Category / Business Engagement

Innovate UK funding – commercialising quantum devices

Image from warontherocks.com

Innovate UK will invest £20 million in innovation projects to develop prototype quantum technology devices that address one or more of these important industrial challenges which are explained further in the scope of this competition:

  1. Situational awareness.
  2. Infrastructure productivity.
  3. Seeing the invisible.
  4. Trusted peer to peer communication

Your proposal must:

  • demonstrate how the device can be brought to market, with manufacture or assembly in the UK
  • fulfil an end user need through the technological advances in quantum technology

A business must lead the project. You must work in collaboration with others.

Please see below a summary of this funding opportunity:

Funding type : Grant

Project size : Between £3 million and £10 million

Project dates : 1 November 2018 and up to 29 months (must be completed by March 2021)

Deadline : 13 June 2018, 12noon

Please see this link for more information on how to apply.

Innovate UK Funding available – robotics and AI (ISCF)

Image from timeout.com

Innovate UK, as part of UK Research and Innovation, will invest up to £15 million from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) in business led collaborations to develop robotic and artificial intelligence systems that remove humans from infrastructure inspection, maintenance and repair in extreme environments.

The Innovate UK Knowledge Transfer Network is inviting businesses to one of three briefing events in Glasgow, Manchester and London to learn more about this £15m competition which includes a 5-day residential workshop to develop collaborative proposals for R&D projects.

To sign up for the briefing events, please click on the links below:

Glasgow, 23rd May

Manchester, 24th May

London, 4th June

For more information about this funding opportunity, please visit this link.

UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships Scheme

The UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) scheme to support early career researchers and innovators with outstanding potential in universities, UK registered businesses, and other research and user environments including research councils’ institutes and laboratories has been launched.

 

The UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship scheme is a single scheme across the entire UKRI remit that will:

 

–  develop, retain, attract and sustain research and innovation talent in the UK

–  foster new research and innovation career paths including those at the academic/business and interdisciplinary boundaries, and facilitate movement of people between sectors

–  provide sustained funding and resources for the best early career researchers and innovators (up to seven years support available on a 4+3 model)

–  provide long-term, flexible funding to tackle difficult and novel challenges, and support adventurous, ambitious programmes

 

This is scheme is additional to existing Research Council fellowship schemes and is distinct as the Future Leaders Fellowships;

 

–  are available across the entire UKRI remit,

–  are open to individuals based in business as well as those based in universities,

–  provide long term support of up to seven years (on a 4+3 model with review at 4 years),

–  come with additional expectations of host organisations in their support to the fellow, for academic host organisations this includes tapered salary commitment from year 3 of the fellowship and commitment to an open-ended position for the fellow during or at the end of their fellowship.

 

There will be six calls for these fellowships; two calls per year between 2018-19 and 2020-21 (financial years), typically awarding at least 100 fellowships per call across UKRI’s remit (with the initial round being smaller, aiming to award ~50 fellowships).

 

The key dates for the first call are:

 

–  Thursday 7 June – host organisations must submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) for each of the applicants they intend to submit in the first round

–  16:00 on Tuesday 3 July 2018 – first round full application deadline

 

The second call deadline will be on 31 October 2018 (EOI deadline 4 October 2018). Dates for subsequent calls will be published on the UKRI website.

 

For further information visit the Future Leaders Fellowships call page.  If you wish to discuss this opportunity in more detail and/or find companies to work with then please contact Ehren Milner.

If you are interested in applying then please contact your RKEO Funding Development Officer in the first instance.

 

Global Traction in the USA!

New York is the world’s media capital and it is no surprise that American academic institutions dominate the field of Media Management. Fordham University in New York extended an invitation to me as a Visiting Scholar, and as a Santander Universities Network partner, the process of engaging with them was straight forward.

My application to the Santander Mobility Scheme had 3 primary objectives which fused research, education and professional practice. During my visit to the USA, I taught on Fordham’s MSc Media Management programme, had discussions with leading media management scholars and the Editor of The International Journal on Media Management.
I also met with the Managing Director of the Boston Consulting Group to discuss the metrics that are used to measure the level of innovation in firms, as well as their the chronic under performance. I also had a meeting with the Editor of Strategy & Leadership to discuss developing a ‘Masterclass’ paper on Scenario Planning and how best to encourage Early Career Researchers to write for the journal.

All of this activity aims to develop a number of fusion based outputs and impacts into the near and medium term future. Overall, it was a great trip and many thanks to the Santander Staff Mobility Scheme!

HE policy update for the w/e 29th March 2018

Industrial Strategy

The Creative Industries Sector Deal has been announced.  You can read the document here.

The press release says:

  • As part of a Creative Industries Sector Deal, to be announced today by the Digital and Culture Secretary Matt Hancock, Business Secretary Greg Clark and Co-Chair of the CIC, Nicola Mendelsohn, more than £150 million is being jointly invested by government and industry to help cultural and creative businesses across Britain thrive.
  • A Cultural Development Fund will also be launched for cities and towns to bid for a share of £20 million to invest in creative and cultural initiatives. The power of culture and creative industries to boost economic growth is evident across the country…[NB Bournemouth is identified as high growth]
  • The Sector Deal aims to double Britain’s share of the global creative immersive content market by 2025, which is expected to be worth over £30 billion by 2025. To seize on the opportunity of this expanding market, government is investing over £33 million in immersive technologies such as virtual reality video games, interactive art shows and augmented reality experiences in tourism.
  • Britain is already leading the way in developing immersive technologies. PWC has predicted that the UK’s virtual reality industry will grow at a faster rate than any other entertainment and media industry between 2016 to 2021, reaching £801 million in value, and that by 2021 there will be 16 million virtual reality headsets in use in the UK.
  • Improving the nations skills is at the heart of the government’s modern Industrial Strategy and to ensure the industry has the skilled workers it needs to deliver this, up to £2 million will be made available to kickstart an industry-led skills package, including a creative careers programme which will reach at least 2,000 schools and 600,000 pupils in 2 years. A new London Screen Academy, with places for up to 1000 students, will also open in 2019.

New Quality Code published

After a consultation proposing changes to the UK Quality Code for HE, (you can read BU’s response here) the QAA have published the new, very short Code. There’s some commentary on Wonkhe here.   It really is short – in a 7 page document there is only one real page of content – but there is more guidance to come.

HE Review

To inform our BU response to the HE Review all staff and students are invited to consider the issues in this (anonymous) 5-minute survey. Please take a look at the survey questions as we’d like to hear from as many staff and students as possible. You don’t have to answer all the questions! The major review of HE will shape the HE system, including how universities are funded for years to come. The survey will be available to staff and students until Friday 20th April.

