Chamber
Plenary, 01 Nov 2001
01 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Teaching and Research Funding (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Review)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to what has turned out to be a rather sleepy debate. I am sorry that Jamie Stone has left the chamber. I was about to defend him. Some of my colleagues suggested that he rambled throughout his speech. That may or may not be true, but I would take Jamie's amiable rambling over the discordant roar of Mr Lyon any day of the week. In fact, if Mr Stone were to stand in Argyll and Bute, that might raise the level of debate somewhat.
I shall begin my substantive comments where David Mundell left off. He put his finger on the nub of the matter when he said that the report, short and focused as it was, revealed areas of unresolved tension where further research and work needs to be done. That is clear not only in the specific proposals in the report, but also in some of its themes. I shall try to identify two of those themes, which may be helpful.
In the teaching funding debate, there is a question about the correct role of national guidelines and input as opposed to the autonomy of institutions. Ken Macintosh referred to that just a moment ago. There is also unresolved tension about the relative value of research—something that members of Parliament and other interested players must come to a view on.
I do not want to go over the discussion on the process that the funding council went through. We agree that the funding council was right to find a new basis, but the process was flawed and the results—certainly in the shorter term—were unacceptable. It is a matter of praise that the funding council is now fully cognisant of the fact that evidence-based research is needed. We should simply leave the council to get on with its work and come back with proposals.
There are two sides to the argument on whether there should be national or university responsibility for the allocation of funding. On the one hand, it is correct that the move from 22 funding bands to six is a decision that should have been taken at national level. There was almost total agreement that a greater degree of simplicity was needed. Members may ask why there are six rather than five or seven funding bands. The committee did not get to the heart of that issue—we do not know. There is an absence of rationale for six bands—I see Tavish Scott agreeing with that. Equally, if the committee emphasises over-reliance on historical funding positions, that should be tackled on a national basis.
On the other hand, the Royal Society of Edinburgh argued strongly for a greater degree of autonomy for vice-chancellors in dispersing funds. I emphasise that the committee did not agree with that. We rejected it because we wanted
"to ensure continuity of accountable development".
I am not absolutely sure what that phrase means, but I hope that it means that the committee has a commitment to ensuring that allocation within universities is transparent, fair and understandable. The tension will continue to run.
An issue that runs through the report is the relative value of research. Two particular issues arose. Members have touched upon the argument over level 3 funding. I want to add my voice to those who support the maintenance of funding for departments that are rated at level 3. The report points out that we are, in a sense, victims of our own success. Many departments that used to be rated at level 3 have moved up to level 4, 5 or even 5*. If we want to support departments on the basis of international excellence, that will lead to a strain further down the academic food chain, if you like. Level 3 departments should not be starved. There is almost total agreement on that and not just because of the effect that starving would have on retarding the development of new institutions. The criteria by which we judge the ranking of departments will be under review and it would therefore seem an odd time to starve departments of funds. The value of such research should be recognised and the total size of the funding package increased. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that that was a cross-party recommendation—it was reiterated by Ken Macintosh.
On commercial and non-commercial research, it is not a matter of great debate that everybody wants a closer tie-up between universities and industry. Nobody thinks that the current rate of economic growth in Scotland is adequate. We can consider international examples of how to improve Scottish economic performance and Scotland's skill base. However, a number of matters have not been touched upon. One is the position of intellectual property rights. A debate is raging as to whether the benefit of research should accrue to the state as the ultimate funder of research or to institutions. I would put a case for the universities being the recipients of the benefits of research. The funding is state funding, but if universities are to be imaginative and are to seize incentives, there must be a return on their partial risk. If we want the cultural change in universities that we say we want, we must make things easier for universities and ensure that they can benefit from intellectual property rights.
I want to say something about areas that are not easily commercialised. I associate entirely with what Mr Macintosh said about education and research not just being about advancing the economy. Members often talk about the need for cultural renewal and a view of the Scottish economy and nation that is wider than that based simply upon commercial success. Parity of esteem throughout research departments is critical to the culture of universities.
I hope that the report and the call for greater commercialisation in areas where it is appropriate are not taken as reasons to reduce funding to many areas—whether in arts faculties or elsewhere—in which research is ongoing, vital and as much a part of the new Scottish nation as commercialisation.
I shall begin my substantive comments where David Mundell left off. He put his finger on the nub of the matter when he said that the report, short and focused as it was, revealed areas of unresolved tension where further research and work needs to be done. That is clear not only in the specific proposals in the report, but also in some of its themes. I shall try to identify two of those themes, which may be helpful.
In the teaching funding debate, there is a question about the correct role of national guidelines and input as opposed to the autonomy of institutions. Ken Macintosh referred to that just a moment ago. There is also unresolved tension about the relative value of research—something that members of Parliament and other interested players must come to a view on.
I do not want to go over the discussion on the process that the funding council went through. We agree that the funding council was right to find a new basis, but the process was flawed and the results—certainly in the shorter term—were unacceptable. It is a matter of praise that the funding council is now fully cognisant of the fact that evidence-based research is needed. We should simply leave the council to get on with its work and come back with proposals.
There are two sides to the argument on whether there should be national or university responsibility for the allocation of funding. On the one hand, it is correct that the move from 22 funding bands to six is a decision that should have been taken at national level. There was almost total agreement that a greater degree of simplicity was needed. Members may ask why there are six rather than five or seven funding bands. The committee did not get to the heart of that issue—we do not know. There is an absence of rationale for six bands—I see Tavish Scott agreeing with that. Equally, if the committee emphasises over-reliance on historical funding positions, that should be tackled on a national basis.
