Official Report 238KB pdf
Welcome, everyone. I will start the meeting, as it is now 7 minutes past 2—
Seven seconds.
Sorry—seven seconds. Welcome to the committee's 19th and final meeting this year. I have apologies from Margaret Ewing and Irene Oldfather.
Given that there is limited time at the committee's disposal, I will be brief to allow more questions to be asked. I will summarise where we stand.
Would Dr Bishop like to add anything?
No; that is fine.
The minister said that bids were not being sought for centres, of which the preferred proposal suggests that there will be five. However, I know that institutions—the University of Edinburgh is one and the University of Cambridge is another—have responded to the consultation with requests for consideration as sites. Some member states have also written to ask for their institutions to be considered. I have read the UK's response to the consultation. Unless it does so in additional papers that have not been circulated to us, I do not believe that the UK Government has requested that anything be sited in Scotland or in any other part of the UK. Has the Executive considered the potential for economic benefits from having a centre, should the institute go ahead?
What we have done—wisely—in discussions with the UK Government and other stakeholders is to respond to the questions that the Commission asked. The principal question is not whether the institution should be sited here or anywhere else, but whether the overall idea is a good one. The response to that question has been mixed. Some prominent stakeholders are opposed to the whole concept, irrespective of its potential location, while others have expressed a positive interest in its development. We have fully engaged with the UK Government and the Commission over the most important aspect: developing the concept. If the EIT were to be established in whatever format, our existing technological and research base would set us in very good stead to be strong participants in any future development.
I suppose that this is a question of tactics, and I acknowledge the minister's comment that people in science institutions and universities think that establishing a European institute of technology might not be the best approach—as mere politicians, who are we to argue with that position? However, given how European investment and ideas tend to evolve, such a position could be overtaken. If it looks as though the institute will be established, it will be an awful pity if Britain—never mind Scotland—is seen to be dragging its heels and saying, "We don't like this thing." How is the Executive positioning itself on the matter tactically? After all, Edinburgh has an important and successful bioscience cluster—indeed, many people would say that it is a centre of global excellence—and is the obvious place to establish such an element of the EIT. As I say, it would be a pity if we missed such an opportunity.
We are fully aware that, as policy develops, we must be integral to the process—and indeed that is the case. We are working hand in glove with institutions and their representative organisations to ensure that the Scottish interest in this matter is protected. However, we must work with the institutions and take on board their reservations about the process. Indeed, two of the institutions that the convener mentioned—Cambridge university and Edinburgh university—are party to a response that is extremely sceptical about the development. I give John Home Robertson the commitment that if the EIT concept turns into a firm proposal—which, if it happens, will probably do so between now and the spring European Council—I will work actively with the Scottish institutions to establish how our higher education sector can benefit from the initiative.
Of course. That is the trouble.
I assure you that, if there is an opportunity for the Executive and our higher education institutions to participate in and benefit from the process, and if all the existing reservations are overcome, we stand ready to assist.
As the papers make clear, one attraction of the institute is that if it were to be established and if one of its arms were to be in Scotland, considerable extra funding would be available. That is fine, although funding is not currently available to allow certain European initiatives to spread their wings. Nevertheless, the idea is very good. Indeed, as John Home Robertson has pointed out, certain elements exist in the way that some universities already co-operate with each other. Would not it be reasonable for Scotland now to go it alone and to set up its own institute of technology with the universities' involvement? After all, if that happened and the European Commission went ahead with the measure, we would be in a really strong position to claim the additional funding.
I am sure that you would be the first to agree that it would be of no benefit to research and technological development more generally if Peter were to be robbed to pay Paul and we were to establish a European institute of technology that was funded by denuding other research programmes of much-needed resources. Therefore, our position—and, indeed, that of the institutions and research bodies more generally—is that moneys for the EIT should be additional to moneys for the proposed European research council, for example, and the positive programme of research that the European Union supports, much of which is in the UK.
Some of the universities replied positively to the committee when it contacted them about the proposed EIT. Have any of the universities made separate approaches to the Scottish Executive urging that it make interested submissions?
I am told that they have not. As I said in my preamble, we have involved stakeholders—principally, Universities Scotland as the representative of the institutions, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. They all have concerns and are cautious about the proposed EIT, not least because of the funding issue that you raised. We anticipate taking forward the proposal in that way.
You have answered most of the questions that I was going to ask. You mentioned the European research council; how do you envisage that an EIT would interact with a European research council? Does last week's budgetary agreement allocate any more funds for research or would funding the EIT be a case of trying to divide the same cake or, even, a smaller cake more thinly?
Strangely enough, I asked that second question myself before I came to the committee. I am told that, although the figures in the most recent budgetary discussions have not been finalised, there has been no change to framework research funding, so there will still be the same amount of money for framework 7 as was originally proposed. Beyond that, there is no additional cash for the EIT—Dr Andy Bishop will correct me if I am wrong on that—so the big question of how it will be funded is still to be answered, which is one of the reasons why Scottish institutions and others are cautious about its establishment.
