United Kingdom: Productivity

Lord Rees of Ludlow Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)]

My Lords, the maxim “if we don’t get smarter, we’ll get poorer” becomes increasingly germane to the UK as our economy and public services become more dependent on the high-tech sector and high-skill individuals. There are three interlinked prerequisites for higher productivity: better education and training at all levels, from school to PhD; excellent R&D, exploited here; and success in attracting and retaining mobile talent.

As regards the first of these, there is real concern. The UK is a laggard in educational attainment levels at the secondary school stage. This aggravates the life-chances for the cohorts whose job prospects are already blighted by current austerity. That is why we should welcome greater emphasis on apprenticeships and on a more appropriate curriculum for the 50% of 16 to 18 year-olds who are not aiming for higher education.

There are currently too few schoolteachers with specialist subject knowledge. More than 20% of mathematics and chemistry teachers, a third of physics teachers and more than half of computing teachers in state-funded schools in England have no relevant post-A-level qualifications in the subject that they teach, and language teaching is equally dire. There have been many initiatives here. The best hope lies in expanding the number of well-qualified people who transfer into teaching mid-career.

My own experience is of university teaching and research, so I will now focus on this and declare an interest as a member of Cambridge University. We are mindful of the need to transition academic expertise into the wider economy. I think our Cambridge network exemplifies how this can happen if the environment and sociology are right.

The country’s R&D effort depends on both public and private investment. An impressive recent study by Jonathan Haskel and colleagues at Imperial College revealed that there were symbiotic links between public and private investment. There is a “crowding in” effect whereby publicly funded R&D enhances the amount that is privately funded and incentivises the attractiveness of this country to foreign companies and investment. But, as we all know, both private and public levels of investment are low by international standards, and industrial research is concentrated in rather few sectors. According to 2012 data, the percentages of GDP spent on private and public R&D were 3.32% and 1.04% respectively in South Korea, which is top of the league, and 1.23% and 0.5% respectively here. And we are far below the US and Germany.

Just today, there is a letter in the FT from senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry urging the need for enhanced public R&D if we are to sustain competitiveness. Of course, we are lucky that medical charities donate £1.3 billion annually—one-third of all publicly funded medical research.

Incidentally, R&D levels within all government departments have undergone sustained long-term decline. They are down by a factor of more than three since 1980 and by a factor of more than two since 1994. This signals a worrying loss of expertise in parts of Whitehall where policy and procurement choices should be based on high-quality strategic advice. We need to adopt the right priorities in infrastructure and energy decisions. Let us learn from the dismal tragedy of nuclear R&D. Our national labs were once world leaders. Now, if we have any nuclear power, it will be state-owned—but by the French or Chinese state.

I will focus now on university research. Recent steps towards restoring pre-austerity levels of capital investment are welcome. But the flat cash settlement over the past five years means that the cumulative erosion of the ring-fenced science budget since the 2010 spending review amounts to more than £1.1 billion. The research community has made large savings through equipment sharing and multi-institutional alliances, but this cannot continue indefinitely. That is why the new spending review is crucial for science and why we need to close the gap between us and other major countries to which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred.

Cuts to research and innovation in the 1980s drove many leading UK scientists to the USA. Today, generous investment in research by Governments across the world, coupled with austerity at home, risk creating a similar exodus. Perception is important, too. If we are perceived to be on a steeper upward gradient than other nations, we will get more than our share of the best talent. Our cost-effectiveness will rise. Conversely, if perceptions are pessimistic, as I fear they are, we will not merely end up with less research effort, but what we are left with will be less cost-effective. We should welcome brain circulation but not a brain drain.

A recent RAND Europe study of the worldwide correlation between research funding and output revealed, importantly, that it takes at least three years for a decline in real-terms funding to manifest itself in publications and other indicators. This is ominous because it means that we may not have seen the full downside of recent stringency, and it makes it even more urgent that we reverse the trend.

Current visa restrictions and Home Office rhetoric are real own goals. I will cite my own experience. I am based in a small Cambridge department that is world-class academically. Our last five faculty vacancies were filled by outstanding foreigners, three from outside the EU. Just last week, one of them told me that he thought it would be harder to attract people such as him now than it was when he joined us because of these perceptions.

Along with their status as research powerhouses, the most important output of universities is their graduates—both undergraduates and postgraduates—who will follow careers in all walks of life. If universities cannot attract or keep the best faculty, it will impact negatively on the quality of output of the students. Here, the UK has an opportunity to enhance teaching through the world-leading Open University and its FutureLearn platform. Online courses may have been overhyped in the US, but they have a genuine edge, especially at the level of taught master’s degrees, where they enable mature and motivated part-time learners to acquire specialist qualifications. Surely other universities should help by augmenting the OU’s content so that it can expand and enhance the range of such courses, which will have great value not only in the UK but worldwide.

Finally, we should surely all hope that the UK will achieve its proclaimed aim of being the best place to do science and ensure that it thereby helps to enhance national wealth. We need to incentivise international companies to establish research bases in the UK and to encourage enterprise and start-ups. That will require changes to visa rules and public investment in the next five years that narrows the gap with other nations.

Young People: Alternatives to University

Lord Rees of Ludlow Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Cambridge University and as an honorary fellow of City and Guilds.

The huge expansion in the university sector is welcome but a downside is that it has not yet led to sufficient differentiation among universities. More relevant to this debate, there is still too sharp a demarcation between universities and other post-18 education. We have become trapped in the mindset that everyone who can get into university should go to one, even though many might do better with some alternative. I would go further and say that there is a fast-diminishing fraction for whom the traditional specialised degree is optimal. That is why some of our brightest young people are being enticed to American universities where disciplinary “stovepipes” are more permeable. More and more jobs require a degree—even an irrelevant degree—as an entry ticket, a fact that suppresses mobility by closing off career options to non-graduates to a greater extent than in the past.

