Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to respond to
the Independent Review of the UK’s Research, Development and
Innovation Organisational Landscape, published in March 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
The Government’s response to the landscape review is in its final
stages of preparation and will be published imminently. The
response will outline the ambitious actions that we have taken
since the review’s publication, including through the Science and
Technology Framework and the creation of DSIT. It will also
announce further commitments to create a research, development
and innovation landscape that makes the most of our strategic
advantages and builds a more diverse, resilient and investable
landscape.
(CB)
My Lords—
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but he will know that the
review identified significant problems in the UK’s RDI landscape,
some of which are long-term and serious, and are preventing us
from becoming a science superpower. So can he assure us that the
Government will take on board the integrated set of
recommendations proposed in the review and establish an
authoritative working group to implement them, rather than
adopting a piecemeal approach to what it is a very serious
challenge?
(Con)
Indeed it is a serious challenge. The review identified, I think,
29 separate recommendations. The approach that the Government are
taking is to address them not merely singly but, as the noble
Baroness suggests, collectively, as a whole, as well. In fact,
since its creation, two of our major steps build on the
foundations laid by the Nurse review: that is, the creation of
DSIT itself and the laying down of the Science and Technology
Framework, which builds on the review, to set up the approach
along many of the lines that the review suggested.
(CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of
Whitchurch, for intervening too soon. The Nurse review points out
that government investment in R&D in the UK, at 0.12% of GDP,
is five times lower than the OECD average. The UK ranks 27th out
of 36 OECD countries. Where does the Minister think we should
rank if we are to unlock the UK’s full potential in science?
(Con)
I am not entirely sure where those figures come from. The R&D
intensity of the UK—that is to say, the amount spent on R&D
as a percentage of GDP—is between 2.8% and 2.9%. That places us
fourth in the G7 behind Japan, Germany and the US, and behind
Israel and Korea, so it certainly can be higher. That is why we
have committed to spending £20 billion per year by the 2024-25
spending review.
(LD)
My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord, , spoke of are in the review; I
read it this morning. Will the Minister reassure us that the
response will represent the views of the whole of Whitehall, not
just the Treasury but the Department for Education and the Home
Office, for the advance spending? The review says we need a
workforce of several hundred thousand more by 2030, half from the
UK and half from abroad. That will require a change in science
education in schools and higher pay for research at British
universities, while from abroad it would require the Home Office
to reverse the huge increase in visa and health charges that it
intends to impose up front on researchers attracted to work in
this country.
(Con)
Indeed. The noble Lord is right: we have identified that from the
base now of roughly 1 million people in this country working in
R&D, taking into account retirements, by 2027 we probably
need another 380,000 R&D workers. Inevitably, a great many of
those are going to need to come via the immigration route. A wide
variety of visa programmes can meet that need. The Government
take the view that the going-in position is that those benefiting
from visas, rather than the taxpayer, should bear the immediate
costs of visas and healthcare. However, that is always kept under
review and, should evidence emerge that we are not getting either
the quantity or the quality of integration applications, then we
will take appropriate action.
(CB)
My Lords, there are two streams of funding that universities rely
on: quality-related funding and charity research support funding.
Both those funding streams are necessary for universities to
develop infrastructure but both of them have been eroded over
time. As charities have increased their funding for research, the
amount of money available to support the universities has
declined. Will the Minister commit to addressing those two issues
and at least bringing funding up to inflationary levels?
(Con)
Yes, indeed. I am happy to look at that. I note that the
Government currently contribute about 20% of R&D funding
through UKR I and other sources, with non-profits accounting for
around 3% of funding. As I say, the Government are committed to
increasing by about one-third their R&D funding by the
2024-25 spending review, which should go some way towards
addressing that gap. Meanwhile, I take on board the noble Lord’s
comments.
(Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, in addition to
government spend, R&D tax credits have risen to £7.3 billion
from £6.6 billion last year, which is very welcome, but perhaps
the figure could be higher if there were a campaign to explain to
SMEs the availability of R&D tax credits?
(Con)
Yes, indeed. As I say, businesses fund about 60% of R&D in
this country and conduct just over 70% of it. I certainly would
keenly look into any ability to campaign to encourage more people
to take advantage of the generous tax credits scheme.
(Lab)
My Lords, when the review is published, will the Minister
undertake to persuade the Leader of the House to arrange a debate
in government time on it and all the issues related to it? Or, at
the very least, can the Government arrange for a Statement to be
made from the Dispatch Box so that Members in this Chamber can
ask questions as a result of its publication?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the suggestion. I will happily take
that up with the Leader of the House and all the usual
channels.
(CB)
My Lords, one very well-established principle for effective
research is institutional autonomy and freedom of action. The
Nurse review identified numerous places and occasions where, at
present, government-funded research does not allow for such
freedom of action. Can the Minister assure us that the response
to the review will pay due attention to these principles, which
the Government acknowledged in the very welcome establishment of
ARIA?
(Con)
Yes, indeed: these are very important principles to allow
research institutions, whether publicly or privately funded,
autonomy in the research they undertake. As well as the Nurse
review, the Tickell review into bureaucracy in the R&D
landscape addresses these things and we will also shortly be
publishing our response to the latter review.
(Lab)
My Lords, is there evidence that the successive cuts in business
taxes have led to increases in investment and research in the
UK?
(Con)
If there any such evidence, I am afraid I am not familiar with
it.
(GP)
My Lords, when talking about research, the Government often seem
to be most excited by and focus on the kind of research that
generates new profits and services. But very often research is
into social innovation: for example, the subject of antimicrobial
resistance. Looking for new drugs is something that we need to
do, but social innovation and changes in medical practice can
reduce the need to produce new drugs and protect the drugs we
have now. Will the Minister perhaps look into seeing how we can
focus more on that social innovation as well as the profit-making
kinds of research?
(Con)
The science and technology framework sets out five priority areas
for research and innovation and those areas are then pursued
across a mix of public sector, private sector and other bodies,
each with their own goals for the research they are conducting.
Within that, there is certainly room for all manner of research
as the noble Baroness suggests.
