Hannah Research Institute
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2544, in the name of Phil Gallie, on the Hannah Research Institute—the loss of home-based scientists. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament views with concern the loss of scientists and support staff as a consequence of uncertainties over research funding currently surrounding the Hannah Research Institute near Ayr; considers that the actions of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department over recent times have been unhelpful and misleading when considering the research direction that the Institute has followed; believes that the levels of expertise and knowledge available within Hannah are identical to those that the Executive seeks to recruit under its Fresh Talent initiative and retain, if its much-used phrase of "a smart, successful Scotland" has any meaning, and considers that the Ministers for Enterprise, Health and Rural Affairs should come together to secure the future of this quality Scottish resource.
Although I and others have concerns over the future of the Hannah Research Institute, the motion has implications that extend beyond local interests. In particular, it seeks to draw attention to the need for joined-up thinking between Government departments—particularly on science and research. I made that point in the debate in Parliament on life sciences on 24 March and I make no apologies for repeating my plea for a joined-up approach.
Prior to the debate, I and others have attempted to draw together the ministers with responsibility for higher education, economic development, health and the environment as we believe that they all have an interest in extending the future of the Hannah. Cathy Jamieson, the local member, chaired a meeting with Lewis Macdonald, and I suspect that she feels some disappointment that, following that meeting, a further meeting involving me, the attendees at the original meeting and the Hannah's staff—who have asked for such meetings at various stages—has not taken place.
Before I discuss the current situation, it will be worth while to look back and consider the history of the Hannah, which was established in 1928, the child of a development commission of that time. The commission recognised that there was a need for agricultural research, which was of great importance to Scotland's economy, that had the potential to develop agriculture and its markets in Scotland and beyond.
John Hannah provided the main building and grounds, and the Government was the principal source of funding for the launch of the institute. Since it got off the ground, it has achieved much. Its particular expertise has given Ayrshire's dairy base a principal role in Scotland's dairy sector. The Hannah's principal involvements were in lactoral and ruminant research. That work continued over many years, but not too many people know about some of the successes that have been achieved. Many of us buy a bottle of Baileys Irish Cream without thinking too much about it, but the Hannah originated ideas on the creaming of whisky—sadly it did not hold on to the patents for that work.
Development in cheese processing has also been a major achievement of the institute. In other areas, such as the life and death of cells in particular cultures, major advancements have been made at the Hannah. Although the bulk of the credit for Dolly the sheep goes to the Roslin Institute, we ignore at our peril the fact that the Hannah Research Institute also played a part in that renowned research.
In more recent times, recognition has been given to the importance of the Hannah's activities to the food industry—most significantly, their potential to benefit human health.
Before the member develops his point further, will he say whether he thinks that the Hannah's current funding deficit and the lack of co-ordination in its strategic development will have any implications for Roslin?
The member makes a very good point. What is happening to the Hannah today could well happen to other research institutes tomorrow. I understand that Roslin's finances are not as secure as many would like them to be. Perhaps Margo MacDonald should look into the matter. Above all, she should take note of my motion, because the issues that it raises will certainly be of interest to her.
As I have said, although the work at the Hannah has been recognised as being important to the food industry, research that is being carried out, particularly into obesity and diabetes, also has massive potential to benefit human health. Moreover, there has been some diversity; for example, the private sector has been involved in the establishment of Charis Innovative Food Services Ltd and Hannah Interactions at the institute. Given that both developments have taken place with Scottish Enterprise's encouragement and given the importance that that organisation has placed on the site, people in Ayrshire in particular will be disappointed if the institute disappears over the hill. After all, Scottish Enterprise envisages longer-term involvement with the institute in creating a research business park.
The funding of principal research work at the institute remains the domain of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. I find it worthy of note that the department provides 50 per cent of all Scottish research funding in this field. That has been all-important. However, the strange thing is that SEERAD encouraged the institute to develop into biomedical research. In 1999, SEERAD brought out a strategy for agricultural, biological and related research that laid the foundation for that switch in emphasis at the Hannah. Subsequently, two groups visited the institute. The first group, which visited in 1999, reported on the good quality of science that was worthy of support at the institute. In 2003, the visiting group referred to the international quality of the work carried out there. However, the Hannah faces a withdrawal of funds by SEERAD on the basis that SEERAD believes that it should not fund the health side of the research that is carried out at the institute—I remind members that SEERAD encouraged the Hannah to go down that line.
