EU Membership: UK Science

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as an investor in the UK science and research base. I congratulate the committee on an outstanding report. Its extraordinary strength is only complemented by its remarkably few pages. It is extremely well judged. It makes all the right points with tremendous force in a very brief summary. I have recommended it to far more people to add to their papers and to what they read from this House. It is one of the greatest summations of where we are at the moment and a very good road map of where we need to be. I thank all the members of the committee who helped to add some colour to the discussions that they clearly had and for giving us the benefit of the particular perspectives. I also thank those from outside the committee with a keen interest in this for adding their words to it.

It is an extremely important report because it not only deals with the perils we are facing in a future outside of Europe but provides a freedom to think again and to inject a new sense of ambition. It is certainly true that we are at a moment of reflection—a tipping point, if you like—on what we do with our science and research base. UK science is a global force. It plays a fundamental role in the success of our healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, technology and much else besides. We have won a prodigious number of Nobel prizes and our universities are well renowned. Our business and research institutions generate work of quality and influence far beyond competitors of similar populations and funding. We are a large economy, which can always support a strong base, but we have benefited hugely from our EU membership. It has given us a tremendous platform and we have excelled in it. Coming away from it will require an additional sense of purpose and an additional effort.

Of course opportunities will stem from leaving Europe, but there can be no doubt that the significant risks at this stage outweigh the potential benefits. We have to turn our mind to how we address those. As the committee’s report shows, we have received more in EU research, development and innovation funding than we have put in. The Government have rightly committed to underwriting the funds approved for Horizon 2020 projects that were applied for before the UK leaves the EU, but we need the Government to provide more certainty for the long term, including on future access to funds that would have been otherwise available through EU grants.

However, this is about more than just plugging a funding gap. There remains a corrosive level of uncertainty in other areas, not least the status of EU nationals working in our universities, research institutes and industry. The committee cites evidence of European scientists abandoning plans to come to the UK. The introduction to the debate from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, was an incredibly impressive summation of the report. He has clearly done an outstanding job leading the committee. He referred to the problem of evidence and came out with a very well-judged and balanced sense of how we have to try to devise the right level of evidence. As I go round talking to people, I cannot believe that—since, on every single occasion, they cite particular cases and examples—we do not already have a significant base of evidence. Just recently a professor of medicine told me of his research team: all those who are EU nationals—almost 80% of them—have already made plans to leave. The only timetable difference is that they are waiting for the next school year for their children to move. As for businesses in particular centres, I heard of a chief technology officer who is now looking at moving back and delaying funding rounds. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made a very good point about technology companies and start-ups here that are moving to other areas—even our big technology companies. Other countries that have centres here use them as a base to recruit EU nationals to come and live in London to add to their base. The strong engineers—the ones who go off and create start-ups—are reporting the same problems.

This is extremely important. We do not just have a drop in university applications from the EU; we have huge uncertainties and perceptions that we need to deal with. It is crucial that we look to expand scholarships. It is a very important recommendation to look at how we have a recruitment fund. I consider that we may well end up having to spend quite some money on retention. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made a very important point when he said that our British-born academics who would otherwise live here are being attracted to other places. My son has recently gained entry into an American university he applied for. It is reporting that applications from UK academics have tripled since the Brexit vote. That is in one institution. Retention will also become a significant problem and the quality of the research projects we have will continue to be an issue that we will have to place some focus on.

As for the notion of using students in the net migration numbers, I very strongly agree that it is entirely incorrect to say that this is best practice around the world—it is more best fiction. It has always struck me that we put them in the net migration figures and then we put their economic contribution in tourism. That is a huge duality I have never been able to figure out.

The crucial point at the moment is our level of ambition. With all our strengths and requirements, to stand still is not just to replace what we have done before and do as we have done before—to stand still takes a huge amount of effort. But I do not think that we need to do that. We have to forge a new future, understanding what our strengths have been and what they are. In many ways the plan has to be to double down on our support for science and research. I am particularly grateful to the committee for using the notion, “A time for boldness”—not really a word I expected to see in a House of Lords report, but it is entirely apt to use such a phrase. It sends an important message that we will have to change fundamentally our approach to our commitment to what we will do in support of our science and research base, using it as a key instrument of our future economic success.

It is also important that we understand the central need for us to expand international collaboration and co-operation. Part of that is the problem of risk. We are the beneficiary of 20 bilateral science and technology agreements between the EU and nations including Brazil, China, India, Japan and the United States. The EU has 850 joint research projects with 160 nations. These are important projects that we are keenly plugged into and agreements that we have benefited hugely from. To maintain that level of co-operation and connection we need to have a tremendous amount of force and resource associated with our effort. To get ahead will require even more.

It is important for us to understand that international co-operation is increasingly a prerequisite for world-class scientific research. More than half our research output is now internationally co-authored. Much of our international collaborations are with EU partners. I think that seven of the UK’s top 10 strongest collaborators are EU countries. It is also important to recognise that people’s perceptions of the nature of international collaboration have changed. In preparation for this debate I recently read a survey of students who were asked the question, “Which country is having the most significant scientific impact on the world?”. Number one was international collaboration. The future of outstanding science and research is about international collaboration. Our place is to ensure that we remain at the very heart of it. That is also important. I add my voice to the committee’s point on making sure that sufficient scientific expertise is drawn into the Government’s Brexit negotiations and appointing scientific advisers to key departments.

Connecting our research base to business and industry will also be key in the years ahead. Innovate UK and UKRI will play an increasingly important role related to these matters. It is also essential to ensure that that partnership with business and other areas accompanies our expansion of facilities.

I strongly endorse the committee’s recommendation that at least one major research facility be introduced in this country—to say “at least one” is a good indication of ambition. More would be better, but if we fail to introduce one, we will fail to do more than stand still. I have been to Harwell and seen this tremendous new instrument, the Diamond Light Source, adding to the central laser facility and the ISIS neutron and muon source synchrotron. These are not the only facilities of this nature: others are being built across the world, in other continents as well as in other parts of Europe. We have to do more to centre more on such facilities and to back them more strongly.

On the importance of ensuring that our research base is connected with business, we need to do more to ensure a good circularity in our scientific and research application. It is especially important as we witness business investment, including R&D, falling for the first time since 2008: a drop of 1.5% in 2016 compared with 2015 according to the OBR’s most recent report. The OBR forecasts a further fall in 2017, citing,

“heightened uncertainty following the EU referendum”.

We will not return to 2015 levels until the end of the decade. Depressed private sector spending on R&D was a crucial factor in the economic slowdown that preceded the financial crisis. This is a dangerous and worrying sign and one we really have to address.

It is important in promoting our scientific and research base that we give some attention to the other sources of funds that are required—to being able to encourage instruments such as the Rainbow Seed Fund. I must declare that I have invested in companies that it has put money into as an early stage venture capital instrument. That was established by the department—I cannot remember its acronym at the time it was established, but noble Lords know the department I mean—and by the research councils in co-operation. It is a very small fund. It is an outstanding group of individuals who have backed an outstanding series of companies across the UK research base. It is exactly the sort of instrument we should be backing. There are also people such as Neil Woodford and foundations such as the Wolfson Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Such places are where we look for new capacity. We must find new ways to encourage more to act like them and more instruments. This is a crucial time for us to take this challenge very seriously.

It has been an honour for me to participate in this debate and to reflect upon the committee’s outstanding report. As we focus on what we can do to benefit the people of this country and the world by expanding science and research, the particular importance of being an outward-looking nation, able to address other countries and other peoples is crucial. After a day such as yesterday, we have to show not just how importantly we treat our role as hosts to those people who unfortunately had their lives transformed by those events, but how much we value our place in the world. Science and research is one of our great contributions.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

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

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, I compliment the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Lord, Lord Prior, on their willingness to talk about these issues and on the changes that have been brought about in the Bill. In the end, it has been a very positive experience. I too would like to support Amendments 164A and 166A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Prior, as they resonate with the opinion that I expressed on Report. Those points have reached a satisfactory conclusion.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee certain clear governance gaps were identified which the Government have addressed in some measure, and we thank them for their positive response. Indeed, we have signed the government amendments and we are pleased that such a positive response has been forthcoming. We would like again to associate ourselves with Amendment 165A tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which addresses the important point about the valuable contribution which can be made by lay members.

Amendments 164A and 166A tabled in my name propose that each council should comprise a senior independent member alongside an executive chair and the other council members. This would ensure an element of independence and balance in the governance of the council, complementing the role of ministerial appointees. We believe that there is still a weakness in the governance of the research councils with the establishment of executive chairs and the UKRI governance structure. We also feel that without a proper governance role, the membership of research council boards will be denuded of talent if they believe that they are not part of an effective operating board. In Committee we discussed whether appointing chairs to research councils might address this weakness, and Amendments 164A and 166A, as the noble Lord, Lord Broers, has just pointed out, mark an evolution in the debate.

We believe that this is a sympathetic and effective change which is consistent with the Government’s objectives and is likely to benefit the governance of research councils. The senior independent member is modelled on the practice in public companies of having a senior independent director. The title in this case is “member” specifically to ensure that the role is not confused with the duties of a director, which would raise structural issues that are not appropriate to the Bill. In the private sector, appreciation of the important role played by the senior independent director has grown in recent years. It was introduced in 2003 at the time of the Higgs review of the combined code, and the idea was that the senior independent director should be available to shareholders if they had reasons for concern that contact through the normal channels of the chairman and the chief executive had failed to resolve. Over time that remit has changed and the senior independent director is seen as a versatile intermediary who is in part ambassador, conciliator, counsellor, senior prefect and kingmaker. Most importantly, it establishes an address that stakeholders are able to go to and takes away the sometimes divisive politics of trying to find an appropriate address.