The Department for Education also published a research report by Youthsight on the influence of finance on higher education decision making

Amongst its findings:

  • University was the only option considered by the majority of applicants (75 per cent), especially those applying to the higher-tariff universities (78 per cent). This was consistent across socio-economic backgrounds. Getting a job and travelling were the main alternatives considered by applicants
  • Financial factors were not the biggest influence on the final decision to apply to university. The most important factors were the desires to be more employable, to achieve the qualification and to pursue an interest in a subject. This was the case for applicants from both the higher and the lower socio-economic groups.
    • Lower socio-economic group applicants placed a higher importance on grants, bursaries and living costs than applicants from higher socio-economic groups, although finance still remained a secondary influence on their decision to apply to university.
    • The course offered (82 per cent of applicants), university reputation (58 per cent), and potential for high future earnings (41 per cent) were the most commonly cited major influences on applicants’ choices about where to study.
    • Differences in bursaries offered, tuition fees charged and the ability to continue living at home were secondary factors when choosing where to study. These factors accounted for three of the bottom four of eleven factors tested that might influence which university to choose. However, they were more important for lower socio-economic group applicants.
  • The maintenance loan, repayment threshold and particularly maintenance grants and university assistance were more important to members of the lower socio-economic group than the higher socio-economic group in alleviating cost concerns.

And the government have published the outcomes of their 2014/15 student income and expenditure survey.  There is a lot of data and there are lots of interesting charts, including figure 2.6 (the influence of financial support on my decisions), table 3.7 (what support English domiciled students received by mode of study), figure 4.3 (breakdown of total student expenditure (this one excludes the tuition fee but there is also a chart that includes it),  figure 4.4 (total expenditure and housing costs).

The data from both these reports will be pored over to support responses to the HE review.

Freedom of speech

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report into free speech in universities. The Committee has also published its own guidance for universities and students:

Charity Commission Response: Charity Commission responds to Joint Committee on Human Rights

The Committee don’t identify many actual cases of free speech having been prevented but note a “chilling effect” (it’s hard to prove a negative, of course). The report identifies factors that potentially limit free speech in universities:

  • regulatory complexity
  • intolerant attitudes, often incorrectly using the banner of “no-platforming” and “safe-space” policies
  • incidents of unacceptable intimidating behaviour by protestors intent on preventing free speech and debate
  • student Unions being overly cautious for fear of breaking the rules
  • unnecessary bureaucracy imposed on those organising events
  • fear and confusion over what the Prevent Duty entails
  • unduly complicated and cautious guidance from the Charity Commission.

Recommendations

  • That an independent review of the Prevent policy is necessary to assess what impact it is having on students and free speech, after evidence the Committee took demonstrated an adverse effect on events with student faith groups
  • That the Charity Commission, which regulates student unions as registered charities, review its approach and guidance, and that its actions are proportionate and are adequately explained to student unions and don’t unnecessarily limit free speech
  • That the Office for Students should ensure university policies proactively secure lawful free speech and are not overly burdensome
  • That student societies should not stop other student societies from holding their meetings.  They have the right to protest but must not seek to stop events entirely
  • That while there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive discussions, and that the whole of the university cannot be a “safe space.” Universities must be places where open debate can take place so that students can develop their own opinions on unpopular, controversial or provocative ideas
  • Groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by student unions or universities.

Chair of the Committee, Harriet Harman MP, said:

  • “Freedom of speech within the law should mean just that – and it is vital in universities. Evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights showed that there is a problem of inhibition of free speech in universities. While media reporting has focussed on students inhibiting free speech – and in our report we urge universities to take action to prevent that – free speech is also inhibited by university bureaucracy and restrictive guidance from the Charity Commission. We want students themselves to know their rights to free speech and that’s why we’ve issued a guide for students today.”

Some particular points to note:

  • 41 The imposition of unreasonable conditions is an interference on free speech rights. We do not, for example, consider it a reasonable condition that, if a speaker gives an assurance that their speech will be lawful, they be required to submit a copy or outline of their speech in advance.
  • 42 In our view, freedom of expression is unduly interfered with:
    • when protests become so disruptive that they prevent the speakers from speaking or intimidate those attending;
    • if student groups are unable to invite speakers purely because other groups protest and oppose their appearance; and
    • if students are deterred from inviting speakers by complicated processes and bureaucratic procedures.
      It is clear that, although not widespread, all these problems do occur and they should not be tolerated.
  • 60 Whilst there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive and confidential discussions in university settings, and whilst the original intention behind safe space policies may have been to ensure that minority or vulnerable groups can feel secure, in practice the concept of safe spaces has proved problematic, often marginalising the views of minority groups. They need to co-exist with and respect free speech. They cannot cover the whole of the university or university life without impinging on rights to free speech under Article 10. When that happens, people are moving from the need to have a “safe space” to seeking to prevent the free speech of those whose views they disagree with. Minority groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by student unions or universities.
  • 91 Universities must strike a balance to ensure they respect both their legal duty to protect free speech and their other legal duties to ensure that speech is lawful, to comply with equalities legislation and to safeguard students. It is clearly easier to achieve this if debate is carried out in a respectful and open way. But the right to free speech goes beyond this, and universities need to give it proper emphasis. Indeed, unless it is clearly understood that those exercising their rights to free speech within the law will not be shut down, there will be no incentive for their opponents to engage them in the debate and therefore to bring the challenge that is needed to develop mutual understanding and maybe even to change attitudes.
  • 93 It is reasonable for there to be some basic processes in place so that student unions and universities know about external speakers. Codes of practice on freedom of speech should facilitate freedom of speech, as was their original purpose, and not unduly restrict it. Universities should not surround requests for external speaker meetings with undue bureaucracy. Nor should unreasonable conditions be imposed by universities or student unions on external speakers, such as a requirement to submit their speeches in advance, if they give an assurance these will be lawful.

Migration Advisory Committee report on EEA and non EEA workers

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its interim update on the impact of EEA and non-EEA workers in UK labour market. This is the first MAC inquiry of two – the second one is the one about students, this was more general and about workers across all sectors.

The update sets out a summary of the views expressed by employers and of the regional issues raised. They add that “these themes seem the best way of summarising the views expressed to us but should not be taken to imply that the MAC endorses a sectoral and/or regional approach to post-Brexit migration policy.” The MAC has also published the responses to their call for evidence, broken down by sector.

