine catapults in December 2020 and January 2021. Our report was published in February 2021.

By way of background, the catapults were proposed in a 2010 review for the Government by Dr Hermann Hauser. In the foreword to that review, Dr Hauser wrote that the UK

“falls short on translating scientific leads into leading positions in new industries. This is in part down to a critical gap between research findings and their subsequent development into commercial propositions that can attract venture capital investment or be licensed … Other countries benefit greatly from a translational infrastructure that bridges this gap”.

Dr Hauser’s review proposed

“that the UK develops an equivalent capability … focused on sustained and substantive support for an elite group of Technology and Innovation Centres … that aim to exploit the most promising new technologies, where there is genuine UK potential to gain competitive advantage.”

In response to Dr Hauser’s recommendation, the then Government directed the Technology Strategy Board, now Innovate UK, to establish the Catapult Network.

From 2011 to 2013, during the tenure of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, as Minister for Universities and Science, who I am very pleased is taking part in this debate, the first seven catapults were established: High Value Manufacturing; Cell and Gene Therapy; Digital; Offshore Renewable Energy; Satellite Applications; Transport Systems; and Future Cities. In 2015 and 2016, three more catapults were added: Energy Systems; Medicines Discovery; and Compound Semiconductors. In 2019, the Connected Places Catapult replaced the Transport Systems and Future Cities Catapults. The catapult network has proved to be an important national asset. A recent report by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the National Engineering Policy Centre, Late-stage R&D: Business Perspectives, highlights the role that the catapults have in supporting late-stage R&D, a vital part of the innovation process that accounts for the majority of R&D that businesses do.

Many businesses choose global locations for high-value, late-stage R&D activities, from multinationals to mobile, innovative SMEs with growth ambitions. But existing UK support for late-stage R&D is not meeting business needs and is considered poor compared to competitor countries. Catapults provide the physical and digital infrastructure needed to test, certify and develop new products, processes, services and technologies, safely and effectively. They assist late-stage R&D by allowing access to specialist equipment, knowledge and data that would otherwise be unaffordable or inaccessible to companies.

There have been various reviews of the catapults over the past five years. Shortly after our committee’s report was published, the Government published their review in April 2021, Catapult Network Review 2021: How the UK’s Catapults can Strengthen Research and Development Capacity. In the same month, the Government also published their response to our report. I will highlight a few of our key recommendations and draw attention to the Government’s responses.

The first was funding. We recommended that specific rules governing innovation funding should be reformed to allow greater flexibility for catapults and their partners. These rules currently act as barriers to collaboration between catapults and universities, and often place too much risk on industry in transformative R&D projects. The funding available for innovation in the UK does not appear to be commensurate with the Government’s ambitions as set out in the R&D road map. The 30% cap on collaborative R&D funding for public sector bodies inhibits collaboration between catapults and universities. Leveraged funding requirements can place too much risk on industry in transformative R&D projects. Also, lack of access to research council funding puts catapults at a disadvantage compared to universities. We therefore recommended that specific rules governing innovation funding in respect of catapults should be reformed. In their response, the Government recognised the current restrictions on funding for innovation and acknowledged that the 30% cap on collaborative R&D funding for public sector bodies could be reducing the ability of catapults to collaborate with universities as well as with each other. The Government’s response indicated that UKRI, and specifically Innovate UK, had been asked to review its funding rules to allow catapults greater flexibility. Could the Minister provide an update on what changes to the funding rules have been made or soon will be made? Will the catapults be allowed greater flexibility?

Our second recommendation was mobility between academia and industry. We highlighted the importance of strengthening links between academia and industry, and the role of catapults in providing a key role in facilitating this. The Dowling Review of Business-Research Collaborations, undertaken for BIS in 2015, highlighted that the

“lack of porosity between industry and academia remains a significant challenge”.

Noting that the strong links between researchers in academia and in industry are a strength of the highly successful Fraunhofer institutes in Germany, we recommended that UKRI foster closer links between industry and universities and assist researchers to work at the interface between the two, including through supporting roles for academics at the catapults. In their response, the Government undertook to work with Innovate UK, catapults and universities to actively promote new connections between catapults and universities. Could the Minister provide an update on this promotion of such connections? What new steps are being taken to facilitate mobility of researchers between universities and catapults?

Third was regional development. Our committee concluded that the Catapult Network can play an important role in the Government’s levelling-up agenda, about which we have heard a great deal. Catapults are one of several bodies that can contribute to regional development, and better co-ordination is needed at local levels. However, catapults face a barrier to involvement in UKRI’s Strength in Places Fund, a flagship part of the levelling-up agenda. In their response to the BEIS review into the catapults, the Catapult Network explained:

“As the funding is geographically ring-fenced, it prevents Catapults from investing in regions where they do not presently work”.


This has the effect of restricting the national reach of the catapults, preventing them from participating where they could potentially add value. Our committee therefore recommended that BEIS and UKRI develop a more strategic approach across policies for innovation and regional development, such as broadening access to the Strength in Places Fund. In their response, the Government acknowledged that their Places strategy is particularly relevant to how catapults can play a greater role in supporting local innovation and growth. Could the Minister provide an update on the Government’s position on a more strategic approach as to how catapults can contribute to their levelling-up agenda? How can they all be involved in the Strength in Places Fund run by UKRI without facing geographical barriers?

Finally, there is the crucial question of the future role and long-term continuity for the catapults. Our committee was unconvinced by the Government’s approach to encouraging industry investment in R&D and how national assets such as the catapults might be enhanced. We recommended that the Government make the best possible use of the Catapult Network, preferably with an uplift in public investment, promoting it as the UK’s national innovation asset, and using it as the default mechanism for exploiting promising technologies and sectors.

In their response, the Government referred to their innovation strategy, which was subsequently published in July 2021. In this innovation strategy, the catapults are mentioned but it is not clear whether or how the best possible use of the Catapult Network will be made, particularly in terms of the envisaged prioritisation process based on the “seven technology families” identified in the innovation strategy, a concept inspired by the Government’s “eight great technologies” introduced in 2013. We understand that the new national Council for Science and Technology, chaired by the Prime Minister, will steer this crucial prioritisation process. Could the Minister comment on this? Will this process involve the catapults and how will the Government make the best possible use of the Catapult Network in the coming years?