Does the member accept that there is a strong case for the funding for the Hannah to be transferred to the new merged funding council that will be responsible for all other research funding through the Scottish Executive?
I ask Mr Gallie to start to wind up his speech.
In winding up, I will pick up on Alex Neil's point. I agree that there is such a case and, considering the problems faced by the Hannah, the terms of the motion address that point. It is important that the research that is carried out at the institute be recognised for its value in other areas.
Umbrella funding is all-important. I make this point once again: SEERAD picks up 50 per cent of research funding in Scotland and it is time that the scope of such funding was widened.
The Hannah has excellent staff—the kind of staff that the First Minister was boasting about at First Minister's question time, when he said that we should retain them in Scotland under the fresh talent initiative, for example. The staff at the Hannah are now under threat and are liable to go to other places. That would be contrary to everything that the Executive stands for in respect of retaining expertise, knowledge and talent in today's Scotland.
I congratulate Phil Gallie on securing this evening's debate. I know full well his long-standing interest in, and his concern over, the future of the Hannah and its first-class scientists and support staff. I have shared that concern, and have felt a mounting frustration at the apparent reluctance of Executive ministers to engage in a meaningful discussion aimed at securing the institute's future in Ayrshire.
The prospective demise of the Hannah is galling—not least because it follows hard on the heels of ministerial approval for the Scottish Agricultural College's exit strategy. The SAC at Auchincruive is just across the road from the Hannah. However, at least in the case of the SAC, public and political pressure, plus ministerial intervention, have salvaged a long-term future for the SAC and its educational provision in Ayr. I would like the same consideration to be given to the Hannah Research Institute and its staff, who deserve nothing less.
Despite the institute's international reputation and the excellence of the science conducted at the institute—as confirmed as recently as 2003 in the visiting group assessment to which Phil Gallie referred—SEERAD seems determined to distance itself from responsibility. Research conducted by the Hannah is deemed not suitable for SEERAD's remit, although it was SEERAD that pushed the Hannah in the direction of biomedical research, as Phil Gallie explained. The previous director of the institute was more often than not at odds with the department, but how does that justify a deliberate and systematic underfunding of the Hannah's research when compared with the other Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes over the past five years?
Why has SEERAD signally failed to act on the 2003 visiting group's recommendation, which was to undertake a fundamental review of the future of the institute along with all the other stakeholders? Why has SEERAD passed the buck to the institute on employment matters, despite the fact that public sector research funders have a responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure and sustainability of institutes when they are the main funders? SEERAD provides more than 70 per cent of the Hannah's funding. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that SEERAD has been determined to get rid of the Hannah for a considerable time and has been conducting a campaign of attrition to that end. Ministers should have stepped in before now to stop that happening. First-class scientists and their work have already been lost to Scotland. I challenge the Executive to live up to the rhetoric of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" and to invest in the scientific talent at the Hannah, rather than discard it.
I, too, begin by congratulating Phil Gallie on securing this debate on the Hannah Research Institute and on bringing the matter to the chamber's attention. Many pertinent points have already been made about the history and the past successes of the institute. It is right to acknowledge its legacy of important scientific research. As has been mentioned, the institute was founded in 1928 to undertake research on the dairy industry. That was in recognition of the impact that the dairy industry had—which it continues to have—in Ayrshire.
The present situation is worrying for all concerned. Although the institute is not in my constituency—it is in Cathy Jamieson's constituency, and I know of the work that she has done on the issue—I have constituents who are employed by the institute. I am sure that the minister will appreciate that we have a fragile economy in Ayrshire and in Cunninghame South, and that any further job uncertainty or job losses are not welcome at this point in time.
I fully understand the Executive's need to fund research projects that are justifiable in terms of their end-user relevance, but the institute is home to many world-class scientists, of whom Scotland can rightly be proud. I acknowledge the comments made by Mr Gallie and Mr Ingram about the visiting groups, and it is important to note that it was the management at the Hannah that was criticised in those reports for its lack of foresight, not the scientists. Indeed, the reporters rated the science as being of international quality.
