National Assembly for Wales

I'd like to welcome Members to the committee this morning, and those watching in. This morning we are at the University of South Wales in Treforest, and we're very grateful to the university and the student union building here for hosting us this morning, so thank you very much.

I do move to item 1, and we do have apologies from Lee Waters this morning. If there are any declarations, please mention them now. 

I move to item 2, and we have got one paper to note. Are Members happy to note that paper?

Yes.

Thank you.

In that case, we move to item 3. This is our first session of three sessions in total with regard to research and innovation. This morning, we have a panel before us of further education and higher education experts. I knew you'd smile when I said that. [Laughter.] Thank you for being with us this morning. We're very grateful. We know you're busy people and we're very grateful that you've agreed to come and provide us with some evidence this morning in the very first session of our three-day inquiry. So, thank you for your time this morning. So, Members will have various questions. If I perhaps could start with the first question and ask you— 

[Inaudible.]

Yes, sorry. Yes. That's why we have a clerk. The clerk always reminds me if I miss something out, and I have. If you could introduce yourselves for the record, please, I'd be very grateful. If I could start with Rachel.

I'm Rachel Bowen. I'm director of policy and development at ColegauCymru, CollegesWales. We're a post-compulsory education charity, and we represent all the further education colleges in Wales.

Bore da, bawb. I'm Professor Chris Thomas. I'm pro vice-chancellor for research, knowledge exchange and innovation at Aberystwyth University. 

Good morning. I'm David Bembo. I'm the director of research and innovation services at Cardiff University.

Good morning. I'm Professor Paul Harrison. I'm pro vice-chancellor for innovation, and dean of the faculty of computing, engineering and science, here at the University of South Wales.

Thank you very much. So, if I can start: what should be the vision, do you think, for research and innovation in Wales? What should be the vision?

I'm happy to start.

Thank you, Paul.

I think we need to decide what we'd like it to achieve, really. What's the underlying philosophy and principle around funding research and innovation in Wales? What's the Government wanting to achieve with that funding? So, for example, it might be economic prosperity and economic growth, and if that's agreed then I think that guides other decisions that fall from that. 

Thank you. Do any other Members want to add to that?

I'd just like to pitch just a bit more ground than that, as a starting point. I think one of the advantages Wales has is that we're a very networked society. You know, the six points of contact that most people in the world seem to have, we have about one and a half or two, and it is a strength. So, I think that is something that we should be aware of as we bring forward this exciting new strategy. We've got opportunities to do that now, and as many of the papers you will have read and expert advice you've received suggests, we have an opportunity to link things up—so, it's the universities, FE, industry, wider society, Government. And I think a vision—because that was the question you asked—not a tactic, should be to promote that coherence, and that comes through in a lot of the policy documents and the policy thinking you've seen so far.

And if I look at the other two members of the panel, perhaps I could ask you to answer that question, but also, perhaps, address how you think business can be involved in that vision as well. Rachel.

After David.

David.

I think the starting point for me would be to maintain the strength of the research base in Wales. That's obviously measured through external measures such as the research excellence framework, but also to have clarity on our research and innovation priorities in Wales. We've recently gone through a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy science and innovation audit with the South Wales Crucible led by colleagues in Swansea University and, critically—and this, in part, answers the second part of your question—the themes within that audit were led by industry partners. So, it involves inputs from both the academic base and also from the private sector base and comes to an agreed position on areas where we should invest in Wales, where we should continue to invest, but also, as part of a vision, it also identifies areas where we see emerging strengths that are coupled with emerging industrial opportunities and economic growth opportunities in the future—areas like data science, for example, and cyber security and the like. So, that's a really good starting point for us in Wales and it also had strong buy-in from the Welsh Government and the chief scientific adviser.

I think the vision needs to be much more focused around collaboration and taking advantage of all the talents that we have in Wales. So, we know a lot of research—the bulk of research—is generated by universities, but there is scope for a certain innovation outside the HE sector. There are some great collaborative projects that are going on between FE, HE and business, but I think the opportunity to do more of that and do it better is there now.

Okay. I had some questions flowing from that but I'll hold back because I think Members will probably pick them up during the session. I'll come to Joyce in a moment, but Bethan Sayed first.

Yes, I just wanted to pick up on what Paul Harrison was saying with regard to the underlying physical philosophy of Government. Are you saying that because you don't think that the current Government has a philosophy? I know, of course, that there was a document in 2014 with regard to innovation from the Welsh Government with their own challenges, which may be different to what the UK Government has in mind. I'm just wondering whether it's the place of Government to have that philosophy or whether, as autonomous institutions, you may think that that philosophy would be good to have, but, ultimately, it should be for you as institutions to have your own individual priorities. Or would that then be too piecemeal for a small nation such as Wales?

If I may, I think if the Welsh Government has—. If we're talking about Welsh Government money to fund research, then I think it's entirely reasonable that the Welsh Government can set the priorities for that funding. So, lots of my colleagues here have talked about collaborations with businesses, et cetera. I fully agree with that. If the Welsh Government's priority for research and innovation funding is to drive economic growth in—

You don't know what that is at the moment, then?

I don't. I'm relatively new to Wales, I've been here a year, so I've not seen that articulated—that the vision, the purpose of research and innovation funding from the Welsh Government is to drive economic prosperity. And if that is the vision and that is agreed, then what my colleagues talk about—about more collaborative research, applied research, translation of research in universities to industry-led challenges—if that all falls out, then it's the right thing to do.

Does anybody else think that the vision is lacking? Because this is really important for me, having read a lot of these things—we need to understand whether that is lacking and whether that's what you all want, or whether you think that you have a more proactive role in providing that vision as well.

I think there's a balance to be struck here. The Haldane principle should apply. The universities are autonomous bodies and this is where ideas and creativity—not just solely in universities, but this is a place that was designed to capture and create an environment of where these things can bubble up. At the same time, it is right, I think, for incentivisation, for a small country like Wales, to be focused in our areas of strength, and, as David said, the science and innovation audit is a really good example of identifying those strengths. It was a partial view of just the big stuff; you always fund the big, important stuff—great. There will be smaller bits of excellence that are not captured in that document, so it's a bit wider than that, I would say—that's my personal view. But there is a need to replace the kind of funds we've been getting from Europe—

I think we'll come on to that.

You'll come onto that. I realise I'm just jumping ahead here—

Yes, it was more the headlines.

I think the headline from that, though, is that it has given it that steer, because an awful lot of those require collaboration and have an economic driver behind them.

Thank you. David, did you want to come in?