In summary, it is clear that the Government rightly have strong ambitions for research and development, as set out in their R&D road map. Achieving the important 2.4% target will require substantially greater private sector investment. The key questions are: how is this to be achieved, which technology sectors will be prioritised, and what role should the catapults play, given that they are unique national assets? I look forward to hearing the contributions to today’s debate and to the Minister’s responses. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses to many of the questions raised by noble Lords, and of course I thank noble Lords for all their contributions. In particular, I think the Minister confirmed the Government’s confidence in the Catapult Network and their support for its important role in driving the innovation agenda. I will make just a few comments on some of the excellent speeches made by noble Lords in this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly referred to the innovation strategy having very high ambitions. We have all noted that catapults are mentioned quite frequently in the innovation strategy, but there is no specific role for the catapults described in it. However, from the Minister’s replies to some of the questions, we now understand a bit more about the Government’s role for the catapults.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, referred to a lot of reports having been written about catapults. That is absolutely right; there have been a lot of reports and reviews, and it was a great pleasure to hear him say that our report was well informed and crisp. We are grateful to him for that. He emphasised that he would like to see more connection between catapults and universities, and that has been a theme throughout this debate. He also made the important point about how the catapults could well be used by government as an easily accessible template for future initiatives. He rightly referred to the formation of the Faraday Institution and how that might well have become a battery catapult in a much more streamlined process.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, drew attention to the very important role of technical education and technicians, and of further education—I think it is recognised that that sector has been starved of funds. We all recognise that, in this great drive to improve the relationship between research, technology and investment in new ventures, we need to make much more of our technicians.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred very eloquently to the important need to get to the targets that we see in the USA and Germany: 3.1% or 3.2% on R&D. The very ambitious target of 2.4% is to be welcomed, but the noble Lord is absolutely right: it is not, in fact, big enough and we should aim for higher figures. Having heard the Chancellor speaking recently at a dinner that he hosted, the noble Lord emphasised that the Government may well be able to play a major part in changing the tax regimes to encourage and promote private sector investment, particularly in the context of R&D. He very much supports the crucial role of catapults in promoting all of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, rightly drew attention to the life sciences and the enormous contribution that they have made in many ways. He talked about the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult and how it led, in the region of Stevenage, to a series of clusters. That absolutely illustrates how powerful a catapult can be.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, also emphasised the crucial role of technical education, echoing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He also very much wanted to emphasise examples of catapults at their best and illustrated some very important applications by the Digital Catapult in many areas throughout the country. He also rightly asked a question about ARIA.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also emphasised some of the contributions from the Digital Catapult. She raised an interesting and important question: should there be more opportunities for less successful catapults? In our report, we noted that some catapults are far more successful than others. There is a role for government in addressing that and enabling more opportunities for the less successful catapults.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, rightly drew attention to the multitude of road maps, reports and plans. The same point was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. We have seen a lot of words and there is an awful lot to actually do in terms of action now. She also talked about levelling up and a regional role for catapults, citing as a good example the excellent work that the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult is doing. That was something the Minister referred to in his summing-up; the catapult is very close to home for him in Blyth, and it is a very successful one, too.

The Minister gave a lot of good responses to our questions. It is excellent to hear that there will be increased funding for the catapults and that the Government will in due course set out that funding. It is welcome to hear that catapults will be able to apply for research council funding—I think the Minister said that would be from 1 June, which is very welcome. We were also pleased to hear about a large percentage of R&D funding being devoted to the levelling-up agenda.

In the seven technology families that we referred to, the catapults have a clear role—but that role is not yet very specific. It is still rather in generalities. The seven families cover a very wide area and we would like to hear more about what is specifically envisaged for catapults. The organisations Innovate UK and UKRI are promoting further interactions between academics at universities and catapults. That is extremely welcome and we are pleased to hear it. I think the Minister’s last point was that there is a clear plan for catapults. We may not yet know the full details of that plan and would obviously be keen to hear the details from the Government as soon as possible.

So, again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in today’s debate. Many excellent points were made and I hope they will be taken on board by the Government. As has been said, there have been many position papers and reviews published about catapults and the comprehensive UK Innovation Strategy has been published. Even more reviews are under way; one is being undertaken by Sir Paul Nurse. Of course, we look forward to the outcome of these, but, although it is a huge challenge, it is really time now for decisive action—not necessarily more words and plans.

There are potential dangers in a proliferation of committees and reviews, but I hope that our committee’s report and the speeches today have emphasised that the Government should make the best possible use of the Catapult Network. Catapults need to be promoted actively by the Government as a UK national innovation asset. They have a crucial role in developing technologies in which the UK excels, promoting private sector investment and supporting sectors that will bring substantial benefits to our economy.

Motion agreed.

Science Research Funding in Universities (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Mair Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Mair (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests on the register. In particular, I am an emeritus professor of engineering and director of research at Cambridge University. It has been a privilege to be a member of this House’s Select Committee on Science and Technology under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Our report had recommendations focusing on three key areas: current funding issues, the Augar review and the effects of Brexit. I shall address the effects of Brexit and its implications for future science research funding.

A number of noble Lords have referred to Horizon Europe. Our report urged the Government to associate the UK with Horizon Europe, which will operate 2021-27, as soon as possible. This will ensure certainty and stability for researchers in universities and industry. We strongly recommended that the Government should communicate to the EU and the rest of the world that the UK is committed to continuing international research collaborations after it has left the EU.

Soon after completion of our report, the excellent Smith-Reid review of international research collaboration was published. Their report concluded that research and innovation were towering strengths of the UK, and that the country’s reputation for outstanding research is respected throughout the world. The review rightly drew attention to the crucial importance of international collaboration for successful research and innovation. The UK’s previous association in successive EU research programmes has proved to be a highly productive and effective way of creating pan-European partnerships.

The review highlighted the consensus of the academic, business and charity communities that the UK should fully associate with Horizon Europe. Full association with Horizon Europe will ensure access to the European Research Council, which has been crucial to the success of UK science in recent decades, but whether this will happen will depend on negotiations with the EU, which may or may not lead to the UK associating with Horizon Europe. The science community is increasingly concerned by this lack of certainty in the UK’s position on seeking an association agreement with the EU. Europe is our biggest and fastest-growing scientific collaborator. The possibility of the UK falling out of European research programmes at the end of 2020 carries significant risk to UK science.

