Hansard

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.