I'd stress one point, and the point I would make is balance, so the need for universities to have the headroom, the capacity and the funding to be able to carry out what we often refer to as 'discovery-led science'—it's sometimes referred to as 'fundamental' or 'blue skies' research. Because predicting the future and our future needs in terms of STEM and new discoveries and technologies is not something you'd want to put your house on, basically. But also to get that steer in terms of UK-level strategy, where we should be investing, but also it's appropriate for Wales to have that investment strategy around science and innovation as well. Smart specialisation comes into that to an extent. If I could provide an example of this, it would be in the backing that we've received as Cardiff University for our work in compound semiconductors, working in conjunction with a major international player, IQE plc, establishing a joint venture investment with IQE, and then seeing the investment in the cluster and from Welsh Government, and indeed from the Cardiff capital region city deal, and that's really joined-up working across the academic sector and the public and private sectors.

Rachel Bowen, you wanted to come in.

Yes. I think some of this comes back to the fact that we still don't have a vision for the post-compulsory education and training sector as a whole. So, one of the first recommendations—in fact, the top recommendation—from the Hazelkorn report, 'Towards 2030', was that Welsh Government needed to develop a vision for the PCET sector, a strategy. In a report that came out about universities maximising their civic contribution, a report that came out on Tuesday, that's still the No. 1 recommendation. So, although we've moved straight to Hazelkorn recommendation 2, which is to set up a body to deal with PCET, we still don't have that overarching vision, and one of the problems that we've come back to, time and again, with the idea for the tertiary education research council Wales, is: what is it you want it to do, rather than how you want it to operate? And research and innovation funding is a key part of that, potentially.

Thank you. Joyce Watson.

Good morning, all. We've had some feedback, or Welsh Government has had some feedback, that its proposals for Research and Innovation Wales are too detailed and too prescriptive. What level of flexibility should RIW have, and what level of oversight should there be from Welsh Ministers?

Who would like to take that one first—Rachel?

I think some of this comes back to—. We've gone straight to setting up how the tertiary education and research commission for Wales should operate, rather than looking at what we want it to do, and so Research and Innovation Wales will be part of that. Until we have the vision, it's quite difficult to assess those things in any detail, but when some of the proposals set out in the latest 'towards a public good' document are talking about the number of people who should be on Research and Innovation Wales and the split of it, that is too complex, until we've decided what it is we want to do, which is presumably one of the things that we're addressing today. CollegesWales is very keen to see the chair of Research and Innovation Wales be an Assembly appointment, rather than a Welsh Government appointment, to increase accountability and things like that.

I'm not expecting everyone to answer on every question, so Paul Harrison or David, would you like to address—? David.

I would back the view that the regulatory powers to be established here need to be allowed to develop over time, and they probably have been too prescriptive initially. We think that setting things in stone at an early part of the process probably increases the chances of additional legislation then being needed in the future in order to correct the course, as it were.

Joyce, do you have any further questions?

Yes. We also took evidence from, or we went to visit, United Kingdom Research and Innovation. They stood apart from the Office for Students in England. So, do you think that RIW should follow that path? Would it widen its scope if they're going to include managing activity that falls outside tertiary education, for example, like in the NHS or local government?

I'm happy to go. Yes, I think that the UKRI and the Office for Students model is the right one. Research and Innovation Wales will have a much broader remit than just university research; I think it will encompass other organisations. It's quite a different prospect from education, if you like. The two are joined and with universities, of course, it's a two-way process and the academics being immersed in the scholarly environment with the students is a key part of the research process, but those connections with business for industry-led research and connections with the national health service, museums, et cetera, are a quite different proposition to education. So, I think some autonomy and ability to do the best for research innovation in the UK-wide model would be the right thing.

Chris Thomas. 

Just to say, I agree with these sentiments. It needs to be able to adapt to a pretty fast gear changing landscape, and being outside that gives it the ability to, like you say, encompass other areas, but it can respond relatively quickly, I think, in that UKRI model.

If there's no other points to be made by the panel, do you have any further questions, Joyce? If not, I'll come to Hefin David. 

Can I just get the views of the panel on the principles of the dual-support funding system, how effective that is and the implications for the future? 

I'll kick off. It's fundamental to our operation and it's a successful model. It gives you the ability to do the good work now and it also gives you the forward look and the QR is the forward look money. It allows the institution receiving it to invest in those areas that are key, at the bleeding cutting edge, and that is ideally how it should be used. We have a disadvantage in Wales, because our proportionate QR is below that of England and Scotland. 

Yes, 3.9 per cent for 5 per cent of the population. 

Yes, exactly. So, the figures that Universities Wales have produced: Wales, £71 million; if we were in England, it would be £117 million; if we were in Scotland, it would be £164 million. These are big differences. We are competing on the—. You've heard elsewhere that excellence is where excellence is found, it is at the UK level. UKRI in particular is the funding that the universities want with all the overheads that come with it; it's the bluechip excellence benchmark funding. We're very pleased to be competing for that, but the QR gives us the ability to grow critical mass, to focus in on our key areas and invest in the future. It's absolutely essential. 

So, you agree with the Reid view that there's a correlation between QR and UKRI access? 

I do indeed, yes.

Yes, okay. 

I'd agree entirely with the point that Chris has made. Cardiff's use of QR includes investment in refreshing the research base. So, it's about bringing on early career researchers, the very best of those, attracting them from outside of Wales and building capacity. It allows us to engage with Welsh Government schemes such as Sêr Cymru, where there are significant co-funding requirements. So, we need to put pounds on the table in order to back the money that comes in externally to build our capacity to bring in the brightest people internationally to make Welsh universities' research base competitive. The other aspect of that, of course, the other part of the dual-support system, is the money that we win from the UK research councils and other places, and the level of support we get from those sources is actually decreasing, so the 80 per cent full economic costs that universities win is probably now around 65 per cent or so, according to figures that we've had sight of, because of the need to put cash match funding on the table in order to win the very biggest awards—that's a prerequisite. 

So, is there any evidence that the PCET Bill would compromise any of that and, particularly RIW, possibly lead into a compromise of the Haldane principles? 

This doesn't answer your question directly, but my emphasis would be on bringing forward the recommendations of Graeme Reid's review to maintain and grow QR at its current £71 million per annum level, and also to endorse the recommendations he made around the £30 million Future of Wales fund, which would reward success in winning competitive funding. 

But more broadly, you'd like to see the Haldane and dual-funding system enshrined in the PCET Bill? 

Absolutely. 

Okay. 

Hefin, do you mind if Bethan just comes in? 

Yes, of course. 