The Smith-Reid review makes the important point that, whatever the final arrangements with the EU, continued participation in EU research programmes will require additional financial justification within the UK, and there are a number of options. The R&D road map recently published by the Government addresses the relationship with the EU, as well as many other aspects of science research funding. The Government’s intention to cement the UK as a science superpower is to be welcomed. The road map also provides welcome assurances of funding to replace EU research support in the event that the UK does not associate with EU programmes. It says:

“If we do not formally associate to Horizon Europe or Euratom R&T, we will implement ambitious alternatives as quickly as possible from January 2021 and address the funding gap.”


Can the Minister confirm what is indicated in the R&D road map: that whatever option is chosen, science research funding of international collaborations with EU researchers and others will not be diminished post Brexit?

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

Lord Mair Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to be a member of the Select Committee undertaking this inquiry under the expert chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Patel. I declare the following interests: I am head of the Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction—CSIC—at Cambridge University, and until a few weeks ago I was president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I am also an adviser to the construction company Laing O’Rourke.

I draw attention to key words in the title of our Committee’s report Off-site manufacture for construction: Building for change. Building for change is so important and so badly needed. I shall first provide some background. The UK construction industry contributes more than £100 billion annually to the economy. It is vital to solving some of the pressing problems facing us. There is a lack of affordable housing. We have ageing infrastructure that needs replacing or increasing in capacity. However, the construction industry suffers from poor productivity. New technologies, such as off-site manufacture, could considerably improve the productivity of the construction industry. In November 2017 the Government announced the construction sector deal as part of their Industrial Strategy White Paper. This aims to transform the productivity of the sector, focusing on the building of houses, schools, hospitals and major transport projects.

A key innovation contained in the sector deal is the development and commercialisation of off-site manufacturing technologies, which have the potential to transform the construction industry. This is particularly significant for housing: to address the housing crisis at least 300,000 new homes are needed annually for the foreseeable future. Off-site manufacture can lead to lower costs and faster delivery, as well as increased quality. There are preconceptions about what has in the past been referred to as pre-fab construction; these need to be dispelled. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, off-site does not mean uniform, nor does it in any way mean shoddy—at least nowadays. Bringing a manufacturing mindset to the design and construction of infrastructure, especially buildings, offers huge opportunities for harnessing the benefits of standardisation and factory manufacture without hampering architectural ambition. There is a need for new thinking at all levels: from clients, through to architects and engineering design consultants, contractors and the supply chain.

Our inquiry explored whether off-site manufacturing of buildings and infrastructure, or the components thereof, could improve productivity in the construction sector. We examined the potential benefits and drawbacks of the wider uptake of off-site manufacture, as well as how government policy, particularly around public procurement, might need to change to facilitate it. We also considered what actions the construction sector could take to drive the further use of off-site techniques. We explored not only the unrealised opportunities for off-site manufacture in construction but, more importantly, the barriers to its uptake. At the outset of our inquiry we found it useful to clarify what is meant by off-site manufacture for construction. Broadly there are two main groups. In the first, components of a building are manufactured off site then brought together on site—such as columns, floor slabs and beams. This includes pre-cast concrete, which is applicable to high-rise buildings and other infrastructure. In the second, buildings can be manufactured volumetrically, or in modules: whole segments of the buildings are manufactured and assembled off site, then the completed modules are fitted together on site. This is especially relevant to housing.

Our inquiry concluded that there are clear and tangible benefits for construction from off-site manufacture which make a compelling case for its widespread use. These include: better quality buildings and infrastructure; enhanced client experience; fewer labourers and hence increased productivity; the creation of more regional jobs; improved health and safety for workers; improved sustainability of buildings and infrastructure; and reduced disruption to the local community during construction.

In July of this year, as we were finalising our report, the Government published the details of the construction sector deal. Our committee was pleased to see that off-site manufacturing was one of the deal’s three strategic areas of focus: digital, manufacture and performance. I shall refer to the importance of digital and performance later.

The evidence we received in our inquiry revealed a strong case for the use of off-site manufacture for construction, but its use today is by no means widespread. What are the barriers? Why has off-site manufacture not been more widely adopted? The principal barrier has been the fragmentation and lack of collaboration in the construction industry. This fragmentation makes it difficult for all parties—clients, designers and contractors—to be involved from the beginning of a project. Lack of trust, and therefore a lack of collaboration, and attitudes to risk are cultural within the whole sector. This often leads to disputes which are all too often part and parcel of the construction industry.

It was clear to our committee that the construction sector needs to build trust and partnerships so that companies can work together to improve the uptake of off-site manufacture. We welcomed initiatives such as the Construction Leadership Council and the Infrastructure Client Group’s Project 13.

Project 13, published by the Institution of Civil Engineers in May 2018, is an extremely important industry-led initiative. It will improve the way high-performing infrastructure is delivered and managed. It seeks to establish a new approach within the construction sector, based on enterprise, not on traditional transactional arrangements. The most significant changes in an enterprise structure, as opposed to a transactional structure, are that the owner is central and leads the enterprise, defining long-term value; contractors, suppliers and advisers have direct relationships with the owner; and an integrator actively engages and integrates all tiers of the market. Most importantly, in an enterprise model the key contractors, suppliers, owner, adviser and integrator all work as one team to optimise value. All parties—client, architect, engineering designer and contractors—must be involved from the beginning of a project, rather than, as so often at present, the contractors only being involved at a late stage when the project has already been pre-determined, fixed and designed, with all the risk being transferred to the contractors. A key element of a successful enterprise model is risk sharing as opposed to risk transfer.

Following these principles, our report recommends that designers, contractors and suppliers must all have early involvement in a project if off-site manufacture is to be successful. This requires a change in business models in the whole sector and among clients—both private and public sector—as well as far greater collaboration. There is a need for a client’s professional team or advisers to adopt a different approach, as outlined by the Infrastructure Client Group’s Project 13, to enable off-site manufacture. Our report welcomed moves in the construction sector deal to improve the sustainability of new business models such as this.

The Government and the wider public sector are by far the biggest clients of the construction sector. The Government therefore have a key role in encouraging and facilitating the uptake of off-site manufacture.

