Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 01 Nov 2001

01 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Teaching and Research Funding (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Review)

Goldie, Annabel Con West of Scotland Watch on SPTV

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 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

Every cloud has a silver lining. The inquiry was brought about by, if not a crisis, certainly an attack of chronic indigestion in the higher education sector.

This has perhaps been the first opportunity in more than a decade for a parliament to consider closely the future direction and funding of higher education in Scotland. It was interesting and challenging to be a member of the committee involved in this inquiry.

I emphasise two points to the minister about teaching funding. First, paragraph 100 of the committee's report recommends

"that the Minister establish an independent review body from outwith SHEFC with a remit to examine the costs of teaching, taking into account UK comparators across all subjects".

That may sound like an unremarkable paragraph, but the tang—for some I expect it will be the sting—is in the independence element and also the recommendation that the review of teaching costs take place on a UK-wide scale. In my judgment, it would be unacceptable for SHEFC to undertake that review, as such a review would have no credibility. Examining teaching costs is sensitive, but it is vital. The sector deserves a reassurance of independence and objectivity in such a review. If one were to keep it in-house within the higher education sector, I envisage difficulties emerging. I have read the response from Universities Scotland to the inquiry report; it is clearly shy about an independent inquiry. It thinks that that would be an unfortunate slap in the face to SHEFC. Finer feelings on this issue are not of particular significance. What matters is that we are talking about significant sums of public money and the need for reassurance that they are being effectively and properly distributed. I see from the response from the University Council of Modern Languages that Professor Millan applauds the idea of an independent review. Those two responses show the conflict that exists and the need to take this review outside the sector.

If I get a tang from that part of the report, what really whets my appetite is the issue of research funding. Research activity is the lifeblood of universities. It brings staff of high calibre to our institutions and maintains them there. That in turn is what attracts good students and helps our universities to maintain the highest academic performance.

It is worth considering current funding sources for research income in Scotland. It has been made clear in the debate that SHEFC accounts for approximately a third of that. The rest comes in varying proportions from research councils, UK-based charities, UK Government bodies, UK industry, the European Union, overseas and other sources. It is significant to pay attention to where those funds come from. Doing so allows one to make a great deal of sense of paragraph 135 of the report, which is the recommendation on how we might approach funding of research in Scotland in the future.

One of the most constructive suggestions by the committee is that the minister should establish a research and development strategy for Scotland, not only because that seems to marry well with the science strategy that she announced in August, but because it offers the opportunity for a focused and well-informed approach to the concept of research in Scotland. Research should not be viewed piecemeal according to what institutions are trying to do. We should take a strategic overview and focus on the areas in which funding should be sought.

I emphasise to the minister that if the strategy is devised and is good, sound and has credibility it is vital that the funding issue be sensibly addressed. What I like about paragraph 135 is that it is a sensible effort to devise a structure whereby funding may be properly and adequately considered.

I am not by nature diffident, but on this matter I have an overweening desire to be bold. I call on the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to be bold with me. I am putting my committee hat to the back of my head and donning my Goldie bunnet. The report is a good architect's plan for the future; it lays the foundations. However, we must be ambitious for the future, not for reasons of introspective self-indulgence—not a charge that I would care to have levelled at me or that I would care to see levelled at any university senate. We must have ambitions and aspirations for our universities, for our economy and for Scotland.

When we consider what is happening elsewhere, there are reasons for concern and disquiet. As has been said, it is clear that in Europe certain countries are making significant increases in research funding. In the United States some individual university departments enjoy funding at a level that would make some of our institutions salivate.

I urge the minister to pay close attention to the recommendations in paragraphs 100 and 135. Dangers are lurking if we do not do so. One of the dangers is that our universities will face academic impoverishment. The other is less visible and far more insidious. It is that south of the border many people have no understanding of devolution and many people in the academic community are frightened to entrust their professional careers to a system that is unknown to them. The way to rebut that is to make a clarion call for the best possible approach to research in Scotland that the Parliament is capable of devising. I make no apology for being the siren to make that clarion call.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 01 Nov 2001

In the same item of business