Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 24 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Official Report 166KB pdf

---

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

Simon Watkins will introduce the item on the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's teaching and research review.

Members will recall that after the committee's previous evidence session on SHEFC's review of teaching and research funding, members felt that, although they understood most of what was proposed on the teaching side and understood the views of the various organisations, they wanted to focus a little more on the research side of the review. We have a suggestion on how that might be done. The convener has had discussions with the minister on what the Executive is doing. Perhaps he would like to comment on that.

The Executive will have to take decisions on the issue around October or November. If we want to influence those decisions, our work will have to be completed by then. Our work will relate primarily to the research and commercialisation aspects, which are key areas for the committee. In the light of the findings from the first meeting, which was chaired by Annabel Goldie, and the subsequent discussions, it seems sensible that we focus on the research side much more than we had originally intended. We can influence events much more by doing that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

This point is, to a certain extent, catered for in that suggestion, but would it be worth asking Scotland IS, which represents Scotland's software community, to give written evidence? Given our discussions here and elsewhere, Scotland IS has relevant things to say about the direction of higher and further education funding.

The wording of recommendation ii) is slightly confusing. The second line refers to "teaching and funding". Does "funding" mean research?

It is meant to be research.

I have a second point. The remit will be

"to investigate the basis of the SHEFC review of teaching and funding, and to make recommendations for its future higher education funding".

That points us purely and simply in the direction of looking again at the report that was produced by J M Consulting Ltd. Is the remit phrased too narrowly? Do not we want wording that will give us slightly more scope? We know what we want to do, but I am not sure that the recommendation will work.

SHEFC is not the only body that funds higher education. The intention of the recommended remit is to restrict the inquiry to SHEFC's role, rather than that of some of the other bodies. Recommendation ii) is the original remit for the hearings, which the committee previously agreed to.

We will note Des McNulty's point and amend the remit to cover it. Is that agreeable?

As long as the remit is sufficiently flexible.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.