Chamber
Plenary, 01 Nov 2001
01 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Teaching and Research Funding (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Review)
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 was right to simplify the funding model. There are anomalies within that hopelessly overcomplex system, which has 22 different price lists for different kinds of courses. Furthermore, the council was right to try to establish a new system that was properly evidence based. However, it could be criticised for abandoning the process halfway through to adopt what might be called a quick and dirty solution. Although the council responded to the issue of the pricing of clinical medicine, it did not respond to a number of equally valid cases. We need a review of teaching funding. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is right to argue for that.
However, we should not underestimate the technical complexity of any such review. We will have to reconstruct a system that forms the core of the way in which universities in Scotland are funded. Whatever is done will be very closely examined throughout the university system and there will be many debates and arguments—not just at the margins—about how to develop the process. For example, it is not easy to establish the price of a course in accountancy against the price of courses in particular engineering specialisms.
Secondly, the outcome will have a huge organisational impact on universities in Scotland. The letters that members might have received from people up to now will be nothing compared to the letters that they will receive once the new system is proposed and seems likely to be introduced. There can be no half-measures in this kind of exercise; it needs to be done well, with a proper evidence base and the involvement of everyone concerned.
I very much support the arguments in favour of the retention of formula funding for level 3 research outputs. Instead of being forward-looking, the RAE is retrospective; it is based on the past four years of a department's research outputs rather than on its potential outputs. Obviously such a system will privilege established figures and areas of inquiry. Furthermore, the system is not a very proactive means of identifying promising new research; it disadvantages cross-discipline research because it is discipline-focused; and it makes it very difficult for new departments with new areas of inquiry to get established. Level 3 funding needs to be supported because of arguments of that kind.
However, Andrew Welsh gave the most important reason why level 3 funding should be retained. SHEFC's proposals would seriously disadvantage the new universities. Perhaps at this point I should declare that I am a former member of staff of Glasgow Caledonian University. The new universities have been working very hard to establish their research base. Research is vital not just for the commercial and business reasons that Alex Neil strongly highlighted but because many universities define themselves by how they advance knowledge. That process critically underpins university teaching. Without research, there are no universities.
As Annabel Goldie pointed out, RAE funding accounts for 34 per cent of university funding. As opposed to other types of funding, it provides the research infrastructure within universities. We must really bear in mind that such funding is geared not just towards commercial advantage or scientific development, but towards the teaching process.
However, we must also bear it in mind that the RAE is wholly based on a system of research selectivity. Although an examination of the outcomes of the past three exercises shows that the number of papers submitted and meritorious outcomes has increased every time, there has been no corresponding increase in funding. As a result, people in universities feel that although a higher gearing has been placed on those institutions, there has not been a significant increase in funding. The committee has identified that danger as a priority for the universities and for Scotland and, on that basis, I very much welcome the committee's recommendations.
However, we should not underestimate the technical complexity of any such review. We will have to reconstruct a system that forms the core of the way in which universities in Scotland are funded. Whatever is done will be very closely examined throughout the university system and there will be many debates and arguments—not just at the margins—about how to develop the process. For example, it is not easy to establish the price of a course in accountancy against the price of courses in particular engineering specialisms.
Secondly, the outcome will have a huge organisational impact on universities in Scotland. The letters that members might have received from people up to now will be nothing compared to the letters that they will receive once the new system is proposed and seems likely to be introduced. There can be no half-measures in this kind of exercise; it needs to be done well, with a proper evidence base and the involvement of everyone concerned.
I very much support the arguments in favour of the retention of formula funding for level 3 research outputs. Instead of being forward-looking, the RAE is retrospective; it is based on the past four years of a department's research outputs rather than on its potential outputs. Obviously such a system will privilege established figures and areas of inquiry. Furthermore, the system is not a very proactive means of identifying promising new research; it disadvantages cross-discipline research because it is discipline-focused; and it makes it very difficult for new departments with new areas of inquiry to get established. Level 3 funding needs to be supported because of arguments of that kind.
However, Andrew Welsh gave the most important reason why level 3 funding should be retained. SHEFC's proposals would seriously disadvantage the new universities. Perhaps at this point I should declare that I am a former member of staff of Glasgow Caledonian University. The new universities have been working very hard to establish their research base. Research is vital not just for the commercial and business reasons that Alex Neil strongly highlighted but because many universities define themselves by how they advance knowledge. That process critically underpins university teaching. Without research, there are no universities.
As Annabel Goldie pointed out, RAE funding accounts for 34 per cent of university funding. As opposed to other types of funding, it provides the research infrastructure within universities. We must really bear in mind that such funding is geared not just towards commercial advantage or scientific development, but towards the teaching process.
However, we must also bear it in mind that the RAE is wholly based on a system of research selectivity. Although an examination of the outcomes of the past three exercises shows that the number of papers submitted and meritorious outcomes has increased every time, there has been no corresponding increase in funding. As a result, people in universities feel that although a higher gearing has been placed on those institutions, there has not been a significant increase in funding. The committee has identified that danger as a priority for the universities and for Scotland and, on that basis, I very much welcome the committee's recommendations.
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?