I for one feel that it would be a great shame if the benefit and knowledge of those highly qualified and experienced individuals were to be lost to the Scottish science sector. We have to consider how we can utilise those skills and that knowledge and how we can boost the Scottish science sector. Through today's debate, we may yet find an opportunity for more applied and directly relevant research, and I do not really detect an unwillingness on the part of the scientists to whom I have spoken to engage with the Executive on such matters. As in all such situations, it is important to keep lines of communication open to provide for that continued dialogue and to compromise as far as possible. I hope that today's debate will allow us to develop such dialogue.
We all agree that science and research are key to a dynamic Scotland and to our future success in the knowledge economy. It would be helpful if the minister could give an assurance that the Executive will engage with the institute to consider how available funding can be put to maximum use. I am sure that he will recognise the difficulty that scientists face in attracting grants and further funding when there are uncertainties around, and it is important that we make maximum use of any funding that is available, while at the same time recognising the Executive's need to fund research with practical application. I hope that that will provide an avenue for further discussion.
I also wonder whether, in that engagement, the Executive could assist the Hannah in considering whether it could form strategic partnerships, including perhaps examining any opportunities that might be available to work with colleagues in eastern European member states, which will attract a significant amount of European funding post 2007. There may be opportunities there, and it would be helpful if the Executive could look at how such partnerships could be facilitated.
I ask the minister to keep an open mind and, in the interests of maintaining a science base in Ayrshire and in Scotland, to consider how we can work together to make a contribution to the knowledge economy. I again congratulate my colleague Phil Gallie on bringing the matter to the chamber today.
I begin by welcoming staff from the Hannah Research Institute who are in the public gallery and by congratulating Phil Gallie on securing this important debate. I also note that, although the Hannah lies outside the boundaries of my constituency, many of its staff live in Ayr constituency, so today's debate is of importance to them. However, the debate about the Hannah is important not just in a narrow constituency sense as it has to be seen in a whole-Ayrshire context, and indeed in a west of Scotland context. From a west of Scotland perspective, the threatened closure of the Hannah is sending out a dreadful message.
I was elected to the Scottish Parliament just over five years ago, and in early meetings with Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire I raised the possibility of a bioscience or life science park for Ayrshire, loosely based around the Hannah Research Institute and SAC Auchincruive. After discussion with local authorities, that idea was adopted by the Ayrshire economic forum. The establishment of a bioscience park became the forum's number 2 priority. That was welcomed and agreed by all MPs, MSPs and councillors in Ayrshire at a presentation in this Parliament.
What has happened now? Auchincruive is a shadow of its former self, and today we are debating the loss of the Hannah as a world-class institute. It is no exaggeration to say that the Hannah's reputation internationally far exceeds SEERAD's perception of it in Scotland, and therein lies the problem.
Critical visiting groups have created the current situation. SEERAD has actively discriminated against the Hannah, and the Hannah, Ayrshire and Scotland are the poorer for it. The critical mass of the scientific communities at the Hannah and Auchincruive are being lost; staff numbers at the Hannah are down from 130 to 70. I am hugely disappointed that SEERAD—and therefore the Government—appears actively to be pursuing such a reduction, in contradiction to the stated aims of the Ayrshire economic forum. At a time when, as Irene Oldfather said, we should be trying our utmost to attract scientists to Scotland and retain them, particularly in the west of Scotland, we are driving scientists away. Phil Gallie is correct to say that the approach does not represent joined-up thinking in pursuit of a smart, successful Scotland.
Rather than be less than helpful to, or less than open with, the Hannah, the Government should grasp the opportunity that is presented to demonstrate its commitment to science in Ayrshire and throughout Scotland. If the Hannah is unable to help itself through leadership and direction, the Government should make a positive contribution to finding solutions to the problem, rather than putting obstacles in the institute's path, for example by cutting its funding.