It is in this area that the role would be most useful in the context of UKRI. The senior independent member would ensure that there is a recognised channel to use from the level of the board of the research council to the board of UKRI to make sure that matters can be solved and conflicts and issues resolved. It is about not establishing new lines of management but creating a governance structure which is flexible enough to resolve issues as they arise. We have not set out a detailed role or job description, and certainly the latter is not appropriate for legislation, but there is flexible scope to ensure that such an individual can play a useful role in many different circumstances, from deputising in situations to leading aspects of succession processes to reviews of board effectiveness and other such matters. I hope that the Minister will see this amendment as a useful and flexible suggestion.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for not pressing his amendment requiring a shared OfS and UKRI board member with at least observer status. While I do not think that such arrangements need to be put on the face of the Bill, I recognise absolutely the value of establishing such a link between the OfS and UKRI boards. As such, I am pleased to be able to confirm that the chairs of both the OfS and UKRI would welcome an observer of each other’s organisations at their respective board meetings.

I turn now to Amendment 165A. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, drawing on his experience as a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, have previously outlined the value of lay members, and they have been supported today by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Krebs. Although in the future appointments to councils will be a matter for UKRI, I should like to take this opportunity to make it clear that the Government have the full expectation that the current practice regarding lay member representation will continue and we will commit to reflecting this in guidance to UKRI. Perhaps I should add in passing that the number of 12—the Goldilocks solution—reflects best practice advice from the Cabinet Office. I cannot recall what the code says on numbers, but 12 is a manageable figure. If a board is much larger than 12 members, it becomes much more difficult for it to be effective.

The idea of a senior independent member was raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Broers, and described just now by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I really cannot add to his description of the sometimes critical role in acting as a very important channel, in this case to UKRI from council members. That could be extremely important. I have some words here about the senior independent council member, but given the way the noble Lord has set out the role, I feel that I no longer have to do so; I will simply agree with what he said.

Having discussed the issue with the chair and chief executive of the future UKRI, I am pleased to be able to confirm that a member of each council will be appointed as the senior independent council member. This does not need to be set out in the legislation, not least because the amendment would result in an additional member of each council beyond what I believe to be a reasonable and workable number. Instead, I can commit to making this a permanent feature of the organisation through setting the role out clearly in the governance documentation for UKRI. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Opel-Vauxhall: Sale to PSA Group

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg leave to repeat as a Statement an Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend in another place:

“This morning the boards of General Motors and PSA Group announced plans for PSA to acquire GM’s Vauxhall-Opel operations. The proposed deal is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

The Prime Minister and I have been engaged in discussions with both GM and PSA, and with the French and German Governments, to ensure that the terms of the agreement can give confidence to Vauxhall’s UK workforce now and for the future. Vauxhall is an iconic, important and successful British car manufacturer. Vauxhall cars have been made in Britain for 113 years, and we are determined that that should continue to be the case for many years to come.

The car plants at Ellesmere Port and Luton have a proud record of being among the most efficient in Europe, with workforces that are skilled, committed and flexible. Both PSA and GM have confirmed to the Prime Minister and me a number of important commitments, including that the company will honour its agreements with the Vauxhall workforce; that Vauxhall pensioners will be in at least as good a position as they are today; that the treatment of the UK division will be equal to that of other countries in the Vauxhall-Opel group; that the identity of Vauxhall will continue to be distinct and prominent; that the strategy of the new company will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments, not on plant closures, taking opportunities to increase sales around the world; and that the company will work with me and the rest of the automotive sector to ensure that it can participate in a substantial programme of research and investment for innovation in areas such as electric vehicles and battery technology, which is part of our industrial strategy.

This morning I had a further conversation with my French counterpart, the industry Minister, and the Minister of State spoke again to his German counterpart to agree a consistent approach. I speak frequently with Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the largest trade union in Vauxhall and I have kept, and will keep, colleagues with particular constituency interests up to date at all times.

It is in everyone’s interests that Vauxhall can look forward to a successful future. A generation ago, the car industry was one that epitomised our economic woes. Today that industry is a beacon of success. Companies invest in Britain because our automotive sector has a high-quality workforce and world-class efficiency, and is part of one of the most exciting places for innovation and research in new technology anywhere in the world. The future of the motor industry is bright in Britain, and we will be active at all times in doing everything we can to make it brighter still”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

I am obliged to the Minister for repeating the Statement from the Business Secretary. GM has shown great resilience over the years with the Opel and Vauxhall brands, and reported a loss of $257 million from its European operations in 2016. That is the 16th consecutive loss-making year for GM in Europe, bringing losses on the continent since 2000 to more than $15 billion.

GM chairman and chief executive Mary Barra said that the business would have broken even in 2016 had it not been for the UK’s vote to leave the European Union, which caused a sharp drop in the value of sterling. We should congratulate the excellent workers in the UK who have done a great job to turn around GM’s performance, but unfortunately they will gain little credit for it. The factories at Ellesmere Port and Luton employ about 4,500 people, and a supply chain of at least another 7,000. We hope that this transaction provides them with a secure future, restores growth to these brands and creates a long-term and growing future for Ellesmere Port and Luton.

I would be grateful if the Minister told us a little more about the nature of the assurances the Government received from the PSA group during their discussions. What specifically have they learned about safeguarding the plants? What have they learned about the PSA group’s plans to invest to upgrade capability to meet the specifications and scale of the facilities they have been committed to over recent times? What assurances have they received about the development of the Vauxhall brand and its sales in overseas markets beyond the EU? What assurances have they received about investment to retool the plants in the UK to develop other brands? Does the PSA group remain committed to the current Astra model in Ellesmere Port up to 2020-21 and the production of a new model there, and will Luton be able to fulfil its plans deep into the 2020s?

Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the problem of the scale of the UK supply chain. Speaking after the announcement, the chairman of the PSA’s management board, Carlos Tavares said that tough terms for leaving the EU could be an opportunity for Vauxhall and PSA to develop a supplier base in the UK to give the whole operation a “pound cost structure”. Not only do they harbour concerns about the general state of the UK parts ecosystem; it is clear—and Vauxhall sales are 80% EU—that their consideration of how we handle not just the negotiation of withdrawal, the single market and the customs union but the industrial strategy will play a very important part.

This is a wider concern. In evidence to a Select Committee in the other place, Colin Lawther, Nissan’s senior vice-president of manufacturing supply chain, denied that the Government had agreed to any deal or received any particular assurances. He said that Nissan and the automotive industry had made a “strong request” for government support for £100 million to £140 million of investment for a supply development fund to “repower the supply base” and build an indigenous, high-tech car components sector in the UK. Nissan, too, is looking to increase content from British suppliers and says that this opportunity alone is worth £2 billion.

The future of PSA’s investment in Vauxhall and other parts of the car industry is about the importance of developing the supply chain, in addition to the measures the Government are already implementing. It is clear that the Government’s current approach is inadequate, so I would be grateful if the Minister assured us that a meaningful new strategy to develop the UK supply chain is under way.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. To pick them up in turn, Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of PSA, has given assurances that he is keen to see this business develop and grow. He made the point that since becoming chief executive of PSA, he has not closed a single plant.

Regarding future models, post the Astra at Ellesmere Port, clearly, we will have to compete with other factories within the PSA group, as would have been the case had it remained part of General Motors. We are all very confident that we have the competitiveness and effective abilities, and the quality and brand at Ellesmere Port and Luton, to compete on a fair basis with any plant in Europe. PSA is absolutely committed to the Astra brand. There will be no need for a new model post 2020-21 for Ellesmere Port, and the Navara will continue to be produced at the Luton factory for longer still.

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the supply chain: it was an issue with Nissan as well as PSA. Carlos Tavares made the point that there are opportunities and risks on leaving the European Union. One of the opportunities will be to make the new models in the UK more of a sterling player, as the noble Lord put it. That means having a higher proportion of sterling-sourced components going into the Astra or indeed into any new model. We are committed to working with the automotive sector to try to boost the supply chain in the UK to ensure that more sterling-based components go into these cars.

Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in 2015 the Government introduced a series of reforms to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. The regulations we are debating make consequential amendments to the relevant special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of the reforms.

I will begin with a brief outline of the reforms to general insolvency law. The Deregulation Act 2015 separated out the authorisation of insolvency practitioners for personal and corporate insolvency. This reduces the cost of training for applicants who wish to specialise. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 introduced a series of changes to streamline the insolvency process. This included an amendment to allow liquidators to exercise powers without court permission and an extension to the maximum term for an administration. In addition, the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 made similar reforms to insolvency legislation in Northern Ireland.

The purpose of these reforms was to reduce unnecessary regulation and therefore costs, improve public confidence in insolvency legislation, and make it clearer, more consistent, and modern. The Government carried out extensive consultations before bringing forward these reforms to the insolvency regime, which had the broad support of industry. The regulations make consequential amendments to the existing modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector. Modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector exist because general insolvency procedure is not always suitable for failed financial institutions. These modified insolvency regimes apply general insolvency law with modifications designed to address the special nature of some financial institutions—for example, the bank insolvency procedure. Because these special insolvency procedures for the financial sector are built on general insolvency law, they now need to be amended to reflect the reforms. The regulations are therefore important to ensure that the benefits of the reforms to general insolvency law are extended to the financial sector. They will also ensure that the modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector are compatible with general insolvency law. The proposed consequential amendments follow discussions with the regulatory authorities and the banking liaison panel.