Sorry, just on the point that David Bembo said about the 80 per cent, is that why, therefore, the top universities are able to be successful in acquiring that research funding, because they would have the financial resource behind them to do that? And will that hinder you more with the obvious financial difficulties? I don't want to panic people, but if institutions seem to be saying that funds are not as great as they could be, that is hampering you then from being able to apply on a level with other universities. 

I think the point is that we have the research excellence in Wales, we are competitive in terms of our scientific base, but we have to look very closely at the finances in making decisions as to whether we can actually get on to the starting grid with some of these major competitions, because of the cash match funding that's required. 

So, what would help you in that regard though? 

Cash. 

Yes, but how would you acquire that? Who would facilitate that? 

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a virtuous circle, I think is what I want to say. When you have this forward investment you are more competitive, you win more of these UK-wide funds, which will go elsewhere in the UK if they weren't coming to Wales, and that then helps you build momentum. There is a relationship between the critical mass in an area and your success. Per full-time person you do better if you're in a bigger place. That's because of infrastructure, facilities, technical support and the mass of expertise, and that's what we need to grow in Wales and that's what QR does. And not having as much QR, as say Scotland in particular, and England, puts us at a disadvantage. If you look at the outputs from Welsh scientists, we are the best in the UK. So, there's no question of the calibre or the quality; it's the vehicle we're in. 

So, the volume of basic research going on would be comparable to other regions of the UK. 

The outputs—I've got this right, haven't I? On the quality of the outputs we're the highest in the UK.

Right, okay. 

So, it's not a question of calibre of scientists, R&D; it's the infrastructure.

Okay. Do you think that if there was funding available, should there be other organisations eligible to receive research and innovation funding from RIW? I suggest the National Museum of Wales is an independent research organisation. 

I feel I'm going first every time. 

David Bembo. 

So, very often, winning research and innovation funding for a region is a collaborative effort in the current day and age, not only between research institutions, so between the HE base, but also in conjunction with the companies and other organisations that we work with. So, the funding landscape in the UK, the national productivity investment fund, is very focused on the industrial strategy and Strength in Places, et cetera. And to be competitive in those arenas we have to be working very closely with external organisations, with the private sector.  

So, perhaps the criteria for applications through RIW for external organisations would be the extent to which they collaborate with universities and the quality of the collaboration. 

I think it's about the quality of the application overall, not necessarily about the—. You'd expect to see divisions of application. You need to be able to fund fundamental science or discovery science, but you also need to be able to fund translational work as well. I think the criteria are slightly different and the outputs and the outcomes you'd expect are different.  

Okay, and how is that judgment made? Peer review?  

Peer review. But I think your peer reviewers would obviously differ depending on the outcomes that you expect to achieve from a particular piece of work. 

Okay. Have you got views on the PCET White Paper and the discussion that it has on the relationship between basic research and applied research? 

Yes, very strong views. I've read all the consultations, as I'm sure you have, and they all say the same thing. There is a value to this fundamental research that is absolutely crucial to acknowledge. Most of the great work that we're talking about, the innovation stuff, is downstream from some ideas there. It has to be risky. Not all of it ends in that place; there's societal good as well as economic good. There are all kinds of public good benefit from fundamental research, not least of which is the teaching environment for our skilled people in the future. So, fundamental research, the balance between those things, is always tricky when you're trying to drive a strategic agenda, but it's important to maintain that balance.

Now, my institution is happy with the balance we have set in the UK and in Wales now. And don't forget, QR also helps provide research time for academics at universities and in higher education— that scholarly time that is essential. So, I think the balance is about right now, and I would like to see that protected as we go forward.

Okay. And for Government to be at arm's length from the judgment process of basic research.

Yes. The Haldane principle.

Yes. Absolutely. Just to wrap up, can I just ask Rachel Bowen if there are any FE perspectives on this discussion and whether it's worth putting that in now?

Obviously, we aren't involved in QR research. We're not necessarily—you know, we're not trying to get a bigger slice of the pie, necessarily, by going after universities. But we are very interested in greater collaboration, and from the beginning. So, rather than being an afterthought, we need to work more closely together from the beginning. There's a lot of good work going on around applied innovation research within FE that doesn't necessarily get the recognition that it deserves. So, we've been looking for much greater recognition of that, greater involvement and where we can bring FE and HE together more.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Paul Harrison.

I'd just like to pick up on a few points.

Sorry. I didn't direct my questions to you.

No, it's fine. A few points—you mentioned Government intervention. I think it's, on the face of—. It depends on what it is. So, in the UK, nationally, of course, the Government has intervened, and it was called the industrial strategy and the industrial strategy challenge fund. By defining the sectors that the Government thinks are important for the nation going forward, and attaching funding to those, they have influenced, if you like, the landscape of research and innovation across the whole of the UK. I think interventions like that are entirely reasonable. But, on the other hand, we also have RCUK, the research councils, and the Government doesn't influence what they fund on a case-by-case basis. That is left to them to decide on the basis of excellence and peer review, of course, which we support.

So, I haven't said anything about the dual funding system. I think it's absolutely crucial, as my colleagues say. QR funds for long term, it allows us to fund PhD students, fund early career researchers, give them time for academic pursuits. It allows all researchers to do the blue skies research that's unfunded to try out new ideas, to build prototypes, et cetera that are not near-market. And these, further downstream, then can be translated into new products and services that help grow the economy. So, that dual-support system, I think, is absolutely vital in Wales.

What I've noticed—. I've said I was relatively new here; I came from England 13 months ago, and the funding landscape is more challenging here, actually, overall. The proportion of QR that the university has received is not as generous as in England. There's no equivalent of higher education innovation fund money—that was stopped in 2014—which was incredibly valuable in my previous university for that knowledge translation and working in collaborative research with industry. But also, even, dare I say, the overall tuition fee, of course, is lower here. So, the funding landscape for universities is more restricted here, and, if the Welsh Government wants Welsh universities to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the UK, then it needs to fund us to the same level.

I appreciate that that's the case. As a new set of eyes coming to Wales, Professor Harrison, I'd be interested to know how you account for that difference.

How we account for that—?

How you would account for the difference—what reasons would you suggest for the difference?

What, in terms of funding?

Yes.

Well, I think—

Less tuition fees, more the research.

Yes, I'm sure we'd like to stay on those ones. Well, the equivalent of HEIF was mentioned as being very important in the Reid review, reinstating that. And that's—

Do you think it's just that funding decisions that the Welsh Government has made have been different with regard to QR?