Are we discussing the creation of a virtual institute or would there be bricks and mortar somewhere? Would it use existing bricks and mortar?
The short answer is that we do not know. That may become clearer in February or thereabouts, when the Commission publishes its responses to the consultation and the conclusions arising from it. My firm view, which I know you support, is that we must take a bottom-up approach. We cannot impose an institute of technology on existing higher education institutions. We must take what is there, build it and mould it into something that will add value to existing research.
I endorse the view that we cannot just conjure up a centre of excellence.
Precisely.
I was interested that you said that you are glad to have received a positive response and that you worked for that in your submission to the UK Government, which then made a submission to the Commission. Are you happy that the UK response accurately reflects what would be best for Scotland?
Yes. We have worked very constructively with the UK Government to produce a positive response. We have flagged up the concerns of the individual institutions in the sector and the big questions of how the institute should be financed. In the event that a positive proposition is advanced, we are well placed both in Scotland and in the UK more generally to ensure that our interests are well represented. I am positive about the UK Government's response and our role in future policy determination in this regard.
When I read the material that the Commission produced, I could not find anything particularly definitive about how the institute would be funded. One could interpret it as saying that there would be no effect on current research and development funding; one could also interpret it as saying that funding for the institute would come from the existing stream. Have you heard anything further from the UK Government or the Commission about how exactly the institute would be funded?
No.
In your discussions with the UK Government, have you conveyed the concerns of Universities Scotland, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council? Has the UK Government taken those concerns on board and responded to allay them?
The concerns of the Scottish higher education institutions and their representative bodies are replicated in institutions in England, such as Cambridge university. The higher education sector, its representative bodies, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government have a common approach. We want to ensure that the perspective of the UK and its research institutes is taken on board by the Commission and that whatever comes out of the consultation takes account of the institutes' concerns. That is what we and the UK Government have been doing. A copy of the UK Government's consultation response has been placed in the House of Commons library. We have not seen the rest of the responses and I suspect that we will not see them until next year.
Is it conceivable that the Scottish Executive could take a different line from the UK Government on this matter?
That is always conceivable. As you know, representations to the Commission are a matter reserved to the UK Government. However, I see nothing other than a commonality of approach between us. Research institutes and the higher education sector more generally work collaboratively and co-operatively across national boundaries in any case. There are already collaborations between institutions north and south of the border, which have a commonality of interest. This proposal will not necessarily change that.
I want to pursue your last comment. It was always my understanding that there was co-operation and co-ordination between institutions. Why is a European institute of technology needed? The University of Edinburgh's links with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were mentioned. Could such links with institutions beyond Europe's borders put us at a disadvantage with respect to the proposed EIT?
I agree with most commentators and those who are involved in the field that a European institute that replicated the groundbreaking work of MIT would benefit our research base and global competitiveness. Such an institution could seek to redress Europe's failure to turn good research into commercialised products—that is a common feature across European boundaries. If the EIT was successful in securing a better commercialisation of existing research, that would be a bonus. Such a positive development would be good not only for Europe but for the UK and our global competitive position.
It is early days but, given that John Home Robertson mentioned Edinburgh as the obvious city in which to site such a facility, I point out that Glasgow has a thriving bioscience park that is headed up by the University of Glasgow and an expanding information technology science park that is headed up by the University of Strathclyde. However, I do not believe that we should necessarily reach for the pork barrel either in the early days of the project or later on.
Charlie Gordon has hit the nail on the head. It would be premature to start extolling our economic interests ahead of a decision in principle on whether and how such an institute should be established and funded. To engage in that sort of politics with other member states would be premature; it would be even more premature to start considering where such an institution might be located in Scotland.
It is just as well that we have no members from Dundee or Aberdeen; otherwise, this argument could go on all afternoon.
I think—
I suggest—
Do not all speak at once. We will hear first from Phil Gallie.
I am interested in what has been said, but we will need to wait for the deliberations of the council following the consultation. Like Charlie Gordon, I believe that we should ask the Executive to report back to us whenever it gets any information.
I agree. The general view is that, if the institute should materialise, we would like a slice of the action. We are not quite sure what will materialise, or whether a substantial building will be required, so it is premature to discuss the issue. However, I endorse Phil Gallie's view. When the picture becomes clearer, the minister should advise the committee of developments.
The minister indicated that there would be developments soon, at an early meeting of the Council. That would be the trigger, would it not?
We expect that the Commission will make proposals, or at least respond to the consultation, around February, in time for the spring Council. That it is not long.
Therefore, there is nothing further that we can usefully do until proposals emerge.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
Structural Funds