In conclusion, the amendments are important to modernise and streamline modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector following the Government’s reforms to general insolvency. I beg to move.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. We accept this as it is an effective codification of what was agreed during the passage of the legislation. The only questions that we wish to address relating to the provisions regard the Government’s evolving policy on insolvency. Other issues have of course emerged in the light of experience about how this process can be done more efficiently. There are consultations on moratoriums and other sorts of things in future that we are now looking at, and of course there will be adjustments when the next wave takes place, when there will be issues around pensions and other things.

Particularly on moratoriums and other sorts of reforms where there are consultations to improve the process, we would be grateful to have some indication of the Government’s thinking on whether they would bring this forward with the financial services industry and the companies that are covered. Would the provision that the Government are bringing forward encompass those along with all the other companies, or do they wish to have a separate procedure for financial companies?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his comments and his general support. I wonder if I could write to him to answer the question that he asked. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) Order 2017

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in moving the Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) Order 2017, I shall speak to the Business Impact Target (Relevant Regulators) Regulations 2017 and the Growth Duty Statutory Guidance 2017. The purpose of these statutory instruments is to support regulatory bodies in the UK to create a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable. The Government are committed to making sure that regulation supports growth and are doing all that they can to unlock productivity in the UK.

Better regulation is central to the Government’s desire to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business and is a key part of our commitment to drive economic growth and boost productivity. During the previous Parliament, the Government made significant progress through programmes such as one in, two out and the Red Tape Challenge, which were instrumental in delivering savings of £10 billion to businesses over the lifetime of the Parliament. These programmes encouraged a cultural shift in government departments towards more proportionate and smarter regulation.

This approach was formalised through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which provides a transparent framework for assessing, managing and reporting on new regulatory impacts to business, known as the business impact target. Through the Enterprise Act, we extended the ambition of the target by expanding it so that it can include the activities of a wider range of regulators beyond those acting on behalf of UK Ministers. This will support us achieving a further £10 billion of deregulatory benefit for UK businesses in this Parliament.

Alongside the business impact target, the Government also introduced a duty through the Deregulation Act for regulators to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth. This is known as the growth duty, which will help to ensure that regulatory bodies contribute towards creating a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable. Together, the business impact target and growth duty will support a positive shift in the way regulation is delivered.

It is sometimes easy to caricature all regulation as negative. The Government recognise that proportionate and well-targeted regulation is important and provides vital protections. It can help markets work better, enables new business models and start-ups to compete and protects consumers. The Government have been clear in the industrial strategy that regulatory frameworks need to support business investment rather than distort markets. This does not mean deregulation at any cost. We have to avoid, for example, the combination of light-touch regulation and emphasis on short-term financial gain that contributed to the financial and banking crisis.

Better regulation recognises that regulation can impose costs on business. It can divert attention from more productive uses, such as growing into new markets, innovation and training. It also recognises that regulation can favour more established incumbent operators in a market. For example, it is estimated to cost small business 10 times more per employee, on average, to comply with regulations than it costs a large business. The Government’s better regulation system therefore seeks to minimise these burdens by ensuring that the likely impacts of regulation are fully assessed and by providing an incentive to reduce costs on business where possible. Indeed, there are numerous examples of good, proportionate regulation that is good for business and society as a whole.

Under the previous Government, we conducted a series of sector reviews into regulator enforcement practice. Reforms delivered as a result are now saving business millions of pounds, encouraging companies to grow, speeding up multibillion-pound investments and reducing burdens, all without weakening protections. These reforms have been welcomed by businesses and trade bodies across the country. These savings are being made by removing assessment and reporting requirements from more than a quarter of a million businesses where there was no scope for them to deliver the energy savings that the requirements were in place to deliver. This allows the regulator to focus on working with those businesses where real energy savings can be made.

However, there is still more to do. The regulations before the Committee today will be an important step towards creating a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable. The result will be to take another significant step forward to ensuring that regulation supports growth and that Britain is the best place in the world to start and grow a business.

I turn to the detail of the regulations. The Business Impact Target (Relevant Regulators) Regulations 2017 specify the individual regulators that will be brought within scope of the business impact target. The regulators listed within the scope of these regulations will be required to assess the economic impact on business of changes to their regulatory policies and practices that come into force, or cease to have effect, during the course of the Parliament. The assessments must be verified by the Regulatory Policy Committee and the savings or burdens imposed on business incorporated into the Government’s annual report outlining their performance against the target.

The rationale for this is clear. Businesses consistently tell the Government that the actions of regulators are as important as the content of legislation in determining their experience of regulation. So the costs to business of their regulatory activities should be actively assessed and transparently reported. These regulations deliver that. Where impacts are imposed on business by changes in regulatory activity, these should be transparent. In addition, business should have confidence in the estimates that the Government have made of that impact.

The changes do not in any way undermine the core purpose of regulators, which provide vital protections and help ensure that markets function effectively. Regulation has important economic, social and environmental goals. Regulation for those reasons should be proportionate and at the minimum cost to business necessary to achieve the outcome required. Including further regulators in the business impact target will help regulators to make the move to smarter regulation that delivers outcomes with the minimum overhead. This will be good for British business and will contribute to a more consistent regulatory process.

The Government consulted on the proposed list of regulators to be brought within scope of the business impact target from 11 February to 17 March 2016. We received responses from a range of stakeholders, including business, regulators, trade associations and other organisations. The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal to bring the regulators specified in the consultation within the scope of the business impact target, with one respondent stating that the BIT would result in regulators,

“having to design their services, policies and procedures in a way that suits the needs of business”.

No further regulators were suggested to be brought within scope, while a handful of regulators questioned their own inclusion. We have reviewed these queries and are satisfied that it is appropriate to bring the regulators listed in this instrument within scope of the target. We have also paid close attention to issues raised around proportionality. The Government have been working collaboratively with a wide range of regulators to design a process for implementation that minimises burdens on regulators.

I turn to the growth duty regulations and guidance. The Deregulation Act 2015 introduced a legislative requirement for persons exercising a regulatory function to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth. The Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) Order 2017 sets out the specific regulatory functions to which this duty applies. Alongside this instrument, the Growth Duty Statutory Guidance 2017 has been produced to assist regulators in fulfilling their new responsibilities, at both a strategic and operational level.

Proportionate delivery of regulation plays an important role in supporting competitive markets and improving social and environmental outcomes. Regulatory enforcement that is not proportionate and risk-based imposes unnecessary costs on business, creates uncertainty and undermines investment. The way in which regulation is enforced can have significant effects on businesses’ ability and willingness to invest and grow.

Although there is already a great deal of good, proportionate and effective regulation, there is evidence to suggest that some regulators fail to take sufficient account of the economic consequences of their actions and place unnecessary burdens on business in the exercise of their regulatory functions. To address this, the then Chancellor announced in the 2012 Autumn Statement several measures designed to create a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable. Although many regulators consider the impact of their actions on economic growth, there are those that do not. Indeed, some regulators think that they are unable to take account of growth as they do not have a statutory requirement to do so or their statutory objectives do not refer to growth.

Requiring regulators to have regard to economic growth in this way will address the uncertainty of regulators that feel that they cannot have regard for economic growth and will put the obligation on a statutory footing, thereby complementing regulators’ other legal obligations. This duty will help regulators to carry out their functions in a way that is conducive to economic growth and will ensure that regulatory action is taken only when it is needed and that any action that is taken is proportionate. The growth duty will therefore encourage regulators to develop more mature and productive relationships with the sectors and businesses that they regulate, driving up the accountability of regulators to the business community. This will help to deliver our aspirations for greater productivity and growth in our economy.

Public consultations on the growth duty were held in 2014 and 2015. A further consultation was held alongside the consultation on the scope of the business impact target, and responses were received from a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The majority of responses to the consultation on the growth duty agreed that regulators should have regard to economic growth and should be accountable for whether they have properly considered business growth in their decision-making.

There were a small number of objections to the inclusion of particular regulators in scope, in the main based on arguments related to the amount of regulatory activity undertaken or the fact that the organisation did not have any regulatory functions. Having considered these responses, the Government are satisfied that it is appropriate to bring the regulators listed in the instrument within scope of the growth duty. We also received a number of responses on the draft guidance, with the vast majority commenting positively on its content.

The business impact target and growth duty play a central role in the Government’s agenda to improve UK regulation. They support a positive shift in the way that regulation is delivered through reducing the regulatory burdens that hold businesses back and prevent them from getting on with business. The measures are an important step towards creating a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable and I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, as I arrived this morning, I thought that the House of Lords had taken to Oscar fever and that the red carpet had given way for the red of the House of Lords. I saw the Annunciator, and it read, “One Order, Six Regulations and one Statutory Guidance” as the business of the day. It reminded me of “Four Weddings and a Funeral”. I see that we have not had quite the same box-office draw.

I thank the Minister for his introductory comments. There is a lot that we all agree on as to the eventual targets that we want to reach and the sort of improvements that can be made. In many ways, we agree on motherhood and apple pie being good things. Our concern that the wrong measures were adopted in the primary legislation to achieve them are reinforced by some of the weaknesses in the statutory instruments, the consultation processes before them and the conclusions drawn, and it is on those things that I raise a few issues and questions.

Part of this relates to the overall policy context, which is the attempt to have a target of £10 billion of reductions. Central Government are unable to do it on their own, so they now look to regulators to take up some of the heft in this colossal task. Without some detailed sense of what can be achieved—to which I shall come later—it is misguided to believe that the solution can be what we have now, which is essentially a cultural response: if we have a new culture, a new way of working, things will improve. I am a huge sceptic about the creation of culture as a strong driver in making these things move. I believe strongly that we have to build able business cultures, but I find frequently that the Government’s response is to provide measures that will impact the culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for that wonderful line—I will conclude with these points. I noted the sceptical faces from the other side on the point about whether businesses will do this. It was not addressed. In Committee in the other place, the Minister said:

“Businesses told us that they were unlikely to mount judicial reviews except in extreme circumstances. As we all know, judicial reviews are very costly”.—[Official Report, Commons, Deregulation Bill Committee, 20/3/14; col. 526.]


They are not that costly compared with regulatory impacts. The cost of lawyers may be quite significant, but compared with the benefits that can be gained from regulatory changes it is certainly a calculation worth making. If you give someone an instrument to do something, you have a duty to shareholders to do it if you have an operable option. Anyone involved in business will know that.

The impact assessment says:

“This duty will provide a framework for regulators explicitly to factor growth into their decision-making where they have not previously felt able to do so, enabling businesses to hold regulators accountable for their actions”.


The guidance provides far too many opportunities for the sorts of challenges and arguments that undermine the regulators’ principal role and functions. The way the guidance is written has no regard for any particular growth theory, target, goal or effective paradigm. It provides a lot of opportunity for options and arguments to be laid against it and against decisions on the basis of growth.

Again, the Government should not be surprised about this. Even its own report on the consultation said that,

“the business community sought clarity on how regulators can be held to account if they failed to comply with the Growth Duty, or to follow the guidance”.

I do not think the answer will be, “Look in the annual report and take a view”. This is a very important issue. Fundamentally, the core aspects, which this does not address or help, provide legal capacity on the one side and on the other do not give a real sense about the principal duties that regulators have in existing law without the growth duty and whether they will be able to fulfil them.

In conclusion, while we share the Government’s view on a variety of the objectives and goals and even on the journey they wish to take, we were sceptical when the main legislation passed. All these statutory instruments do is lay bare the lack of evidence, thinking and design of these policies, and how, through the unfortunate circumstance of unintended consequences, they are likely to cause more harm than good. I would be very grateful if the Minister responded to all, some, or even a few of my questions.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Like him and no doubt everyone else in the Room, I too am in favour of motherhood and apple pie. I am in favour of the removal of unnecessary red tape, bureaucracy and the gold-plating we have seen on too many EU directives. Like the Minister, I accept entirely that some regulations serve a vital purpose. The much-maligned health and safety regulations provide a very good case in point. If we are to take steps such as the ones proposed here, it is vital that we are aware of precisely what the targets are, what they are expected to achieve and what evidence we will gather to see whether they have been achieved, and that we ensure there is proper policing of any new directives, regulations or whatever is put in place.

I spent a relatively brief time in government. For a short period I was a junior Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. As a Minister in a Government who had introduced in 2010 the various proposals to encourage, as it says in our documentation,

“a cultural shift in Government Departments towards more proportionate and smarter regulation”,

I nevertheless came up against the difficulties that could be created by the one-in, one-out and later one-in, two-out policies. As a result of that experience, and subsequently as the Government Deputy Chief Whip serving on Oliver Letwin’s committee that dealt with these issues, I learned a number of lessons.

There are six lessons, and I will briefly share them and use this as an opportunity to probe the Minister about the proposal before us today. The first lesson related to energy performance certificates. Regulations were brought in requiring commercial buildings in certain circumstances—depending on their size, whether there was public access, and so on—to display an energy performance certificate visibly in the premises. The idea was that putting the energy performance certificate up would lead the owner of the building to try to improve energy performance, thereby saving overall cost to both the occupiers of the building and the nation as a whole. I was very much in favour of the certificates.

However, the lesson I learned was that often, those certificates never appeared in commercial buildings. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they did not appear in a number of government buildings. The question I therefore ask is: what policing mechanisms will apply to the measures and what procedures will be put in place to ensure that we can assess whether they are successful—a point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn—so we can learn from them in future? We have learned nothing from energy performance certificates because they were not properly introduced, policed or evaluated.

The second lesson I learned was from the introduction of zero-carbon homes, something I felt strongly about as a Minister. That fell under all sorts of difficulties, particularly from Conservative colleagues within the coalition, because they said that we had to ensure that we abide by the “one regulation in, one regulation out” rule, commensurate financial implications, and so on. It got into real difficulty because of the way the target was assessed. It was argued that the regulation’s requiring improved energy efficiency of domestic premises would impose an increased cost on the builders of those premises, so it had to be counted as a “one in” for which we had to find a “one out”. In truth, the most sensible way to look at it would have been to say that the improvement of the building’s energy performance when built would lead to a long-term saving for the resident occupants of the property and the nation as a whole but, whereas with energy performance certificates for commercial building, it was okay for the occupants to benefit, when it came to domestic property, it was not.

If we have targets, we must be careful that we do not hit the target but miss the point. I worry that in some of the regulations before us, particularly given the list of regulatory bodies, we may be missing the point.

The third lesson, which I am prepared to acknowledge is not relevant to the documents before us but I want to get on the record, is that these things are not always straightforward common sense. They are often political. I share with noble Lords my experience on Oliver Letwin’s committee when I proposed a measure that would have reduced the cost of business—not requiring certain things to be advertised in local newspapers. This was prevented on the purely political grounds that we did not want to upset local newspapers in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

I also learned that we have to apply common sense. On the basis of common sense, I will not go through the long list of regulatory bodies to which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred. I will just pick one at random and ask the Minister, to whom I have given a little advance notice, about the Northern Lighthouse Board. I wonder what the Minister sees as its ability to perform an economic growth responsibility. The Northern Lighthouse Board is there to serve Scotland and the Isle of Man, and to deliver a reliable, efficient and cost-effective aids-to-navigation service for the benefit and safety of all mariners. I genuinely have difficulty seeing how it will be able to fulfil its requirement.

That leads to my fifth and penultimate point: these things should be based on sound consultation. We have before us a very long list of regulatory bodies that will be brought in under these regulations. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has pointed out, and as it says in paragraph 8.2, there were 49 respondents, and 38 responses were received on the question of scope from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including regulators, businesses and representative bodies. It is clear that only a small number of regulators responded to the consultation, as paragraph 8.3 hints at. It says that there were five objections to the inclusion of particular regulators within scope; the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, dealt with the rest of the list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I cut my speech down, but I rather wish that I had not—I could still be talking. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has raised too many issues and I cannot answer them all. I got to 38 questions and I stopped counting—I had forgotten what the first one was. I will have to write to the noble Lord on a number of the points that he raised.

While it is still fresh in my mind, I will just deal with the Northern Lighthouse Board—the noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave me warning about it during the vote. The Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights provide advice to ports about navigational safety matters. Because that advice can affect the business of port operators and their customers, it is right that the bodies should have regard to growth in making regulatory decisions. In a sense, that illustrates another issue that he raised about whether we had gone through all these regulators carefully, talked to them and found out what impact they might have. I hope that that answers that question.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, started off positively. He said that he agreed with our objectives and goals, but then he went on to qualify that by referring to them both as motherhood and apple pie. Nevertheless, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, also agrees. Who can possibly argue with the objectives of reducing regulation and achieving economic growth? The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, also quoted—I wish that I had written it down, but he spoke too quickly—Warren Buffett. I will give him back another quote from Warren Buffett, if I can. It is much shorter and more succinct: you get what you incent for. For me, in business, that is a pretty profound statement.

I would like to apply that, if I can, to regulation. The noble Lord was sceptical about culture. I am less sceptical about it. I think that the culture that exists within individual firms can be hugely powerful. I will give an illustration that quite neatly contrasts culture with regulation or law. RBS and HBOS had been in banking for 200 years in Edinburgh. They were absolutely conservative, traditional Scottish banks. In the space of 10 years, their culture completely changed. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the reports, particularly into HBOS, by the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons. The culture in those two banks was deeply shocking. To some extent, it was set by the deregulation that his Government brought into the City after 2001, when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and subsequently. It may go back earlier to the deregulation of the City in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the culture within those two banks effectively destroyed them.

Culture is hugely important and very powerful. For example, there are laws about smoking now but there is also a culture around it: you feel bad about lighting up a cigarette in a car or in a building, irrespective of the law. When I was at the Care Quality Commission, we found that the leading indicator—

[Lord Mendelsohn]

We agree on culture and the capacity to destroy culture. The point that the noble Lord made, which I thought was very interesting, was about incentives. I am not clear about how this creates incentives as opposed to duties, which then have a numeric capacity to meddle and to change. Can he give me some idea?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

May I finish off on a regulator that is not covered by BEIS, but is important none the less—the Care Quality Commission? We found there that the leading indicators of performance, whether you measure it in terms of patient safety, hitting waiting time targets or patient satisfaction, were around staff engagement, such as whether doctors and nurses enjoyed working in the hospital. A junior doctors survey done by the GMC was probably the single most predictive of all the indicators. Culture is hugely important.

The noble Lord referred to a duty to communicate, which plays into the point about culture. Putting that obligation to communicate on to regulators is important. In a sense, what we are trying to do by having a duty to promote growth is to change the culture and outlook of regulators. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, they are not there to hit the target but miss the point —how often does that lead to unintended consequences? For example, we hit the waiting time target in an A&E department but the patient died. That is the kind of absurdity we can get into when targets become—

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

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

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

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

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

“to maintain its focus on assisting businesses”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, in commenting briefly on this clause I draw attention to the fact that I am currently trying to set up a venture capital fund. It does not yet exist, but it might do.

Several noble Lords have gone through the thought process to which my noble friend Lord Selborne has just referred. The decision that Innovate UK should be part of the overall UKRI, which is not clear in the original Nurse review, we now accept and recognise.

There are two points on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Minister. If this involves one of the letters for which this Committee has become famous, so be it. It would be helpful to know how many of the Secretary of State’s powers—which are, as the Minister rightly said, explicit in the Bill as part of the usual Treasury controls—will, in practice, be delegated to Innovate UK. Although it is clear that in theory there is a great deal that Innovate UK can do only with the consent of the Secretary of State, it was not my experience as a Minister that I or Sir Vince Cable were endlessly getting petitions to do specific things. Organisations operated within a range of delegated authorities so that they could get on with doing things. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the kind of flexibility that he envisages Innovate UK would have within the UKRI regime.

Secondly, in the Bill as currently drafted there is a hint of old-think pre-industrial strategy. I wonder what would have happened if the chronology had been the other way round and we had had last week’s excellent consultation document on industrial strategy and then the legislation. Some of these constraints are hard to reconcile with the ideas in the industrial strategy. Again, if the Minister can show how this model will enable Ministers to deliver what they are talking about in the industrial strategy, it would be very helpful.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I shall speak to our amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, has made a very good case. The long and the short of how we see this is that we do not think it was a very good idea in the first place and time has passed on. Many of the comments that have been made will find an echo in our thoughts.

It is worth returning to the original Nurse review. The report states:

“In relation to Innovate UK, as stated earlier, the current delivery landscape is too complex and there should be a smoother pathway to more applied research. Integrating Innovate UK into the Research UK structure alongside the Research Councils could help such issues to be addressed However, Innovate UK has a different customer base as well as differences in delivery mechanisms, which Government needs to bear in mind in considering such an approach and which this review, according to its remit, has not looked at in depth”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, made exactly that point: what evaluations were made when it went in?

I would suggest that both its target audience and the mechanisms that Innovate UK uses are so dramatically different that it is unlikely to be able to perform such an effective function within the context of UKRI. I think that it would be a terrible misfortune if Innovate UK, which has proved itself over some years to be a very effective body doing great things, were to come into UKRI with its current framework. That would not just be restrictive but could possibly be quite damaging for an institution that is following a good path.

I also think that this is a policy that was designed for a pre-Brexit world. In a post-Brexit world—which we are not in at the moment—we know that we are going to have to rely on research an awful lot more, and a great deal will be required of it. I cannot imagine that in such a situation we would ever put one of our most significant levers into this sort of environment; we would leave it to work independently. With the industrial strategy having now been published, it is absolutely clear that there is a massive hole in the delivery of its research objectives that would have been filled by Innovate UK. That is a mistake that the Government would be wise to take note of.

By the way, it is important to understand that Nurse himself recommended:

“At the very least, the Chief Executives of HEFCE and Innovate UK should be represented, on the Executive Committee of Research UK”,


or UKRI. And that was probably a very measured judgment.

My final very brief point is in relation to what it is necessary to do to make the best of our university sector and to be able to commercialise at both ends of the spectrum via big company investments and tracking what research is being done as well as smaller companies emerging as the result of venture capital. An awful lot is going on in this area. Recently I spent time with some of the companies at Cambridge Enterprise Limited. Innovate UK is not the only solution that is required, and I think that it would be a colossal mistake to expect UKRI to perform that role and to forget the other things we may need to do. To restrict UKRI in that situation has the potential to do great harm to the long-term needs of our country, especially in an environment where we need an effective industrial strategy.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, we could debate this issue for two or three hours, but we must restrain ourselves. I turn first to the two points raised by my noble friend Lord Willetts. I will indeed have to write to him about the powers the Secretary of State will be planning to delegate to Innovate UK. In a way that also answers his second question because he referred to “old think”, and indeed some of that could be construed in this Bill when comparing it with the requirements of the industrial strategy. But if the delegation to UKRI and Innovate UK from the Secretary of State is right, I think it will be perfectly possible to reconcile that with the industrial strategy.

I would actually take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, because I think that Brexit has made the coming together of Innovate UK with the research councils within UKRI even more necessary, but I agree that Innovate UK is only a part of the answer. We have to have a competitive fiscal regime, long-term risk capital and a well-trained technical workforce among many other things. Innovate UK on its own is not going to shift the productivity dial for the country, although we believe that it has an important part to play.

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, asked about an assessment of Innovate UK. A detailed business plan was made, although I am afraid that I cannot remember when it was published. I shall certainly endeavour to send her a copy of that report. The fact is that this is more of a judgment than something which can be proved with spreadsheets and the like. I think that the right judgment is to bring innovation together with research; that is the right thing to do because the reality is that one of our weaknesses, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is that we have a fantastic research base but have not been able to take maximum commercial advantage of it. That is a space which Innovate UK has filled and will continue to do so.

The extra investment being made by the Government in UKRI is a clear vote of confidence, and our support for the central role of Innovate UK in delivering our future knowledge economy will include a substantial increase in grant funding. The Bill seeks to name Innovate UK in legislation for the first time. It will retain its own individual funding stream and grow its support for business-led technology and innovation as a key part of the industrial strategy. I think it is worth quoting Ruth McKernan, the chief executive of Innovate UK:

“The establishment of UK Research and Innovation, including the research councils and Innovate UK, recognises the vital role innovation plays and further strengthens the UK’s ability to turn scientific excellence into economic impact”.


That is one of the 10 pillars of the industrial strategy referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mair. It is absolutely fundamental to our future and bringing these organisations together is critically important. Only by bringing Innovate UK into UKRI will we remove the remaining barriers to greater joint working between research and business at all levels. Businesses will be able to identify more readily possible research partners and will benefit from the better alignment of the outputs of research with business needs in, for example, technology and data skills. Researchers will benefit from greater exposure to business and commercialisation expertise so that they can achieve maximum impact. It will be simpler to find and form partnerships and there will be easier movement between academia and business. The UK will benefit from a more strategic, agile and impactful approach across UKRI’s portfolio which can respond to real-world challenges and opportunities.

The critical achievement is reaching the right balance between freedom and autonomy for Innovate UK while recognising at the same time that, ultimately, the Secretary of State has to be held financially accountable in Parliament for the money that is spent. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

485E: Clause 87, page 55, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) facilitate, encourage and support UK research’s participation in EU programmes and initiatives and be responsible for ensuring the UK’s position on international research projects.”

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to UK research and the impact of leaving the European Union and probes the Government’s intentions about how we should approach this. Of course, as has been said, the Bill was written in a pre-Brexit environment and there is not inherently a good post-Brexit situation. A great many concerns have been expressed over the issues of funding and staff—researchers and others—and students being able to gain access to it, and also about our leadership in the European and international research community being diminished as a result. Indeed, on other amendments we have already debated some of those issues.

I have a genuine personal concern about this. I have been involved in two businesses now that are both within the context of our science and research base. The fundraising of one, which I was looking to participate in, has been pulled because the CIO, the CTO and two engineers and designers—who are European—now plan to return to their countries. The company has a considerable problem in being able to deliver its plans. The other company is in a similar position. Not all is doom and gloom; I am invested in another company which does not have too many EU nationals involved.

I have spent rather too long with doctors in recent times but one of the medical research teams told me that his team was informed not only that it would not be welcome as part of the European bid that it had been involved in for some time, but also that it was felt that the UK being involved would mark it down. As a result, a whole group of researchers is giving notice and planning to leave, and is currently planning arrangements for their children.

As a result, we have a pressing need to address some of these issues quickly. While there are other amendments on this—I note the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who proposed some very good ones—we tabled Amendment 507ZA to establish a UKRI visa department which may well have a useful function in a post-Brexit scenario but certainly, in our view, in a pre-Brexit scenario has symbolic value and is an important aspect of what we need to do to reassure people that this is a primary concern, something the Government will address and that they will almost move mountains to deal with.

The other amendments look at ensuring that UKRI spends a lot of time—I think it will need additional resourcing for this—to make sure that the UK continues to have a very strong participation in EU programmes and initiatives. There is much to be done in intergovernmental negotiations, which this is not part of. The Government need to work harder at those sorts of things. Of course, as in Amendment 485F, we are concerned about other aspects of research support from the EU. The Government committed to supporting the European funds that are lost—that is to be welcomed—but it is important that we quantify that loss on an ongoing basis.

We must also consider that we will have lost some important research opportunities. For example, there is a belief among many in the sector that our inability to access the European Research Council creates a real gap as it, in particular, complements other funding activities in Europe and has an investigator-driven or bottom-up approach. It allows researchers to identify new opportunities and directions in any field of research rather than other sorts of priorities being established in other ways. Those sorts of gaps are important for us to identify.

Given the firm consensus that exists to ensure that the UK base remains as strong, world-leading and important as it should be in future, the purpose of this group is to track what we do, do more to hold our position and show symbolically that we will welcome and look after people who come here. If we do not do that, we will lose our global position as a world-leading base. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Lord stopped me in full flow. I was just getting to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, regarding visa applications. As the research councils do now, we expect UKRI, as an employer, to have a role in sponsoring visa applications for international staff on its own payroll and, in some circumstances, for particular individuals with agreed posts in universities. However, it would not be practical to make UKRI responsible for visa sponsorship for the whole sector. I think we will probably have to come back later to discuss that issue in more detail. The Government do not agree—this, I am afraid, goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—that the Bill should be amended as suggested, as UKRI will be an outward-looking organisation and will build on our current excellence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall not echo the sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I think more needs to be done, and I shall just make two points. We have to face up to a certain reality. While it is no doubt true that some people in the United States of America are considering their position, there it is a somewhat temporary measure. There it may be four years or eight years, but our exit from Europe will have much longer term implications. That is the issue we have to address.

While it is certainly true that things are coming to us—although some of the stuff that has been announced was being discussed well before Brexit, and people have taken a different view on risks—there is a human dimension here: making sure we are attracting talent. I have a corporate finance business. International companies that used to send people to the UK will now look elsewhere when trying to attract eastern European talent. London is not the only location they will now look at as the right sort of place to locate families.

