| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Hughes : It is the most ancient university in the country.
Dr. Godman : Yes, I accept that. Those new institutions, including Napier college, are home to first-class researchers. Their accessibility to funds for their research
Column 329
projects should be unconstrained and they should be treated in the same way as those working in our more venerable institutions. The unorthodox, non-conformist social or physical scientist, historian or linguist should not be denied access to research funds. We must also acknowledge that many first-class researchers work in our newer institutions. They, too, should have ready access to any research funds. We must have no second-class institutions among our universities. Privileges should not be given to ancient universities simply because of their venerability. We must recognise talent, even if it is unorthodox.I hope that those two points have been noted by those on both Front Benches. Most importantly, I hope that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have taken them on board.
Mr. Douglas : Originally I thought that new clauses 1 and 2 were not linked, but, on reflection, I believe that they are. The burden of my remarks will relate to new clause 2.
It is not my intention to make a speech similar to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), except to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said. What we are asking for, and what we must try to display in this House, is tolerance. [Interruption.] Oh yes, tolerance of different views. I was an academic, and I never expected my students to take me as other than someone who had a Labour bias and held Labour principles. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who is chattering from a sedentary position, should bide his whish a little.
It is the responsibility of any academic, particularly in the social sciences, to be honest with his or her students, who expect the university or institute of higher education to be a forum for all ideas. No matter how objective a lecturer tries to be, his responsibility is to let the students know that he speaks from a certain bias.
I was brought up in Govan and was taught that the only good Tory was Torygellig, and he played for Rangers. If that was not biased, I do not know what biased is.
Mr. McAllion : We were told exactly the opposite in Springburn.
Mr. Douglas : The hon. Member confirms my point. An academic who deals with susceptible and impressionable individuals, even at the ages of 18, 19 or 20, particularly if he teaches economics, political theory, politics or Scottish history, should let his students recognise his bias. He should make them realise that a university is not simply a forum for lectures but a community of students and academics. Students will probably learn more there than in a formal lecture.
The new clause provides that the funding council should take cognisance of the fact that it will deal with Scottish circumstances. If we are to pursue the truth in relation to Scotland, we must consider the fact that we are not all good. The Douglases were terrible people, with an extremely bad record, and I dare say that that will continue.
We do not seek to say that the Scots are better than anyone else but that we are every bit as good. The whole thesis of the Scottish National party, which seeks independence in Europe, is to cease blaming everybody else. We must stop blaming the English, make our own decisions and take the blame for them. That is what taking personal, independent decisions is about.
Column 330
I was amazed to read a Labour party press release today saying that the Scottish National party wanted separatism, and that we would be dealing with a market of some 5 million. The thrust of research is that it should be based on a wide market. Why is it fundamental that we devote resources to research in Scottish institutions of higher education? Any academic institution must have research. One of the most impressive books that I have read recently was a biography of Stephen Hawking. If he were to enter the Chamber now, we would wonder who that poor specimen was, but he has one of the great minds of our time.Mr. Ernie Ross : He is still a member of the Labour party.
Mr. Douglas : I do not deny that he may be a member of the Labour party--good luck to him. I do not care which party he belongs to, because he has a great mind. He has gathered round him students of a high calibre because he is capable of doing certain fundamental research in Oxford. Although he may have been bid away to other institutions in the United States, he stayed in the United Kingdom. It is difficult to attract people of that calibre, because there are few of them.
If an institute of higher education is to succeed, it must be able to devote resources to research. That is the purpose of new clause 2. Educational institutions must be attractive in order that we can compete. We can blame Governments of all political colours--certainly two political colours in the United Kingdom--for starving universities of funds. Not only the Tories have done that. They have altered the proportion of funds in the past couple of years--
Mr. Michael Forsyth : Upwards.
6.15 pm
Mr. Douglas : I concede that. However, in relation to need, we are well behind other nations' industrial market strategies. We have devoted far too much of our fundamental research expenditure to defence purposes and the spin-off, in terms of our industrial market share, has not come about. Scotland is a small nation that must exist on its intellectual capabilities, which is why the new clause has been tabled.
The thesis of the Scottish National party is not to be inward-looking. If we are to consider Scottish history, let us do so objectively. However, unless we provide resources for it, we shall not get objectivity. If we deny resources to an organisation, it cannot work.
