Q183 Mr. Dave Anderson: We have raised in a number of arenas-most recently with the Minister for the North East on 16 July-the issue of what appears to be a disparity regarding the funding for research and development that seems to be going to other places. That is not just to the normal suspects, but includes places like south-west Scotland and Manchester. Why do we appear not to be able to make as big an impact in this regard as others do?

Graeme Reid: First, I think the North East, when I look at the data, performs very well in terms of its university research. It's got some strong universities and some very strong universities. If you come down to individual disciplines, like medical research in Newcastle, it's got some really outstanding universities. I have looked at the way in which research funding, through research councils and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is distributed across the UK-I think that this may come close to the answer. I find that if I look at the absolute amounts of cash, going by region, the North East has one of the smallest allocations of cash of the UK regions. But when we try to take account of the different sizes of the regions, a rather different picture emerges, which frankly is closer to what my instinct would tell me. If, for instance, we look at the amount of money per university, the North East comes fourth out of the 12 UK regions. If, on the other hand, I look at the amount of money per capita, the North East is sixth out of the 12 UK regions. If I look at the amount of money per unit of gross value added, the North East is fourth out of the UK regions.

There is concern that that performance is a consequence of distance from London-or, I guess, more precisely, distance from Swindon and Bristol, which is where the funding agencies are based. I'm not quite sure that that is consistent with my figures. If I look at the amount of money, normalised to suit the character of the region, funding per capita is higher in Scotland than it is in the North East, funding per GVA is higher in Scotland than it is in the North East, and funding per university is lower in Scotland than it is in the North East. So, the overall picture is one of a strongly performing region in a system that is transparent and meritocratic, in which the funding decisions are made by the scientific community rather than by the Government. It is a system in which the UK performs outstandingly well in the world, so institutions in the North East that perform as well as they do in the UK league tables are automatically up there among the first division at world level.

Q184 Mr. Dave Anderson: So, the system that is in place now has us at only the average across the board? We are either fourth or sixth out of 12. What can be done to put us at the top? Why aren't we at the top?

Graeme Reid: That is a question for the universities rather than for me, but let me offer some thoughts. First, the universities that perform best in terms of capturing research funding are universities that, by any international standard, are quite exceptional. In the UK, the universities at Oxford and Cambridge and two London institutions perform very well, but Times Higher Education ranked those four as being among the top six in the world only a few weeks ago. As a benchmark, that is a pretty tough challenge to set anyone else in the UK.

Steps have been taken in several parts of the country to try to raise research performance in universities. I think in all cases, it is a little early to say whether these have been successful, but I can offer three examples. In Manchester, as I believe you know, the two major universities merged some years ago. I think one of the goals of that merger was to create a university in the north of England that would be of a scale and performance to feature on the world map. That was one of the things that they set out to do. They are less than 10 years into that, and I think that they themselves would feel that it was rather early days to be assessing its success.

In Scotland, and also in the south-east of England, physics departments in universities have collaborated. I think it is probably going a bit far to call them virtual departments, but strategic alliances have been formed across the physics departments, on the one hand in the south-east of England, and on the other hand in Scotland, essentially so that they can share the capital-intensive equipment that is required to perform at the highest levels in physics. It is difficult for any university to afford all the equipment it needs in all the branches of physics. Once again, I think that it is early days to be judging performance, because the south-east alliance is quite new and the Scottish one is not yet 10 years old, but in both cases you can see the strategy. By pooling resources, they are going to try to perform better as a group than as the sum of the individuals. It is not for me to say whether universities in the North East should follow that model, but I would not be the slightest bit surprised if they were watching closely to see how their colleagues in other parts of the country got on.

+++

Q189 Mr. Dave Anderson: When we took evidence from the chamber of commerce back in May, it was highly critical of the role of the Government office for the North East in terms of the regional spatial strategy and questioned whether it was punching its weight. Do you accept those criticisms?

Jonathan Blackie: No. To take the example of the regional spatial strategy, it was prepared by the former regional assembly, which involved a great variety of stakeholders from across the region. If I recall correctly, at the examination in public, there was quite a debate about getting the balance right in housing growth across the region, and I think a number of local authorities were quite ambitious to get a higher target than perhaps the market was prepared to deliver.

There was quite a robust discussion at the examination in public about how housing growth should be allocated. We made some robust interventions about realism in terms of some of the forecasts, and I particularly recall an interesting discussion around some of the science-based developments. I think NETPark was a good example. There was a very interesting debate about how much land should be set aside for the growth of NETPark. I think we ended up coming to a very sensible solution which has enabled NETPark to go ahead. I chaired the European programme management committee there just last week and saw all the very impressive developments that have materialised since then.

I think that the Government office has tried to play an even-handed role in trying to balance ambition with realism. Certainly on European funding, to come back to the previous question, we invested a lot of money in the universities, in the previous programme, to enable them to go ahead with things like the PETEC centre, the renewables centre at Blyth and some of the projects at Newcastle and Durham. I am very clear that we are in tune with the region's ambitions and working closely with the chamber of commerce, trying to be realistic about what can be achieved in the North East.

Q190 Mr. Dave Anderson: I think it's right that you're able to address the comments, Jon. The summary on the regional assemblies and GONE stated that the Government office for the North East had not demonstrated sufficient commitment to work on the region's-rather, Whitehall's-behalf, that businesses had struggled to identify how the Government North East properly supported the region and that the North East regional spatial strategy was a clear example of the Government office failing to support the region. They are quite damning comments, in a sense. They've obviously got the wrong point of view, but if they're saying that, then clearly they must have concerns. Does that give you concerns?

Jonathan Blackie: Of course it does. The fundamental concern is that we're not the original champion. We actually represent central Government in the region. I sense that at times there is a balancing act, for example on transport, where we're trying to get it across that Government policy is to tackle congestion rather than build significant new trunk roads across the region. Trying to communicate that isn't always universally popular. We always want to encourage and enthuse, but sometimes we have to be realistic and say that there aren't the resources available to realise some of the ambitions.

At times there is a tension between representing central Government in the region and being a representative or a champion for the region in Whitehall. I think we try to play an even-handed role, and I think the regional Minister has demonstrated very effectively how you can play both roles. Sometimes it's not easy to accede to all the requests that the region makes of Government. I recognise that we're not always universally popular in playing that role.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The full transcript may be read here.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT