Hansard

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 definition, all parties were represented by committee members, who included me and my colleague Duncan Hamilton. We accept the motion and the report that is its basis. Accordingly, my comments will not follow a party line, because the SNP supports the motion and the report. Therefore, I may not take up all my allocated time, but allow SNP members and others who have a constituency interest or who wish to raise other matters to speak.

The situation is a bit of a guddle. The report is to be commended, but some aspects of it have been dated by actions that SHEFC has taken. Nevertheless, we must take cognisance of aspects that emanate from the report and follow its recommendations. A difficulty could be that too many reports exist. There is no clarity or strategy. The sector needs stability and strategic direction. As well as taking on board the report and its recommendations, we could argue for the Cubie committee to be reconvened and have its remit extended into higher education funding, then tell Andrew Cubie to get on with it. However, matters may have passed that point.

Like others, I will give SHEFC some brickbats, but it would be remiss of me not to say that I have some sympathy for SHEFC for two reasons. First, if an organisation's remit is unclear and its instructors do not set parameters, that organisation may go off at a tangent, in a direction that is unacceptable to those who chose the remit and everyone else. SHEFC needed clear directions and a clear remit but did not have them. The second and fundamental point is that if the cake is too small, there will be hunger no matter how it is divided. The higher education funding cake is too small. No matter how we divide it, someone will squeal that their piece is inadequate, not because they overeat, but because the available amount is insufficient.

It is fair to say that SHEFC handled the matter in a cack-handed way. Given the nature of the beast, there should have been more transparency and SHEFC should have consulted Universities Scotland and individual universities more. It should have realised that to say that its proposal was part of a discussion document was insufficient. The fact is that SHEFC sent hares running. I think that every member in the chamber received e-mails, mail or other communications from academics who were worried that their departments would go belly up. That caused instability in faculties and I do not doubt that it worried those who were considering applying to study in some faculties or universities. That situation should have been expected. As lawyers would say, SHEFC knew or ought to have known that the way in which it presented the report would send hares running and that worry would follow.

As I said, aspects of the report have been superseded. We must consider whether we want to go back to the drawing board on those aspects. The report recommends the establishment of a review body into SHEFC. Those comments have been affected by SHEFC's subsequent actions. A UK-wide transparency review is being conducted. The committee's report suggests that a review body should be established, but the Parliament should not reinvent the wheel. If the best knowledge and the great and the good are in SHEFC, reviewing how that body operates internally in Scotland and how it interacts with other bodies in the UK, rather than establishing another tier of bureaucracy and setting us off at a tangent, might be the best way of reaching the best solution.

Comments have been made about research funding, RAE and level 3 particularly. I subscribe fully to Marilyn Livingstone's and Alex Neil's comments. We must accept that SHEFC intends to pursue excellence. That is a laudable aim that is fundamental not only for the benefit of academic institutions per se, but for our nation's economy. There is great danger in allowing SHEFC to end funding for level 3 departments when that is not happening south of the border. That would cause considerable difficulties for new universities. As Alex Neil said, the great danger for new universities is that ending level 3 would ossify the situation and that we would be caught in a time warp. Those who sought to get up to speed but were late off the starting blocks because of the period in which they started would have difficulty reaching levels 4 and 5. Many universities would be caught by that situation, be unable to progress and have to remain as teaching universities.

Scotland should not work against those who seek to improve themselves, whether they are individuals, universities or their faculties. As Alex Neil correctly said, that situation would have affected not only new universities, but ancient universities with departments that wished to move up a gear and reach a higher level. We must take that on board.

The critical point in the report relates to research funding. The report makes points about the requirement to consider how we provide funding and the level at which we provide it. I agree with the committee convener's remarks about how to progress.

I am extremely grateful that the minister has been converted into a Finnophile. I have been mocked in the chamber—by Mr Mundell particularly—for my support for Finland as a country that Scotland should aspire to follow. I make no apologies for saying that. There are aspects of Finland that are laudable. Finland has resolved its economy and its health service and, as I have also pointed out, has managed to turn around the fortunes of its national football team. Over the past few years, in each of those three aspects, Finland has outdone Scotland considerably. I am grateful that the minister now subscribes to that theory.

The minister should also take on board the levels of teaching and research funding that nations, in particular Finland, provide. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development funding figures show that, in 1993, Finland contributed 2.17 per cent of its gross domestic product to research and development. The United Kingdom lagged behind at 2.12 per cent. In 1998, by which time the white-hot hope had landed at No 10, Finland had increased its level of expenditure of GDP on research and development to 2.9 per cent. The UK's, by contrast, had declined and decreased to a miserly 1.83 per cent of GDP. I put the blame just as much on Westminster as on the minister and her colleagues.

That brings me back to the point that I made earlier: if the cake is too small, no matter how it is divided we will not be able to progress. If we wish to emulate Finland, and that would be an admirable idea for Scotland, we have to recognise, as other speakers did, the hard choices that have to be made. A small nation does not have the economies of scale that come with the critical mass of larger ones, whether they be our southern cousins or elsewhere. Small nations have to make a conscious effort to recognise that, to a greater extent, because they do not have the same ability to generate funding as do the larger countries, they have to front-load research and development. As we look at where we are going in the 21st century, we need to recognise the importance of research and development.

One important aspect of commercialisation is the benefit that it brings to ensuring that ideas that are springing forth and spewing out of our universities are generated economically. Part of the issue has to be addressed culturally, but we have to ensure that entrepreneurs who have business acumen and an idea but who do not have the scientific or technical knowledge are able to access the universities. One of the spin-offs of growing commercialisation would be for Scottish universities to move towards that goal.

We need to create a conduit between commercialisation and the ideas that emanate out of the universities with a scientific and technical base. At the same time, we have to allow our entrepreneurs and business community access to the universities. It is a two-way process. It is not about allowing universities to become more commercial—although they should—it is about allowing entrepreneurs who do not have the benefits that university faculties have, or the equipment that goes with that, access to the universities. The process is one of mutual co-operation.

The SNP commends the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report. As I said earlier, some aspects of it have been superseded, but I hope that it acts as a base for the Executive to progress matters. I hope that the minister will take from the debate some of the same matters that she has taken from her trip to Finland. That would see us push our research and development funding towards the level that is taken as a norm in Helsinki.