Funding priorities have been different for the Welsh Government, and what we're saying is that—. My colleagues might have a different view, but, from where I'm sitting, we can do more collaborative work with local, regional and national companies to develop new products and services if we're specifically funded to do that, like the HEIF programme in England, certainly. That in itself will lead to greater economic prosperity, but also improved impact case studies for the research excellence framework. And, actually, it'll bolster bids to RCUK, because they're looking for pathways to impact, which has, again, been a good Government intervention, I think, over the last few years that, even in research council funding, which is for more long-term blue-skies research, they're still asking academics and research groups, 'Okay, well, what difference does this make to society? What's the pathway to impact?' Even if that's a five to 10-year timescale, I think it's been very useful that academics and researchers have had to articulate that. 

If you've finished, Hefin, I'll come to David Rowlands, then I'll come to Bethan. David Rowlands.

Yes. I've read here that there's a return on capital investment of something like £7 returned for every £1 invested. That seems to be a pretty good lever. Do you have a mechanism for lobbying the Welsh Government—a collective lobbying of the Welsh Government—for extra money? That's a very good argument that you could use, obviously, to get extra funding. Is there a mechanism that you use for that?

[Inaudible.] My response would be that the universities work very effectively through Universities Wales to provide a common perspective. Obviously, the inquiry's had a response from Universities Wales, which has been endorsed by the members. I think that, the issues that we're discussing today, the responses are fairly consistent from the research-active, the research-intensive, universities in the sector in Wales.

Bethan Sayed.

May I have a stab at this? There are a few bits to unpack in there, which, if I remember correctly—

Sorry.

No, no, I very much welcome that question. The excellence, as you've heard, at UKRI is essential. This is peer reviewed, and it's not just within a competitive circle within the UK—it's global peer review, so it gives us that global seal of approval, if you like. Very, very competitive—a lot of projects in there will be banded as fundable and excellent, but there just isn't enough money, so it's really—. I've chaired these research council panels; they're tough decisions.

The reason why the golden triangle is perhaps attracting so much—. It's that thing I said earlier about critical mass, the money to invest in superstars and superstar groups—there's a fast-moving circle of academics who can, early career people boosted because they've got these ideas—so, it is a virtuous circle for them there.

However, you also made the point about regionalisation. Most grand challenge projects these days and projects that are funded tend to involve a network, and so you're absolutely right that there needs to be the kind of investment in this pre-grant-proposal networking. Those funds have tended to have been stripped out of the universities in Wales as funds became tighter and our QR has diminished relative to what we're expected to do; we haven't been able to invest in those. It's the grease on the wheels, the pump-priming funds, the networking and conference funds—it's the small bits that actually allow you to be positioned. The other thing we've done in Wales, the universities, is focus in our areas of excellence—and, again, this science and innovation audit highlights those— because you do gain critical mass by working like that. We also work well, I guess, with our traditional roots, as a sort of hub-and-spoke model on certain areas of excellence—so, at Aberystwyth, agri-biotech—but of course we work with Swansea, Cardiff and Bangor and so on. So, we do work well as a network. It is important to have that regionalised focus on these preparatory funds. It is important, in my view, to focus on our areas of strength and importance for Wales, and that will allow us to compete against the rest, with—take part in the rest of the UK.

But our partnerships will not just be within Wales; they will be wherever excellence is found. So, we are not monogamous in these things; we will go to the university of wherever if they have the group that we need to work with. I think what's important is that we are as often leaders as co-investigators. Otherwise, you're just somebody invited to somebody else's main event. It relates to a previous question about this unhypothecated, research-led, Haldane principle-led, funding to put us in that position to drive success in Wales. 

But have you got enough—

Have I skirted around that a bit too much?

Have you got enough interventions with business for this to happen? I met with a big pharma company from France last week in Wales and they said that they would want to come to Wales, potentially, but, when they arrive in London, London is where they're being promoted to stay as opposed to being promoted to go into the devolved nations. Have you got enough sway with some of these companies that you would need to work with to develop some of these key components of innovation to be able to properly say, 'Well, actually, yes, we are on a par with other universities across the UK'?

I'll return to the word 'excellence'. I think, in areas of excellence, then we're able to form those partnerships. So, for example, battery technology is very big in the University of South Wales, and we have major multimillion-pound contracts with European car manufacturers here. They will find us if we are the best, but we need to be able to compete on a national level.

So, in that sense, you're saying you don't need to be proactive because you've got that excellence already there.

No, what I think is that in areas—. What we need to do is have more areas of demonstrable excellence and then we're able to attract the major industrial partners, but, going back to the earlier point, of course we need to be able to compete with the rest of the UK, because international businesses, their first port of call tends to be the south-east, doesn't it?

Yes.

For the record, Chris Thomas was indicating 'no' to your answer as well.

Just to say, no, we do need to be very proactive. 

Okay. I'm glad to hear it. [Laughter.]

And I don't think anyone would say any different.

Anybody else want to, on the panel—? No. Hefin David.

Just as chair of the cross-party group on higher education, some of the discussions we've had is that, exactly as Bethan Sayed has said, if you haven't got that industrial base, it makes the basic research very difficult to take off. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. What can you—? You're in a vicious cycle, really, aren't you? So, what—

We need to attract the catapults here. These kinds of initiatives—we need to make our presence felt. We're on the train to London a lot. We're on the flight and the train to Brussels a lot. We do what we can with what we've got. We absolutely understand the need to be proactive, to engage, to have the networks already made. When you're competing for these funds, if there's a call from UKRI to address this area and you've got three months to go and you're trying to build your networks around that now, you have a very small chance of success compared to people who have already invested in those networks in advance. And that is a real key underpinning for high-quality work that will attract funding. It's not just about the funding, it's doing the high-quality stuff. The funding will follow if you get this right.

It's a challenge you think can be overcome.

Yes, I do. And I think there's an opportunity to do that with the work that you're doing here.

Joyce Watson. Sorry, David did you want to come in there?

I just wanted to add to the points that Chris was making there. As universities, we engage strongly with the anchor companies in Wales as well as with smaller companies, and we do very effective collaborative research with organisations of all sizes. I think something that came out of the Reid review around representation of the universities and the research base in Wales in London—so the London office for research and innovation is a great idea and I'm glad to see that's being taken forward currently. I would see the advantage in not only representing the Welsh research base to UK Government and to influence decisions being made around research and innovation funding in London but also as a shop window for research and innovation when engaging with the kinds of companies that we've just described, which may come into the UK and may not get out of London, as it were, in terms of their engagement with the UK research base.

Also, in terms of our capacity to engage with businesses, we've touched on higher education and innovation funds already and their value to the sector in Wales. The way I see English universities using HEIF—and we're talking about an investment at a level of £3 million plus per annum to Cardiff's equivalent and larger Russell Group universities in England, and you can do a lot with funding on that scale—is that it not only gives you a sustained base of knowledge exchange professionals, so that kind of longevity of service to help you to work on those long-standing embedded relationships with key partners, but it also allows you to be responsive to new opportunities when they come along. I see the English universities doing things like investing in the development of large-scale proposals and relationships that will lead to major proposals under the industrial strategy challenge fund and similar large-scale funding initiatives. Those relationships, those deep relationships with companies, take a lot of nurturing, a lot of face-to-face time, a lot of mutual understanding, before they can be competitive on a UK-level basis, and that's not something you can do on the basis of hand-to-mouth funding.

What sort of person should represent Wales in London?

It needs knowledge not only of the research base but also of the industrial challenges that we face here in Wales to link up opportunities across the public university base and the private sector as well.

Chris Thomas.

It doesn't need to be just an office processing paper and arranging things. My ideal leader would be visionary, charismatic, forward-facing. Professor Graeme Reid would be excellent. Somebody who can command attention from Wales, to pull us to them and the world to Wales.

Okay, thank you. Good. Joyce Watson.

We did hear on our visit to London that it's a contact sport. That's how it was described to us by the director. If you want to get into research, it's very much a contact sport. Would you agree with that?

Absolutely, yes.

And that would fit, then, with this person who would be a contact and this conduit between the elements that we need to make innovation happen.

Yes, it's the networks, it's the engagement, it's the face time, it's the events and pushing things forward, it's being proactive, and it's having the funds at the universities to pile in behind in the rolling war.

And do you think—? I know you've—but I want to pin it down: do you think you're at a disadvantage in that contact sport at the moment?

Yes.

Yes. I just wanted to—. I like short answers and precise questions so that we can put it on the record. But I am interested—and this is a longer question now—in your views on the apparent proposal in the PCET White Paper to deviate from the excellence principles, and to also award research funding based on place, particularly in light of the regional economic strategy that's being pursued by the Welsh Government.

Chris Thomas—. Sorry—you were indicating that you wanted to answer.

Well, I'm conscious I'm—. Well, they're not mutually exclusive. A good example is the Strength in Places fund led by Innovate UK that is seeking to address disparities in local economies. It's still based on excellence, but you have to demonstrate that you're going to address a regional priority with excellent initiatives. So, they're not mutually exclusive. I think it's a very good idea to have those kinds of initiatives, because it allows you to prioritise what is important for us or that particular region or that particular sector, and it's not all just an open contact sport. There is some partitioning of this effort, and to escape the ever-increasing golden triangle, let's face it, certainly it will all coalesce. If you just ran this as a mathematical model, it would all coalesce in one big blob in a place, and you've got to have mechanisms that ensure that it addresses regional priorities. So, it is absolutely possible to have regional priorities that are still based on excellence.

Paul Harrison.

I fully agree with that. There's another example as well, called the global challenges research fund, which is again based on excellence, but it's about doing a project in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country with a local partner, but with a UK partner as well. So, a similar model could work in Wales.

Can I make a comment about targeted interventions, which aren't always based on the pre-existence of a critical mass of capacity of research excellence? Cardiff was a recipient of a couple of investments from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council at a UK level a few years ago. One of them was to establish a physical organic chemistry centre, an area where we didn't previously have past strength, but there was a recognised need for greater capacity in that area across the UK. That gave us funding for a research chair and three lectureships and that's proven to be highly successful, and has helped at a UK level, but you can see how the same concept would work within Wales, for example, if there was a perceived need to up capacity in a particular area.

Another one that has had very significant benefits in terms of impact was a similar investment in operational research that enabled us to bring in a research chair and, again, two lectureships in the School of Mathematics in Cardiff. They've been working very closely with the NHS in doing modelling on bed blocking, for example, and those kinds of factors that reduce efficiency in healthcare services. So, that’s an intervention where previously we perhaps lacked excellence and ultimate capacity, which has resulted in great benefits for Wales.

We have got quite a few areas to cover, so we'll have to just be a little bit sharper on our questions and answers. Bethan Sayed.

I think that was addressed to me.

Just the last part, yes.

The last part, so I'll take the last part first. We've benefited from EU structural funds and, in a way, that has been used to prop up the absence of higher education innovation funding, which is much more flexible, as you've heard. Structural funds are quite strategic and directed. Again, it's an impediment to the kind of stuff we're talking about, but there was a lot of it. And so we have geared ourselves to have great success in achieving those awards at the various universities. The UKRI is based on excellence, and it is a different game. It's a similar game, but it's a different game. And so we need the QR and all of the other things that we're talking about to maintain the excellence benchmark. That isn't there in the same way in the EU structural funds. I didn't take it as a criticism in Reid—he's just pointing out very wisely that it's a different game now. We've got a gear up for this one, because this is the game that's in town now for us. And we do not have HEIF or some equivalent, and the absence of structural funds makes that even more profound.

Paul Harrison, then I'll come to David. Paul Harrison.

Just to echo what Chris says, I think we do need to do better with UK research council funding. It's an area of concern for me and we will compete more as the structural funds from Europe are expected to decrease—we're going to have to—but it's going to be a challenge because we not a level playing field with the rest of the UK.

And on the Government funding, Rachel, did you have anything on that?

Yes. I'm not really sure how it's going to be possible to implement the Reid recommendations without some sort of funding when, obviously, we're particularly interested in the reinstatement of innovation and engagement funding, particularly because the recommendation is that, at some point, further education colleges should be able to be bidding for that and be involved in that. In previous roles, innovation and engagement funding, when I worked at universities, allowed universities to do all sorts of outreach activities, the building of relationships, which has already come up. When I was at the Federation of Small Businesses, likewise, we drew on legacy innovation and engagement funds to put together all sorts of projects, research projects, bringing together small businesses with universities. I see no reason why that couldn't be extended to involve further education colleges, but that is a matter of funding.

David, do you want to come in?

Yes, I've two points. The first one is around the importance of HEIF, which we've already touched upon. In England, independent analyses show that the return on investment for HEIF is probably £9.70 or so for every pound that's put in by Government. And in part, European structural funds have been a substitute for HEIF within Wales, but European structural funds have also underpinned our performance in terms of winning grants from UKRI and other sources as well. So, if I think about Cardiff's recent investment in CUBRIC, the brain research imaging centre, the investment from ERDF was actually matched by a very significant investment from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Medical Research Council in terms of their capital funding, enabling us to put that centre together. And that's just one example of where Wales has been geared up to be competitive with UKRI, with Horizon 2020 and other more research-focused funds via investments from ERDF. And it's critical that we find a way of replacing that as a nation. 