However, despite expanding enrolments, many talented young people who could benefit from universities are still being denied the chance. That is happening to those who have been unlucky in their schooling and do not, by the age of 18, have the attainment level to qualify for the most competitive university courses. Even worse, they generally have no second chance. Options are also foreclosed for those who enter university but drop out before completing three years. They are described as “wastage” and it is hard for them to get back into the system, even if their circumstances change.

How much better it would be if all students could be given credits for what they have achieved, wherever they achieved it. They could then say, as Americans do, that they have had two years of college, and if these credits were recognised by other universities, they could be slotted again into the system. Transferable credits, although advocated for many years, have not caught on. Apart from at the Open University, it is all too rare for students to be admitted into the second or third year of a course on the basis of credits from other universities, HNCs or other FE qualifications that they have obtained earlier.

Our most selective universities should reserve some fraction of their places for those who have earned credits online or from another university, or come via some further education or part-time route. This would enhance fair access, and lead to a more diverse student body at Oxbridge and the rest of the Russell group.

More generally, universities will need to offer more options for students, ranging from part-time courses to intensive ones compressing a degree into two years. Online learning, in which the OU has a world lead, has a growing role. The so-called MOOCs may have been overhyped in the context of traditional undergraduate courses, but they will surely have a role in vocational courses for mature and motivated students. Other UK universities should support the OU by supplying content for such courses on its FutureLearn platform.

Finally, I wish to say a word about pre-18 education. We should keep pushing not only for technical education and apprenticeships, but also for a broader curriculum within the traditional sixth form. Tomlinson was, as we have heard, stymied by the last Labour Government for electoral reasons. Those with long enough memories will recall that the analogous Higginson proposals were killed off by Margaret Thatcher with the mantra about the gold standard of A-levels. The universities, by the way, deserve a lot of blame. They impede attempts to broaden the school curriculum by still favouring applicants who have had a narrow focus when selecting their competitive courses.

When the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee reported on STEM education, we deplored the fact that only 10% study any maths beyond the age of 16. We do not say that they should all do A-level maths, but an appropriate curriculum could be devised for them. There is clearly an urgent need for greater numeracy in almost all occupations and indeed for all citizens.

Of course there will be even more demand for lifelong learning. Books such as The Second Machine Age and Martin Wolf’s FT articles remind us of how the advance of machines and robotic techniques will replace workers in manufacturing. But the jobs most vulnerable to machines are not just blue-collar occupations. For instance, lawyers are vulnerable. It may prove far easier to automate much of their routine work, such as conveyancing, than the work of plumbers or skilled carpenters, teaching assistants and carers. They are the people whom we need keep training.

Be that as it may, the notoriously conservative education sector surely needs greater flexibility if it is to meet the changing pressures that society will place on it. That is why we should welcome this debate.

Economy: Growth

Lord Rees of Ludlow Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Ludlow]

My Lords, noble Lords might have read about the winners of the 2010 Nobel physics prize, Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov. They are both Russians who came to the UK in 1999, to Manchester University, where they were given freedom and support for a speculative request, which paid off massively. They discovered that carbon atoms could form a sheet just one atom thick—a new material called graphene with astonishing strength and novel electric properties. They needed time but no costly equipment. The clinching experiments involved strips of Sellotape. Graphene might be the basis for transformative technologies, but its development will not be so cheap and it will be fully as intellectually challenging. Engineers like the noble Lord, Lord Broers, would endorse the message of the old cartoon showing two beavers looking up at a hydroelectric dam. One is saying to the other, “I didn’t actually build it, but it’s based on my idea”. Will the UK deploy the resources and expertise to benefit from discoveries such as graphene?

This episode prompts other concerns. Would younger counterparts of these two Russians today make the UK their preferred destination? Would they even get entry visas? Do our brightest and best young people perceive a spirit of enterprise in a country in which science and engineering offer good career prospects? Even in the privileged environment of Cambridge—I declare an interest as a professor there—my younger colleagues seem ever more preoccupied with grant cuts, job security and so on, and prospects of breakthroughs will plummet if such concerns pray unduly on the minds of even the brightest.

In research, international excellence is all. The difference in pay-off between the very best and the merely good is by any measure thousands of per cent. Therefore, most crucial in enhancing value for money for taxpayers is not scraping a few per cent in efficiency savings; it is maximising the chance of big breakthroughs by attracting and supporting top mobile talent and sending positive signals to the young.

In his state of the union address in January, President Obama asserted that his nation faced another Sputnik moment due to the rise of the Far East as a competitor. He argued against cuts in R&D investment with a neat metaphor. He said that you cannot make an overweight aircraft more airworthy by removing an engine. That message is even more vital for the UK. Science and innovation are essential engines if we are to rebalance our economy away from an overdependence on the financial sector. What is needed is a 10-year or 15-year road map, which offers hope that, after four years of declining real-terms funding, science can share the fruits of the recovery that it should help to generate. We can surely afford it. The total UK science budget is now less than the bonus pool for London bankers.

We do not know what will be the 21st-century counterparts of the electron, the double helix and the computer. Nor do we know where the great future innovators will get their formative training and their inspiration. But the UK will decline unless it can sustain its edge in discovery and innovation, get its share of these key people and ensure that some of the key ideas of the 21st century are generated and, even more important, exploited here.