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

Lord Willetts Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I begin by declaring my interests, particularly as the chancellor of the University of Leicester, a visiting professor at King’s College, London, and a member of the board of UKRI. It really is an excellent report and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the other members of the committee on it. Of course, this report appears already to have had an influence. When it was written, there was unhappiness that QR funding had not been increased; it has now been increased by almost £100 million. We have also had an excellent R&D road map, produced by my successor as Science Minister, Minister Solloway, which has been widely recognised as an important document identifying all the key issues facing our research system.

I would like to put three points to the Minister. First, there is an assumption in the widely used language of “top”, “leading” or “best” universities—the ones which tend to get the articles in the prestigious journals and score most highly on the REF—that they are the be-all and end-all of excellent research. We can be very proud of those universities, but if we are to get to 2.4% of GDP going on R&D and apply it, as several Members of the Committee have already said, we need a range of types of research and a range of types of institution. That includes the training of technicians—people who are expert in maintaining and innovating in the equipment that researchers use. It would therefore be a mistake to think that we can get anywhere near 2.4% if our research activities are concentrated in a small number of elite universities. The system as a whole needs to be healthy and well funded, with universities coming in many different shapes and sizes.

Secondly, I welcome the statements from the Government and No.10 about the importance of continuing to attract international talent. I fear that we have reached the point where the costs of our visas and, even more, the immigrant health surcharge will be a major barrier. Perhaps I can give just one example. A postdoc researcher with three dependants coming to work in the UK for three years would, given the proposed increase in the immigration health surcharge per person and their visa costs, over those three years face a total bill of approximately £9,900. A typical postdoc researcher might be earning £34,000, so 10% of his or her gross income would go on paying for visas and the NHS surcharge. This is therefore a barrier to the very job mobility and attraction of workers from overseas which the Government rightly call for.

Thirdly and finally, where do we go on our ODA spending? There is a lively debate about this but, even without any change to the 0.7% target, if GDP falls that 0.7% will be a percentage of a smaller sum. There must inevitably be a debate on priorities. One of my frustrations in my time was that the DfID culture was very much to focus on the poorest people in the poorest countries. That is admirable, but it cannot be the full story of ODA expenditure. I was very aware of the resentment among low to middle-income countries, such as South Africa and India, which no longer passed the DfID test as being the poorest countries and therefore faced the loss of any ODA funding. Along with the then Foreign Secretary, I was able to go to those countries and say, “You may no longer be getting DfID money, but we are now offering you a partnership in research and development”. I hope that offer will be retained and very much hope that the Minister will be able to acknowledge these points in his wind-up.