Nurse review, Green paper on HE, and Stern review of REF - opportunities and threats

Transcription

1 RKEC/16/02 Agenda Item 4 18 February 2016 Disclosable Nurse review, Green paper on HE, and Stern review of REF - opportunities and threats This paper invites RKEC to consider the potential opportunities and threats associated with the UK Government s plans to implement the recommendations of the Nurse review, the green paper on HE, and Lord Stern s review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), and to advise the executive as appropriate regarding its engagement with UK BIS and other stakeholders as these proposals develop. Recommendations RKEC is invited to consider the potential opportunities and threats for the Scottish research base associated with the UK Government s plans to implement the recommendations of the Nurse review, the green paper on HE, and Lord Stern s review of the REF, and to advise the executive as appropriate regarding its engagement with UK BIS and other stakeholders as these proposals develop. Financial implications There are no financial implications directly associated with this paper.

2 Remove blank page for web version

3 Nurse review, Green paper on HE, and Stern review of REF - opportunities and threats Purpose 1. This paper invites RKEC to consider the potential opportunities and threats associated with the UK Government s plans to implement the recommendations of the Nurse review, the green paper on HE, and Lord Stern s review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), and to advise the executive as appropriate regarding its engagement with UK BIS and other stakeholders as these proposals develop. Background 2. At its meeting on 26 November 2015 ( Nurse Review, UK Green Paper on HE and REF paper 15/21), RKEC considered the publication of Sir Paul Nurse s review of the UK Research Councils, the publication of the UK Government s Green Paper on Higher Education and the development of the next Research Excellence Framework (REF). 3. The views of RKEC informed SFC s Board at its meeting on 18 December 2015 (SFC/15/72) where it received a summary of the UK Government s Green Paper on Higher Education and was asked to consider how SFC should respond to the consultation. 4. SFC s response (submitted 15 January 2016) to the consultation is attached (see Annex A). 5. In making its response SFC made it clear that it was responding in the context of the wider and subsequent UK announcements made in November these being Sir Paul Nurse s review of the UK research council structure 1 and the UK Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). It was also made clear that SFC should be fully consulted on regarding any new policy developments. 6. SFC s Board recommended that RKEC should consider an opportunities and threats paper on the recommendations of the Nurse review and the proposals set out in the green paper and to advise the executive appropriately. Opportunities and threats Research UK 7. The Nurse Review recommended that a new body Research UK be established. In the CSR the UK Government said it would, subject to Parliamentary process, 1 1

4 introduce the new body. In brief: Research UK would take over the accountability and governance role on behalf of all seven research councils, manage the quality-related (QR) funding function that HEFCE currently allocates in England (the equivalent to SFC s Research Excellence Grant). The UK s long standing dual-support mechanism would be maintained by ensuring separation between the functions of the (UK wide) research councils and of (England-only) QR 2. A single accountable officer is proposed but the distinctiveness of each research council would be maintained. 8. The green paper asked: Question 24: In light of the proposed changes to the institutional framework for higher education, and the forthcoming Nurse Review, what are your views on the future design of the institutional research landscape? Question 25: a) What safeguards would you want to see in place in the event that dual funding was operated within a single organisation? b) Would you favour a degree of hypothecation to ensure that dual funding streams, along with their distinctive characteristics, could not be changed by that organisation? 9. The CEOs of the Research Councils, as the RCUK Strategic Executive, are continuing to engage with colleagues within UK BIS on the process by which we they might move to Research UK. The CEs are also continuing to put a significant amount of thought into what Research UK might look like and, in order to maintain the excellence of UK research and on top of the already agreed principles, what other things might be needed to preserve, protect or strengthen this. This is clearly an opportunity for strengthening UK research and RCUK is working with BIS to protect against any potential risks. 10. Dr Alex Saxon (RCUK and observer on RKEC) has very kindly provided RKEC with a presentation (see Annex B) that Professor Phillip Nelson, as Chair of RCUK, recently gave to the Foundation for Science and Technology (FST). This sets out what RCUK perceives to be some of the risks and opportunities from implementing the recommendations within the Nurse Review as well as setting out the principles that RCUK will be working to protect in order to maintain the excellence of UK Research. 11. In relation to Innovate UK The Nurse review said: the current delivery landscape is too complex, and there should be a 2 that the dual support system should be preserved, with approximately similar budget proportions with the Research Councils as now; and secondly, that HEFCE s current capabilities in relation to maintaining institutional stability, and linkage to skills capacity should, be preserved as components in the new system. Nurse review 2

