---

Universities: Research Funding

My Lords, I echo other words of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for introducing this debate with the weight of the very great experience she brings. I enjoyed the knowledgeable contributions of all who spoke in it. We welcome the decision to look further into research funding for universities. The RAE, for all its initial success in raising standards, had become far too demanding. In replacing it the Government must be very careful not to perpetuate the same problems. Universities must now be allowed to concentrate on serious research rather than navigating time-consuming bureaucracy. We have always strongly supported higher education, which unquestionably benefits the economy as a whole. The Government must help sustain a level of innovative research that will protect Britain’s continued status as a world leader. Government proposals have not been universally welcomed. The Coalition of Modern Universities expressed deep disappointment that nothing will be done to promote greater research capacity. This compares unfavourably with other countries with rapidly expanding research programmes. Is the Minister confident that the RAE replacement will allow British universities to compete more effectively with countries such as China and other emerging economies? The proposals are certainly not without their flaws. We understand the background but is it not extraordinary that the RAE 2008 and the introduction of the new funding will both take place in the very same timeframe? What incentive is there to go through the RAE if it will not affect the funding level? Surely this openly contradicts the Government’s own ambition to reduce the administrative burden on universities. The Government’s recent record on funding has come under widespread attack. What impact does the Minister believe the changes will have on those university departments currently facing closure due to claimed funding shortfalls? Although the RAE 2001 results were excellent,the sector was extremely disappointed with the Government’s underwhelming response. Successful departments were not able to build on their success and roughly a fifth of institutions will now be hit with a real terms cut in HEFCE funding. What additional sources of support, if any, will the Government make available to these institutions? There are other ways our research programmes might be more dynamic. What incentives are given to British industry, for example, to become a more active partner in the higher education system, which would greatly benefit the university process? We seek several reassurances from the Minister. For all the valid criticism of the RAE, it was invaluable in rewarding excellence, improving research planning and providing accountability for the allocation of public funds. Are the Government confident that the new proposals will do the same? We strongly urge that peer review should continue at some level, though clearly it should be light touch and with fewer panels. The sector recognises expert assessment as the most significant and reliable litmus test. Government proposals for income-based metrics lead naturally to the concerns so forcefully expressed by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Most critically, they do not appear to correlate funding with quality. We would be deeply suspicious of any system that didnot reward quality at all. Some form of quality measurement must continue, which should not be discrete from the allocation of funds. Exclusive use of income metrics could easily breed mediocrity, particularly in the arts. If universities know that they are being judged other than on quality, they may gear their research to the mechanics of this assessment process. It wouldbe seriously detrimental to research standards if universities attempted to second-guess criteria to secure funding. The new system must encourage genuine research rather than expertise in ticking boxes. We also require reassurance on the system’s scope. It should continue to serve the whole country’s interests and, crucially, to promote all disciplines. We have previously expressed concerns that the arts, humanities and social sciences may get left behind, with the focus on science and technology. All those disciplines are important in the education and development of our workforce. Can the Minister confirm that there will not be undue funding bias towards particular disciplines? Finally, the cost and administrative burden of the system are critical. We warmly support the Government’s stated aim to reduce the burden of research assessment, but it is essential that any new model actually achieves this. I finish by agreeing with my honourable friend in another place, Boris Johnson—this time not in a toga—who said: "““The current RAE is driving academics to distraction and it is high time it was reformed. Its demands were continually cited as a reason why lecturers had no time to teach students properly. Whatever the Government put in its place must allow universities to get on with serious research without pointless form filling and the production of mountains of academically worthless papers””."