If visiting group recommendations have been implemented by the Hannah, it is simply not fair for the Government to move the goal posts and say, "Your research is not relevant; it is not what we want." Ministers approved the direction of research and directed budgets for years, so they cannot walk away and say, "The Hannah has got it wrong". There is manifest unfairness and a lack of openness about the situation, which flies in the face of open and accountable government.
I look forward to hearing the minister's closing remarks. I hope that he will acknowledge the quality of research that the institute carries out and that he will not be critical of the institute's recent past, given that it has been following SEERAD's recommendations. I hope that he will tell us what he intends to do to secure the Hannah's future as a working, well-funded, world-class institute. It is not too late to throw the Hannah a lifeline and establish a new, positive direction for the institute. That is the minister's responsibility—I hope that he is up to it.
I congratulate Phil Gallie on securing the debate. I have never voted for him, but he has always been a great champion for Ayr and Ayrshire. I hope that the minister will acknowledge not only the strength of feeling about the Hannah Research Institute in Ayrshire and the wider west of Scotland, but that members of all parties are speaking with a united voice.
It is incredible that we must have the debate. The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department is flying in the face of the policy of every other department in the Scottish Executive. The Hannah institute is doing work on obesity and diabetes at a time when the Minister for Health and Community Care tells us that tackling those problems is a top priority, and the Minister for Education and Young People says that we must deal with those problems among young people or face major problems in the future. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and his agencies have said that research in those areas is a top priority.
How is it that among all the Executive Departments and the Cabinet, every member of which has been told to back up the smart, successful Scotland agenda, one rogue department has put a fine institution under dire threat? If we were talking about an area of science that is in decline, we might begin to understand SEERAD's arguments, but we are talking about an area of science that is growing apace at a geometric rate, not just in Scotland and the United Kingdom but internationally in Europe and across continents. Everyone recognises the importance of that area of activity.
I hope that the minister will not give us woolly answers. We face a great problem, because the uncertainty that SEERAD's position has generated is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dr Zammit, a leading scientist of international renown in diabetes, has left the Hannah to go to the University of Warwick.
We are already suffering the brain drain that has resulted from the uncertainty that SEERAD has created. We need neither pious hopes nor the promise of the promise of a pledge: we need a decision. We need the Executive to take the decision to keep the Hannah and not just to keep it but to develop it, expand it and continue to build it up as a centre of excellence.
If SEERAD is not prepared to do that, it should hand over responsibility for the research facility to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. He would then fund it as the Executive is funding all other major research institutes in Scotland, through a co-ordinated science policy and backed up by the newly merged funding council and the scientific advisory committee.
The debate is not a groan and a whine and a special interest plea for Ayrshire. It is a debate about Scotland, the future of our kids and the need for research. It is about the need for Scotland to remain a scientific hub in Europe. We must send out the message loud and clear that not only should the Hannah survive, it should be allowed—and funded—to prosper.
I welcome the debate and I want to congratulate Phil Gallie on bringing it to the chamber.
It is significant for Ayrshire and the rest of Scotland that we are in the chamber to debate the Hannah. The situation should not be happening; funding for the Hannah should be in place. Ayrshire cannot afford to lose the institute—withdrawal of funding and loss of the institute will have a significant impact on Ayrshire's economy.
As other members have said, we have an Executive policy that promotes a smart, successful Scotland, yet staff with the level of scientific expertise that exists at the institute are denied funding—so much for Executive policy.
The lack of support also flies in the face of Executive promises to promote the placing of jobs outwith the central belt. Ayrshire is looking for civil service and public sector jobs, but we lose them as quickly as we gain them. As Irene Oldfather rightly said, Ayrshire has a fragile economy and the Executive must take heed of that factor as well.
The institute is now reduced to 70 staff from a total of 130 a few years ago. The present staffing level still represents about 1,000 years of scientific experience and expertise, which would be largely lost to the Scottish scientific base if the institute were to close.
As Alex Neil and other members said, much of the current research centres around work that has relevance to breast cancer, diabetes and obesity. Those key areas should be researched in Scotland. If we want Scotland to be on the scientific map, there should be no dubiety about whether funding exists to keep the institute going. Several senior members of staff recently left the institute; some took redundancy payments only to be swiftly appointed to new senior posts south of the border or abroad. That is the brain drain to which Alex Neil referred.