I welcome the Government’s response to our committee’s recommendation regarding new business models for the construction sector. It is encouraging that the Government are very supportive of the initiative taken by the Infrastructure Client Group in developing Project 13: a new approach to commissioning and delivering infrastructure and construction projects.

The Government have also recognised the importance of funding research and development. The construction sector typically spends very little on R&D—the spend is much too low, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has already noted, and lower than in any other sector. One of the welcome aims of the construction sector deal is to increase spending on R&D. Alongside the initial sector deal announcement, the Government announced a £170 million investment in the transforming construction programme, as part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. Innovate UK estimates that this government investment will leverage around £250 million of match funding from the industry through its contribution to funding R&D projects. We all welcome this important initiative.

Our committee recommended that a portion of Government funding for R&D in the construction sector should focus on detailed performance data for the lifetime of buildings and infrastructure. This will provide an important evidence base for improving future designs, thereby achieving significant economies. By measuring the performance we can establish the degree of overdesign of much of our infrastructure; only by doing so will real advances be made. The Government’s positive response to this recommendation confirmed their support for optimising whole-life performance of buildings and infrastructure, which is part of the transforming construction programme. This approach will also combine the rapid advances in the digital revolution with major developments in innovative sensor technologies, many of them made recently by the engineering department of the Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction. These have already been deployed successfully on over 100 construction sites. Industry should aim to routinely equip new components manufactured in the factory with fibre-optic and wireless sensors. These will deliver vital digital data on the performance of infrastructure, during construction and throughout its life.

In summary, our inquiry found that there is a compelling case for off-site manufacture in construction. The Government’s overall response to our report and recommendations has been very positive, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We highlighted that in the Autumn Budget of 2017, the Government announced the very welcome “presumption in favour” of off-site manufacture by 2019 across five departments responsible for the construction of buildings and infrastructure: the departments for transport, health, education, defence and the Ministry of Justice. Our committee strongly supported this direction of travel.

As stated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, we recommended that the Government develop and publish a series of key performance indicators against which the success of the presumption in favour can be assessed. We also recommended that where the presumption in favour is set aside and a project goes ahead that does not use off-site manufacture, the Government should publish a statement explaining why it has not been used and justifying that decision. The Government’s response to these two recommendations appears to be somewhat lukewarm, although they did state their intention to review the position on an ongoing basis. In the light of the Government’s otherwise enthusiastic response to our report, will the Minister clarify how the presumption in favour will be given more teeth? This could have a very important influence on the uptake of off-site manufacture, a well-proven innovation that has enormous potential to transform the construction industry.

Life Sciences Industrial Strategy (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Mair Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to have been a member of the Select Committee undertaking the inquiry into the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I should declare the following interests: I am a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and of the Royal Society, and an emeritus professor of engineering and director of research at Cambridge University.

There can be no question but that the UK life sciences sector makes a substantial contribution to the UK economy and to the health and well-being of society. Modern medicine and healthcare rely heavily on science and engineering to deliver improved prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. But above all, the continuing success of the life sciences depends crucially on its researchers—the people referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Before addressing the key issue of recruitment of researchers, I will comment on the importance of entrepreneurship. Our committee heard from business, investors and academics that the UK performs well in translating science and engineering research into innovation through university spin-outs and other early-stage businesses. We also heard persuasive evidence that the UK is less successful in growing small firms into much larger companies. In his report, Sir John Bell highlighted that the UK has more small biotech firms than anywhere else in Europe. Entrepreneurship is fundamental to the success of such enterprises and to their growth.

Our committee heard from many witnesses that entrepreneurship training was a significant skills gap within the life sciences sector. The UK’s world-leading academic research base provides an excellent source of new ideas and discoveries, the commercialisation of which is crucial in the context of the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy. This requires successful entrepreneur- ship. Closely related to this, our committee heard evidence on convergent training, from which individuals become knowledgeable about science, engineering and business. This would aid the all-important flow of capital to innovative UK firms. The Bell report emphasised the need for entrepreneurship training at all levels, incentivising varied careers and the migration of academic scientists and engineers into industry and back into academia—importantly, to increase the influx of talented scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs in the public and private sectors.

University postgraduate education therefore needs to focus strongly on equipping young scientists and engineers with the entrepreneurship skills needed to establish and manage companies. The increasing emphasis on this in many of the centres for doctoral training funded by the EPSRC and UKRI is to be welcomed. This should be mirrored in other funding schemes for PhD students. Schemes such as the enterprise fellowships run by the Royal Academy of Engineering are also an excellent way of supporting innovative young scientists and engineers in managing spin-out companies and enhancing their entrepreneurial skills. This and other such schemes should be strongly supported and encouraged as part of the industrial strategy.

I will now comment on the recruitment of international talent. I fully agree with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox. Our committee heard from many witnesses about the paramount importance of retaining the ability to recruit the very best researchers from around the world. Many businesses in the life sciences sector, and most universities and research establishments, rely on access to international talent from within and outside the EU. There is a real danger that this crucial access to international talent is now under threat. Research and innovation are increasingly global. Numerous witnesses from business and academia told our inquiry that freedom of movement within the EU has been an essential ingredient of the success of our life sciences sector. Without this freedom of movement, ambitions for our world-class life sciences industry will inevitably be curtailed. Sir Paul Nurse, a former president of the Royal Society and now director of the Francis Crick Institute, told our inquiry that the UK’s image is suffering terribly at the moment as a consequence of Brexit uncertainty. He highlighted the crucial importance of our ability to recruit the very best from around the world.

As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, Sir Paul also emphasised that the current visa system for individuals coming to work in the UK from outside the EU is expensive and tedious, and puts people off. The whole tone of the present system is wrong. It is essential that the Government do not apply the same system to EU nationals post Brexit. Whatever Brexit deal is reached, any new immigration policy must result in a streamlined system for the frictionless movement of researchers. This is a widely held view from everyone involved in the life sciences sector—indeed, in the whole science, engineering and innovation community. International talent at all levels must be welcomed by the UK and not made to feel unwanted. The system must also be fair, transparent and efficient.

