Hansard

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 poor record of our indigenous companies in research and development. If our key strategy is to build up indigenous research, we need to get those companies to spend three or four times as much as they spend now on research and development.

The committee's recommendations concentrate on the need for additional investment, the need for more money for patenting—we are losing a significant number of commercial opportunities through lack of funding in that regard—and the need to improve the commercialisation process between business and universities and within the university sector.

An example of the best model for the future is the Institute for System Level Integration in Livingston, which brings together business and academia and exploits research to full commercial advantage. Scottish Enterprise and other organisations are planning the establishment of another three such institutes and the committee is wholly supportive of those plans.

Another key recommendation is that the science strategy should be fully developed into a research and development strategy that brings together science, technology, research and development and the commercialisation of that scientific work.

Substantial amounts of public money are also involved in teaching funding. We should send a memorandum to the University of Strathclyde's senate to remind it of that fact. Some 60 per cent of all university funding comes from taxpayers, who are therefore entitled to examine how that money is being spent. Rightly, £440 million a year of public money is spent on the higher education sector in Scotland. I remind members that we are talking not only about the 14 universities, but about the future of the other institutes of higher education, such as the art colleges.

The committee decided to hold the inquiry because of members' concerns about the SHEFC proposals. We are concerned about the reduction in the number of subject areas from 22 to six. We are also concerned about the changes to subject funding that led to an 8.3 per cent increase in funding for clinical and veterinary subjects and an average 1 per cent reduction in funding for all other subjects. What impact will that have on the new universities, the art colleges and on particular subject areas, such as modern languages?

We urge SHEFC to go ahead with the important measures to widen access for people from lower income families and to help disabled students and part-time students more.

We were also concerned about the process that was employed by SHEFC as it went about the review of teaching funding. It seemed to get off to a good start, but it went downhill from there. It brought in consultants then, in effect, sacked them. It set out to try to obtain evidence to justify the future funding formula: it then abandoned that effort. No assessment was made of the impact of the proposals on individual institutions. There was a lack of clear guidelines on implementation. There was no proper justification for the favourable treatment of the medical subjects or the perceived adverse effects on other subjects.

Our main conclusion was that SHEFC mishandled the review of teaching funding. We acknowledge the difficulties that were involved and the fact that SHEFC set itself an ambitious target—it is right that we encourage quangos to do that. Unfortunately, the review was mishandled to the extent that SHEFC's credibility was damaged.

That is why the committee believes that the way forward is to set up an independent inquiry to consider the long-term funding formula for teaching in our higher education institutions. The inquiry will carry no baggage and will base its evidence on the facts; it will examine the proposals of Universities Scotland and SHEFC and the wider picture of what the people of Scotland need from teaching in our universities. The inquiry will not be a cosy arrangement between SHEFC and the teaching institutions.

The report makes a number of recommendations on the inquiry and suggests that in the meantime there is no reason for delay on the consensually accepted aspects of SHEFC's proposals on helping the socially excluded, the disabled and part-time students. We should proceed with implementing those proposals.

All in all, we believe that the committee has come up with a fair assessment of the problem and a reasonable set of recommendations. We hope that the minister will agree with the bulk of the recommendations when she makes her statement later in the debate. Scotland's university sector and its other higher education institutions are essential elements of our national life. They are essential not only to the economic life of the nation, but to its social life and cultural development. The simple objective of the committee, the minister and the Parliament is to ensure that we have one of the best higher education sectors, not only in the United Kingdom or Europe, but in the world. If the committee's recommendations are implemented—on top of what the minister has announced—we will travel a long distance toward achieving that objective.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the 12th Report 2001 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on the inquiry into the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council reviews of teaching and research funding (SP Paper 423).