The report includes the following findings:

  • The vast majority of employers do not deliberately seek to fill vacancies with migrant workers. They seek the best available candidate.
  • Employers often reported skill shortages as one reason for employing EEA migrants.
  • Many EEA workers are in jobs requiring a high level of skill that take years to acquire. But, some of the claims about necessary skill levels seemed exaggerated.
  • Within occupations, EEA migrants are better educated than their UK-born counterparts.
  • The MAC view is that, from the economic perspective this does amount to saying that it is sometimes possible to hire a given quality of worker for lower wages if they are an EEA migrant than if they are UK-born.
  • To the extent that EEA migrants are paid lower wages than the UK-born this may result in lower prices, benefitting UK consumers. Our final report will also consider these possible impacts.
  • Many responses argued that a more restrictive migration policy would lead to large numbers of unfilled vacancies. The MAC view is that this is unlikely in anything other than the short-term.
  • The MAC view is that it is important to be clear about what the consequences of restricting migration would be.

Research bodies update

This week is the launch of UKRI – it is worth looking at their objectives.

.The Council for Innovate UK has been announced. The members are:

  • Sir Harpal Kumar, who will serve as Senior Independent Member through his role as UK Research and Innovation’s Innovation Champion and work closely with the board
  • Dr Arnab Basu MBE, Chief Executive, Kromek Group plc
  • Baroness Brown of Cambridge DBE FREng FRS (Julia King)
  • Professor Juliet Davenport OBE, Chief Executive, Good Energy
  • Dr John Fingleton, Chief Executive, Fingleton Associates
  • Priya Guha, Ecosystem General Manager, RocketSpace UK
  • Dr Elaine Jones, Vice President, Pfizer Ventures
  • Professor John Latham, Vice-Chancellor of Coventry University
  • Sir William Sargent, Chief Executive, Framestore
  • Stephen Welton, Chief Executive, Business Growth Fund

The REF panels have also been announced – follow this link to see the lists.

Parliamentary Questions

Q Andrew Percy MP

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether his Department is taking steps to ensure that prospective undergraduates understand the potential effect of their choice of course on their prospects post-graduation.

  • A Sam Gyimah MP The department is working to make destinations and outcomes data more accessible to prospective students, to help them compare opportunities and make informed choices about where and what to study.
  • On the 12 March 2018, I announced an Open Data Competition. It will use government data on higher education providers so that tech companies and coders can create websites to help prospective students decide where to apply. This competition will build on the government’s Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset, which gives information on employment and salaries after graduation.
  • Alongside this, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has requested that the Office for Students include LEO data on the Unistats website as soon as possible.

Q Angela Rayner MP To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate his Department has made of the value of plan 1 student loans that will not be repaid.

  • A: Sam Gyimah MP: It is estimated that the value of the plan 1 student loan book that will not be repaid was £13.1 billion as at 31 March 2017, when future repayments are valued in present terms. The face value of the plan 1 student loan book was £42.8 billion at this time. This information is in the public domain and published on page 155 of the Department for Education’s 2016-17 Annual Report and Accounts which can be found at:
  • https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfe-consolidated-annual-report-and-accounts-2016-to-2017.

Q Angela Rayner MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the written ministerial statement of 31 October 2017 on government asset sale, HCWS205, what methodology his Department used to decide which loans from the plan 1 loan book would be sold.

  • A Sam Gyimah MP: The loans sold in December 2017 were a selection of loans from the plan 1 loan book issued by English Local Authorities that entered repayment between 2002 and 2006.
  • These loans had the longest history of repayments, the longest servicing history and the most accurate data on borrowers’ historic earnings. This information allowed the government to most accurately value these loans for sale.
  • The government’s objective when issuing loans to students is to allow them to pursue their education regardless of their personal financial situation. Once this objective has been met, however, retaining the loans on the government’s balance sheet serves no policy purpose. These loans could be sold precisely because they have achieved their original policy objective of supporting students to access higher education.
  • Pursuant to Section 4 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, a report on the sale arrangements was deposited in the House libraries on 7 December 2017 (deposit reference DEP2017-0778): https://www.parliament.uk/depositedpapers.

Q: Angela Rayner MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the written statement of 6 December 2017 on Government Asset Sake, HCWS317, what assessment he has made of the net fiscal effect of the sale of the student loan book after accounting for reduced income arising from lost repayments.

  • A: Sam Gyimah MP: The government only sells assets when it can secure value for money for taxpayers from doing so. In assessing the value for money of the sale, the government took into account repayments foregone on the loans sold. In executing the sale, we achieved a price that exceeded the retention value of the loans sold, calculated in line with standard HM Treasury green book methodology.
  • Selling financial assets, like student loans, where there is no policy reason to retain them, where value for money can be secured and where borrowers are not impacted is sound asset management. The sale ensures government resources are being put to best use and is an important part of our plan to repair public finances.
  • Pursuant to Section 4 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, a report on the sale arrangements was deposited in the House libraries on 7 December 2017 (deposit reference DEP2017-0778): https://www.parliament.uk/depositedpapers.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                   |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: £300m to support our ageing population

Innovate UK have announced that £300m will be available to businesses and researchers to address the challenges facing our ageing population. Some £98m of this funding will be reserved for research and innovation that supports the care and health of people as they age. A further £198m will become available to support the use of early diagnosis innovation and the development of precision medicine.

This funding will be available from UK Research and Innovation with the challenges running in 2018 and 2019.  As the opportunities become available, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you have any queries.

 

Innovate UK Open Sector Competition: DEADLINE 9/5/18

Applications are now welcomed from businesses to Innovate UK’s Open competition for research and development for projects costing between £25k and £1m.  Projects may last a maximum of three years and must be led by a UK business.  An allocation of £19m has been made available for this fund but a further £10m is available for projects that are more suitable for a Knowledge Transfer Partnership.  Research organisations can be eligible for up to 30% of eligible project costs so this is a great opportunity to work in collaboration with a business.  If you are already working with a business on a novel/game-changing idea, and want to know more information, please contact Ehren Milner, Research Facilitator for Industrial Collaboration (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk).

Multi-million pound funding opportunities from Innovate UK

 

 

Innovate UK has millions of pounds to invest in innovative UK businesses up to April 2018. Please see an overview below:

Emerging and enabling technologies and health and life sciences

Up to £19 million will be invested to support productivity and cutting-edge innovation across these 2 industry sectors.

Find out more about this competition.

Open programme

A share of up to £19 million will be available for game-changing or disruptive innovations that have the potential to impact the UK economy.

Projects may come from an Innovate UK industry sector – emerging and enabling technologieshealth and life sciencesinfrastructure systems and manufacturing and materials – or be outside of them.

Biomedical catalyst

This first biomedical catalyst competition of 2018 will offer up to £12million to SMEs working on projects solving healthcare challenges and these include:

  • disease prevention and proactive management of health and chronic conditions
  • earlier and better detection and diagnosis of disease, leading to better patient outcomes
  • tailored treatments that either change the underlying disease or offer potential cures

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: Faraday Battery Challenge

The Faraday Battery Challenge supports the design, development and manufacture of batteries for the electrification of vehicles as part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.

Find out more about this competition.