Another key issue is the cost of necessary visas. These are often prohibitive for young researchers but should be commensurate with typical academic salaries and with the length of stay requested, from a day visit to longer-term appointments. According to the Royal Society, if the Government decide to apply immigration charges to EU nationals then, based on the current system, an EU academic with a partner and two children entering the UK on a three-year tier 2 visa would have to pay up-front costs equivalent to 14% of their annual salary. This is a major deterrent for young researchers.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to the report by the Migration Advisory Committee, commissioned by the Home Secretary and published in September. The report recommends that any new immigration policy should have a less restrictive regime for higher-skilled workers than for lower-skilled workers. It also recommends that the Government should do what they can to reduce the bureaucratic burden of the system. Nevertheless, the report’s underlying suggestion that the tier 2 visa route be extended to EU nationals is disappointing because it is currently an expensive and burdensome route. The tier 2 visa route is not welcoming and is a deterrent to attracting talent. In the rest of Europe, talented people will be able to move freely between EU states, yet to work in the UK they will require a visa, obtained through one of the most onerous and expensive visa routes. This is certain to stifle the attraction and retention of talent in the UK. Why would a talented French researcher choose to come to the UK when it is so much simpler to go to Germany or Italy?

The recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee highlighted a number of key principles that should underpin a successful immigration system. They include the need for an efficient, streamlined and low-cost application process for employees and employers and the need readily to recruit highly skilled people, wherever they are from, without being subject to an annual limit.

In summary, there can be no question but that immigration policy is central to the continued success of the life sciences sector. In 2015 more than half of the UK’s research output was the result of international collaborations. These collaborations are increasing, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the UK’s research output. These collaborations must not be put at risk. As the president of the Royal Society, Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, put it:

“The UK is a global leader in science because top home-grown and international scientists want to work here. We must do everything we can to ensure that the UK maintains its role at the heart of European science, because that is in everyone’s best interests. If science loses, everyone loses”.


Any science or engineering researcher appointed by business or academia should be allowed to come to the UK without feeling unwelcome and without encountering unnecessary bureaucratic barriers. Can the Minister give an assurance that his department will endeavour to ensure that any post-Brexit immigration policy will be proportionate, light-touch, inexpensive, easy to navigate and welcoming? This is certainly what is needed if the life sciences industrial strategy is to flourish.

Industrial Strategy

Lord Mair Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the Industrial Strategy White Paper. I will focus my remarks on its infrastructure aspects and the construction sector deal. I fully support the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on the shortage of skills in the construction industry and the implications for it of Brexit.

I declare my interests as head of the Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction at Cambridge University, president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and chairman of the Department for Transport’s Science Advisory Council.

The White Paper has much in it to be applauded and many important aspects. It is—like the Green Paper—a much needed document, and gives strong emphasis to collaboration between government, business, science and technology. The test is whether it has the capacity to make a powerful difference. I recently chaired an event at the Institution of Civil Engineers, soon after the White Paper was published, at which three new infrastructure reports were launched. The Treasury’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the Department for Transport joined together to launch these reports to form the Government’s future agenda for infrastructure delivery. These were: Transforming Infrastructure Performance; Transport Infrastructure Efficiency Strategy; and an update to the National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline. Put together with the White Paper, we now have four substantive documents from three government departments. All of these recognise the urgent need to improve the performance of our infrastructure to help boost the productivity of the industry and deliver better outcomes for society.

The White Paper also considers the broader societal outcomes from infrastructure investment, and their influence on decision making. This will go some way to address the more chronic problems of regional imbalances, low wage growth and weakness in skills. The confirmed increase in size of the National Productivity Investment Fund—the NPIF—will help to address these problems, but this must be done in a transparent and considered way to maximise the benefits from the investment. Infrastructure covers eight government departments and 26 Ministers. It is a sector that for every £1 billion spent increases overall economic activity by around £2.8 billion. It is therefore of the utmost importance for the Government to work across all their departments and the industry to ensure that the NPIF is spent on projects that will maximise this return.

I praise the Construction Leadership Council’s efforts to ensure that the construction sector deal was in the first round of such deals to be announced in the White Paper. It has real potential to make a powerful difference not only to the infrastructure sector but to the UK’s economy and productivity. Underpinning the sector deal will be three key strategic themes that will potentially transform the construction industry. The first is digital: delivering better, more certain outcomes using digital technologies, particularly building information modelling. We are in the midst of a digital revolution that must be fully exploited, including artificial intelligence and machine learning.

The second strategic theme is manufacturing: improving productivity, quality and safety by increasing the use of off-site manufacturing. This also has the potential to rebalance jobs more equitably throughout the country, improve value for money from public investment and minimise disruption to local communities during the construction process. An excellent illustration of this is a comparison of two stations being built for Crossrail. At Tottenham Court Road, the platforms were built using conventional in-situ concrete technology—casting concrete on site—whereas at Liverpool Street station the platforms were built using off-site manufacture, the key concrete components being cast in a factory in the Midlands, brought to London and assembled on site. This off-site manufacture resulted in hugely increased productivity. The Government have made off-site manufacture for construction an immediate priority as the delivery mechanism of choice for five government departments. This is to be welcomed.

The third strategic theme of the construction-sector deal is whole-life performance: getting more out of both new and existing infrastructure through the use of smart technologies, especially sensors and data analytics. This “smart infrastructure” will certainly lead to improved and more economic designs. It will also revolutionise asset management: data generated by sensors will enable continuous monitoring of an infrastructure asset throughout its life, providing information for more rational maintenance and repair strategies. We will be able to understand exactly how a building, tunnel, bridge or railway line is performing during construction and throughout its lifetime. This will substantially reduce infrastructure operating costs. Importantly, it will also enable much more rational prioritisation of the nation’s infrastructure requirements.

Close to £500 million will support the construction sector deal. Part of this investment will support the new Centre for Digital Built Britain, based at Cambridge University. This will develop and commercialise the digital technologies behind the smart systems at the heart of tomorrow’s homes, as well as new and innovative construction techniques. This should mean housing, schools and hospitals that are not only quicker and cheaper to build but cost less to run and are more energy efficient.

Finally, it is important that we do not look at the Industrial Strategy White Paper as one stand-alone document from one stand-alone government department. As emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Mandelson and Lord Heseltine, it should be a working document that does not stand still in time. It should catalyse continuous collaboration between all relevant government departments, industry and trade bodies. This includes working with the National Infrastructure Commission to ensure that its national infrastructure assessment is incorporated in the future development of the White Paper, together with the Institution of Civil Engineers’ National Needs Assessment.