It is important that we get this talent issue under control, and find a way to make sure that we fully express our ambitions and put the right sort of measures in the Bill. However, given the Minister’s comments—hopefully there will be some form of reflection—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 485E withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the aim of Amendment 489 is to investigate and ask what autonomy the research councils will have when UKRI is the single voice for research. Although I accept that UKRI has a very important purpose in being that voice, it must allow the individual research councils to flourish in order to identify the most promising science and, through their institutes, deliver ground-breaking insight and understanding. My amendment seeks to ensure that UKRI can co-ordinate but does not in any way crush the expertise, independence and autonomy that created organisations such as the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, an institute of the MRC often referred to as the UK’s Nobel prize factory—I think at the last count for 15 scientists.

The executive chairs and management of the councils should be allowed to decide on scientific priorities and have the authority to run their organisations in an effective way, working within the strategic framework set by UKRI, but without having to defer to the UKRI board for operational or scientific issues. Research councils need a distinct identity, and the independence and agility that goes with it, to enable them to undertake procurement and form partnerships, joint ventures and collaborations without continuous recourse to the UKRI supervisory board. In mentioning the example of the Medical Research Council, I should have declared an interest in that I have been associated with the council for a long time and until recently was a council member.

The Medical Research Council has collaborated with AstraZeneca on drug development and Marks & Spencer on food security, as well as collaborating internationally in several cases. Research councils should have the right to retain returns from the exploitation of publicly generated IPR. Such IPR will continue to be both an important source of revenue and a valuable incentive to translate scientific developments into new products and devices. Individual research councils could be encouraged to develop IPR and be able to share in the economic benefits of exploiting them, recycling them back into science and research for the good of the nation.

Furthermore, internationally renowned brand identities, such as that of the MRC, should be retained. There is clear evidence that brand identities such as the Medical Research Council’s attract some of the very best scientists to the UK. Its reputation for rigour and excellence also leverages co-funding from other research funders, often in a ratio of 10:1 or more.

The current wording in the Bill that UKRI will arrange for councils to,

“exercise such functions … as UKRI may determine”,

does not seem to sit easily with the principles of subsidiarity, autonomy and independence of research council disciplines. There is a need for greater clarity as to how the autonomy of the research councils will be maintained. I beg to move.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

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

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

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

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

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

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


He said the principle was,

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

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

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

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

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

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

471A: Schedule 9, page 100, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) at least one member of the OfS Board with at least observer status.”

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my personal interest as an investor in the UK research base and in some of the institutions that came out of science and other research councils. I am also an investor in the science base overseas.

Before we get into the meat of all the groups that we have—which I hope will go at some pace because we have a fair degree of agreement—it may be helpful if I just set out the view of these Benches on Part 3 of the Bill. According to the OECD, in tracking the change in government spending on R&D as a percentage of total government spending, between 2002 and 2015 there has been a very strong correlation with the investments that have been made that have created new and emerging tech pioneers, including across eastern Europe in Israel and in other places.

Korea, Germany and Japan have powered ahead with increases. Most countries have reduced, but of the major economies it appears that only France exceeded our almost 30% decline. In this context, the Government’s recent announcement of funding has had two major impacts. On the one hand, it has certainly helped to address the changes that we have witnessed over some time; there has now been some redress, and I hope we can get to the position where we were previously in short order. On the other hand, it has laid a comforting blanket over the measures in this part of the Bill and provided an emollient soothing of concerns about where research is going.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his opening address, which was helpful in setting the context for this debate. The noble Lord is right: the context is partly Brexit and partly that many overseas countries are spending a lot more per capita on research than we do. It is also the fact that the British Government have committed to spending an extra £2 billion a year on research by 2020.

The noble Lord also raised the important issue of the evaluation of UKRI—this will come up later in the debate. One of the first things that the UKRI board will do after it is appointed is put together a strategic plan, which will be discussed in more detail in this House and government circles.

I welcome the opportunity to debate further the issue of joint working between UKRI and the OfS, which the Government—and the three noble Lords who have contributed to the debate so far—recognise as crucial to the success of both organisations. It was recently announced that the Government will be investing an extra £2 billion a year in R&D by the end of this Parliament. This investment is a clear vote of confidence in the new structures created by UKRI. It will play a key role in delivering the industrial strategy and in the success of our future knowledge economy.

On the issue of joint working, I sincerely appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and others. However, an absolute requirement for UKRI and the OfS to work together in exercising their functions could well be counterproductive. For the areas where they should be working together, Clause 106 offers a mechanism for the Secretary of State to require the two organisations to do so, should they fail to co-operate of their own accord.

However, this is not the sole, nor the most important, means to drive joint working. There will be regular engagement and communication between the two government departments involved and both organisations at all levels of operation. Guidance will also be issued through a variety of means, including the Secretary of State’s annual grant letters. Furthermore, in addition to regular meetings between the Government and senior representatives from the OfS and UKRI, the Secretary of State will have the power, through the Bill, to send representatives to attend the board meetings of both organisations. In combination with the expectation that each organisation’s annual report will address areas where they work jointly, this will allow the Government to perform an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of co-operation between the two organisations, and to respond quickly if this is not satisfactory.

On Amendment 509, as my noble friend Lord Younger said previously, UKRI will work closely with the OfS on matters related to research degree-awarding powers. Likewise, UKRI will work with the OfS at all levels to ensure there is a coherent approach to the research talent pipeline. While I agree that they should certainly take a joined-up approach on these two matters, joint decisions would not always be effective or efficient. For example, each year thousands of research students in the UK are supported by research council funding. It would not be practical or useful for the OfS to be involved in these funding decisions, just as HEFCE is not involved now.

On Amendment 508C, I do not believe that legislation is the right place to specify the particular areas that UKRI and the OfS should co-operate on. It is likely that such areas will change in the future, and there must be a degree of discretion to accommodate this. I hope noble Lords will agree that guidance is a better, more flexible mechanism, and this is what the Government intend to use.

On Amendment 471A, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, echoed by a number of other noble Lords, made the case for a shared board member between UKRI and the OfS. I can reassure the House that the Government have given this matter significant thought. Following in-depth consideration, the Government have concluded that a shared board member would not best serve its purpose. The responsibility laid on this member would be to encourage and facilitate effective communication between both organisations. However, this will need to happen at all levels, and covering the breadth of their remits. I do not believe that it is possible for a single individual to fulfil this role effectively. Responsibility for joint working and effective communication will be shared by all members of the UKRI and OfS boards, and involve many officials spread throughout the organisations.

Joint working and effective communication will be of the utmost importance, and I hope that I have provided reassurance that this Bill will put in place the appropriate measures to ensure this. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I thank the Minister for that reply but wish to make a couple of points. Certainly, there is always a place for guidance. The question here is: what are we trying to achieve? There needs to be a level of not just mechanics but of culture where these organisations work together. My fear is that the Bill could have unintended consequences. When we met senior administrators of universities, they asked how the organisation and running of their operations would change and about the interface with the OfS and UKRI. For example, the once-a-year evaluation with HEFCE will now take place with two separate organisations. Will that change the way the leadership works or the way that institutions report? A series of potential unintended consequences could occur unless we specify and knit together the way in which these institutions will work. That is the nature of the problem we are talking about.

There are some very specific measures, such as the one raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which is one that could be reasonably accommodated. However, in general, we need to establish the right culture and circumstances to ensure that these two institutions do not just have a sense of working together but see themselves as partners in a very important endeavour.

Finally, as regards the shared board member that I proposed, we are not placing a colossal, herculean task on one individual. For institutions that are meant to work together, it is important to have someone who is able to tell the temperature or the context of the debate, and be able to ensure that at the very top level both institutions are aware of the atmospherics and the sense of how an issue is approached. That level of understanding is important. Whatever the mechanics at the bottom, and whatever arrangements we have in place, if there is a dissonance in understanding at the very top, that is a major consideration. I hope that the Minister will provide some more developed thoughts on that at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 471A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 480 and 481 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis. The Bill proposes what is really quite a radical reduction in the size of the existing research councils, which are to have between six and 10 members. The existing councils have between 10 and 17 members, with an average of 15, of whom four or five are lay members. It would be good to hear from the Minister an explanation of the rationale for this reduction in the size of the research councils. In particular, could he point to evidence that their current size has led to inefficiencies or undesirable outcomes? If that is not possible, can he say what the evidence base is for suggesting how a reduction in the membership would actually improve their performance?

I note here in passing that the membership of UKRI itself is proposed to be at least 12 and at most 15. Why is it desirable that the membership of the research councils should be smaller than that of UKRI itself? I am not arguing that it is not, but I would just like to hear the reason the Government think it is.

Of course, it is not just the numbers that matter but the experience and the mix of the members. The practice of having lay members is an important part of our current councils. As I say, each of them has four or five lay members, except for the STFC which has three or four, depending on whether you count people as lay or not. We know from experience in other fields, especially financial services, how important it is to avoid groupthink and to have outsiders challenge established or entrenched views. Can the Minister set out what approach UKRI will take to the appointment of lay members to the research councils? Is it the intention that the present balance should continue?

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 500B, 507ZB and 507B, but first I will echo the support of these Benches for the amendments proposed. It is important to understand that they share the objective of trying to maximise the effectiveness of UKRI and the councils themselves. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reasonable assurances on these matters.

The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about their size is very important. In all the evidence we have received there has been no suggestion that their size has been a disadvantage—quite the opposite: it has been a huge advantage. I will be interested to hear the justification for the reduction in number and whether there has been any assessment as to whether this diminishes capacity.