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: robotics

Up to £20 million will be available in this competition. It is being funded as part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund for robotics and artificial intelligence in extreme environments.

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: medicines manufacturing

Innovate UK is investing up to £10 million in innovation projects in medicines manufacturing through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.

Collaborative research and development projects with focus on the technical and commercial challenges of manufacturing new medicines are sought.

New opportunities will be published on the Innovation Funding Service as and when they are available. Search for funding.

Sign up for Innovate UK’s newsletter or email alerts to get the latest news and funding competitions.

HE policy update for the w/e 24th November 2017

Industrial Strategy

A little bit late this week, but that gave us the opportunity to include a reference to the Industrial Strategy, launched today. It has just been published and you can find it here. It sounds as if it hasn’t moved on much from the Green Paper – read our end of summer summary here.

Headlines, courtesy of Dods, are:

  • Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund will invest £725 million in new programmes to capture the value of innovation
  • first ‘Sector Deals’ – to help sectors grow and equip businesses for future opportunities
  • 4 ‘Grand Challenges’ which will take advantage of global trends to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future.

Sector Deals will include construction, life sciences, automotive and AI the first to benefit from these new strategic and long-term partnerships with government, backed by private sector co-investment. Work will continue with other sectors on transformative sector deals.

4 Grand Challenges; global trends that will shape our rapidly changing future and which the UK must embrace to ensure we harness all the opportunities they bring, they are:

  • artificial intelligence – we will put the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution
  • clean growth – we will maximise the advantages for UK industry from the global shift to clean growth
  • ageing society – we will harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society
  • future of mobility – we will become a world leader in the way people, goods and services move

To ensure that the government is held to account on its progress in meeting the ambitions set out in the strategy, an Independent Industrial Strategy Council will be launched in 2018 to make recommendations to government on how it measures success.

Linked to this, ahead of the budget, the PM announced a boost to research funding. The Government will make an additional investment of £2.3 billion in 2021/22 (total R&D investment £12.5 billion in 2021/22). They will also work with industry to boost R&D spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 (possible increase of £80 billion over next 10 years).

The Business Secretary, Greg Clark said: “Through our Industrial Strategy we are committed to building a knowledge and innovation-led economy and this increase in R&D investment, to 2.4 per cent of GDP, is a landmark moment for the country. The UK is a world leader in science and innovation. By delivering this significant increase as part of our Industrial Strategy, we are building on our strengths and working with business to ensure that UK scientists and researchers continue to push the boundaries of innovation.”

Budget and the fees review

And having mentioned the budget – we were expecting an announcement about HE fees and funding, but there wasn’t one. There was a hint about post-study visas. As you will recall, if you have been following the “national debate” since May, a “major review” was promised by the PM at the Conservative Party conference in October with a freeze on fee increases in the meantime and nothing has been heard since. Fee increases for were put on hold – so that there are currently no planned increases for 2018/19 or beyond. Wonkhe have noticed that the “red book” that comes out with the budget has confirmed that this freeze is planned for 2 years but nothing is said beyond that. So the review may still be on the cards, but maybe the budget was too soon, or too risky, a forum for that announcement.

And with that in mind, note this bit from the summary of the Lords Select Committee proceedings below “Cross-subsidy is worth a major inquiry in its own right.

Parliamentary Questions

Following the Panorama programme disclosing alleged abuse of the student loan system, questions were asked in Parliament last week

Gordon Marsden: What safeguards her Department operates to prevent the abuse of student loan funding by private Higher Education providers. [113082]

Joseph Johnson:

  • Higher Education Institutions that are designated for student support must, on an annual basis, meet robust standards for quality, financial sustainability, and management and governance.
  • Designated Alternative Providers without their own Degree Awarding Powers are also subject to student number controls, limiting the number of students eligible for student support that they can recruit each year.
  • The Department can and does use sanctions where breaches of the conditions of designation are identified, including the suspension or removal of designation for student support where we have serious concerns about providers.
  • Following the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act, the Office for Students (OfS) will be established formally in January 2018. It will provide, for the first time, a single regulator for higher education providers regardless of how they are funded. The OfS will have powers to assess the quality of, and standards applied to all English Higher Education provision.
  • The OfS will place a focus on students and greater emphasis on ensuring value for money for students and taxpayers. There will continue to be tough and rigorous tests for providers who want to enter the system and enable students from all backgrounds to receive funding.

Angela Rayner: What additional funding allocation her Department will receive for each of the next three financial years to fund the increased RAB charge resulting from the increase to post-2012 loan repayment thresholds. [113058]

Joseph Johnson:

  • The Government has frozen tuition fees for academic year 2018/19 and for financial year 2018-19 has raised both the repayment threshold and the thresholds at which variable interest rates apply to borrowers in repayment.
  • The repayment threshold will rise from £21,000 to £25,000 for the 2018-19 financial year (from 6 April 2018). Following the threshold change, interest will be charged at RPI for those earning below £25,000 (compared to £21,000 before) and at RPI+3% for those earning above £45,000 (compared to £41,000 before), with interest applied on a sliding scale for those earning between those two thresholds.
  • The long-term cost of the student loan system is reflected in the Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) Charge, which measures the proportion of loan outlay that we expect not to be repaid when future repayments are valued in present terms. In each of the financial years (a) 2017-18, (b) 2018-19 and (c) 2019-20, the RAB charge for higher education loans is expected to change from around 30% under the previous policy to between 40% and 45% under the new policy.
  • The allocated budget for RAB expenditure forms part of the total resource departmental expenditure limit. It is disclosed within the depreciation figure set out within the annual report and accounts. In the 2016-17 annual report and accounts, this was forecast to be £3.5bn for 2017-18, £3.9bn for 2018-19 and £4.3bn in 2019-20. As in prior years, the 2017-18 budget and future budgets will be reviewed as part of the annual Estimates process and confirmed in the published Estimates documents.
  • The cost of the system is a conscious investment in young people. It is the policy subsidy required to make higher and further education widely available, achieving the Government’s objectives of increasing the skills in the economy and ensuring access to university for all with the potential to benefit.

Gordon Marsden: What monitoring and scrutiny of student recruitment agents for private Higher Education and Further Education providers her Department undertakes. [113080]

Joseph Johnson:

  • All higher and further education providers are accountable for their respective recruitment practices. If those breach the respective conditions for funding then a consequence may be regulatory sanctions or termination of their contract. Providers are subject to robust regular monitoring for standards for quality, financial sustainability and management and governance.
  • And in the meantime, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee investigation into the Economics of Higher, Further and Technical Education continues. This week’s update comes from the oral evidence heard on 14 November.

Q: To what extent do you think technical education can be delivered through higher education institutions?