In his introduction to this debate, the Minister rightly emphasised that if we want to be a world-class economy, we need world-class infrastructure. To achieve this we need drive, vision and expertise, as envisaged in the construction sector deal. The timing of an industrial strategy that transforms our infrastructure could not be more appropriate—2018 is the Year of Engineering, as has already been pointed out by my fellow engineer, the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya. It is also the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the oldest professional engineering body in the world. The engineers of the past knew how to build and operate effective infrastructure for society. We must exploit innovative, modern technology and continue this great tradition.

EU Membership: UK Science

Lord Mair Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a member of this House’s Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I declare interests as a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and of the Royal Society. I am also professor of civil engineering at Cambridge University, where I lead a large research group, many of whom are non-UK EU nationals.

My principal point relates to the Select Committee report’s recommendations regarding people, the subject of chapter 3. One of those recommendations is:

“In the short term the Government should send repeated signals to the global science community that the UK remains a welcoming place for talented scientists”.


This recommendation could not be more important. The continued success of our science and technology research is absolutely vital for the economic growth of the country, and it is the people who are crucial. At present, UK research is world-leading, second only to the USA. It is worth noting that in 2015 half of the UK’s research output was a result of international collaborations. About a third included EU partners. Losing this ability to collaborate freely would be very damaging.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to post-docs being the backbone of research teams. I fully agree. In my own Department of Engineering at Cambridge, we have over 300 post-doctoral researchers, most of them employed on research grants. This community of young dynamic scientists and engineers from all over the world is the engine room for the research that underpins the university’s world-leading reputation. One-third of these people are non-UK EU nationals. The picture is similar across the whole of Cambridge University and for other leading UK science and technology universities.

Perception is most important here. Since the referendum, young researchers around the world have the perception that they are no longer welcome in the UK. We have a huge cohort of young scientists and engineers currently in the UK contemplating their futures, who, to put it bluntly, are looking elsewhere, and the generation just behind them will not choose to come to the UK in the first place. This perception is also damaging for young UK academics contemplating their future. I am seeing this with my own eyes. Let me give an example. Only last week, a bright young British Cambridge scientist told me that, faced with a choice of applying for a position at Durham University or Trinity College Dublin, he was minded to go to Dublin. For him, the key questions were access to EU funding and freedom of movement of academics around Europe. Key non-UK EU nationals in my research group are already looking for positions outside the UK for the same reasons. The story is the same everywhere.

It is not only universities that are affected. According to the Royal Academy of Engineering, 25% of UK start-up technology companies were founded by non-UK EU nationals, and 45% of UK start-up employees are non-UK EU nationals. A clear message is urgently needed from the Government if these vital start-ups are to remain and thrive in the UK.

Many of these start-up employees are engineers. At the very time when our country faces an engineering skills crisis—with an estimated 186,000 new engineers and engineering technicians needed per year until 2024, according to recent figures by Engineering UK—we risk making recruitment and retention difficult. Engineering in the UK is highly dependent on non-UK nationals. We cannot afford to lose them or to deter new ones from coming.

Speedy removal of uncertainty is clearly of paramount importance. The Government should act now, without delay. There needs to be a reconfigured immigration system which promotes academic and researcher mobility, enabling UK universities to continue to attract and retain these talented individuals, both now and post Brexit. Such a system should be simple and not a deterrent. It should be designed to support the dynamic nature of research by facilitating mobility for academics and innovators of all nationalities.

I have concentrated on the crucial importance of people because without people there will be no research, and, of course, without funding there will be no people. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the announcement in the spring Budget that the Government will invest over £100 million over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK to help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in science and research. This is a welcome announcement.

The Select Committee report recommends that the science and research budget will need to be adjusted at an early opportunity to compensate fully for the reduction of funding from the EU. The Government must ensure that there is no decline in overall public funding for UK science and technology.

The proposed industrial strategy has already been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, and others. The development of an industrial strategy during the UK’s departure from the EU is a major opportunity for the Government to strengthen their support for UK science and technology and to increase its role in the economy. The recent Green Paper on industrial strategy identifies 10 pillars, two of which are “Investing in science, research and innovation”, and “Developing skills”, both requiring the brightest minds and fully adequate public funding. As the committee report notes, the Government have the power to mitigate many effects of Brexit. They could use the industrial strategy not only to compensate for Brexit but to further increase the attractiveness of the UK as a place to pursue science and engineering careers.

In summary, the Government should take decisive steps to promote the UK both as a first-class location for research careers and an attractive partner for international collaboration. As soon as possible, the Government must provide certainty and stability for those researchers and innovators who are non-UK EU nationals. This is needed both for those currently working in the UK and for those contemplating a future here. This is indeed the time for boldness and I hope that the Minister will agree.

Shale Gas

Lord Mair Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this important debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. Shale gas and its extraction by the process of hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking”, remains a controversial subject. In discussing the environmental benefits of shale gas, it is also important to address potential environmental risks from a science and engineering standpoint. These risks have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott.

I speak from my experience as chairman of the committee that produced in 2012 the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report, Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing. That independent review was requested by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, at that time Sir John Beddington. It arose from experiences of seismicity in the Blackpool area in 2011 shortly after the fracking of an exploratory shale gas well at the Preese Hall site. Our remit was to review the available scientific and engineering evidence associated with fracking, identify the major risks and consider whether these could be managed effectively in the UK. We were asked to address two major questions. One, what are the environmental risks, particularly in relation to possible groundwater contamination? Two, what are the risks of earthquakes? In our review we consulted with and received evidence from around 70 experts and organisations, including environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF.

Our report concluded the following. First, the fracking process itself is unlikely to contaminate groundwater. To reach overlying freshwater aquifers, the fractures in the shale would have to propagate upwards towards the surface for many hundreds of metres to reach them. The risk of this happening is very low, provided that fracking takes place at great depths—it is typically undertaken at depths of several kilometres. It is important not to conflate the fracking process with shale gas well operations. Groundwater contamination is much less likely to be due to the fracking process than to faulty well construction. The only realistic way that any contamination of groundwater may occur is if operations are poorly regulated and faulty wells are constructed as a result. Ensuring well integrity must remain the highest priority to prevent contamination. If wells are properly constructed, sealed and managed, the risk of contamination is very low. Our report therefore concluded that shale gas extraction can be undertaken safely in the UK, provided that operational best practices are implemented and enforced through robust regulation.

