A report that considers the broad issue of why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy. It also considers three more specific issues: the debate on strategic priorities; the principles that inform science funding decisions; and, the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government.
States that in September 2007, the government announced that it was withdrawing state funding paid to higher education institutions to subsidize the fees of Equivalent or Lower Level Qualifications (ELQ) students, that is those studying for a qualification at the same or lower level than they already hold.
This report, from the Innovation, Universities & Skills Committee, examines the establishment of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, to be located in central London, next to the British Library. This new body was created by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and University College London (UCL) and is to act as a centre for medical research bringing together the various science teams from these institutions. The establishment of UKCMRI though is both an exciting and risky venture, involving an estimated cost of £500 million, including nearly £300m of public funds through the Medical Research Council. The Committee has raised concerns about the financing of the project. At present, the Medical Research Council is to give £260m; Cancer Research UK, £150m; the Wellcome Trust, £100m and UCL, £46m. These figures are all estimates, and the Committee believes that the MRC need to establish an accurate breakdown of the costs involved in the project. Further, the Treasury's appropriation of £92m of the MRC's savings, has necessitated the MRC to apply for funding from The Large Facilities Capital Fund, and casts doubt over the MRC's ability to finance the project. Secondly, the Committee is concerned about the timetable and project management of the scheme, given the requirement of the MRC to apply for additional funding. Timetable challenges could be further acerbated by the construction and project management skills in demand for the 2012 Olympics. Also no planning permission had been gained from the local authority, Camden Borough Council, to use the site for a medical research centre. Finally the Committee is concerned about the science vision for the centre and that there is clear mission for the new institute, along with proper communication with staff over the direction of research programmes and facilities. The Committee expects to receive quarterly updates on the project's development.
Working practices between the UK and Welsh Assembly governments in relation to cross-border policies appear much improved since the Committee's earlier reports on this subject. But a number of outstanding issues remain in transport, health and further and higher education. On transport the Committee welcomes the planned electrification of the Great Western Main Line. However, the Department for Transport appears to have washed its hands of any strategic responsibility for cross-border roads. The A483 is the clearest example of a road vital for travel within Wales but which is not important to the English region in which it is located, and as a result loses out on funding. The Committee stresses the need for comparative data on which to build solid research comparing NHS performance in the devolved nations. More needs to be done to raise public awareness of the differences in services people can expect to receive on both sides of the border. Transparency of information is vital. Research proposals in the UK Government's Higher Ambitions strategy for higher education make no reference to nations other than England, despite the UK-wide research remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Committee calls for details about how research funding proposals apply to all four nations.
In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their current research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments will apply. Decisions about funding priorities are complex and require careful judgement about the deployment of funds between competing priorities. The Committee concludes that, in the current policy framework, there is a lack of oversight of the total spend on research which is needed to enable the Government to make coherent, well-founded decisions about the use of public funds to support research. The Committee recommends that: the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) should publish figures annually, broken down by subject area, on all public spending to support research, and make appropriate recommendations to the Prime Minister; he should also attend Treasury meetings at which departmental budgets are considered; departmental CSAs should provide Ministers with timely information in advance of budget negotiations, to ensure that research funding decisions are informed by the best available advice. The Committee was also alerted to problems concerning the funding of cross-departmental research involving multiple funding agencies, including research to meet the grand challenges that society faces. To meet such challenges, the Committee recommends the establishment of specific mechanisms: to identify major cross-cutting policy challenges; and to identify, fund and co-ordinate appropriate responses to such challenges.
The pressure to be seen to be making cuts across the public sector is threatening to undermine both the Government's good record on investment in science and the economic recovery. Whilst the contribution of a strong domestic science base is widely acknowledged, methodological problems with quantifying its precise value to the economy mean that it is in danger of losing out in Whitehall negotiations. Scientists are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their work and there is concern that areas without immediate technology applications are being undervalued. The Committee believes the Government faced a strategic choice: invest in areas with the greatest potential to influence and improve other areas of spending, or make cuts of little significance now, but that will have a devastating effect upon British science and the economy in the years to come.
In its report examining the impact of Lord Leitch's 2006 review of skills ("Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills", 2006, ISBN 9780118404860), the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee says the Government must place re-skilling at the heart of its skills policy in order to meet the challenges of recession and redundancies. Re-skilling rather than up-skilling should be the priority as redundancies force people to move to other sectors. Government focus should be on tackling skills shortages and approaching skills as part of wider national economic development planning. The Committee recommends that more flexibility is built into training support to ensure skills development meets current and future demand. The abolition of the Learning and Skills Council and the creation of a new Skills Funding Agency for post-19 training could add to existing confusion about training and skills provision. The system must be simplified and the Government should quickly provide clarity on the roles of the different organisations and ensure the system can be understood by its users. It is essential that the Government's Train to Gain programme is made flexible enough to deal with rapid adjustments for unemployed people who need quick re-training. Aspects of Train to Gain are currently failing to satisfy different demands and unless the programme is radically re-focused one of Leitch's central reform planks will be lost. The sustainability of co-funded higher education courses is a concern and the Committee warns that the current economic downturn may affect the willingness of employers to meet the required level of investment.
A report that considers the broad issue of why science and engineering are important and why they should be at the heart of Government policy. It also considers three more specific issues: the debate on strategic priorities; the principles that inform science funding decisions; and, the scrutiny of science and engineering across Government.
In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments apply.
Government Response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's Eighth Report of Session 2008-09, Ninth Special Report of Session 2008-09
Government Response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's Eighth Report of Session 2008-09, Ninth Special Report of Session 2008-09
Possessing the high containment laboratories necessary to tackle existing and emergent infectious diseases of both humans and animals is of the utmost importance to the UK. A leak of Foot and Mouth disease from such a laboratory at Pirbright in 2007 is the most recent demonstration of how devastating infectious disease can be. It is critical that such an incident does not happen again. This Report outlines a number of shortcomings in the way capacity for high containment research is provided and highlights where the Government should take action. Primarily, the Committee concludes that there is a striking lack of co-ordination between organisations who sponsor and run high containment laboratories. No one organisation or Minister has the remit to maintain a strategic overview of capacity and to co-ordinate these laboratories. There is significant potential for collaboration at a more formal level to assess what facilities are available and make best use of them, identifying any gaps. There is also room for more co-ordination and standardisation of the vetting and training of staff working in this area. The report identifies shortcomings in the funding of high containment facilities, particularly for the significant cost of ongoing maintenance. A number of high containment laboratories have been neglected and the funding situation is uncertain. The Government must ensure that dependable funding is provided to maintain such facilities safely. The new regulatory framework to be introduced in the wake of the Pirbright outbreak is a positive step and should provide a framework in which those operating high containment facilities, given sufficient resources, should be able to continue their work to protect the UK from the threat of infectious disease.
The Science and Technology Committee today agrees with, and commends, the scientific vision for the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, but expresses reservations about the project's location. It says the case for the centre's central London location near St Pancras station was not overwhelming and it could have been sited elsewhere. The advantages of co-location with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links, which the Committee accepts play a fundamental role in the centre's vision, come at a price: extra construction costs; a site incapable of expansion; and the concentration of medical sciences in the 'golden triangle' in the south of England. On the issue of funding, the Committee's concerns about the project's costs were assuaged by evidence from the Government that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management structure, the committee was told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. The Committee is sympathetic to the local community's concerns about the project, and recognises attempts made by the centre's management to engage with the local community, but says it is saddened that efforts have not been as successful as they might have been. One way some benefit could accrue back to the local community is to ensure that the land released from the National Temperance Hospital site (the original site intended for the UKCMRI) is used for housing, including social housing.
Government Response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, Sixth Special Report of Session 2008-09
Government Response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, Sixth Special Report of Session 2008-09
Government response to HC 530 (ISBN 9780215540003). The Committee changed its name on 1 October 2009 from the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee
Engineering is a critical component of the national economy and of society in general. The Committee is convinced that the strength of the UK's engineering base means that the UK can play a major part in solving global problems such as climate change, food and water supply, energy security and economic instability. Engineering involves skills, higher education and innovation, and encompasses research and development, design, production, distribution and services. The Committee takes a case study approach in this report, exploring key themes through the lenses of nuclear engineering, plastic electronics engineering, geo-engineering and engineering in Government. It notes concerns about the UK's capacity to deliver a new generation of nuclear power stations, and there are significant skills shortages. The plastic electronics case study highlighted the potential opportunity afforded to the UK through the support of emerging, innovative industries, but we are likely to miss out on the economic return associated with translating the findings of research into commercialised technologies. The global nature of many engineering challenges was highlighted during the discussion of geo-engineering research, and it is essential that the views of the science, engineering and social science communities be seen as complementary sources of expertise in policy-making. Engineering in government demonstrated that engineering advice and scientific advice offer different things, and that this should be recognised in the policy process. Government does not have sufficient in-house engineering expertise and engineering advice is frequently not sought early enough during policy formulation (for example on eco-towns, renewable energy and large IT projects). There should be a greater level of engineering expertise in the generalist civil service as well as more engineering policy specialists.
In its report examining the work and performance of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), set up 18 months ago, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee finds that the department has not yet found its feet and it is too early to say if it will achieve the Prime Minister's ambitious targets. The DIUS annual report is 'impenetrable' and 'peppered with jargon', and the Committee fears that the jargon may be a substitute for having a clear idea about where DIUS is going and how it will achieve the Prime Minister's goals to make Britain one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation. Examples of innovation in DIUS's own operations were disappointing, and the Committee also has doubts about the way DIUS presents figures and calls for the statistics in future annual reports to be reviewed independently. The Committee also expresses concern about the approach of the Government's new Chief Scientific Adviser to his role as a champion of evidence-based science, and draws attention to Professor Beddington's evidence on homeopathy in which he did not take the opportunity to restate the importance of scientific process and to emphasise the need for balance of scientific evidence. The customary, strong public voice from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser advocating policy based on evidence-based science must not become muted. The Committee also recommends that DIUS: develops a consistent method for ensuring policy is soundly based on evidence; faces up to and addresses the criticisms it received in the Capability Review; shows clearly how £1.5 billion in efficiency savings it has promised will be generated.
This is the Commitee's scrutiny of the draft Apprenticeships Bill which was published on 16 July 2008. While putting much of the current arrangements for apprenticeships onto a statutory basis, the draft Bill provides greater flexibility to allow employers to design and bring forward for approval their own apprenticeship frameworks. The extent of this flexibility was not clear as a key document, the specification of apprenticeship standards, which will determine the core components of frameworks was not published with the draft Bill. Nor did the Government set out in detail how the National Apprenticeship Service would be resourced or organised, or how the legislation would apply in Wales. These as key omissions impeded the scrutiny process. With this in mind it was concluded that in general the legislation is justified because it has the potential to strengthen the structure for apprenticeshipsin England. However there was a major concern of volume at the expense of quality.The Government must ensure that the draft Bill is re-written to promote, monitor and report on the quality of apprenticeships. Without provisions underpinning quality, the legislation risks the devaluation of apprenticeships, and employers, parents and young people as well as adults will cease to see apprenticeships as a progressive route through to a future career.
The EU's common Energy Policy commits the EU to generating 20 per cent of total energy consumption from renewables by 2020. The European Commission proposed national renewable energy targets for each Member State, and it was suggested that 15 per cent of UK energy be derived from renewables by 2020. Renewable energies comprise three sectors: heating and cooling, transport and electricity. In order to meet the EU Mandated Target of 15 per cent renewable energies by 2020, it will be necessary to generate approximately 35-40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources. This represents a considerable challenge, for which the Government's targets for renewable electricity generation are wholly inadequate. Presently, UK targets require 10 per cent of electricity to be sourced from renewables by 2010 rising to 20 per cent by 2020. It is essential that the Government revise these targets, and align them with the UK's EU Mandated Target. Developers of renewable electricity generation projects have to negotiate a crowded funding landscape, a protracted-and often costly-planning system, and a poorly conceived regime for accessing the UK electricity transmission system. The Government should work to remove current barriers to technology deployment. It is still feasible to meet the 2020 renewable energy targets, but time is running out. The Government must take steps to support the widespread deployment of renewable electricity-generation technologies as a priority, both at the level of macro and microgeneration. But the Committee has been consistently disappointed by the lack of urgency expressed by the Government-and at times by the electricity industry-in relation to the challenge ahead.
The European Union's (EU) common Energy Policy commits the EU to generating 20 per cent of total energy consumption from renewables by 2020. The European Commission proposed national renewable energy targets for each Member State and it was suggested that 15 per cent of UK energy be derived from renewables by 2020.
This is the Commitee's scrutiny of the draft Apprenticeships Bill which was published on 16 July 2008. While putting much of the current arrangements for apprenticeships onto a statutory basis, the draft Bill provides greater flexibility to allow employers to design and bring forward for approval their own apprenticeship frameworks. The extent of this flexibility was not clear as a key document, the specification of apprenticeship standards, which will determine the core components of frameworks was not published with the draft Bill. Nor did the Government set out in detail how the National Apprenticeship Service would be resourced or organised, or how the legislation would apply in Wales. These as key omissions impeded the scrutiny process. With this in mind it was concluded that in general the legislation is justified because it has the potential to strengthen the structure for apprenticeshipsin England. However there was a major concern of volume at the expense of quality.The Government must ensure that the draft Bill is re-written to promote, monitor and report on the quality of apprenticeships. Without provisions underpinning quality, the legislation risks the devaluation of apprenticeships, and employers, parents and young people as well as adults will cease to see apprenticeships as a progressive route through to a future career.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.