5 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 3 However, Innovate UK has a different customer base as well as differences in delivery mechanisms, which Government needs to bear in mind 12. In the CSR the UK Government said that it would also look to integrate Innovate UK into Research UK in order to strengthen collaboration between the research base and the commercialisation of discoveries in the business community. Innovate UK will retain its clear business focus and separate funding stream. 13. The UK Government recently launched a public consultation on Innovate UK s Integration with Research UK the survey 4, runs to 19 February and asks three questions. What do you see as the main benefits of the integration of Innovate UK with Research UK and how will integration provide opportunities not currently available, or taken, to increase innovation? What are the main risks for both business and research of the integration of Innovate UK into Research UK? Are there any specific issues Government should consider when looking at the practical arrangements of integrating Innovate UK into Research UK? 14. RKEC is invited to consider the opportunities and threats related to the proposed creation of Research UK the following points are intended as a guide to support discussion: The bringing together of all seven research councils into one body but preserving their individual identities has the potential to simplify administration and enhance cross-council collaboration and strategy. However, the creation of the new body is not without risk. Both RKEC and SFC s Board have stressed the need to avoid any potential blurring of the distinction between England s QR and research council funding. UK Government has said publically that both the Haldane principle and UK dual support system will be protected under any new arrangements. However, it is not clear at this stage how this will be achieved; 3 It should be noted that the Dowling review also recommended better synergy between the research councils and Innovate UK - closer communication and collaboration between the Research Councils and Innovate UK could further strengthen the offering for collaborative R&D and innovation support

6 The integration of Innovate UK into Research UK has the potential to strengthen collaboration with the UK research base and UK business. RKEC has an opportunity to respond, through SFC, to the current consultation on the strategic and practical issues associated with this; The Nurse review recommended that Research UK should be constituted as a non-departmental public body, at arms length from UK Government, but forming a single body with which BIS interacts. It should have wider responsibilities than RCUK, towards both the Research Councils and Government. RKEC may wish to consider the potential governance issues associated with the new body in particular how devolved administrations will be represented and/or engaged 5. Research Excellence Framework 15. The green paper asked questions on the benefits, burden and potential improvements to the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). We have been advised by BIS colleagues that the consultation responses will form part of the evidence base for Lord Stern s review of the REF due to report in summer It should be noted that Lord Stern will be supported by a high-level steering group on which Professor Muscatelli, Principal of University of Glasgow and SFC Board member, will sit. An advisory group will also be set up to help inform and support the review. In response to an invitation from the UK Minister of State for Universities and Science the Scottish Government s Cabinet Secretary for Education recommended that SFC be represented on this group alongside her nominated official. 17. Lord Stern has issued a call for evidence 7 (closing on 24 March 2016) to explore some of the issues that have arisen in early discussions and investigate ways in which a simpler, lighter-touch, system for the REF might be developed. 18. In its response to the green paper SFC stated that we value the REF as a measure of UK research quality and a driver for positive change and that we recognise that the REF could benefit from examination to ensure it can deliver on this purpose with minimal burden and maximum value for money. 19. RKEC is invited to consider the opportunities and threats related to the review 5 The Nurse review recommended that the Research UK Board would be appointed by [UK Government] Ministers, and would report to the responsible Director General in BIS, who would, in keeping with Government practice, attend the Board in an ex officio capacity. 6 Further details on the review can be accessed from

7 of the REF. It is suggested that the discussion is framed around Lord Stern s call for evidence. The views of RKEC would inform SFC s response. Risk assessment 20. The issues discussed in this paper are directly relevant to the Scottish research base. It will be important for SFC (through RKEC) to work closely with Scottish Government in engagements with UK Government departments to ensure Scotland s interests are taken full account of. Equality and diversity assessment 21. The areas discussed in this document are at too early a stage to be meaningfully assessed for differential impacts on particular groups. Financial implications 22. There are no direct financial implications associated with this paper. Recommendations 23. RKEC is invited to consider the potential opportunities and threats for the Scottish research base associated with the UK Government s plans to implement the recommendations of the Nurse review, and Lord Stern s review of the REF, and to advise the executive as appropriate regarding its engagement with UK BIS and other stakeholders as these proposals develop. Publication 24. This paper will be published on the SFC website. Further information 25. Contact: Keith McDonald, tel: , kmcdonald@sfc.ac.uk. 5