On the other hand, the Royal Society of Edinburgh argued strongly for a greater degree of autonomy for vice-chancellors in dispersing funds. I emphasise that the committee did not agree with that. We rejected it because we wanted
"to ensure continuity of accountable development".
I am not absolutely sure what that phrase means, but I hope that it means that the committee has a commitment to ensuring that allocation within universities is transparent, fair and understandable. The tension will continue to run.
An issue that runs through the report is the relative value of research. Two particular issues arose. Members have touched upon the argument over level 3 funding. I want to add my voice to those who support the maintenance of funding for departments that are rated at level 3. The report points out that we are, in a sense, victims of our own success. Many departments that used to be rated at level 3 have moved up to level 4, 5 or even 5*. If we want to support departments on the basis of international excellence, that will lead to a strain further down the academic food chain, if you like. Level 3 departments should not be starved. There is almost total agreement on that and not just because of the effect that starving would have on retarding the development of new institutions. The criteria by which we judge the ranking of departments will be under review and it would therefore seem an odd time to starve departments of funds. The value of such research should be recognised and the total size of the funding package increased. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that that was a cross-party recommendation—it was reiterated by Ken Macintosh.
On commercial and non-commercial research, it is not a matter of great debate that everybody wants a closer tie-up between universities and industry. Nobody thinks that the current rate of economic growth in Scotland is adequate. We can consider international examples of how to improve Scottish economic performance and Scotland's skill base. However, a number of matters have not been touched upon. One is the position of intellectual property rights. A debate is raging as to whether the benefit of research should accrue to the state as the ultimate funder of research or to institutions. I would put a case for the universities being the recipients of the benefits of research. The funding is state funding, but if universities are to be imaginative and are to seize incentives, there must be a return on their partial risk. If we want the cultural change in universities that we say we want, we must make things easier for universities and ensure that they can benefit from intellectual property rights.
I want to say something about areas that are not easily commercialised. I associate entirely with what Mr Macintosh said about education and research not just being about advancing the economy. Members often talk about the need for cultural renewal and a view of the Scottish economy and nation that is wider than that based simply upon commercial success. Parity of esteem throughout research departments is critical to the culture of universities.
I hope that the report and the call for greater commercialisation in areas where it is appropriate are not taken as reasons to reduce funding to many areas—whether in arts faculties or elsewhere—in which research is ongoing, vital and as much a part of the new Scottish nation as commercialisation.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
Good morning. The first item of business is an Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee debate on motion S1M-2380, in the name of Alex Neil, on the committ...
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I begin by saying thank you to all those who participated in the preparation of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report. My thanks go first t...
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Does Alex Neil agree that it is unacceptable that all the tens of millions of pounds that are spent on research by a company such as BP are spent south of th...
Alex Neil:
SNP
There are two issues. One is about attracting companies of the calibre of BP to do more research in Scotland and the other—which we cannot dodge—is about the...
Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for his speech on behalf of the committee. He covered many points that are pertinent t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Kenny MacAskill will open for the Scottish National Party. He has 12 minutes.
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I agree with everything that Alex Neil and Marilyn Livingstone said and I adopt their position. The report was produced by a cross-party committee. By defini...
David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Kenny MacAskill will be pleased to hear that I intend to make a fleeting reference to Finland in my contribution to the debate.For once, I am disappointed in...
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD):
LD
It will come as a surprise to the members present that I am on my feet at all in the debate. What has happened is that Mr George Lyon has been closely involv...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Will Mr Stone accept an intervention?
Mr Stone:
LD
Gladly. I have to use up some time.
Mr Monteith:
Con
I thought that he might appreciate an intervention. He said that he worked for Wimpey. Was that the burger firm or the builders?
Mr Stone:
LD
It is interesting that Mr Monteith should probe me on that one. It was the building firm, I can assure him. My point is that there is a suspicion of academia...
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab):
Lab
As members know, the inquiry was launched following concerns expressed about the SHEFC review of teaching and research funding. The committee was already com...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The report, naturally enough, concentrated on the outcome of the research assessment exercise, with money going to the departments that were rated appropriat...
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
I have not yet reached that part of my speech, but I am glad that Brian Adam has predicted what I was going to say. I agree with much of what he says and I s...
Mr Duncan Hamilton (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
It is a great pleasure to contribute to what has turned out to be a rather sleepy debate. I am sorry that Jamie Stone has left the chamber. I was about to de...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
I applaud the committee for its report, which augurs well for its inquiry into lifelong learning. Alex Neil has an enquiring mind and he should not resist th...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I ask members to keep speeches to a maximum of five minutes.
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
I hope that the Parliament will welcome the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on the inquiry into the SHEFC review of teaching and res...
Mr Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP):
SNP
I declare that my daughter is a student at the University of Abertay Dundee. I am not sure whether that is a declarable interest, but it certainly helps in r...
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the court of the University of Strathclyde—at least I am at the moment. I make this speech as deputy convener...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
SHEFC has come in for a bit of a battering in this debate. However, it is important to put on record two things that the funding council got right. First, it...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
Although we started this debate with extra time, we have managed to catch up with our schedule. I must therefore ask members from here on in to stick to a fi...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
Uniquely, my constituency has within its boundary three Scottish universities—one ancient, one modern and one new. As I also represent Glasgow School of Art ...
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
This is an important debate, focusing not only on the SHEFC report, but on many of the general issues surrounding it. Our new universities have been making t...
Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab):
Lab
BP is a global company and operates on that basis. It seeks research that is of value at a global level and will invest its money in the best research wherev...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
The member has hit the nail on the head. The key is to encourage our institutions to become the best in the world, so that the academic research for the oil ...
Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab):
Lab
As many members have said, education and research are becoming ever more important to Scotland and its economy. It is vital that the organisation and funding...
Brian Adam:
SNP
Will the member give way?