The great work of Professor Barrow, who was mentioned earlier, was about Bruce and the community of the realm. Not everyone agrees that Bruce was a great hero. Some people think that he was the Neil Kinnock of his day. He was a politician, and the true patriot was Wallace, which no one likes to hear. In making that assertion, I doubt whether I have carried all hon. Members present with me, but that is a subject for discussion and dispute. Unless we devote resources to research, we shall not achieve the necessary analysis and objectivity.
I therefore hope that new clause 1 will at least have the unanimous support of Opposition Members.
Mr. Wilson I wish to support the new clause without digressing too much. It is a little rich of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to tell us that the
Column 331
Scottish National party is no longer about anti-Englishness. I can think of no more inherently anti-English slogan than "They've got ours". Those who analyse politics from a class dimension rather than a nationalistic dimension are bound to ask, "Who are they'?" Are "they" the working people of Liverpool and Newcastle?Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Unfortunately, they do not get it either.
Mr. Wilson : The hon. Lady is right, but I am bound to point out gently that there is no implication of that in the poster. Are "they" the sons and daughters of Corby steel workers? Are "they" the tens of thousands of people in the English telephone directories whose surnames begin with Mac because they were the victims of highland landlordism? To categorise people as them and us is not a promising platform on which to proceed on the
outward-looking basis to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I support the motion. It should be axiomatic that any educational organisation in Scotland concerned with funding or academic curricula should take account of the Scottish dimension in education. However, I warn the hon. Lady that merely having academic chairs does not guarantee much. The paradox is that I join other hon. Members in deploring the standard of Scottish history teaching, and the place of Scottish culture, in many dimensions of the Scottish education system after a long period in which all those academic chairs have existed. Precious little good they have done us in terms of teaching the history of the ordinary Scottish people or, to quote a particular personal interest, the history of the highlands.
When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West referred to the greatest work of the retiring holder of the chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh University I thought that he was going to mention his recent column in The Sun, which is where Professor Barrow has ended up--
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : Like Professor Sillars!
Mr. Wilson : I shall not take up that remark, as this is a conciliatory speech.
I think that the penultimate holder of the chair of Scottish history was Professor Gordon Donaldson, now professor emeritus in Scottish history at Edinburgh university. He was the David Irving of the highland clearances and made a life's work of proving that the clearances did not exist--it would be difficult to identify a more revisionist or more establishment historian and, thus at root, a more anti-Scottish historian. We can have as many chairs as we want, but if the people filling them come from the establishment and have an interest in teaching establishment history, they will find a way of doing so.
The chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh university should be maintained. I agree, as I am sure would the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), that the cuts involving other chairs and courses should not have been made. They were made due to the lack of funding in Scottish higher education, and responsibility rests with the Government. I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that there are at least two nations within Scotland. Shetlanders might argue that there are three. Within every
Column 332
country there are various nations, and within Scotland there is a distinctive Gaelic and highland nation with its own history, culture and identity.If people think that the teaching of Scottish history as a whole is bad, they should consider the teaching of highland history. They could go to any of the districts in the highlands and islands of Scotland--the seat of some of the most radical activity in our country's history during the past 150 years--and find that the great majority of people who had been educated in those counties had heard little of the region's history.
I was educated in the highlands and studied history at a Scottish university. It is my shame and my loss that it was not due to the formal education system that I learned anything of the true history of the highlands and islands--the history of the common people, of landlordism, and the courageous and radical struggle against landlordism.
When we set up chairs and academic councils to form a framework, let us not forget that the content also matters. At least one of the chairs should be in the highlands ; not to teach partisan history or argue the political case through history, but to let people know the facts of their own culture and heritage. In that way, people can draw their own conclusions.
I think that it was in his introduction to his "History of the Working Classes of Scotland" that Tom Johnston wrote that anybody who did not know the past could not understand the present or have any chance of moulding the future.
Mr. Worthington : The Opposition are happy to support both new clauses and the sentiments contained in them. Much of today's debate has centred on the position at Edinburgh university and the chair of Scottish history. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said firmly that the problem did not relate solely to Edinburgh or one chair, but was a problem of resourcing, and had to be tackled. On the other side of Scotland, Glasgow university is heading for a £2.7 million deficit unless it reduces its teaching staff. It is not just Edinburgh university that has a problem ; the difficulty exists throughout higher education and is due to under-resourcing.
The Government make much of their current expansion of the higher education system. But any fool Government can let students in ; it takes a good Government to ensure that the quality of education is good. It will take years before we see the consequences of expansion without resourcing. One can see some results of under-funding in the condition of facilities, but the mental, academic and scholarly results will take years to emerge.
