Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-01-30
Topic: Technology
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this is a short but important point. Schedule 9 paragraph 8(1) states: "UKRI may … appoint employees, and … make such other arrangements for the staffing of UKRI as it considers appropriate Sub-paragraph (2) states: "The terms and conditions of appointment as employees are to be determined by UKRI with the approval of the Secretary of State" That is the general provision. However, there is an extraordinary provision in Clause 89. After listing the research councils—it is interesting that the arts and humanities are separate although the arts include humanities, although that does not matter too much—subsection (2) states: "Arrangements under this section may, in particular, provide for the exercise by the Council concerned of UKRI’s functions under paragraph 8(1) and (2) of Schedule 9"— those are the paragraphs I have just read— "in relation to relevant specialist employees" In other words, the council is going to get, possibly, a chance to make arrangements in regard to relevant specialist employees. Who are these? "A ‘relevant specialist employee’, in relation to a Council, means a researcher or scientist employed by UKRI to work in the field of activity of that Council" It is quite obvious that the term "scientist" is fairly ambiguous. For example, would it include a specialist doctor working for the MRC The other obvious question is whether this applies to technicians in laboratories. Is a technician a scientist? I would think they certainly are, but it cannot be taken as a certainty that the construction of the term "scientist" in this Bill would necessarily include a technician because sometimes we distinguish between them in the terminology. So far as researchers are concerned it is, vague in the extreme. Is a person who organises research but does not do any himself or herself qualify as a researcher? I thought that there must be some principle behind the selection of the terms "researcher" and "scientist", and that is what my amendment ventures to suggest. It provides that, for a specialist employee, "after ‘scientist’ insert ‘, or other person whose knowledge or experience is important to the operation of that Council" That is the only way to avoid ambiguity I have the impression from my discussions with the department that the general view is much in accordance with mine, but the officials seem to think that the terms "scientist" and "researcher" would include them all. I would like to say that they do not, but it is certainly not clear at all and I see no reason why it should not be. The easiest way to put it clearly is not to set out a list of all the people we can think of, because there would quite a number; rather, it is to set out the principle on which the relevant specialist employee as a characteristic is determined. That is what I have tried to do in my amendment, and I am happy to seek a better formulation if the Minister wishes it. I raised this point when I wrote to my noble friend’s predecessor and to the Minister in the Commons. I hope that we might be able to get an answer to this question tonight and I beg to move.