And just to echo, that's not a one-off. Our innovation campus for agri-biotech is partnered with European structural funds and then Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council funds, by significant—.

Okay. Vikki Howells.

Thank you, Chair. I'll just pick up that thread there, Rachel, regarding research and innovation within the FE sector. I take your point regarding funding, but let's imagine we are living in some sort of utopia where the funding was actually there. I'm thinking in particular about how we can encourage more collaboration between the FE and the HE sectors. We know, for example, that with the PCET reforms, you'll be expected to enhance the collaboration between two sectors with regard to learning. Is that, perhaps, the right vehicle to try and enhance collaboration between the two sectors with regard to research and innovation? And if you agree, could you explain a little about how you think that might work?

Thank you. I think the focus on bringing the post-compulsory sectors together much more has already resulted in far greater discussions, conversations and collaborations. So, we've worked with universities and with Universities Wales much more closely than we would have previously. We've had a joint cross-party group meeting of the CPGs on FE and HE. That's something that we're looking to get together again. I think, if we're having discussions around teaching and learning connections, there's no reason why they shouldn't be extended to cover research and innovation discussions; it makes a lot of sense to bring those two things together.

This isn't just about funding and just about money. Lots of this is about building those long-term relationships, and it's making sure that there are people on both sides who are able to enhance the existing connections, but think about them, potentially, in a different way, so that we are thinking about innovation rather than just recruitment and those sorts of areas.  

Any other views on that? 

Working down the table, I'd endorse that entirely, and the recent HE-FE collaboration fund for research was a good example of that—Aberystwyth University collaborating with Coleg Cambria on precision livestock. It was building on all the strengths I've talked about. It built on their strengths and networks with the industry and produced a skilled workforce. It's an ideal partnership, and I would suggest that that's going to also plough the road for some highly excellent research proposals to the industrial strategy challenge fund from the joint sector. So, I would agree with the sentiment.  

I'd highlight the same HEFCW funding that Chris has just referred to. It's brought together some really first-rate bids that involve collaboration between HE and FE, but taking the complementary elements from the provision from the two sectors. Cardiff was involved in the south-east Wales region bid that brought in all four Cardiff universities and five FE providers, working in conjunction with the Cardiff capital region, so very much a joined-up approach, which is, I think, the way that we'd like to be working together in the future and to be doing more of it. 

My colleagues have summarised it well. 

And one final question. Do we need any other incentives, or is it all just about finance and getting that framework for the collaboration?

I think finance helps, but as we go forward together as a PCET sector, rather than concentrating too much on being further education or higher education, hopefully those relationships will naturally evolve over time. 

Yes, I'd agree with that. 

I think place-based collaborations are actually very powerful in bringing providers together from FE-HE around a place-based agenda. It's a powerful tool.  

Thank you. 

Thank you. Mohammad Asghar. 

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much, panel. I was listening very carefully to all the things that you mentioned earlier, and national and all that—you are all autonomous in your jobs, but a couple of concerns. Wales lies at the bottom of the productivity and innovation league table. That's one. And also, the Welsh Government has consistently failed to raise productivity levels in Wales. And finally, the Welsh Government economic action plan failed to outline any detailed road map for raising innovation and productivity levels in Wales. So, basically, these are my concerns. I've got full faith in academia in Wales but the thing is, nobody mentioned the brain drain of our children from here. Of the top 100 universities in the world, Wales hasn't got one, but Scotland and England have got some in the top 10. At least three or four universities are there. So, where are we lacking? Why is it you haven't influenced some sort of thing to improve our innovation and productivity in Wales? Bethan earlier mentioned other students from all over the world that come and learn here. It's one of the best places to learn.  

A general question there. Who would like to touch on those points? Rachel Bowen. 

I think productivity is a complex issue, isn't it? So, some of that is impacted on by the fact that, in Wales, we have an ageing population, and we have a higher percentage of people with a disability in Wales than in other parts of the UK. There are all sorts of activities and actions we could undertake to make sure that more disabled people are in work. We could get more people who are economically inactive into work, and that would help with productivity. So, that is a complex question.

In terms of retaining and attracting graduates to Wales, obviously, this is more an issue for others on the panel, but research by, I think, Gill Bristow at Cardiff University shows that we are a net exporter of graduates. So, we need to think about how we can retain people to live and work in Wales. I don't think we have a problem with attracting people to study here, but how do we hang on to them? How do we hang on to our best and brightest in Wales and encourage them to not necessarily leave and make their contribution here? Some of that is to do with quality of life—how do we make Wales an attractive place to live and work and study on a long-term basis? 

I wouldn't venture to try and give you a rounded response, but one of the things that we all focus on, certainly as HE providers, is the civic mission of institutions and how we are perceived as being of a place rather than simply plonked in a place. And one of the things that we have as a high-level key performance indicator as a university, over the current strategy period, is to support the creation of 1,000 high-quality jobs around the Cardiff capital region. And one of the ways in which we've been trying to achieve this, for example, is in our work in promoting the compound semiconductor cluster. So, working closely with Welsh Government, with the Cardiff capital region, with industry partners and lining those up with the science base in Cardiff and in Swansea, and elsewhere in south Wales, to create the environment where this industrial sector can grow. And that's one of the ways in which we can tie in our research and innovation strengths in the sector to support the creation of high-quality jobs. 

Now I can come to the question. Reid also seemed to suggest that Welsh Government innovation activity currently lacks clarity of purpose and questions should the innovation road map be integrated into the RIW reforms and what key matters must be addressed. And, finally, the proposed innovation hub—what Reid and Diamond mentioned—upon taking evidence, Reid stated that there was no clear view on how they would operate in Wales. So, what does the panel say about this?

Who wants to answer that question first? Paul.

I'm happy to start. It goes back to the very first thing I said, really, about the vision for research innovation from the Welsh Government: what's it for? Is it to drive economic prosperity? Then, the innovation hubs themselves, that will be cascaded to them, and their purpose would then be defined.

So, I think one thing I did want to say that hasn't come up yet—we've talked a lot about finance and grants. The language I use for people in my faculty is investment, and I don't give anybody any money without an expectation that there's a return on investment. And I think the language is important there. We're advocating greater investment by the Welsh Government, in order to drive change to make the universities more competitive, to make economic impact and enable us to help create jobs in Wales and to help keep graduates here. So, I—I can't speak for my colleagues—but I expect to be challenged to deliver return whenever given an investment, and that's entirely reasonable. So, we're advocating investment by the Welsh Government and we will deliver a return on that. 

Okay. We just heard from Chris earlier that he has travelled to Europe, and he mentioned the city also, in relation to this innovation development—whatever it is. But, after Brexit, have they been in touch with other nations outside Europe to make sure that you are involved with the top universities to integrate with each other?

I'm permanently jet-lagged. I've just fallen off a plane from Namibia. Africa is growing at 12 per cent gross domestic product a year. It is incredible what's going on there. We should be—we're being asked to be—. Wales—the cluster of universities and the networks we've got, the way we work—is very attractive once it's made visible to places. That's the bit that seems to be missing. So, I'm often, and I'm sure my colleagues are, cold calling in these regions. And once you do make a presentation, 'This is Wales. This is how the universities and the partners work, and this is how we work closely with Government—'. In this case, I was expounding new developments in veterinary science—new to Wales—we're developing at Aberystwyth, with partners, including Government.

People are impressed by the way of working, and the calibre of what can be done here, and want to invest back, through partnerships. You mentioned the GCRF—the global challenges research fund; again, competitive, benchmarked by excellence, UK wide, but we are competing very well in this, because we are able to network very quickly, and bring our networks into those networks quickly. It is the advantage we've had. I started off maybe a bit too high-falutin', but I truly believe this is a selling pitch for Wales, and a strength that we should build on—not just the excellence, but the network of excellence that we have.

What is missing, and it relates back to London offices and all the rest of it, is the visibility. If you travel the world, Scotland and Ireland have been there, doing it well, and so has Finland, and Denmark as well, and we are not doing that. This relates to QR, and the university is able to put people on a plane, or, just as importantly, receive invites, and receive visitors, and host them, including captains of industry and the like. That's the piece that's missing.

And, just to relate back earlier, the lack of investment that you were talking about—Bethan's question—this is going to slow us down. It is regrettable that there's not this forward investment, being excited, and it relates to the vision—are we going to be a global leader or not? We are now, and we soon won't be, unless we pick up the pace.

Can I ask another?

Oscar, then.

Thank you very much. Highly intellectual people, from different universities, from Commonwealth countries, the exchange of professors coming back and forth—that sort of thing. Have you been in touch with your own English and Scottish counterparts, to make sure how they attract those academics in their universities?

Going back to a previous question, the question was around the road map for research and innovation in Wales, and I've already referred to the science and innovation audit that was carried out—the wave 3 audit the South Wales Crucible has carried out recently—which sets out a blueprint for what we might achieve in Wales, and areas of strength, and where investments could pay off. But beyond that, there has been a stream of other science and innovation audits across the UK, and colleagues from other universities in Wales, as well as Cardiff, have been involved in cross-border collaborations, which have been defined by those science and innovation audits. From my own experience, Cardiff works very closely with the GW4 consortium; so, the alliance includes Bristol, Bath and Exeter universities, as well as Cardiff. We co-invest with those universities in projects that bring our researchers together, and our return on investment in those projects, which prime new networks, prime new major research grants, has been very strong.

Moving beyond that envelope, clearly, we have well-established links in Europe. Regardless of what happens in terms of our access to Horizon Europe in the future—and I very much hope that we retain that access—but also on that influence over the shape of what the opportunities there look like, and the themes that will be funded, but it's the relationships that are really important there. The funding is important, but it enables us to get around the table with the very best people around Europe. And looking beyond that, we also invest in global partnerships; so, Cardiff has formal partnerships beyond Europe. So, there's KU Leuven in Belgium, but there are also formal partnerships that we have in China, that we have in Brazil, for example, and growing relationships in a range of other international cities as well. So, continued investment in those areas is incredibly important, not just for student recruitment, but for globally competitive research and innovation as well.

Thank you. David Rowlands.

We've touched upon this several times, but one of the fundamentals with regard to research and innovation is obviously the collaboration between universities and the business side, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, et cetera. So, just to dig down a little bit further, what are the current strengths, do you think, and weaknesses of the business and university collaboration in Wales itself?

Anybody want to—? David Bembo.

I'm happy to make some comments. We've really benefited from European structural funds, in terms of support for our relationships with small companies, in particular. And in previous programmes of European structural fund support, one could even argue that the universities were being pushed too strongly into engagement with SMEs, as part of the targets under those programmes, and that might have actually distorted our approach, to an extent. It's gratifying to see that, in more recent structural funds programmes, there's been greater recognition of the value of engaging with anchor companies and other large-scale partners and also partners that may be based outside of Wales that are bringing in SMEs through supply chains, for example, and getting them working more closely with innovative companies as well as research-intensive universities. The capacity to engage with SMEs with high-growth potential—the capacity within universities—is a challenge at a time when we lack a HEIF equivalent stream of funding. And I see our counterparts in England putting a lot of investment into those areas in maintaining local networks of SMEs, for example, and the overhead that that brings, and, obviously, the benefits that it brings and the economic growth it can support, but also the costs of doing that for universities.

Yes, I'd endorse that entirely. I think, in general, the barrier to the SME—you know, 'The universities have been a thing over there and I'm over here'—is broken down very successfully by the universities in Wales now, with innovation initiatives and innovation campuses, which you've heard about already. So, the SMEs want to be on the corridor and not on a science park 10 miles down the road.

There is another barrier for them, we believe, and that is funds for them to engage with us. With European funds, there's a lot of admin and bureaucracy, there are a lot of engagement processes. So, it would be great if the SMEs had access and if this engagement fund wasn't just at the university—we need that, clearly—or at the higher education end, but also some funds should be accessible to the SMEs, I think, so that the docking ports can come together. Otherwise, it's too one-sided. It needs to be balanced in that way. I think there's more that can be done there.

Paul Harrison.

Just to reiterate what my colleagues have said, European structural funds have been very useful for engaging with SMEs. We've got two projects. One is a centre of excellence in mobile and emerging technologies, where we develop usually computer software or mobile apps for phones that enable local and regional SMEs to bring products to market, so that's been helpful. Then, we've got another one centred around our battery technology centre, where we're working with local SMEs to help them develop products for market as well. So, the structural funding has been very, very important for that.

Rachel Bowen.

I think it’s also important to recognise the collaboration between businesses and the further education sector and not just between businesses and the higher education sector. Quite often, although I think there have been a lot of moves to break down the barriers between universities and small businesses, further education colleges are more locally based, are closer and perhaps less intimidating in the first instance for small businesses. So, there’s a lot of good work and a lot of connection that goes on between further education colleges and small businesses. Some of that is done through work-based learning for instance. So, there are non-traditional connections that aren’t just research based.

I think, picking up on a point that’s just been made about funding being available for the other side—so the non-HE partners to collaborate—there used to be a pan-Wales programme, called the 'strategic insight programme', which had a reverse strategic insight programme that funded businesses, charities and others to spend time working with HE to think about future collaboration. I think that funding was worth something like £2,000, and certainly, when I was at the Federation of Small Businesses, we took advantage of that to work with Aberystwyth University and to work with the University of South Wales. That led to a great deal of useful research and potential opportunities that we took advantage of. It wasn’t from that fund, but the ‘What Wales Could Be’ report came out of a collaboration that was part funded by the Economic and Social Research Council with Manchester university when I was at FSB Wales. So, there are non-traditional links, but you need to make sure that you have time for from the other side—the other party—that isn't HE to enable them to do that. We would like to see that sort of approach extended to further education so that small businesses could spend time working with FE colleges to think about the links that they could develop, but recognising that it isn’t just on the education side that time needs to be funded and is valuable; it’s important to fund the other side too.

Just to come in on that point, and you mentioned 'What Wales Could Be', do you think that higher education, and, Rachel, you'd understand this from your FSB perspective, undervalues the mundane business network and the fact that there is a network out there of businesses that are never going to be high growth, which possibly have the potential to expand into medium size, but are the foundation of the Wales economy. Do you think that higher education neglects that, to the extent that maybe some research into understanding that network and how they interact with the Welsh economy might be useful, but doesn't really exist? There was the global entrepreneurship model and things like that that were based in the University of Glamorgan. Do you think it's fair to say that higher education neglects that aspect of the small business economy?

In the Reid report, you'll see a section there about rural Wales and a diffuse economy made up of many, many small businesses and enterprises. You've not got a big Rolls-Royce sat in the middle of it. It's that kind of thing. We felt that that was under-represented. The Reid review took that on board and it's recommending that there are different kinds of objectives and timelines, because that is a harder thing to engage with, and for them to engage likewise. So, I do think there needs to be attention paid to that area and it does underpin a huge part of the Wales economy. So, I would agree with you.

It's something of an irony that it's Manchester university that's had the biggest impact on the foundational aspect of the Wales economic action plan. 

I would agree. 

I think there are areas of business that we can engage with when they work via sectoral groups. If, for example, those organisations aren't engaged with the universities around collaborative R&D, for example, then we would often be seeding trained staff into those areas anyway by default. In fact, a lot of our graduate start-ups may actually be companies of that nature. Not everything we do is going to turn into a research and innovation-focused company.

Paul Harrison.

We don't ignore SMEs, even ones that are not high growth. For example, at our Newport campus, we host the south Wales cyber cluster, which has got 500 members in it. We also have our USW exchange here on this campus and we hold masterclasses, and it's a gateway for accessing the academia here. We've welcomed 350 businesses onto this campus in the last 12 months.

Rachel Bowen. 

I think perhaps 'neglect' is too strong a word, but it sometimes seems as if the businesses you describe aren't set up to be the focus of some of those high-net-value research bids. I think the research about how those businesses engage, want to engage, what their role is, would be valuable. The question is who funds that and how that fits into existing potential bids. 

David, have you finished your questions?

Both Graeme Reid and the NCUB draw attention to the demand side challenge of engaging with and generating interest for industry to collaborate with universities. Is there scope for these reforms that we're talking about to address this challenge? What are your views on how to do so?

Who wants to go first? We are running over time, but that's okay. Does anybody want to address that succinctly?

I think it's just the point that was made earlier—there needs to be resource for the demand side to engage. We very much support that. This is additional. If we start slicing an already small pie with more slices in it, that would be counter-productive all around. 

Rachel Bowen.

I agree.

Okay. David Bembo.

In order that we can build large-scale and highly effective collaborations with external organisations and companies in particular, a key word is 'trust'. It's the time and the people investment needed to build that trust that is required before you can unlock investment from both sides of the collaboration and build something bigger. That takes time and, therefore, it takes resources and investment. 

As a committee, we're in a position where we can influence policy as it's being developed by Welsh Government and that's what we want to do. So, I do want to just give you an opportunity to raise any points that haven't been drawn out in questions, thinking of the research and innovation landscape. As a committee, we'll be making recommendations to Government, so if you think there are recommendations that we should make, please do tell us. So, perhaps I could ask you just to make a few closing comments each. Who would like to go first? 

I'm happy to go first and refer back to my earlier points. If we want to address the productivity challenge in Wales, if we want to grow economic prosperity of the people of Wales and the future generations of Wales, then we need a competitive university base. To get that competitive university base that can compete on a level playing field with the rest of the UK and in Europe for international funds, and wider, then greater investment in that university base would be helpful.   

Thank you. David Bembo. 

I would urge the Welsh Government to draw on the sources of independent advice that it's taken in relation to university-level funding and QR in particular. So, Graeme Reid further endorsed and built on the recommendations that came from Ian Diamond's review, and Graeme's detailed recommendations are certainly to be recommended to the Welsh Government. I've mentioned QR, but I would also mention HEIF. In my own experience of reviewing knowledge exchange plans for English universities as an independent observer, it leads me to believe that further investment in a new HEIF-like scheme in Wales would really bear dividends in relation to growing our knowledge-based economy.    

Chris Thomas. 

I'm going to reiterate the same points, but just to say you've had excellent reviews from Diamond and Reid in particular in this area, and I would urge you to adopt the recommendations in there. Underpinning that is the Haldane principle. The importance of QR cannot be understated, and I don't think we have understated. However, we're being typically modest when we're saying, 'Let's have a level playing field'. I don't want a level playing field. I want one where everyone else is downhill from us, okay? So, let's be really ambitious if we're going to drive Wales from where it is to the front. So, not just levelling it up, please, would be my recommendation.  

And then, just to repeat, we do face a bit of a cliff with the lack of European structural funds. It has skewed things to work in that way. We've got to be very quick and adaptable and well fit, with your support, to go for these competitive funds, but we do need replacement funds. Something of this HEIF nature is going to be crucial. And, again, the links across the sector I think are a real strength that Wales should play on. I'll pass the ball to you. 

That's clear, thank you. The final words, Rachel Bowen. 

We'd like to see the return of innovation and engagement funding, but for further education to be included in that from the start. I think the Reid review recommends that, at some point, FE should be eligible to apply, and our fear is that, rather than sharing the pie with HE, we'd look like we're coming on board and stealing the pie. What we want is to be involved in those kinds of collaborations from the start, and to take account of the fact that lots of innovation takes place in FE and we need to link that up better.  

Thank you. Can I thank each of you for your time this morning? We're very grateful for your time. You will be sent a copy of the transcript of the proceedings. Please have a look through them, and if you want to add or clarify anything, then we'd welcome that. Thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you. 

We move to item 4. Under Standing Order 17.42, I resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Yes.