ߣߣ��Ƶ

Early rumblings that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s days might be numbered were met with howls of anguish. The UK higher education sector didn’t want to be “a small cog in a large [Department for Business and Trade] wheel”, said University of Birmingham vice-chancellor Adam Tickell. Fast forward a few days and leaders have swiftly come to terms with what is now the Department for Business, Science, Innovation and Trade, with Tickell now stating that he feels “enthusiastic about the future”.

So, what has changed? Unsurprisingly the sector has fallen in line with its new paymasters, and there has been a government charm offensive, with university leaders among those invited to returning business secretary Jonathan Reynolds’ first external engagement. But sector observers have also been able to make a strong case that a beefed-up DBIST will have a more powerful voice at the Cabinet table, and that the combination makes sense if ministers’ focus is increasingly on turning the UK’s research prowess towards supporting the country’s industrial strategy. 

Few would disagree that creating and then scrapping DSIT in the space of little more than three years wastes valuable time and effort that would have been better spent addressing the pressing issues facing UK research. And the split of university policy as a whole between the Department for Education and now DBIST remains far from satisfactory. But, as Higher Education Policy Institute director Nick Hillman writes for us in an excellent opinion piece, what matters most at this moment is whether the ministers responsible for higher education understand their brief, have a clear vision and command the ear of No 10 and the Treasury. There is continuity in the DfE at least, with Jacqui Smith – a seasoned and highly competent operator – staying on as skills minister. At the time of writing DBIST was yet to confirm who would succeed Patrick Vallance as science minister.

Beyond personalities, the other outstanding question is what Andy Burnham’s government will mean for policy. Smith’s reappointment indicates significant continuity, although few vice-chancellors expect much help from a department that has declined to properly wrestle with the challenges facing English higher education over the past two years and just this week reiterated that its default response to providers facing financial difficulties would be to “allow orderly market exit where appropriate”. The situation is more fluid on the DBIST side, with Vallance having steered UK Research and Innovation towards major funding changes, and with concern about spending cuts at the Science and Technology Facilities Council mounting. Will new ministers seek to revisit any of this? Will they seek to accelerate the concentration of research activity in a smaller number of universities? And to what extent will Burnham seek to make research part of his devolution agenda, for example, by devolving some funding decisions to metropolitan mayors?

Ultimately, the answers to these questions matter far more than what is on the nameplate of a Whitehall front door.

chris.havergal@timeshighereducation.com