We strongly support the call for independent chairs. That case was extremely well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. Not only do they have a good record of governance thus far, but it has been good governance. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, made the essential point that in any circumstances where there is a board, corporate governance has got to the position it has because a board needs a chair to deal with the issues incumbent on dealing with a chief executive. To eliminate that would be a strongly mistaken act.

It is imperative that councils remain the prestigious and capable institutions that they are. Their role should not be usurped or superseded. They require independence and authority. They should not be the plaything of Ministers. There should be a real, consistent quality to the recruitment of staff, the board and lay people. The Minister should accept that this should be a measure of whether they are still meeting that test. In ensuring that the councils can work effectively, especially in a new framework, they cannot have the notion that they will change quickly and rapidly from their original brief, because that would unsettle these arrangements.

There is real power to the weight of the arguments presented. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them. It reminds me of Confucius’s saying that there are three methods by which we may learn wisdom. The first is by reflection, which is the noblest. The second is by imitation, which is the easiest—I am sure that noble Lords would be more than happy if the Government were to imitate the amendments. But the third is by experience, which is the bitterest. I hope that the Minister will consider that, in this area, the weight of the arguments would help the Government to learn how they would have to rectify this from bitter experience. It is important that governance is absolutely right.

In Amendment 507B we suggest, because there is no real stated role for councils in UKRI, that the executive committee should have a role in the innovation strategy. We think that it is important that those who work on it are specifically defined as having that role.

The amendment that stands out slightly is the one that proposes that the royal charters should remain in existence but not in force. The crucial question is whether this would work or whether leaving them would create its own problems. There are two reasons for keeping them. First, in the circumstances that we are unable to establish that this system will work better, or that the mechanisms will reach a critical mass of working better, it is important that there is some useful architecture to revert to in this area, where we cannot afford to get things wrong. Our current method has not been shown to have any poor performance; it is just that we believe that there are better ways. Secondly, the system should accord a level of prestige.

There is not really a case for removal. The discussions that many noble Lords have had with the Privy Council suggested that the royal charters do not necessarily need to be eliminated. There is an argument to say that having the safety net of keeping them in place would mean that some might use it to undermine the current arrangements. This is not a reasonable concern, although it would be if we did not have such a great degree of unanimity about the importance of trying to move on and reach a new stage.

Motivation is more likely. If this is properly managed by Ministers and incentivised, there would be a quicker desire to remove the stabilisers. There may even be the opportunity for it to be a more liberating mechanism to ensure that other inventive, creative mechanisms are used. It is important that we do not throw everything out and that we do not eliminate things that we do not have to.

Finally, I would be grateful to clarify one element in this section that has not been fully covered: the position of government departments’ areas of research. Some government departments have their own research facilities, such as the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence, Defra and others. Some would say that these are fiefdoms but I would say that they are just areas that fall under the government departments. How will they relate to the new arrangements? Of course, as we look at the Nurse review, there was consideration that these should be considered under the ambit of Research Councils UK. Indeed, the section that included Innovate UK and HEFCE—not that I wish to reopen the discussion we had earlier—also said that consideration should be given to the place of other government departments’ research within Research Councils UK. I would be very interested to hear how the Government view their interrelationship with this new set up.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

482BA: Schedule 9, page 104, line 19, leave out “any” and insert “some”

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I was very tempted to rise during the Minister’s previous comments, but that would have undermined the next part of my address, looking at this group. I hope he does not mind if I touch on some of the other issues very briefly. In moving Amendment 482BA, I will speak also to the other amendments in my name and address some of the issues raised in the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson.

The first point we want to make about the functions of UKRI is that because there is a very important and complex series of relationships with the councils, the function of UKRI needs to be defined and the right assurances given. There are already considerably confused lines of accountability in how this is established. You have only to look at the different functions that are laid out for UKRI to perform and for councils to perform and where the determination rests on those. The obvious issue is who is responsible for hiring and firing an executive chair. In Schedule 9 this is the Secretary of State, for any reason that they see fit—for example, if the chair misses certain meetings—or if they feel that there is no appropriate mechanism for that to be effectively dealt with.

The main issue comes down to: what is the separation of functions? UKRI is meant to be a strategic brain. It is meant to facilitate the overall development of cross-disciplinary funds and activity. It is also meant to be responsible for the back-office functions across the organisation, although when you try to determine what those back-office functions are, many of them are core to the operations but are outsourced rather than having one organisation dealing with them. Even within the administration of an organisation, there is a series of issues which will impinge upon the other functions that the councils will have to undertake. When you identify the areas that are delegated to the councils, they lend themselves not just to an independent chair but to understanding that the lines of accountability are pretty clear, based on the definitions of the different roles, as specified by the Government.

However, I have gone a bit too far; that was not really my purpose. I wanted to raise that point but I have gone way beyond what I intended. I am keen to get some sense of how the guidance on the functions that UKRI will retain will work, particularly with regard to the back-office functions—that area where the Government believe there are such considerable savings to be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me some sense of how that would work. I appreciate that the detailed guidance is not published yet but I would like some idea of how the Government came to the conclusion that there was such a great bonanza to be gained from merging those activities, and how that could be effectively managed.

Many of our amendments are probing in nature but they also look at some drafting issues. We have considerable concerns about inconsistencies and areas where we believe that the wording requires some degree of change. It is more than just occasions when we feel that a “may” should be a “must”, which very often is more than just a drafting issue. There are amendments which tidy up inconsistencies—for example, social sciences are mentioned in one place but missed out in another—which I hope the Minister will address and will understand are beneficial. Amendment 482BA suggests that UKRI should be able to delegate “some” of its functions, rather than “any”, as the Bill currently states, to ensure some degree of consistency. Many of the others are in the same vein.

--- Later in debate ---

However, we must not tie the hands of the research councils or prevent them increasing the collaborative work they already undertake with Innovate UK. I understand the concerns of noble Lords that the research councils should be able to operate widely, and we will look carefully to see whether any further additions to the functions of UKRI could be beneficial. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I thank the noble Lord for that reply. This has been an excellent debate, with some outstanding contributions from across the Committee. In particular, given my detour into some of the issues about matrices and responsibility, I thank those noble Lords who made a better case for my amendments than I did.

I am grateful for the support, particularly around the social sciences. I am keen to observe that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about definitions is absolutely right and true. However, there is the inconsistency when referring to different places. For example, the Natural Environment Research Council means environmental and related sciences, and at that point the definition is inoperable. Therefore, the issue of consistency is important and speaks to the outstanding contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the language used, and the unnecessary anxiety that some of the drafting has caused across the Committee.

There is great merit to many of the amendments and I hope that the Minister will reflect on these. It reminds me of John Locke’s observation that,

“education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him”.

I hope the Minister realises that he is in good company here, and that he will reflect wisely on these amendments and bring something forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 482BA withdrawn.

Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to join in this debate. I was involved in the original proceedings on the Act. A number of points have already been made which I do not need to repeat. I should like to concentrate on a couple of aspects, taking through some of the thinking that has already been displayed in this debate.

As the Government’s own record on contingency planning is very poor—as shown in the European issue—we have to ask whether they have prepared for some of the implications of these regulations. I hope that the Government have consulted ACAS on whether it has sufficient resources to deal with some of the problems to which these regulations will give rise. In the coming year, with inflation rising probably ahead of earnings, the Government are going to experience quite a lot of problems in the public sector. Resolving them will be further complicated by these regulations. They are going to have quite turbulent times. My noble friend Lord Foster quoted what I said in the original debate—that trade unions will have to invest extra resources into getting appropriate support in ballots. That has a danger in respect of strikes. As the Minister will have seen in the doctors’ dispute, where 90% support was achieved in the ballot, it was extremely difficult to get it settled and prolonged negotiations were needed. We will have much more of that in the public sector.

A further issue is bargaining units. I mentioned in the original debates what I called the winding-engine men syndrome. Those were the people in the coal mining industry who used to work the lifts. They had immense bargaining power. If you have all sorts of legal restrictions on thresholds for strike ballots, all that will happen is that you will have smaller bargaining units and therefore a greater ability to manipulate strike ballots to get the results that you want. It will be more difficult to resolve those sorts of disputes. I hope that the Government have looked at the consequences of what they are doing.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, mentioned electronic ballots. It is in the Act; we passed an amendment that we would have an independent review of electronic balloting. I do not think that anybody who was involved in the debates at that time ever thought that we would implement those regulations. The understanding was that they would not be implemented until we had had the outcome of the electronic balloting review. What is the Government’s thinking on this? What is the purpose of the review and when exactly are we going to see the details of it?

I should like to re-emphasise—and it is important coming from our party—that this is a very partisan act, certainly on political funding. We deserve to hear from the Government what further action they are going to take on the Burns committee recommendations, which have silently been discarded and forgotten. As we have to agree these regulations, we should know what the Government are going to do. What are they doing on the whole issue of the unfair financing of political parties, in the context of a very one-sided act against the principal opposition party? Everybody knows that this measure is partisan and will lead to a continuing imbalance in our political system.

The Government try to portray themselves as consulting and as a so-called party of one nation but, frankly, is it not incredibly insensitive to implement these regulations? The officials, or whoever did the consultation, must have known that the union conference system runs from April until July. Everyone knows that. To implement regulations that start in March is clearly therefore going to cause upset. That seems to be totally insensitive and unnecessary, and shows the total contempt that the Government have had for the trade union movement in this country in planning this legislation and in the way they are now trying to implement it.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the contributions that have been made. They have been pretty outstanding and have got to the very nub of the issues.

I thank the Minister for coming forward. We have had some very engaging discussions on other issues, and it is unfortunate that he has to deal with this issue in this particular way. I hope he is absorbing what we are saying and will respond adequately to it, but we do not hold him personally culpable for what has come before us.

It is important to understand that the conventional wisdom is that the Act was originally in the manifesto merely as some barking mad idea to negotiate away when the coalition was formed and that it would not stand. It is unfortunate that the circumstances evolved as they did and we ended up with something that was so partisan and vengeful. The debates that we had in this House were very significant; indeed, the size of the majorities against the Government’s proposals—certainly, there were calls for some balancing measures for the democratic mandate so accorded—was very large, and expressed the deep concern across the whole House at these measures. We ended up passing legislation not because people were happy or because they understood it but because there was broad agreement in the legislation, in discussions with Ministers and in assurances to the House that, in the spirit of trying to pass this legislation, there would be balancing measures. It is unfortunate that the partisan approach has returned with these instruments. It is important to understand that that is at the very heart of the statutory instruments.

I spent some time—after the Act had been passed, regrettably—looking at the nature of the strikes and what caused them, and analysing some of the strikes that took place in private companies and the public sector. The issue that came up during that time was that in most of these cases it was not that there were a series of workers who just militantly desired to withdraw their labour; there were massive issues of competency of management. In fact, although I did not do an exhaustive piece of research and I cannot say I necessarily had an adequate sample, in 85% of the cases that I looked at you could identify management failures, especially in the public sector, where arbitrary decisions are announced and workers are displaced because there is no consultation or preparation. In those circumstances, we have to understand that measures need balance.

To take the example of disputes at Southern rail, at the heart of that dispute is a contract that does not work. I know the Minister has been in business before. On many occasions we have seen the consequences of poor contracts. A variety of the issues at the very heart of why there is a difficulty in resolving a problem where there are problems of the competency of management are about contracts. It is wrong always to look through the wrong end of the lens. We are looking to the Government to restore the sense of balance that we believe we had when this Act was passed.

I read the Prime Minister’s speech at Davos when she talked about the notion of the rights and the voice of people who had not been adequately covered by these sorts of things, and the importance of strong institutions. In that context, I just do not understand why the institutions that the Government seem continually to want to stress, attack and undermine are those that represent working people. It is just not the right sense of balance.

It is our belief that trade unions are a force for good and equality in our society, especially in the increasingly insecure world of work. We remain fundamentally opposed to an approach that establishes restrictions on industrial action without balancing provisions to ensure that participation can be increased.

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the launch of the Government’s Green Paper on industrial strategy. There is much to go through and be positive about and much to scrutinise. I hope there will be other opportunities to have meaningful debates on this matter. There are considerable questions about the Green Paper, which I hope the Minister can answer. It is clear that there is much for us to do to maintain our economic position. Whether or not it has novel ideas is no test of a good industrial policy. There is much to be gained by doing more of what was being done—just doing it better. Much of this has a familiar feel. Seven of the 10 pillars of the industrial strategy were key parts of the Government’s productivity plan, Fixing the Foundations—the words “cut and paste” crossed my mind.

However, on this side of the House we are glad that some of the approach—particularly the sector plan—does represent a new way to support the development of our economy. We are keen to observe the development of this strategy: how the Government will deal with the obvious issues around picking winners and national champions, and how this approach will evolve. We are pleased that the Government are looking to support the automotive industry. A sector deal would undoubtedly be useful here. The Government have been very coy about the view that they did much to encourage the most recent announcement of investment by Nissan—the so-called secret deal. However, I am sure the Minister can confirm that there was, in fact, no deal and that the investment announced was planned for a timescale that would not be adversely affected by our relationship with Europe. Will the Minister confirm that the message from Nissan reminded the Government that, in common with other Japanese companies, it would review its position in keeping with the Japanese Government’s 15-page letter? Given the current plan for exit from Europe, and its inconsistency with their desired approach, a sector deal is the only way to ensure a viable car industry in the medium to long term.

I am also pleased to see that the pharma industry and the life science industry get a special mention. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will defend the UK base against US industry’s ambitions in any potential trade deal with the United States?

The Green Paper was accompanied by the re-announcement of existing commitments of resources. The funds for science and research are very important and, as I understand it, recover our position since the cuts started to set in in 2010. None the less, the focus on supporting science, technology and innovation is to be strongly supported. Additionally, the support for technical education is welcome, and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in promoting this crucial requirement for our economy should be acknowledged.

As with many areas of this plan, there is a case for scepticism about any further education proposals that do not address the severe capacity issues in the sector. Can the Minister provide a clearer idea of how the development of this strategy will be able to call on new resources, what the expected timetable is for outlining further elements of the industrial strategy, and how it will dovetail with the budget process?

The Green Paper suffers from two of the perennial problems we always face with government business policy announcements. There is a terrible lack of objectives, and there is no clear road map or sense of desired outcomes. Instead, a series of good and reasonable measures, worthy as they are, do not make a plan that is likely to have real impact or be effective and efficient. Can the Minister tell us whether any concrete objectives or goals that can reasonably be measured will be set in this process?

Secondly—the Statement just did this again—the Green Paper glosses over a huge imbalance in the economy. Our huge reliance on the service sector is not meaningfully addressed in this industrial strategy; nor is the acute problem of the size of our manufacturing industry and its disproportionate decline. While any industrial strategy must look to the long term, our immediate future relies on how well our services can perform. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how the service sector is expected to be part of, or to be assisted by, the industrial strategy. This is especially important in areas where, in support of the industrial strategy, we are looking at reinforcing our research and innovation, such as in robotics and artificial intelligence, and many others that are likely to have a major impact on employment requirements in the services sector.

There are, of course, some areas in which we had been expecting something new and different in the industrial strategy. We had hoped for greater ambition on broadband and mobile capacity, signalling a change to the currently pedestrian goals in the Digital Economy Bill. We had also expected slightly more about how we see effective markets and competition, and the culture of business. Crucially, are there any plans to create tougher oversight of foreign investment in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree with the sentiment that,

“A proper industrial strategy wouldn’t automatically stop the sale of British firms to foreign ones, but it should be capable of stepping in to defend a sector that is as important as pharmaceuticals is to Britain”?


I am sure he does: those were, of course, the words of the Prime Minister previously. Can the Minister account for their omission from the Green Paper?

There is much to welcome in starting a conversation about an industrial strategy, and there are some positive ideas here. But this is not yet a plan, and on this side of the House we hope that, over time, one will emerge. This is a first step. Martin Luther King said:

“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase”.


The Government would do well to remember the old adage that setting goals is the first step in turning the invisible into the visible. An effective industrial strategy will need that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s decision to adopt a new active role for Government in industry is welcomed on these Benches. The Green Paper’s 10 pillars have most of the right words, and they identify many of the areas of concern that have been voiced in many debates over the past few years. I trust that we will have an opportunity to debate some of those aspects in more detail. I shall focus on just two of those elements—skills and cultivating world-leading sectors. I remind your Lordships of my published interests.

First, the Green Paper is right to identify skills as a central issue to future prosperity and productivity for the country, and a cash boost for technical and STEM education is, of course, welcome. However, it should be put into the context of a 7.5% reduction in schools’ per-pupil funding by 2020 and the cash-freezing of the adult skills budget until 2020—a £30 million real-terms cut next year. Thus, £170 million for new institutes of technology is all very fine but irrelevant given some of the wider cuts affecting all our young people. Therefore, can the Minister please tell us whether the Government plan to reverse their cuts to the education budgets for four to 19 year-olds? Also on skills, the Government continue to ignore the benefit and value that we gain from workers and scientists from the European Union working in this country. They continue to treat these people and their families as a bargaining chip. Could the Minister at least acknowledge the personal anguish being caused to these people, many of whom are already contributing greatly to the success of the industrial sectors that he seeks to bolster?

Secondly, the Green Paper’s support for the coalition’s sector strategy is very welcome. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, in that a bit of cut and paste is actually a good thing as these strategies have to span more than one Parliament to be successful and take root. Therefore, they depend on a long-term approach. It is good news that the Government are continuing to run those strategies through. However, the idea that any Government can have a reasonable strategy for British industry while recklessly withdrawing from the single market is not credible.

Last week, the Prime Minister confirmed her intention to exit the single market, yet, extraordinarily, the Green Paper fails to refer to either the single market or the customs union, although a few euphemisms such as “turbulent times” creep in. The Government’s idea seems to be to negotiate individual sectoral agreements for “frictionless trade”—their term. Not every sector can benefit from this, or we would still be in the single market, and not every sector can expect the negotiations to succeed. Therefore, as these negotiations start, the Government will have to decide which sectors will be top of their list for trade deals. Conversely, some will be at the bottom. The Prime Minister has said that the industrial strategy is not about picking winners, but the Brexit negotiations will inevitably pick losers. Can the Minister please tell the House which sectors will win and which will lose?

Green Investment Bank

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

In addition to the special share, which will protect GIB’s green mission, the Government have asked potential investors to confirm their commitment to the GIB’s green values and its investment principles, and explain how they propose to protect them. Green investment is, of course, what the GIB does—it is in its DNA. Investors will buy into its reputation, its green business plan and forward pipeline of projects, all of which are focused on the UK, although there could be international potential as well.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the appointment of the trustees to ensure the Green Investment Bank will retain its green mission under new ownership, and we warmly applaud the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The crucial ability of the trustees to exercise this vital role now depends on the contracts and corporate arrangements between the buyer and seller. Will the Minister confirm that the trustees will have access to the transaction, contract and documents, and some funds for expert legal advice, to ensure that they can do the job this House voted for?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The trustees will have all they need to do their job, but the noble Lord will of course recall from our lengthy and useful discussions during the passage of the Bill that their role relates to the articles of association, ensuring that the green purposes of the bank are maintained. That is where they come in: they are not envisaged as a management board for the GIB, whether in its current state or whatever. They have an important role to play.