Recently, European funding of some £9 million was given to a project in Dundee in which the effects of exercise on people who suffer from obesity and diabetes are to be studied. The Hannah, in partnership with the University of Glasgow, submitted an almost identical project proposal to SEERAD nearly a year ago. After some six months of silence, the proposal was rejected. I do not know why, but I would like the minister to explain the reason. It seems that such projects can be based anywhere except at the Hannah. Proposals must be submitted in conjunction with a partner organisation and the partner receives the award to employ a member of the Hannah's staff. Not every project can go forward, but we need to ensure that such projects receive funding and move forward.
Hannah staff continue to believe that their research is relevant to the Scottish Executive, if not to SEERAD. As I said, closure of the institute would be totally inconsistent with the Executive's vision of a smart, successful Scotland or with Jim Wallace's view that the climate has rarely been better for investing in science. If the climate is good for investing in science, let us invest and get the situation at the Hannah sorted out. As far as I am concerned, there is a lot of duplicity in respect of what is being said on the one hand and what is being done on the other.
The Hannah is there and, as has been said, it can tackle many of the problems that need to be examined. The union Prospect seeks a continuing role both for the institute and its staff in Scottish science, where the staff's expertise and experience can benefit stakeholders from all the relevant Executive departments. We want the institute to stay in Ayr. Ayr has already suffered the loss of some jobs from Auchincruive, although we are glad that the Scottish Agricultural College has been saved. The survival of another institute would signal to the people of Ayrshire and Scotland that the Executive believes in them. I hope that the minister will deal with the issue and that something positive will come out of the debate.
I congratulate Phil Gallie on securing the debate and on his campaign on behalf of the Hannah Research Institute, which he has waged over the past few years, if not for longer.
In the partnership agreement, the Executive pledged to increase investment in research and development and to support innovation, but it is hard to square that with its approach to the Hannah. I am at a loss to understand why SEERAD encouraged the Hannah to shift its focus from agricultural to biomedical science but then announced that it was considering withdrawing funding, on the basis that health research was outwith the institute's funding boundaries. I very much hope that the minister can provide clarification on that point, especially given that programme 4 of SEERAD's environment, biology and agriculture research strategy is "Impacts on Human Health". I am particularly dismayed at the split between health, environment and food production, when the top action point in the research strategy states:
"Research Programmes funded by SEERAD … will demonstrate increasing and clear relevance to Scottish Executive policy priorities."
It is ironic that when the links between health and diet are at last gaining recognition and the Executive is starting to promote healthy eating, it appears to be ignoring its own research strategy.
The topic of animal experimentation crops up frequently in my mailbag and I am aware of the campaign on that by Viva!—Vegetarians International Voice for Animals. Scottish Green Party policy favours the extension of the application of the current governing principles of reduction, refinement and replacement and the eventual phasing out of all animal experiments. We also favour the establishment of a Scottish scientific centre for research into the development of alternatives to animal experimentation. That is an area in which I would like the tradition of excellence and innovation in Scottish science to continue. In my view, the Hannah Research Institute is an ideal centre for building on that tradition.
Most of all, I hope that the debate will mean that the minister will address the lack of consultation that there has been and the way in which the process seems to have been somewhat ill thought out. I hope that he will at last arrange to hold a ministerial meeting with the institute and the MSPs who support it, so that the matter can be progressed and addressed positively.
I, too, acknowledge Phil Gallie's success in securing the debate. As Phil Gallie said, the number and structure of the SABRIs derives from their history—several institutes were established through private endowments. Over time, the Scottish Office and then the Executive took over the role of providing the institutes' primary funding. In 2002-03, 70 per cent of the Hannah's income came from the Executive.
In recent years, the SABRIs have evolved from having a strictly agricultural focus to embracing wider developments in biotechnology, immunology and genetics. It is worth noting two points about that change in emphasis. First, it means that SABRIs such as the Hannah are actively engaged in research that is relevant to some of today's most important cutting-edge industries. Secondly, the fact that the subjects with which they deal are ones in which Scotland's universities are also actively involved means that opportunities for co-operation have been created.
The SABRIs have a distinguished track record in producing excellent research both nationally and internationally. SEERAD says that it welcomes that and has the objective of supporting the SABRIs.
To quote from the Scottish Executive's draft budget for 2003-04, the role of the SABRIs is
"To maintain in Scotland an agricultural and biological science base of high quality, relevant to Ministers' wider policies and to support Ministers' legislative, policy and enforcement roles by the provision of scientific and other services."
That statement implicitly suggests a focus on and consistent approach to SABRIs, yet we have the current uncertainty and inconsistency regarding the Hannah. That is why the unions and the staff are now asking the following questions: why did SEERAD encourage the change in Hannah's science focus from agriculture to biomedical in 2002, then refocus its own strategy in 2004 to leave the Hannah outside its scope? Is that simply about refocusing on or retrenching into the agri-environmental sciences in an effort to maintain control of the bulk of the research budget? More important, is it not evidence of a loss of focus, clarity and consistency, which we all know are the prerequisites of successful outcomes and optimal results?
So long as such a climate prevails, and institutes such as the Hannah are on the receiving end of inconsistent direction and have a major question mark over their funding, the Executive risks not only undermining "A Smart, Successful Scotland", eroding any benefit from the fresh talent initiative, throwing the intellectual baby out with the bath water, and losing the home-based scientists but, more important, simply wasting money and destroying asset value.
In the meantime, I would like to know what steps are being taken to clear the way to allow the Hannah and the other SABRIs to bid for research council money. There is an impeccable case for devolving the work and funding of the research councils, for such a move would greatly increase the bargaining power of a body such as the Executive in national negotiations on the science base and the wider funding of our SABRIs in Scotland. The reality is that such an injection of competition and local focus, far from threatening the work of the UK science base, would lead to a more vigorous science base, which is in the interest of all those involved and UK and Scottish taxpayers.
I, too, congratulate Phil Gallie on securing the debate and I acknowledge the representations that I have received on the issue from him, from Cathy Jamieson, who is the constituency member, and from other members who have contributed to the debate. As has been said, I met a number of members about the matter a few months ago and I would be happy to do so again if requested. Indeed, both Ross Finnie, as the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and Jim Wallace, as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, have discussed the issues with Cathy Jamieson in the recent past.
Let me assure members that the decision to withdraw funding from the Hannah Research Institute was not taken lightly or suddenly. It was taken after lengthy and careful consideration of the situation at the Hannah over a number of years. My department and colleagues elsewhere in the Executive have over the years tried to find ways in which to improve the prospects of the institute. Unfortunately, the most recent visiting group report in 2003 indicated that little progress had been made since the report of the previous visiting group in 1999. Clearly, that was deeply disappointing but, equally clearly, SEERAD had to make a decision on future funding in the light of the evidence of progress, or the lack of it.
The visiting group said that it was concerned about the management of the Hannah to some degree, but does the minister accept that the lack of progress related not to the science that had been produced at the Hannah, but to the relationship with the University of Glasgow?
No, the comments were wider than that. I will return to that matter in a moment.
The starting point was the report of the 1999 visiting group, which was highly critical. It pointed out that the research focus was not consistent with the SEERAD research strategy that was published in 1999, which emphasised a need for increased relevance to end users. However, recognition at the Hannah that its traditional areas of strength were no longer required was slow in coming. The institute's response—I emphasise that it was the institute's response—was to seek to reorient towards biomedical work. My officials in SEERAD sought to help it do that, but always made it clear that relevance would remain of critical importance. The approach had to be firmly tied to the Hannah's status as a research institute, with a clear strategic focus on end users. That is of fundamental importance. That end-user focus is the difference between an institute of the type that SEERAD can support and a university department that is doing blue-skies research.
The 2003 visiting group was again extremely critical. Its report showed that the concerns that the department had expressed four years previously had not been addressed. The Hannah fell short of the standard expected of a SEERAD-funded institute in five of the seven areas in which it was assessed. The report was the most critical that SEERAD had ever received on the work of any of the research institutes that it funds.
Given the decision that was taken to reorient the scientific base of the Hannah towards obesity and diabetes research, did the department put the institute in contact with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning or the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which is responsible for wider scientific research in Scotland?
