Margaret Hodge
Research Assessment Exercise
The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge) : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you got my ministerial responsibilities the right way round. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship since you received your recent honour, so I start by offering you many congratulations.
I also congratulate the Committee on its splendid report. I assure the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and the Committee that, as always, we take its recommendations seriously and we will have regard to the contributions made in this debate and the recommendations as we take the matter forward.
The standard of debate has been high, and as Harry Kroto has been mentioned several times, we should congratulate him; he becomes president of the Royal Society of Chemistry three weeks today. I must admit, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I had horrible science teachers. Had we had better ones, we might have got a little further.
In the few minutes I have left, I shall focus as much as possible on funding, because most hon. Members raised that issue. Is there enough? No, but it is better than it was. I hope that the Committee agrees that we have made a start in putting in place an appropriate infrastructure. Even in the financial year that has just started—2002–03—there has been almost a 6 per cent. increase in the amount of money going into research. We managed to find another £30 million to deal with the successful outcome of the RAE. Investment from the joint infrastructure fund and the science research investment fund has been considerable and every university that I go to recognises the impact that that has had on building the infrastructure. An 18 per cent. real-terms increase is going into higher education, so let us acknowledge that.
Equally, I acknowledge that there is still underfunding. Indeed, the Government have been pretty open about that. The transparency review considered the way in which research is funded, and shows that a 36 per cent. real cost subsidy is going into research. We know that there is a large capital backlog, that not enough money is going into renewal and that although quality-related research funding has increased over the past 17 years, it has not increased at the same rate as the research council investment. An imbalance is growing in that respect.
We do not spend enough relative to other competitor countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and relative to our main competitor economies, such as America. Business does not invest enough in research and development either. Only 3 per cent. of businesses do that, so there is a long way to go, as we recognise.
Equally, with an assessment exercise based on quality, there will always be winners and losers. We must accept that fact in the dynamic world of research into which we want to move. I may be muddled and confused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) said, but QR funding for nursing has increased by 83 per cent. in cash terms. Some may have lost, but others have gained. That is true in medical research—which the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned—and in other areas.
Departments will lose and gain. That is part of the dynamism of an assessment exercise based on quality. It is a way of keeping improvement going in the system.
I also acknowledge the issues relating to engineering and science. That is why we have had the Roberts review. Again, we take seriously that issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). A number of hon. Members talked about the unintended consequences and distortions of the RAE, which is one reason why we want to go ahead with the review. Positive ideas have arisen from the report and the contributions that we have heard today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) always suggests positive ideas and we will examine them as we progress with the review. Has the system been manipulated? Such questions in a sense become academic. We should focus on real improvements in the quality of research, on which we want to build.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) spoke about discrimination against women. She is right that it applies not only to research, but throughout the higher education system. Only six or seven vice-chancellors are women. We are constantly trying to improve that.
I want to move on to blue-skies research. The purpose of RAE and QR funding is to give universities the freedom to engage in such research. The research council's money will focus on particular projects. The irony is that we are sometimes criticised for too much emphasis on blue-skies research and not enough on applied research. Today's debate touched on that viewpoint. Perhaps we have the right balance between QR and the research councils. Even blue-skies research requires assessment. There will always be a finite quantum and we will always have to choose where to invest the money.
Several hon. Members spoke about the regional nature of research. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) made a powerful case, which my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are considering. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made a similar point. We have made a start with HEROBIC and HEIF funding and we anticipate progress in future.
Several hon. Members—including my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for Blackpool, South, for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Hemel Hempstead, and the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), for Cheadle and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—spoke about the balance between teaching and research. It is an important issue, on which I want to encourage debate. Under the current system of funding, everyone goes after RAE or research money and numbers. We should be seeking new ways of encouraging universities to focus on what they do best, whether that is knowledge transfer, teaching, research or widening participation.
The system requires incentives to encourage those aims, but that does not mean a black and white solution of one or another. This afternoon's debate was, to be honest, muddled. Not all researchers are good teachers and teaching needs to be valued in itself, and properly funded. Priorities will always exist. RAE was never a mechanism to determine the quantum of funding. That is done through the spending reviews with which we are now engaged. RAE is a mechanism to determine quality.
Finally, we should all congratulate the higher education sector this afternoon. RAE has been a success; despite some suspicion at the margin, it has brought about a massive improvement in research, which is splendid. It puts UK higher education at the top of the league internationally, however one measures it.
RAE is a good thing. It may need review and reform, but it provides flexibility and plurality and allows us to fund the unfashionable and the unconventional. We should build on that. The issues raised this afternoon—about frequency, bunching at the top, measuring research output, interdisciplinary research, bureaucracy, costs, research for external clients and so forth—are all legitimate matters for further consideration.
It all depends on the Chancellor and I shall end by quoting from his Mansion House speech last night. Speaking optimistically, he said that he wanted to improve science education and the science and technology skills base in Britain. He announced his commitment that the
"Spending Review will take forward our manifesto commitment to set up a National Centre for Excellence in teaching . . . Complete the re-equipment of science laboratories . . . Improve funding of science, technology and engineering postgraduate research . . . And ensure that universities can finance not just teaching and academic research but a third specialism—commercialisation of university inventions— with funding for the Higher Education Innovation Fund and for Science Enterprise Centres: our aim to ensure that British inventions mean more British businesses and more British jobs."
I hope that hon. Members will view the report in a similarly optimistic mood.
To read the full debate, please click here.