  • Professor Patrick Bailey (DVC, London South Bank University): all the universities are delivering higher education courses that include enormous amounts of information directly relevant to workplaces. Most…ensure that all their students will have professional practice and some of the technical skills that are going to be required when they move into jobs afterwards. There is a move…to ensure that students are job-ready when they leave. There is a misconception that there are technical skills and pure academic subjects. Even those that would be defined as purely academic now have significant components that ensure that people are ready for a wide range of tasks. Many universities are also well directed towards developing the technical skills.
  • Pam Tatlow (Chief Executive, MillionPlus): If you want to deliver learning and qualifications that match what employers want and the reality of students’ lives, whatever their age, there is a very good case for a more flexible funding system where you fund by credit or module. That would reflect the reality of the lives of students, both the younger ones and the older ones already in the workplace…. However, it would not be for the Chancellor to introduce the primary legislation we need to create a more flexible funding system. The Government missed an opportunity to do that in both the Education Act 2011 and the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
  • Professor Bailey: There is a subtlety here in that once students are enrolled on a three-year programme, universities are penalised in how they are judged if students do not progress through to that degree… across the sector overall we are losing the opportunity to upskill a wide range of people who could meet the needs of the industries around the UK, which are crying out for levels 4, 5 and 6 in particular.
  • Professor Bailey: The universities are extremely well placed to take level 4s and upwards. However…the ability to have a break and to exit at an early stage without a penalty increases the opportunity for many, particularly part-time and mature students who are challenged in other ways. There is a continuum: the idea that it is either FE or HE is wrong. FE does not have either the expertise or facilities to deliver at level 6 and rarely at level 5. Crucially, more and more universities like mine are working closely with FE to ensure that students feel they have a choice, as they come through level 3, either to go to level 4 at FE or move to a higher education degree at a university. It comes back to giving choice and ensuring that students have the chance to develop skills to their maximum potential.
  • Lord Burns: The same question has been on my mind. Are you saying that you can see a world in which universities are going to do both HE and FE work? I can see that FE cannot do the university work but over the years I have watched universities becoming involved in more and more different areas…with mergers, they are getting bigger and bigger. Is the end product here that universities will try to do everything over the age of 18?
  • Pam Tatlow: No.

  • Sir Anthony Seldon (VC, Buckingham University): I disagree…some universities will embrace FE. I think we will see a top tier—Oxford, Imperial et al−that becomes more research-focused, competing in the world tables and other, more regionally-based, universities that will come down to FE and even UTCs and academies and go all the way through. We do not know, but that is my sense: that the new binary divide will be between HE and FE but with less research and with high research at the top end. Who knows?

Is there a disparity in the available funding higher education and further technical education? If so, how would you address it?

  • Professor Mike Thomas (VC, University of Central Lancashire): Yes, there is a disparity. I can tell you how we are addressing it…We feel that when you do an undergraduate degree—four years for engineering or five years for medicine and so on—you should also be allowed the opportunity to do an apprenticeship at the same time, so that when you qualify and graduate you may be, say, a four-year engineering degree-holder but you may also be a trained fitter or plumber. If you are doing construction, you could do joinery or carpentry. We tested this model internally in the university. We have 1,000 student start-ups at the university, which is quite a large number for the economy of Lancashire, creating about 3,000 jobs over three years, with a turnover of about £500,000 on average. Many of them come from fashion and the arts, because when they get their degree they set up on their own. When we piloted this internally at the university, we found that our art students, particularly fashion students, wanted to do a certificate in accountancy because they were setting up their own businesses, but they were not allowed to do it because it involved different funding or different institution.
  • We are modelling a system in the university whereby students can do that. At the moment, we are picking up the fees. Engineers can train through a long-term apprenticeship levy. Arts and fashion students can train to get other types of qualifications. We do not take the hierarchical vertical view of learning; we take a horizontal model and work with 21 FE colleges so that our students can go there on Wednesday afternoons or spend four to six months in employment. The piloting with BAE involves them doing two years of a degree in the university, but in the final year they move to a levy and a degree apprenticeship, so that reduces their fee loans. They pick up an “Earn as you Learn” as they go along, and they graduate with a degree and an apprenticeship at the same time. We think that we meet the employer need.
  • The difficulty is the silo payment; you have to have an EFA or an ESF payment or a student loan. We think there should be one payment and that undergraduates should be allowed to do apprenticeships and respond to the lifelong learning. For me, it is self-evident that people need support, in relation to what Peter said. We are living longer and people are doing different jobs. Even if they stay in the same firms, the technologies in that firm will change so they will need to relearn anyway as they go along, but those opportunities are not there. We are very much modelling a horizontal model.
  • Lord Turnbull: I think you are telling us that we are going down a cul-de-sac in thinking of tertiary education as having these two divisions, HE and FE apprenticeships, and that we want to create something that is seen across this whole system… You heard in the previous session that you can go along the pathways and every time you hit a block there is some kind of regulatory funding decision to the effect that, “When you get here, you cannot get on to the next stage”.
    The committee then moved on to discuss the blockages and how it could be easier for people to move across different models.
  • Professor David Latchman: This emphasis on the student and the student outcome is the key, because we have a system that is basically like the school system: you leave school at 18 and you will never go back. Our system is predicated on you requiring an undergraduate degree, 18 to 21, and never needing that again. Somehow or another, within the funding envelope or in some other way, we have to get to this lifelong learning issue, because the world is changing. What you do at 21 is not going to be what you do at 51, and to assume that you will never need to get other qualifications between 21 and 61 or whatever is madness in today’s world.

Q: What kind of future do you see for degree apprenticeships?

  • Professor Bailey: I can see an engagement from business and industry more generally, which has picked up as they have had to pay the levy and have realised the financial implications and how it affects them, and that has been really positive.
  • Pam Tatlow: The Institute for Apprenticeships does not understand HE standards, which is a major issue…there is an inflexibility in the Government’s approach to the use of the apprenticeship levy. There could be some relaxation…. There is a bit of a numbers game going on when actually we need degree apprenticeships to be allied with programmes where it makes sense. We are dependent on the employers recruiting to degree apprenticeships; it is not our gig. We need the employers to be convinced that this is what is going to deliver for them.
  • Professor Bailey: The concern…is that a tranche of standards have been identified by the professions, which need to be superimposed on the qualification requirements that we have for degrees—in particular critical thinking, working in teams, synthesising information and taking complex problems.. there are high-level skills that would benefit anybody within a technical discipline, but how the technical part is defined is rather more specific within those particular disciplines. They can complement each other, but it makes it a very complicated process for us, because we have to run the whole degree programme and map that across a different set of standards that the apprenticeships require. However…I think it has provided an additional incentive for employers to become engaged in how we develop qualifications.