The department encouraged connections not only with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, but with the Health Department, which has an interest in these matters. Unfortunately, the chief scientist at the Health Department, who has most interest in the kind of biomedical research that Alex Neil described, also seeks relevance to end users. He came to the conclusion that the type of basic science that was being undertaken at the Hannah across the board did not meet that requirement.
Does the minister acknowledge that the problems that the visiting group identified were essentially faults of management? The quality of science, even in the face of poor management, was still regarded as good. The institute has almost 200 members. Surely we should encourage and help it, rather than put critical obstacles in its path.
No one has said or is saying that the science that is being conducted at the Hannah Research Institute is of no value. The important point is whether it is being conducted in the right type of institution. I will come on to that point in a moment, because clearly the kind of work that can be done in a directly funded Government institute, such as those that SEERAD funds, is different from the research that will be done in universities and other institutions that are funded from elsewhere.
In January, we revised our strategy to increase the emphasis on the need for end-user relevance. The fundamental problem that we face is that the divergence and discrepancy between the work that is generally being done at the Hannah Research Institute and what we require of SEERAD-funded institutes has grown, rather than diminished. Of course, that has implications not just for the Hannah Research Institute, but for all the other SEERAD-funded SABRIs. They all face the same challenge—to refocus and adapt their research efforts to meet the department's evolving requirements.
I cannot take an intervention, as I need to make some progress.
Regrettably, the Hannah Research Institute has not been as successful as other institutes have been in adapting, developing the content of its research programmes and positioning itself to respond to the changing research environment. As I said a few moments ago, it has also not positioned itself to meet the requirements of the Health Department's research profile.
As has been said, the Hannah Research Institute's research is closer to the profile of university-type research. That is the basis on which the Environment and Rural Affairs Department has offered transitional funding for three years beyond the end of this financial year. Transitional funding will allow scientists from the Hannah to develop their research elsewhere and put them in a position to seek sustainable support from other, more appropriate funders.
We have received a number of proposals, the majority of which are for work with the University of Glasgow. They will be submitted to peer review, in the manner practised by the research councils, on both quality of science and value for money. If the proposals are successful, the skills and knowledge of the scientists concerned will remain in the Scottish science base, which reflects our commitment to achieving that. However, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council is not allowed to fund the institute on a free-standing basis, as SEERAD did in the past. The transitional funding is designed to give scientists an opportunity to transfer to more appropriate funding sources.
Does the minister recognise that transitional funding does not really meet the criteria for funding of scientific research? Does he accept that, although it provides the scientists with a three-year opportunity to build on past research, in many ways it closes the door to other sources of funding for continuation of research? Will he at least consider that issue for the future?
The transitional funding is intended to open doors to other sources of funding. Its purpose is to allow the scientists to attract funding from other sources. I agree that, as Irene Oldfather said, it is important to ensure that the best use is made of the transitional funding and I undertake to ensure that my officials continue to discuss how it can best be used to sustain science of merit where there is a basis for doing so.
It is important that we have a joined-up approach and that we support scientific research in future, but that does not mean that all science must be funded whatever its value or that change in the science base or the way in which science is funded should never happen. The Scottish Science Advisory Committee has clearly advised us that many areas of the science base in Scotland are fragmented and not achieving their potential because of a lack of critical mass. We certainly want to assist in achieving that critical mass and it is worth making the point that we will increase the SEERAD science and research budget for research, advisory and education activities by £7 million between 2006 and 2008. However, our first commitment on those funds is to distribute them on the basis of evidence on where they would achieve the best results.
The point has been made that such changes have an impact on the local economy and I assure members that my colleagues who have responsibilities for enterprise and the enterprise network will continue to strengthen activity to grow the Ayrshire economy's knowledge and enterprise base. That is an important issue, but it is a different question from how the Environment and Rural Affairs Department commits and spends its available funds for end-user relevant research. It is a matter of regret when an institute that has done good work ceases to be in a position to attract such funding, but I hope that the transitional support that we have made available will allow the scientists who are conducting work at the Hannah Research Institute to find other sources of funding and to continue to work in the Scottish scientific community in future.
Meeting closed at 17:57.