Chamber
Plenary, 01 Nov 2001
01 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Teaching and Research Funding (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Review)
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 refreshing my long-in-the-tooth memories.
I welcome the debate and the committee's report. The committee has done our Parliament and the people of Scotland a great service. Although I appreciate the difficulties of working within fixed and limited budgets, it is clear from the report that there are many flaws in the funding council's proposals.
I will focus on the proposed exclusion of level 3-rated research institutions from the receipt of research assessment exercise funds. Removing virtually all funding for research from the modern universities and university colleges could set research on the wrong track. It could recreate the pre-1992 binary divide in Scotland. Destroying the research base in those institutions would undermine the whole Scottish research base and be detrimental to the education of 35 per cent of Scotland's higher education students.
The funding council proposal will have direct consequences for nursing and professions that are allied to medicine, tourism, media and financial services. All those areas are essential to the life and work of Scotland.
Current and proposed funding models are based primarily on the research assessment exercise, which is a measure of past performance, principally in terms of the output of articles in academic journals. Such a mechanism alone cannot respond adequately to the need for funds in new and emerging research areas that are relevant to our national economy.
Long-term Scottish research capability depends absolutely on maintaining a diverse research base and responding to new opportunities whenever and wherever they arise. The removal of funding from level 3-rated departments is likely to have the opposite effect by overconcentrating core research funding in a limited number of traditional academic disciplines and in a smaller number of institutions.
In eight years of research funding, the new universities have a good track record in high-quality research that is of direct benefit to Scottish industry and society. The University of Abertay Dundee, for example, has opened the international centre for computer games and virtual entertainment, supporting a new and important part of the Scottish economy. The university has launched, and secured venture funding for Securivox, a spin-out company specialising in voice-recognition software that is developed at the university. The university's scientists have become the first in the world to successfully breed an eagle using cryopreserved sperm. That is a breakthrough for endangered birds of prey worldwide. Proposals for a centre of tourism research are also under development. What we see there is typical of a wide range of activity, which the Parliament should encourage at every opportunity.
It is impossible to see the logic of cutting core research funding from institutions with such obvious research potential. Recognising that it would be detrimental to the research base in England, its funding council dropped that idea. The Royal Society supported that decision and indicated that middle-ranking departments have a vital role to play in sustaining a vibrant research base. If modern universities in Scotland were disadvantaged in comparison with similar institutions in England, it would be damaging for individual institutions and for the Scottish sector as a whole. The RAE's definition of a 3a quality rating is:
"Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in over two thirds of the research activity submitted, possibly showing evidence of international excellence."
It makes no sense for a nation the size of Scotland to turn its back on research rated at that quality and with such economic and social potential. I congratulate the committee on drawing these crucial matters to the attention of Parliament and the Scottish people. I expect the funding council and the Executive to take action.
Westminster could not cope with a debate on this kind of issue, which is fundamental to Scotland. It is a great pleasure to see our Parliament seriously, conscientiously and properly addressing such crucial issues. I was a member of the Scottish select committee that looked into these problems. We made recommendations to the Westminster Government, which did nothing about them. It is time that the Scottish Government did something about these issues.
In evidence given to the committee, we were told that there was no lack of finance and ideas, but a major lack of business acumen to bring the ideas and finance together. That issue should be close to the heart of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. I would like more energy to be put into the improvement of the quality and output of business schools in Scotland. We must produce Scottish entrepreneurs who can give our nation a cutting edge. We have the means of turning Scotland into one of the intellectual and entrepreneurial powerhouses of Europe. If we have the wisdom to invest in the spectacular array of training and research institutions—ancient and new—which exist within our borders, we will never die by the intellectual skills of our people. We have those institutions. What we need now is action to turn the potential to the actual and give Scotland that future. I wait for that action from the Government.
I welcome the debate and the committee's report. The committee has done our Parliament and the people of Scotland a great service. Although I appreciate the difficulties of working within fixed and limited budgets, it is clear from the report that there are many flaws in the funding council's proposals.
I will focus on the proposed exclusion of level 3-rated research institutions from the receipt of research assessment exercise funds. Removing virtually all funding for research from the modern universities and university colleges could set research on the wrong track. It could recreate the pre-1992 binary divide in Scotland. Destroying the research base in those institutions would undermine the whole Scottish research base and be detrimental to the education of 35 per cent of Scotland's higher education students.
The funding council proposal will have direct consequences for nursing and professions that are allied to medicine, tourism, media and financial services. All those areas are essential to the life and work of Scotland.
Current and proposed funding models are based primarily on the research assessment exercise, which is a measure of past performance, principally in terms of the output of articles in academic journals. Such a mechanism alone cannot respond adequately to the need for funds in new and emerging research areas that are relevant to our national economy.
Long-term Scottish research capability depends absolutely on maintaining a diverse research base and responding to new opportunities whenever and wherever they arise. The removal of funding from level 3-rated departments is likely to have the opposite effect by overconcentrating core research funding in a limited number of traditional academic disciplines and in a smaller number of institutions.
In eight years of research funding, the new universities have a good track record in high-quality research that is of direct benefit to Scottish industry and society. The University of Abertay Dundee, for example, has opened the international centre for computer games and virtual entertainment, supporting a new and important part of the Scottish economy. The university has launched, and secured venture funding for Securivox, a spin-out company specialising in voice-recognition software that is developed at the university. The university's scientists have become the first in the world to successfully breed an eagle using cryopreserved sperm. That is a breakthrough for endangered birds of prey worldwide. Proposals for a centre of tourism research are also under development. What we see there is typical of a wide range of activity, which the Parliament should encourage at every opportunity.
It is impossible to see the logic of cutting core research funding from institutions with such obvious research potential. Recognising that it would be detrimental to the research base in England, its funding council dropped that idea. The Royal Society supported that decision and indicated that middle-ranking departments have a vital role to play in sustaining a vibrant research base. If modern universities in Scotland were disadvantaged in comparison with similar institutions in England, it would be damaging for individual institutions and for the Scottish sector as a whole. The RAE's definition of a 3a quality rating is:
"Quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in over two thirds of the research activity submitted, possibly showing evidence of international excellence."
It makes no sense for a nation the size of Scotland to turn its back on research rated at that quality and with such economic and social potential. I congratulate the committee on drawing these crucial matters to the attention of Parliament and the Scottish people. I expect the funding council and the Executive to take action.
Westminster could not cope with a debate on this kind of issue, which is fundamental to Scotland. It is a great pleasure to see our Parliament seriously, conscientiously and properly addressing such crucial issues. I was a member of the Scottish select committee that looked into these problems. We made recommendations to the Westminster Government, which did nothing about them. It is time that the Scottish Government did something about these issues.
In evidence given to the committee, we were told that there was no lack of finance and ideas, but a major lack of business acumen to bring the ideas and finance together. That issue should be close to the heart of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. I would like more energy to be put into the improvement of the quality and output of business schools in Scotland. We must produce Scottish entrepreneurs who can give our nation a cutting edge. We have the means of turning Scotland into one of the intellectual and entrepreneurial powerhouses of Europe. If we have the wisdom to invest in the spectacular array of training and research institutions—ancient and new—which exist within our borders, we will never die by the intellectual skills of our people. We have those institutions. What we need now is action to turn the potential to the actual and give Scotland that future. I wait for that action from the Government.
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?