TEF

  • Professor Bailey: [we] were aware that we were using very weak proxies to identify the quality of education in the UK. We did our very best to combine the crude metrics that were used to identify which rating institutions should get with the provider statement that went alongside it. The thing that came across really strongly from the teaching excellence framework was how little difference there was in the quality of provision. At the beginning, it was assumed that there were outstanding institutions and others that were performing very poorly and it was important to identify those extremes. In the end, you obtained what I will call a black mark if you were 2% below the standard in an area being measured, such as the quality of the facilities. You got a gold star if you were 2% above that. That tells us that the differences across the sector were very much smaller than people outside higher education had perceived…As to how it has helped students, it is probably slightly limited because the range is smaller than had been perceived at the outset.

Cross-subsidisation of research

  • Lord Darling of Roulanish: Jo Johnson, the Universities Minister, said recently that he wanted to see a reduction in the cross-subsidy between courses. What is your view on that?
  • Professor Simon Marginson: Cross-subsidy is worth a major inquiry in its own right. It is a complex problem, and it is an information issue in part. The tendency has been for us to find every way and means we can to subsidise and build research, because research is not only integral to the role of universities but has become central to their national and global competition…Of course, teaching and research are integrally related. It is not as if, when you subsidise research, you do nothing but teaching. It becomes a more complicated problem. Some disciplines are cross-subsidised by others. In many institutions, I suspect that the relatively low-cost business programmes, which generate high volumes of students, with large numbers of international students paying full fees and so on, subsidise a lot of other activity.

OfS consultation (part 3)

We continue our series on the OfS consultation on the future regulatory framework with the 4th objective of the OfS on value for money for students and a look at how the OfS will regulate the HE market (as opposed to how they will regulate individual providers, which we will come back to in a future update).

Objective 4: that all students, from all backgrounds, receive value for money

  • “Providers have a responsibility to ensure that students are able to secure value for money for their investment in their education, just as students have a responsibility to engage with their own learning and take the opportunities higher education offers.”
  • “Transparency is also central to promoting value for money for students and protecting their rights, shining a light on provider activities and ensuring they are held to account. Students must be assured that the investment they are making in their future is worthwhile, and will be able to challenge institutions that do not deliver on their commitments.”
  • Under the management and governance condition (see the section on this below), providers in the Approved categories will be expected to be demonstrably responsible for operating openly, honestly, accountably and with integrity, and will be required to publish a statement on the steps they have taken to ensure value for money for students and taxpayers which provides transparency about their use of resources and income. Providers should design this statement to allow students to see how their money is spent, following examples from other sectors, such as Local Authorities publishing breakdowns of how Council Tax is spent. ….Where there are substantial concerns the OfS may carry out an efficiency study to scrutinise whether a provider is providing value for money to both its students and the taxpayer.”
  • “Higher education providers are autonomous institutions, and they are solely responsible for setting the salaries of their staff. However, the taxpayer is the sector’s most significant single funder and there is a legitimate public interest in their efficiency, including of senior staff pay. There will be a new ongoing registration condition requiring providers to publish the number of staff paid over £100,000 per annum, and to explain their justification for pay above £150,000.”
  • “Arrangements will be made for the publication of data on senior staff remuneration, including in relation to protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity. Where issues with senior staff pay lead to substantiated concerns over governance, the OfS will be able to arrange for efficiency reviews into the providers.”
Consultation question: What more could the OfS do to ensure students receive value for money?

Market regulation – Chapter 2

“Effective competition compels providers to focus on students’ needs and aspirations, drives up outcomes that students care about, puts downward pressure on costs, leads to more efficient allocation of resources between providers, and catalyses innovation. The higher education sector in England is well suited to market mechanisms driving continuous improvement “

“It does not, however, follow from these features that an entirely laissez-faire approach is appropriate. Higher education is a service unlike any other:

  • there are almost never repeat “purchases” of the same type of higher educational courses by an individual student – the market is in most cases a one-shot game
  • many of the primary benefits to the student (for instance improved learning, knowledge, and skills, greater earnings and career prospects, and personal fulfilment) are not received immediately; they are spread out over their life time. This exposes the market to distortions such as time inconsistency (where students’ preferences change over time) and temporal discounting (where students value the benefits of higher education less because they occur in the future)
  • similarly, the cost of higher education is often not paid immediately, but rather paid for after through graduate repayments, which in most instances are subsidised by the state. This too, creates temporal distortions, and exposes the sector to moral hazard (where students may take greater risks because they do not necessarily bear the full cost of the degree)
  • there are (currently) significant information asymmetries, and prospective students often make decisions with limited reliable information
  • in the case of undergraduate degrees, there is a price cap in place for some providers. In practice, providers sometimes compete in terms of the grades they require to admit students, rather than on price
  • institutional failure has significant repercussions for current, past, and (in some cases) potential future students, as well as wider social and political consequences. This is why the OfS’s regulatory framework is designed to prevent sudden, unplanned market exit (in particular through its approach to early warning monitoring), and support students to continue their studies if their original provider can no longer deliver their course. The creative destruction witnessed in more traditional markets, though still a powerful and relevant tool, has the potential to carry greater costs
  • there are both private and non-profit organisation competing in the provision of similar services”

Student engagement: The OfS will engage with students to ensure the student voice is not only heard clearly, but that students actively shape the OfS and – by extension – the sector itself. Alongside the student representation on the Board and Student Panel, the OfS will seek the input of individual students and their representative bodies, including student unions.”

The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF): “In accordance with the provisions set out in HERA, a statutory Independent Review of the TEF will likely take place in academic year 2018/19 and will report in time to influence the assessment framework for assessments taking place in academic year 2019/20 (TEF Year 5). Depending on the findings of the Independent Review and of the subject pilots, this will also be the first year of subject level TEF. The assessments taking place in academic year 2019/20 will therefore constitute the completion of the TEF development process. This will be a significant milestone for the TEF, which has the potential to evolve over time as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) has done.”

Proposed on-going condition:   Condition P: “The provider must participate in the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF).”

Consultation question: Do you agree or disagree that participation in the TEF should be a general condition for providers in the Approved categories with 500 or more students?

Removing unnecessary barriers to entry (for new providers that meet a high bar): “The OfS and HERA will enable new providers in particular through the mechanisms below:

  • Simplification of the regulatory landscape:
  • No requirement for a track record
  • Increased options for market entry
  • Recognition of diversity
  • Reduction in burden
  • Grant funding and registration fees
  • Validation”

Accelerated courses: ”HERA includes powers for the Government (subject to approval by Parliament) to set the annual tuition fee cap – for accelerated courses only – at a higher level than their standard equivalent. This should incentivise more providers to offer accelerated courses, increasing choice for students. At the same time, the cost for a student taking an accelerated course which is subject to the new fee caps will be less than that of the same course over a longer time period. The Government will consult shortly on specific proposals for accelerated courses.”

