Chamber
Plenary, 01 Nov 2001
01 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Teaching and Research Funding (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Review)
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 shall return to that point, but I shall return to the teaching funding formula for the moment.
The current situation does not inspire confidence. Whether or not deals are indeed done behind closed doors, there is no transparency, little accountability and, most worryingly of all, there appears to be no strategy whatever.
Given that structure for the funding of teaching, it is little wonder that, despite the huge expansion in student numbers in recent years, we have failed to do enough to tackle the age-old problems of privilege in and exclusion from higher education. Despite the fact that half our school leavers will now enjoy the opportunity to go on to further learning, the system does not yet do enough to offer or support opportunity for all.
There have been improvements. We have made progress in widening access and we continue to do so. Despite asking SHEFC to go back to the drawing board on the funding of teaching, the committee also recognised that a number of positive developments should be taken forward. Specifically, but not exclusively, we supported the 5 per cent additional funding for wider access students and the additional funding for disabled students and for part-time learners. The committee agreed that it did not want to turn back the clock on the interim arrangements where consensus exists in the sector.
The committee has flagged up some strategic issues that will need to be addressed in our on-going inquiry into lifelong learning. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are spent through the teaching and research funding formulae, but neither the current allocation nor the funding structure itself addresses the strategic direction that we would wish higher education to take. Potential learners have to chase the funding round the system rather than the funding following the student. Despite the fact that many people find themselves on courses that are not entirely tailored to their needs, there is little evidence that the system is tailoring skills and training to meet the needs of the marketplace.
We are aware that Scotland's future prosperity lies in increasing our productivity and creating a knowledge-based economy. Yet we still suffer from acute shortages of graduates in several sectors, particularly engineering, and far too many people are unable to access any learning provision at all. As well as recognising that we could do more to stimulate the supply of skills and training, the committee concluded that the economic impact of research spending in the higher education sector could be greater than it is. Not only did we identify the need to increase the total amount spent on research, we recognised that that money could be more strategically deployed.
Unfortunately, what we were not able to do, given the limited remit of the inquiry, was to consider the proportional amounts spent on applied and commercial research compared to pure academic study. That is the point that Brian Adam made in his intervention.
I would never suggest that higher education or lifelong learning should ever just be about addressing the needs of the marketplace or the Scottish economy. Education is an empowering force for the individual. It is the key to unlocking the door to social exclusion. It can help to build good citizens. It can also help our economy to prosper. However, I do not believe that the current structure for the funding of higher education achieves, or is sufficiently focused on those goals. We must assess whether we have the balance right between the different funding streams. That is a subject to which I hope we will return in our lifelong learning inquiry.
None of us should underestimate the task. Our Parliament has been around for three years. Some of our institutions of higher learning have been around for hundreds and have a record that they can be proud of, but they need to be made more accountable. If we are to spend millions of pounds of public money, we need to get the best return on our investment. Today's debate is the beginning of that process. I commend the committee's report.
The current situation does not inspire confidence. Whether or not deals are indeed done behind closed doors, there is no transparency, little accountability and, most worryingly of all, there appears to be no strategy whatever.
Given that structure for the funding of teaching, it is little wonder that, despite the huge expansion in student numbers in recent years, we have failed to do enough to tackle the age-old problems of privilege in and exclusion from higher education. Despite the fact that half our school leavers will now enjoy the opportunity to go on to further learning, the system does not yet do enough to offer or support opportunity for all.
There have been improvements. We have made progress in widening access and we continue to do so. Despite asking SHEFC to go back to the drawing board on the funding of teaching, the committee also recognised that a number of positive developments should be taken forward. Specifically, but not exclusively, we supported the 5 per cent additional funding for wider access students and the additional funding for disabled students and for part-time learners. The committee agreed that it did not want to turn back the clock on the interim arrangements where consensus exists in the sector.
The committee has flagged up some strategic issues that will need to be addressed in our on-going inquiry into lifelong learning. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are spent through the teaching and research funding formulae, but neither the current allocation nor the funding structure itself addresses the strategic direction that we would wish higher education to take. Potential learners have to chase the funding round the system rather than the funding following the student. Despite the fact that many people find themselves on courses that are not entirely tailored to their needs, there is little evidence that the system is tailoring skills and training to meet the needs of the marketplace.
We are aware that Scotland's future prosperity lies in increasing our productivity and creating a knowledge-based economy. Yet we still suffer from acute shortages of graduates in several sectors, particularly engineering, and far too many people are unable to access any learning provision at all. As well as recognising that we could do more to stimulate the supply of skills and training, the committee concluded that the economic impact of research spending in the higher education sector could be greater than it is. Not only did we identify the need to increase the total amount spent on research, we recognised that that money could be more strategically deployed.
Unfortunately, what we were not able to do, given the limited remit of the inquiry, was to consider the proportional amounts spent on applied and commercial research compared to pure academic study. That is the point that Brian Adam made in his intervention.
I would never suggest that higher education or lifelong learning should ever just be about addressing the needs of the marketplace or the Scottish economy. Education is an empowering force for the individual. It is the key to unlocking the door to social exclusion. It can help to build good citizens. It can also help our economy to prosper. However, I do not believe that the current structure for the funding of higher education achieves, or is sufficiently focused on those goals. We must assess whether we have the balance right between the different funding streams. That is a subject to which I hope we will return in our lifelong learning inquiry.
None of us should underestimate the task. Our Parliament has been around for three years. Some of our institutions of higher learning have been around for hundreds and have a record that they can be proud of, but they need to be made more accountable. If we are to spend millions of pounds of public money, we need to get the best return on our investment. Today's debate is the beginning of that process. I commend the committee's report.
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?