Secondly, our report concluded that earth tremors resulting from fracking are minimal, smaller than those caused by coal mining. In this context, “earth tremor” is a much more appropriate term than “earthquake”. The effects felt from earth tremors caused by fracking would be no worse than those from a passing heavy lorry. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to earthquakes in Oklahoma. More significant earthquakes have been reported in the USA, all arising from reinjection of waste water into disposal wells, not from fracking itself.

We recommended various regulatory safeguards to manage these risks. Vital to effective management of the risks is comprehensive and rigorous monitoring. In particular, methane and other contaminants in groundwater should be closely monitored, as well as potential leakages of methane and other gases into the atmosphere. Similar conclusions on the importance of rigorous monitoring were reached by Public Health England in its 2014 report and in other recent reports by science and engineering academies within Europe and elsewhere, including the Australian and Canadian academies. Our Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering review made 10 major recommendations, all of which the Government accepted. The Task Force on Shale Gas, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, reached similar conclusions and made similar recommendations in its final report, published in 2015.

We should nevertheless be careful to distinguish between exploratory activities and full-scale production. Shale gas extraction in the UK is presently at a very small scale, involving only exploratory drilling. There is greater uncertainty about the scale of production activities should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide. We will need to pay attention to the way in which risks scale up. Regulatory capacity will need to be increased. Efficient co-ordination of the numerous government bodies with regulatory responsibilities for shale gas extraction must be maintained.

Our report covered environmental and health and safety risks, but climate risks were not addressed in detail. Fugitive methane emissions during shale gas extraction operations must also be closely monitored and minimised. Green completion technologies, designed to capture any methane and other gases emitted from flowback water, have been made mandatory in the USA by the Environmental Protection Agency since 2015. This may not be applicable to our current small-scale exploratory activities, but such technologies will certainly be needed for any future production activities in the UK.

The potential economic and environmental benefits of shale gas development in the UK can only be properly evaluated by undertaking exploratory drilling and fracking. The type and composition of gas extracted and the proved reserves will vary depending on the detailed geology, so each site has to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. “Proved reserves” means the volume that is economically recoverable. It is this that will really determine the potential economic benefits, which will only become clear when appropriate exploratory drilling has been completed. That is why it is so important for exploratory drilling to proceed without delay.

Scare stories, myths and mistruths about fracking abound: flames coming from water taps and damaging earthquakes, to name two. Effective public engagement is essential to dispel such myths and mistruths, thereby enabling shale gas extraction to gain wider acceptability. We should recall that the UK has been employing fracking and directional drilling for non-shale resources for many years. Fracking itself is not new to the UK but it is being newly applied to shale gas. The quantities of water needed are greater but otherwise the process is very similar. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, over the last 30 years more than 2,000 onshore wells have been drilled in the UK, around 200 of which have been fracked to enhance the recovery of oil or gas. In our Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering review we were not aware of groundwater contamination issues with any of those wells.

In summary, moratoria on shale gas extraction get us nowhere. The constructive way forward is to proceed cautiously with well-controlled exploratory drilling, with a strong regulatory framework, robust environmental risk assessments and rigorous monitoring regimes. As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, put it, we need to get on with it. Only this will provide the evidence needed to properly assess the economic and environmental benefits of shale gas development in the UK.

[Lord Vinson (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say clearly that his society would strongly recommend the development of shale gas because of the huge economic benefits it could bring to this country, subject only to satisfactory safeguards in its production?

[Lord Mair]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The answer is, yes, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering would indeed say that we should proceed, provided that we do so exactly as I have said, with very careful and rigorous monitoring.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Mair Excerpts

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

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 480 and 481, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. Before doing so, I offer support to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, particularly for proposed new paragraph (a) in Amendment 479A, which would insert a requirement for a non-executive chair for each of the new research councils. I totally agree with the point she made. Having worked under two non-executive chairs at NERC, I know that the advantage they bring to the challenge facing the chief executive and to leading the board in terms of that challenge is of fundamental importance, and doing so would be difficult without it. I await the Minister’s response on why the Government have chosen the route of an executive rather than a non-executive chair. That is a huge departure from the way in which we have approached the research councils in the past.

I confess that I tabled Amendments 480 and 481 to try to tease out from the Minister why the councils should consist of between five and nine members rather than between nine and 13, eight and 14 or some other number. There does not seem to be a clear explanation as to why those numbers have been chosen. I admit that I generally prefer to have small boards—of one person, if possible—because they are likely to be far more effective, efficient and dynamic, but there is clearly an optimum size depending on the nature, the mission, the budget, the governance and the expectation of the organisation.

The Bill—wrongly, I think—assumes that each of the new research councils will be exactly the same, but they will not; they will have very different aspirations, albeit a general one in terms of promoting research. The current research councils have memberships ranging from 10 on the ESRC to 17 on the EPSRC, and that is entirely possible because the Science and Technology Act 1965 did not say anything about numbers. I suggest to the Minister that, rather than adopt an amendment of this sort, it may be better to remove this requirement altogether and to allow the newly formed research councils, with guidance from the Secretary of State—we are very keen on that—to decide what number of members would work well for each one.

Amendment 481, the second amendment in my name in this group, is perhaps more significant. The one thing I have learned while I have been on a council—sorry, I have learned a lot of things; that sounded awful. But one of the most important things I have learned is the value of the lay members who come along to challenge the executive, and indeed the council, in ways that I did not think were possible. That has been particularly important as our research council has tried to remove our research institutes into different governance arrangements. It has been hugely important to have people who actually understand the machinations of changing governance and financial structures and who are able to look at complex organisations working with each other. Therefore, Amendment 481 says that on every research council there should be a minimum number of lay members to allow that challenge. If you had a board of five, it would be very difficult to say what the minimum number should be. I accept that four is a purely arbitrary number, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 479A and 481A, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests in higher education and research as a professor of engineering at Cambridge University and as indicated in the register. I speak from my experience both as an active leader of university research, collaborating very closely with industry, and as a practising engineer in industry for almost 30 years before becoming an academic.