Teaching grant: “The teaching grant is designed to support a range of activities and provision …The majority of the funding is used to support provision where the cost is greater than the amount received as tuition fee income either because the course is costly to provide, because the location brings about additional costs or additional opportunities, or the provision is highly specialised, as with the support provided to our world-leading specialist institutions. The teaching grant supports efforts to improve social mobility by widening access to under-represented or disadvantaged students and ensuring their continued participation and success in higher education. Funding also supports innovation and the national academic broadband infrastructure. The OfS will continue with this approach, but it will also wish to deploy the teaching grant strategically, taking into account Government priorities. This will enable it to influence sector level outcomes“

Widening Participation – Parliamentary question

Q – David Lammy (Lab): Whether she has made an assessment of the effectiveness of steps taken by Oxford and Cambridge Universities to improve access and widen participation from under-represented groups; and if she will make a statement.

  • A – Joseph Johnson (Con):. …the Director [of Fair Access (DfA)] negotiates with institutions to ensure that Access Agreements are stretching and appropriately demanding. Higher Education Institutions are independent from Government and autonomous – legislation specifically precludes Government from interfering with university admissions.
  • In our guidance to the DfA, published in February 2016, we asked for the most selective institutions, which include the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge, to make faster progress on widening access, and to ensure their outreach is more effective. The guidance acknowledged that within this group of institutions there is wide variation, with some demonstrating little progress.
  • Access agreements for the 2018/19 academic year show that the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge plan to spend over £22 million on measures to further improve access and student success for students from disadvantaged and under-represented backgrounds.
  • Following the introduction of the Higher Education and Research Act, from January 2018, the Office for Students (OfS), with a new Director for Fair Access and Participation appointed by my Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, will take on responsibility for widening participation in higher education. The OfS will have a statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity across the whole lifecycle for disadvantaged students, not just access. As a result, widening access and participation will be at the core of the OfS’ functions. In addition, our reforms will introduce a Transparency Duty requiring higher education providers to publish application, offer, acceptance, drop-out and attainment rates of students broken down by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. This will shine a spotlight on those higher education institutions that need to go further and faster to widen participation in higher education.

Consultations

Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                   |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

Upcoming conference: Rethinking the Business to Business (B2B) label

B2B marketing is an important sector in social sciences and relevant to many academics and practitioners. The B2B label has become out-dated; lacks focus, clarity and accuracy as a descriptive classification; and fails to inspire interest and enthusiasm. This event calls on marketers to rethink the B2B label by engaging relevant stakeholders: researchers, practitioners and educators, in an in-depth conversation on what B2B means today.

4th B2B colloquium – welcome talk by Dr Kaouther Kooli

Led by Dr Kaouther Kooli academics from the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management (BU) and Professor Merlin Stone from St Mary’s University are co-organising a conference aimed at rethinking the Business to Business label. This event calls on marketers to rethink the B2B label by engaging relevant stakeholders: researchers, practitioners and educators, in an in-depth conversation on what B2B means today.

4th B2B colloquium – parallel session

The conference is taking place on 18thDecember 2017 at St Mary’s University Twickenham. The half day event will engage the B2B community (researchers, practitioners and educators) in an in-depth conversation on B2B marketing with the aim to define what B2B is and exchange new ideas about how to advance academic and practitioner thinking in this area.

Guest speakers include Professor Merlin Stone, Professor Len Tiu Wright (University of Huddersfield) and a senior B2B practitioner.

Round tables will be facilitated by Dr Kaouther Kooli, Dr Julie Robson and Dr Elvira Bolat, all of Bournemouth University and specialists in B2B marketing. A detailed programme can be downloaded in here.

Attendance is free. We are welcoming all academics, PhD candidates, UG and PG students as well as practitioners.

If you wish to attend, please confirm your attendance via email at merlin.stone@stmarys.ac.uk

Location: St Mary’s University, Twickenham, London. For instructions about getting to St Mary’s, see https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/contact/directions.aspx.

In that past three years, the B2B SIG (Academy of Marketing) has published two special issues in Journal of Customer Behaviour and Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, featuring academic and practitioners’ research. At the moment Dr Kaouther Kooli is preparing new special issue for the Journal of Business to Business Marketing. If you wish to benefit from such amazing publishing and networking opportunities, do become a member of the SIG by emailing at kkooli@bournemouth.ac.uk or ebolat@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Increased funding for KTP – now is a great time to apply

Yesterday, Jo Johnson announced a further £30m investment in to Knowledge Transfer Partnerships to to help grow UK businesses.

This is expected to fund an additional 200 KTP projects above and beyond the usual 300 KTP projects funded per year.

For further information on KTP or to talk through project ideas, please contact Rachel Clarke, KE Adviser.

 

 

HE policy update w/e 3rd November 2017

Influencing factors – where to work and study

UPP have released Skills to Pay the Bills: How students pick where to study and where to work. In the report they consider decision making at application stage, the relative importance of employability and which factors drive graduation retention in the area.

  • 70% of students said they would have been influenced by a university’s TEF score when selecting where to study (last year 84% said they would have been influenced by TEF – UPP suggest the decrease is that students have lost confidence in the TEF as a tool to help them differentiate between institutions). 58% of students declared they would not pay more fees to study at a gold or silver institution, however, applicants to Russell Group providers were more willing to pay an increased fee
  • More students (+6%) were aware of apprenticeships than in previous years. 30% say that they genuinely considered undertaking an apprenticeship before committing to their undergraduate degree. However, many decided against an apprenticeship because they thought it would limit their future career choices.
  • 40% of students were prepared to pay more (£2,000+ more) in fees if their degree guaranteed them a job with a salary minimum above £24,000 upon graduation. Students prioritised investment in employability programmes and work experience over research investment spend in institutions. Across all responses it was clear students feel vulnerable and are seeking future security – they are carefully weighing up whether they will benefit from the graduate premium
  • Students relocate after graduating for economic reasons – the perception of prosperity and sufficient graduate opportunities were the most significant factor to retain graduates within the area. The report recommends universities that aim to retain more graduate talent should work to increase the amount of graduate employment locally and effectively communicate these opportunities. For example, pairing students and recent graduates with local businesses.
    The second most influential factor was the availability of affordable accommodation. The golden handcuffs are areas which combine good graduate employment, affordable accommodation, and an attractive ‘look and feel’ to the local area (see map diagram on following page)

Read the concluding remarks and the recommendations for universities on page 15.

Universities must be careful to ensure that they act in ways that cement the personal, institutional and civic bargain embodied by higher education. Focusing on employability, opportunity and retention is a vital part of that bargain.

The above report was compiled from data collected in the UPP Annual Student Experience Survey. Click here for a deeper dive into the wider survey’s data and infometrics.