Unfortunately, there is no survey of the condition of educational buildings in Scotland, but if we consider the condition of buildings as surveyed by the polytechnics and colleges funding council, a graph on the quality of polytechnic buildings contains a category "generally good". Edinburgh university does not even register on the graph, whereas nearly 60 per cent. of the buildings are classified as having major shortcomings.
One can see a major problem in a building, but other grave problems involving staff replacement are becoming apparent. Anyone involved in universities will say that there will be a problem with staff quality in a few years when the present staff retire. At the bottom of the scale of those involved in universities is an underclass of people
Column 333
employed on poverty wages and short-term contracts who are not receiving the quality of research and other experience that they need.Mr. Michael Forsyth : What additional resources for universities--in specific terms--would the Opposition make available were they to form a Government?
Mr. Worthington : The Minister knows that it is not possible to do that, but we recognise that there is a major under-funding problem. Survey after survey shows that this country is falling behind others on research. We recognise the problem, but the Government do not even seem to do that.
Mr. Forsyth : It is no good the hon. Gentleman telling the House that there is a problem of under-funding and criticising the substantial additional resources that the Government have made available, then declaring that it is impossible for him to say what he would do were he in government. The truth is that the hon. Member for Monklands would not let him add a single cent to the fund and it is sheer humbug for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to complain when a Labour Government could do no better than this Government have done and this Government's record is second to none.
Mr. Tom Clarke : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the hon. Member for Monklands would not allow a Labour Government to take that action, but I have never been consulted on the matter.
Mr. Worthington : I shall return to that point later.
Mr. Forsyth : Answer my question.
Mr. Worthington : I shall do so in my own way in my own time. New clause 1 is about supporting Scottish culture and the Scottish way of life, and we are happy to support those sentiments. Our support for the Bill is centred on the advantages to Scotland of the funding of institutions within Scotland so that different priorities can apply. There would be an enormous advantage in defending Scottish institutions if we were able to link the rest of the education system with the higher education system. That would be the icing on the cake, and is an extremely valuable initiative. It was amusing, during an enjoyable Committee, to see the Minister realising what a good case we had--albeit, somewhat belatedly. There are great advantages in the Bill in terms of defending the Scottish education system, but that aspect must be linked with a Scottish Parliament, which would have prevented the initiatives of recent years.
In Committee we had a valuable discussion on research and our worries on the issue. The Opposition's role is to ask the Government about their attitude and their action in order to find out whether the amount of money devoted to research is adequate. We are committed, as are the Government, to ending the binary divide, but the Government do not seem to realise the consequences for research. As we said in Committee, it is not good enough for them to say that the polytechnics and other central institutions will maintain their traditional mission.
Mr. Forsyth : I am happy to say what we will do for research through the research councils. In 1992 the
Column 334
funding for research will top the £1 billion mark for the first time and over the following three years there will be a 19 per cent. increase. The hon. Gentleman is saying that research funding is not enough. Can he tell us how much more a Labour Government would provide? I was referring to his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, who is also a Member for Monklands. If the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie cannot say how much more he would give, he should not waste the time of the House nor con the country by suggesting that he could do anything about it. The truth is that Labour Members are not prepared to put any money behind the promises which they have been making all over the country.6.30 pm
Mr. Worthington : That is not true. In the 1980s we would never have allowed the share of national wealth devoted to education to fall, while it rose in other countries. That was a statement of the Government's priorities.
At the moment eight universities in Scotland compete for the research pot. In future 12 universities and 13 central institutions within Scotland will be competing for the research pot. So, where eight institutions were competing for the funding in the past, in future there will be be 25. Inevitably that means that there will be cuts.
Even without increasing the money, the Government have to explain how Scotland will be dealt with in the selectivity exercise. The bulk of research money has been allocated to universities on the basis of the number of students. Because Scotland educates more students proportionately than the rest of the United Kingdom, more money was allocated to Scotland. The numbers factor as a way of allocating research funding is being abolished. Therefore, less money will be allocated to Scotland on a per capita basis and a loss will have to be made up.
The Government are adopting a selectivity--by department exercise. The top departments will be graded 5 and the bottom departments 1. That will help the big departments in the big universities. Departments will be graded on a historical basis. If they were successful in the past, they will get a grade 5 ; if they were not, they will be grade 1.
Academics fear that that will bring in league tables which will make it virtually impossible for an institution to get promotion. Universities with a good record will attract more money and staff will go to them. I hope that the Minister can answer the fear of academics. Recently research money has been gravitating towards the south-east where there is a concentration of large universities and departments.