As has been said by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge, and reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the aim of these amendments is to maximise the effectiveness of the councils, including Innovate UK, under the proposed new UKRI structure. They should each retain independent non-executive chairs, as well as having a chief executive. This generally works very well for the research councils and Innovate UK as they currently operate—each has a chief executive and a non-executive chair, the latter usually from a business background. This is surely good governance, facilitating the successful operation of each council, as well as ensuring that the council can provide effective challenge to its chief executive. The non-executive chair can also play a key role as an independent senior voice for each council. The Bill proposes to remove the non-executive chair, which many of us believe would reduce the effectiveness of each council. The aim of these amendments is to restore that important role.

In the case of Innovate UK, it is especially important that the non-executive chair that we are proposing should be from a science-related business background. Industry will want to see this. Close engagement with industry is vital for Innovate UK’s effectiveness. Innovate UK will be able to operate most effectively with its unique business-facing focus if the majority of the ordinary council members are from a science or engineering-related business background. There is a real danger that industry will perceive the UKRI structure currently proposed in the Bill as a downgrading of Innovate UK in terms of industry engagement. Amendments 479A and 481A seek to avoid this.

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 479A and 481A. Perhaps I should declare a historical interest in Amendment 479A, because way back in the 1980s when there were six research councils, two of them had a non-executive chairman—the Medical Research Council, chaired by Lord Jellicoe, and what was then the Agricultural and Food Research Council, which I chaired and which has now been subsumed into the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. I think that both Lord Jellicoe and I were rather flattered when, as a result of the review of the research council model, it was decided that the other four should no longer be headed by what was called a HORC—a head of research council—but a non-executive chairman, whose job was to do what happens in good governance in any other organisation, where the chairman holds the chief executive to account and the two have very separate roles. That model has been well adopted by the research councils. I was on the Science and Technology Committee of this House at the time, when some of my colleagues looked with some suspicion at this proposal, but now it is clearly viewed with universal favour.

On Amendment 481A, it is inconceivable that Innovate UK should not continue to have a non-executive chairman, as it does at the moment. Innovate UK has got to be business related and facing business. Business needs to continue to have confidence that it is there to represent its interests and that it has not been taken over by academia and other interests. That will be a battle. As I said on an earlier amendment, the cultures will be very different. These two amendments precisely deal with this issue and like the noble Lord, Lord Mair, I support them both heartily.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Mair Excerpts

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

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, I support this case as well. Innovate UK has been very successful and should not be constrained in any way. It may be useful to talk about three examples of where institutions, excellent in the purest of research and in applied research, do similar things. I will start with Cambridge. I declare my interest again as a past vice-chancellor and head of the Department of Engineering, and I remain chair of the International Visiting Committee for the department—a point about internationality came up recently.

Cambridge University established Cambridge Enterprise about 10 years ago to aid the transfer of knowledge from the university through commercialisation. Its mission is to achieve this through intellectual property management and licensing, investment in university spin-outs, and consultancy management and advice. It has been a big success. Similarly, the Royal Society—I declare my interest as a fellow—launched the Royal Society Enterprise Fund in 2008, with the objective for it to become a financially successful contributor to early-stage company support and a role model for the translation of excellent science for commercial and social benefit. Again, the Royal Academy of Engineering—I declare my interest as a member and past president—recently established its Enterprise Hub, through which it offers a number of grants aimed at identifying and supporting the next generation of high- potential entrepreneurs and prizes celebrating success in innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovate UK should also, as the amendment says,

“participate in forming or invest in a commercial arrangement including a company”.

One of the reasons that some of us are worried about bringing Innovate UK under UKRI is that it is so different from the research councils, and we do not want to harm the research councils or Innovate UK. This is therefore a plea to give Innovate UK its true freedom, which it enjoys at the moment.

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 482C, 490A, 495C and 495D, to which I have added my name, and support what has been said by my noble friends Lady Brown of Cambridge and Lord Broers.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred earlier to the industrial strategy. This is highly relevant to the Bill and to Innovate UK. The industrial strategy has 10 pillars. The first is:

“Investing in science, research and innovation”.


The Green Paper clearly acknowledges the serious problem we have in the UK with commercialising our outstanding science. It states that,

“historically, we have not been as successful at commercialisation and development as we have been at basic research … We have already taken action to address the UK’s … relative weakness in commercialisation, through the establishment of new, more industrially focused institutions such as Innovate UK”.

This group of amendments addresses the freedom of Innovate UK within UKRI to operate successfully and with full autonomy—otherwise there is a danger that it will not be as effective as it should be. I fully support the point made by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge. Paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 9 states:

“UKRI may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions”.


However, paragraph 16(3) states that UKRI may not,

“form, participate in forming or invest in a company, partnership or other similar form of organisation”,

except,

“with the consent of the Secretary of State”.

That seems unnecessarily restrictive on Innovate UK. It should not have to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State whenever it wishes to make an investment in a company, partnership or similar organisation. A very similar point was made earlier by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh in relation to forming joint ventures. Innovate UK should have the freedom and flexibility to invest as necessary to promote research and innovation to the greatest economic benefit of the UK—although, clearly, financial limits should be set periodically by the Secretary of State. That is the purpose of our Amendment 482C.

The world is changing very rapidly and it is therefore vital for the economy to have a high level of UK R&D investment in science and engineering. The UK must continue to be world leading in innovation. We cannot afford to slip behind, and UKRI must be made to work really effectively. Innovate UK, with its strong business-facing focus, along with the science and engineering community, must therefore be allowed to continue to play a key role in promoting research and innovation. Innovation is an inherently risky process with an uncertain outcome. To be really effective, Innovate UK must be allowed to promote high-risk and disruptive innovation.

This House’s Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and of which I am a member, heard in evidence that many businesses have concerns about the status of Innovate UK in the proposed UKRI, especially in relation to risk and the backing of new companies. Innovate UK must be allowed to invest in commercial arrangements, including companies or partnerships, if it is to be fully effective in promoting innovation and commercialising research—and this should be in the Bill.

Innovate UK operates in a quite different way from a research council, so I urge the Minister to reflect on and give careful consideration to this matter, and to ensure that the proposed structure of UKRI is not unnecessarily restrictive on the crucial activities of Innovate UK.

[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.