Education, Skills and Training

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

Well, let me finish this point first.

If the Minister is not careful, he could end up with a range of results he does not want. There could be paradoxical disincentives for excellence. People who always find it difficult subsequently to get a job in the labour market may become less attractive as students to certain institutions because of the way these measurements are used. That would be a really backward step for the opportunities and life chances of large numbers of people who are already suffering disadvantage in our society. The hon. Gentleman should at least recognise that that is a possibility with some of these measurements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

As I understand the White Paper, this also about competition between universities, and there are some paradoxical results there that I would be worried about if I were interested in widening, not narrowing, opportunities. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to accept that.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I am trying to follow the point that the shadow Minister is making. Obviously it is important that the metrics and the process of the teaching excellence framework is right and appropriate, but just as with the research excellence framework, we will go through a process of getting to that point. That is why the White Paper states very clearly that this will be phased in and piloted, and recognises that there will be an important process of consultation and feedback. It is therefore not entirely clear to me why she is expressing the concern that the TEF is going to be imposed with no consultation.

[Ms Eagle]

It is partly about speed. I think that the REF took six years to get into place, and this is all due to be done from a standing start in a couple of years. We have to get it right or there will be consequences that nobody on either side of the House would want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), although I am afraid that I cannot agree with his every statement.

I would like to focus on the welcome emphasis on research and innovation in the Gracious Speech. Properly drawn, the Higher Education and Research Bill, the digital economy Bill, the education for all Bill and the modern transport Bill should work together to upgrade the very foundations of our knowledge economy, unlocking a UK robotics revolution, boosting our space sector, laying the infrastructure for our data-hungry economy and, crucially, underpinning all this with a pipeline of core science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM —skills, and investment in research and development.

I am sure Members will be devastated to hear that I cannot go into detail on all those Bills, but I hope they will be overjoyed to hear that the Science and Technology Committee will shortly be publishing its report on space and satellites, including its conclusions on a spaceport, and that we have just begun our inquiry into artificial intelligence and robotics, which will be looking at driverless cars. We will ensure that we report in time to inform the progress of the modern transport Bill.

Whether we are talking about artificial intelligence and robotics, about the space sector or about our digital economy, the scarlet thread running through the evidence that we are receiving is that we have a STEM skills crisis in the UK, especially in digital skills, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. So while I welcome the ambition of the education for all Bill and the infrastructure investment that will flow from the digital economy Bill, I urge the Government to produce their long-overdue digital strategy and to ensure that they not only take into account the findings of the Shadbolt and Wakeham reviews but meet the scale of the skills challenge that we are facing.

I know that the Minister is aware that the Science and Technology Committee has been taking a keen interest in the higher education and research Bill. I am glad to see that a number of the concerns raised by the community have been taken on board already. In particular, I am glad to see that the timetable for the teaching excellence framework has been amended and that the technical paper has been published alongside it, although, as we have heard, there will be a rigorous debate not only on the timetable but on the quality and metrics measures that will be appropriate to ensure that the TEF delivers what it is intended to deliver.

I also welcome the restatement of the Haldane principle and the Government’s intention to enshrine the dual support system into law, but bringing all funding into UK Research and Innovation—UKRI—will require a separation in practice as well as in principle if we are to preserve the excellence-based allocation on which our world-leading system is founded. The quality of leadership, not just at UKRI level but at research council level, will play a key role in delivering this, but we cannot leave the health of our science and innovation system to the whim of personality. We have to ensure that the structures we set in place safeguard the autonomy and the strong voices of our existing research councils while achieving the stated goal of better interdisciplinary working. With a single accounting officer, I fear that this will be challenging.

There has also been concern about merging Innovate UK into UKRI, some of which was based on the fact that Innovate UK’s budget is not ring-fenced and some on fears about annexation. Many have welcomed the renaming of Research UK as UKRI as it puts innovation right at the heart of the organisation’s agenda and, obviously, innovation funding has been hypothecated. In practice, however, questions still remain. How will Innovate UK retain a clear, separate, business-facing focus and not become research facing? In the new structure, how will we stimulate our innovation sector so that it comes to match our research sector for excellence and efficiency? To achieve that, we need to know where we are going. What is the vision for not only the Higher Education and Research Bill, but this clutch of innovation-driven Bills? How will we ensure that we join them up seamlessly against all the natural impetus of the Whitehall machine?

On higher education, the Government have been clear about their intent that competitiveness and the TEF will raise teaching standards, increase transparency and drive improvements in diversity. Few would argue with those aims. In research and innovation, however, the scale of change does not seem to be matched by the ambition of merging all research councils to improve interdisciplinary working. We can do better than that. Reform on such a scale is disruptive and requires buy-in. To get that buy-in, the Government need to articulate clearly their vision for the future of research and innovation and explain not only why the disruptive changes will be worth it in the end, but how we will safeguard our science and innovation ecosystem—a national treasure—from unintended harm during the process.

I welcome the fact that the proposed office for students will have oversight of the sustainability of HE, but given the effective removal of the structural link between teaching and research—one of our innovation systems’ key strengths—I would like to know who will have responsibility for monitoring the health of the whole system as we progress through the reforms. It is possible that that job is envisaged for the Council for Science and Technology in lieu of the ministerial committee, but I question its capacity to deliver in its current form. Sir Paul Nurse proposed that UKRI form closer links with the Government through a ministerial committee with a Government-wide perspective on research priorities, but the committee was supposed to be about not just horizon-scanning and health-checking, but high-level leadership and accountability for science and innovation across Government. It is not clear how the CST will be able to deliver that function.

The Chancellor has long prioritised science and innovation spending, even in times of austerity, because he recognises that the science and innovation budget is a strategic national investment, not a state subsidy. We now have a major programme of cross-Government reform to match that ambition. I congratulate the Government on recognising that we have no time to lose in backing science and innovation as a key strategic asset and a driver of our national knowledge economy, but we should be under no illusions. The Higher Education and Research Bill alone is the most far-reaching reform since the 1960s, which should not be taken lightly.

In this place, we often mention that the UK punches well above its weight in science and innovation and that we have four of the world’s top six universities, and we should be proud of our research base’s exceptional impact, but we should never forget the responsibility that that brings. As we contemplate new structures and regulations, it is our responsibility in this Chamber not only to guard jealously the health and vibrancy of our science and technology base as a strategic national asset, but to go further and ensure that our decisions do more than maintain the status quo. The decisions that we make with these innovative, forward-thinking Bills must ensure that we take this extraordinary jewel in our crown and supercharge it, matching infrastructure with skills and excellence with efficiency, and delivering in the process a science and innovation ecosystem that not only drives our economy ever more productively and creatively, but fuels the very discoveries that will unlock the great global challenges of our age.