As to universities which appear in the top 10 of any research council category, such as the Universities Funding Council, the Science and Engineering Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research, Scotland in total, mainly through Edinburgh and Glasgow taking six of the places, has seven top 10 places. London, with all its colleges, on its own has 11 top 10 places. If there is to be purely a selectivity exercise, academics in Scotland are worried that there will be less money because 25 institutions will have to
Column 335
go into the same pot as eight in the past, and that it will be difficult for them to get their fair share of research council funding.In Committee we had an extensive debate on the lack of a planning role for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. Many small institutions will be encouraged to compete against each other. The Minister must deal with the fear that in that fight they will lose sight of the larger prize and that excessive competition will lead to the weakening of the institutions. That is not an argument for all the institutions to come together in a university of Scotland. The ruling out by the Government of a planning function for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will prevent the co-operation which many of those institutions want. There is a lack of concern by the Government about that.
Were I in the Minister's shoes, the first thing that I would do on research would be to commission research into the adequacy of the funding. All the evidence that I have been able to find shows great concern about the Government's sponsorship of research and its allocation within Scotland. For example, the Government's sponsorship of research through departments has been falling for years.
Mr. Michael Forsyth : I shall have one more go. The hon. Gentleman talked about what he would do if he were in my shoes. If he were the Minister with responsibility for those matters--at present a Minister in the Department of Education and Science--how much extra would he make available for research on top of the record £1 billion which the Government have made available ?
Mr. Worthington : The first thing that any Education Minister should do is commission research and ask his Department about the adequacy of the research base. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology said :
"We recommend that the Government use this period of grace"-- when there was an extra £10 million--
"to take an overview of spending under the science budget as a whole and to consider whether, in view of the alarming response of research councils to the present settlement, they are content to live with the consequences of their public expenditure policy for science."
The Select Committee said that the Government's funding of science was disastrous.
Similarly, when looking at a Community framework for research and development, the Select Committee said the same about Britain's performance when it said that we were falling behind every other country in Europe in civil research and development. The Government have been dependent upon industry to fill the hole caused by their own lack of funding for research. Because of the recession it is unlikely that industry can step in. We are worried that the Government have not done a serious appraisal of the need for basic, fundamental research. They have not considered that issue. The Government's record of funding research over the years has been deplorable. They must now ask themselves whether the system that they are setting up so casually will lead to a strengthening of the research base in Scottish universities or whether, as many fear, it will weaken that base. I do not get the impression
Column 336
that the Government, with all their resources, have done any work on this which will reassure the people who work in the colleges and universities of Scotland.Mr. Michael Forsyth : This has been an interesting debate. Usually I do not intervene too frequently in speeches by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), but this time I intervened on three occasions. The hon. Gentleman was arguing that funding for research purposes was inadequate. He refused to acknowledge the large increase--to more than £1 billion--that the Government have provided or the 19 per cent. increase that we propose over the next three years, and he refused to say by how much a Labour Government would increase that funding.
When I pressed the hon. Gentleman, he said that the first thing he would do if he became a Minister would be to commission research to find out what was happening, yet he seems to have done enough research already to be able to claim that present funding is inadequate. Why then will he not give a commitment? The answer is that his speech was sheer cant and humbug.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) came to our deliberations, treated us to a speech and left. He advanced the view that Edinburgh university's problems were entirely of the Government's making. He made no reference to the management difficulties that Edinburgh university is experiencing or to the fact that the university is unique in Scotland in having a deficit problem. That problem is due to the mismanagement of resources, because of which hard decisions have had to be taken.
Although I cannot commend the new clause to the House, I can appreciate why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) sought to raise the matter. I can appreciate the worries about Edinburgh university perhaps not being able immediately to fill the chair of Scottish history when the present incumbent retires this autumn.
I have seen a letter from the principal of Edinburgh university which appeared in The Scotsman dated 31 January. In it, the principal made it clear that no decision had been taken that the chair should remain vacant for two years--certainly not by administrators. I think that the hon. Lady may have seen the letter for herself.
Mr. Worthington : If Edinburgh university is unique, why is Glasgow university heading for a £2.7 million deficit which will mean non- replacement of staff?