HE trends, facts and figures

UUK have published Higher Education in Facts and Figures 2017 which provides headline data on students, staff and finances. UUK describe their highlights:

  • In 2017 overall student satisfaction at UK HE institutions was 84%
  • University applications from 18 year olds in areas of England with lower HE participation rates have increased to record levels (part time students continue to decline)
  • Employment rates and median salaries continue to be higher for graduates than for non-graduates
  • Just under a quarter of total university income comes from direct UK government sources
  • 16% of research income comes from sources outside of the UK
  • The report stresses the diversity of students, the UK is the second most popular destination behind America and 14% of undergraduates, 38% of postgraduates, and 29% of academic staff are from outside the UK (of which 17% EU). Almost a quarter of senior lecturers and 18% of professors are non-UK nationals. 45% of the academic workforce are female.

Industrial Strategy

The Industrial Strategy Commission published their Final Report recommending a complete overhaul of the Government’s initial plans. They recommended the Industrial Strategy be owned by all and be “rethought as a broad, long-term and non-partisan commitment to strategic management of the economy… [it] must be an ambitious long-term plan with a positive vision for the UK.

Dr Craig Berry (Sheffield Political Economy research Institute): “Industrial strategy isn’t just about supporting a small number of sectors. It should focus on big strategic challenges like decarbonisation and population ageing – and ultimately it should aim to make material differences to people’s everyday lives. This will mean rethinking how government makes policies and chooses its investments.”

Recommendations:

  • A powerful industrial strategy division should be established within the Treasury to catalyse all other departments to devise and implement policies consistent with the industrial strategy. The ambition should be to achieve positive outcomes and make a material difference to people’s everyday lives. They propose overhauling current decision making on large strategic projects to take into account the effect on people’s lives. In the trade-off between economic efficiency and the equitable treatment of communities it is right for fairness to communities take priority in some cases
  • The new UK Research and Innovation agency (UKRI) should inform, and be informed by, the proposed new industrial strategy division. The UKRI board should have a high-level advisory committee including representatives from all three Devolved Administrations, and from key local authorities with devolution deals.
  • A new independent expert body – The Office for Strategic Economic Management – was proposed to monitor and measure the long-term success of the new strategy. It should be created on the model of the Office for Budgetary Responsibility
  • The new strategy should commit to providing what they call “Universal Basic Infrastructure”. All citizens in all places should be served by a good standard of physical infrastructure and have access to high quality and universal health and education services.
  • The report says that skills policy has suffered decades of damaging instability, and so policy makers and institutions should provide stability, including a cross-party consensus. Closer working and co-operation is required between the Department for Education and BEIS, national and local authorities, and the higher and further education funding and regulatory systems. Read section 2.4 The skills system from page 37 for more detail on this.
  • A long-term commitment to raise the R&D intensity of the economy, measured as the ratio of R&D spend, should be accompanied by a more detailed understanding of the whole innovation system. This will require intermediate milestones for both business and government/HE R&D intensity, supported by proposals for concrete interventions at a material scale, and with a new emphasis on demand-led initiatives to supplement the supply-side approach characteristic of the last 15 years of science and innovation policy. The new strategy should be designed with a comprehensive understanding of the whole R&D landscape and the relationships between its different parts. New institutions must have clarity of mission and be judged by the appropriate metrics. More on research and development on page 41, section 2.5 The research and innovation landscape.
  • The UK should seek to maintain and enhance the international character of its research system, including through future participation in EU Framework Programmes, for example through associate country status.
  • Health and social care must be central to the new industrial strategy. As well as offering potential for productivity gains and new markets, achieving better outcomes for people’s wellbeing must be placed at the centre of the strategy.
  • The new strategy should be organised around meeting the long-term strategic goals of the state. These include decarbonisation of the economy, investing in infrastructure and increasing export capacity.
  • Innovation policy should focus on using the state’s purchasing power to create new markets and drive demand for innovation in areas such as healthcare and low carbon energy. Harness the UK’s current world-class innovation by re-linking excellence in basic and applied research.
  • Place continues to remain central to the new strategy – an industrial strategy should not try to do everything everywhere, but it should seek to do something for everywhere. In 5 or 10 years’ time we should be able to pick anywhere in the UK and say how the strategy has helped that place, its people and industries. As most places perform below the UK average the strategy should push further and faster devolution. LEP boundaries should coincide with the appropriate economic geography.

Health and social care at the centre of industrial strategy

An effective, efficient and financially viable health and social care system, in the context of an ageing demography, is a key strategic goal for the UK. The new strategy must incorporate social care, public health, the NHS (as a market as well as a service), and the UK’s strong industrial sectors in pharma/life sciences and medical technology, as one whole system.

Future increases in public spending on health should come with the strict expectation that investment should be used to raise productivity. The provision of health and social care in all places means that even small productivity increases could have a significant impact.

The new industrial strategy should aim to achieve higher productivity and better health outcomes by ensuring more skilled and satisfying jobs in the health and social care sector. An urgent focus on redesigning training and education should aim to both raise the skills of existing employees and attract new people to the sector.

Health and social care services should be integrated, but this should be steered by the goal of achieving better outcomes for people’s wellbeing and not purely by reducing costs. This will lead to savings but not on a sufficient scale to meet the spending pressures of an ageing population. Lessons must be learned from the places which are now experimenting with health and social care integration to build the evidence base for how to achieve better outcomes.

Read more on Health & Social Care from page 64.

Goals

The report outlines what the UK’s 2017 goals should be:

  • Ensuring adequate investment in infrastructure
  • Decarbonisation of the energy economy
  • Developing a sustainable health and social care system.
  • Unlocking long-term investment
  • Supporting high-value industries and building export capacity
  • Enabling growth in all parts of the UK

Other news

Apprenticeships: DfE confirmed they will review level 4 and 5 technical education to ensure it better addresses the needs of learners and employers. This includes progression from the new T level which will be taught from 2020. Anne Milton (Apprenticeships and Skills Minister) said: “High quality technical education helps young people and adults get into new, fulfilling and better paid careers. That’s good for them and good for our economy. This is the way we build a better, higher skilled workforce.”

Getting your research into parliament: A new How to guide has been released. Here are there 10 top tips:

Making connections

  • Be seen online or at events, so it’s easy for us to find you
  • Blog your research so we know what you are working on
  • Follow what we are doing on the Parliament website and via Twitter
  • Sign up to POST, Commons and Lords Library, and Select Committee Alerts
  • Invite parliamentary staff to your events

Presenting research

  • Don’t just send your journal articles: send us a brief and include your sources
  • Be relevant: start with a summary and focus on how your research impacts people
  • Use visuals: a picture can paint a thousand words (and save time and space)
  • Be clear and accurate: be explicit about all limitations and caveats
  • Don’t forget the essentials: include your contact details and date your briefing

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                   |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk