Chamber
Plenary, 01 Nov 2001
01 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Teaching and Research Funding (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Review)
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 and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, I take a strong interest in higher education. I am therefore grateful to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for the very high quality of research in its report.
I particularly support the analysis by Des McNulty and Annabel Goldie of the importance of research to universities. I will concentrate my remarks on the measuring of research that informs funding decisions and on sharing it with all universities either where the performance merits such an approach or where it directly benefits the country.
We know that research funding is a highly competitive environment. Research is essential to the development of Scotland's knowledge economy, and universities are overwhelmingly the main source of research output. Overall the Scottish universities have been strikingly successful with research grants and indeed received £368.5 million in 1999-2000. Furthermore, universities regard research performance as a vital indicator and a key component in attracting research stars.
However, the new universities believe that the current mechanisms favour the ancient universities. As research work confers status on either a department or an academic, it in turn increases a university's reputation, and subjects that attract a lot of research benefit as the work itself becomes better informed. As a result, the universities that are successful in securing research funding are also successful in attracting greater student numbers and in creating a better learning environment.
With the new universities trying to build their reputations and to fit in with the eight established universities as a result of their new-found status and role within the education sector, SHEFC's proposals to remove research funding from level 3-rated departments could not have come at a worse time. The situation concerns me greatly. As Glasgow Caledonian University in my constituency admits a much higher percentage of students from low-income backgrounds, it might be undermined by this decision in the longer run.
The abolition of the two-tier degree system in the early 1990s was a most welcome change to Scottish education and expanded the number of universities in the sector from eight to 12. We should protect the aim of achieving a single sector for the awarding of degrees. If SHEFC's proposals are not reversed, in effect we will return to the binary divide. The results could not be clearer. The current allocation of research distribution puts the older universities at the top of the list and the new universities at the bottom.
Some subjects such as nursing, midwifery and professions allied to medicine will not have the opportunity to develop. Research on those subjects is still in its infancy and removing support from level 3-rated departments will affect the quality of disciplines such as radiography. We need only consider the importance of diagnostic treatment in the advancement of medicine to appreciate the direct advantage of funding research at institutions such as Glasgow Caledonian University. As members have already pointed out, that type of applied research receives less support than pure research. For example, applied research is required in tourism to support the fact that it is a priority of the Executive and the Parliament.
Although many more aspects of the committee's report are very important, I will mention only two more. The development of centres of excellence in our higher education sector must be driven forward with greater speed. It is important to introduce the right mechanisms and systems that will establish the location of such centres around the country. Secondly, I am pleased that the minister recently decided to award Glasgow School of Art small specialist institution status. The institution would suffer a dramatic 14 per cent reduction in its teaching funding if the SHEFC proposals were accepted.
In conclusion, I urge the Parliament to reject the SHEFC proposal to remove level 3 research funding. We must support the new universities, as they are crucial to access and participation, to which the Parliament is committed. Let us have more applied research.
I particularly support the analysis by Des McNulty and Annabel Goldie of the importance of research to universities. I will concentrate my remarks on the measuring of research that informs funding decisions and on sharing it with all universities either where the performance merits such an approach or where it directly benefits the country.
We know that research funding is a highly competitive environment. Research is essential to the development of Scotland's knowledge economy, and universities are overwhelmingly the main source of research output. Overall the Scottish universities have been strikingly successful with research grants and indeed received £368.5 million in 1999-2000. Furthermore, universities regard research performance as a vital indicator and a key component in attracting research stars.
However, the new universities believe that the current mechanisms favour the ancient universities. As research work confers status on either a department or an academic, it in turn increases a university's reputation, and subjects that attract a lot of research benefit as the work itself becomes better informed. As a result, the universities that are successful in securing research funding are also successful in attracting greater student numbers and in creating a better learning environment.
With the new universities trying to build their reputations and to fit in with the eight established universities as a result of their new-found status and role within the education sector, SHEFC's proposals to remove research funding from level 3-rated departments could not have come at a worse time. The situation concerns me greatly. As Glasgow Caledonian University in my constituency admits a much higher percentage of students from low-income backgrounds, it might be undermined by this decision in the longer run.
The abolition of the two-tier degree system in the early 1990s was a most welcome change to Scottish education and expanded the number of universities in the sector from eight to 12. We should protect the aim of achieving a single sector for the awarding of degrees. If SHEFC's proposals are not reversed, in effect we will return to the binary divide. The results could not be clearer. The current allocation of research distribution puts the older universities at the top of the list and the new universities at the bottom.
Some subjects such as nursing, midwifery and professions allied to medicine will not have the opportunity to develop. Research on those subjects is still in its infancy and removing support from level 3-rated departments will affect the quality of disciplines such as radiography. We need only consider the importance of diagnostic treatment in the advancement of medicine to appreciate the direct advantage of funding research at institutions such as Glasgow Caledonian University. As members have already pointed out, that type of applied research receives less support than pure research. For example, applied research is required in tourism to support the fact that it is a priority of the Executive and the Parliament.
Although many more aspects of the committee's report are very important, I will mention only two more. The development of centres of excellence in our higher education sector must be driven forward with greater speed. It is important to introduce the right mechanisms and systems that will establish the location of such centres around the country. Secondly, I am pleased that the minister recently decided to award Glasgow School of Art small specialist institution status. The institution would suffer a dramatic 14 per cent reduction in its teaching funding if the SHEFC proposals were accepted.
In conclusion, I urge the Parliament to reject the SHEFC proposal to remove level 3 research funding. We must support the new universities, as they are crucial to access and participation, to which the Parliament is committed. Let us have more applied research.
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?