Mr. Forsyth : That is an assertion. I said that Edinburgh university was unique among the institutions in having a deficit. Now the hon. Gentleman suggests that Glasgow may, if it does not take certain steps, find itself in a particular position. I have no information about that. My point was that many universities under central institutions in Scotland are not in that position. It is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to argue that Edinburgh's problems are a consequence of Government action, given that Government funds, through the funding council and directly to other institutions, have meant that they have none of these problems. Indeed, there are record numbers of students in higher and further education in Scotland, thanks to the additional funding provided by the Government.
Mr. Douglas : The Minister need go no further than along the road to Stirling university, on whose court I
Column 337
served. Without going into too much detail, I can tell him that the university is working under considerable financial limitations. It is not quite truthful, therefore, to tell the House that Edinburgh is unique. Other universities work under similar restraints, although they may not be of the same magnitude.6.45 pm
Mr. Forsyth : I can only communicate the information given to me : these institutions are not running into deficit. Stirling received the largest increase in support of any institution and it is going from strength to strength-- [Interruption.] Opposition Members must draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for that, but it is due in no small part to the enterprise and success generated in and by the institution.
The hon. Member for Moray spoke about the importance of a knowledge of Scottish history, even though much of her speech was devoted to what happens in schools. I absolutely agree with her, and I hope that she will support the foreword that I have written to a report on environmental studies stressing the importance of subject teaching and of giving children a grounding in history, geography and science--and, of course, Scottish history. Subject-based teaching has a significant part to play in the later stages of primary school. The hon. Lady treated us to quite a selection of poetry. She, like me, benefited from studying in the days before the trendies decided that didactic teaching was bad news and that rote learning was to be discouraged. The hon. Lady treated us to a poem by MacDiarmid. Perhaps she remembers the lines :
"Mars is braw in crammasy,
Venus in her green silk gown,
The auld mune shaks her gowden feathers ;
Their starry talk's a wheen o'blethers".
I have never heard such "a wheen o' blethers" as we heard today from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. He spent his time in Committee arguing that we should take action to limit the Bill's powers in respect of academic freedom and the consequences that arise from that for conditions of grants and powers of direction. Today, he argues that it would be right- -I have no doubt that he will vote for the new clause--for the Government to intervene by statute in the affairs of a particular university--
Mr. Worthington : I suggested no such thing. The Minister must withdraw that statement.
Mr. Forsyth : I am happy to withdraw it. I take the hon. Gentleman's remarks to mean that he will not vote for the new clause.
Mr. Forsyth : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his position clear.
Mr. Worthington : We have argued extensively that the Government should not interfere in the academic affairs of institutions. We stand by that ; we will not alter that line at all. We also support the sentiment behind the new clause--that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council should ensure stimulation of Scottish culture, not interference in individual institutions.
Mr. Forsyth : That is most extraordinary. We have heard of no other example of an institution in Scotland at
Column 338
which there is a problem to do with the teaching of Scottish history. The whole debate has centred on Edinburgh university. The justification for the new clause lies in what is happening there. The hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of energy to arguing for an arm's length policy--a policy which leaves these matters to the funding council and which does not give powers of discretion that are institution- specific. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman is going to support a new clause whose mover has made it clear that it is motivated by what is happening at a particular university. That seems contradictory.The allocation of resources to universities is a matter for the funding council. The Government are quite properly not involved in such decisions and it is nonsense to suggest that Edinburgh university has been singled out for harsh treatment, or that its recent financial problems derive from Government policy. It is widely understood that Edinburgh's deficit arises from internal financial management problems which are now being tackled. A recovery plan is in place.
As for new clause 2, one of the most important functions of the funding council will be to encourage higher quality research. I do not believe that new clause 2 would add to its ability to do so. Apart from the additional resources which we have made available, the research councils will continue to operate on a United Kingdom basis. At present, the other main source of public funds for research, besides the research councils, is the Universities Funding Council. Its role will now pass to the new funding council, which is recognised in clause 34 which gives it powers to fund institutions both for the provision of education and for the undertaking of research. It is neither necessary nor appropriate that research should be singled out as new clause 2 suggests.
The new funding council will have considerable resources to go to basic and strategic research. We have already made it clear that we do not expect institutions to change their existing missions. We expect those that have concentrated on teaching and on
industry-sponsored applied research and development to continue to do so, although it will be open to them to compete for the new council's research funds in areas in which they have particular strengths.
Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : In Committee, I raised with the Minister the point about the two-tier structure which will inevitably develop after the new universities are created within the next two years. He told me that there would be a concentration on teaching or on research among the different institutions. That is the fear of the universities that have written to me and to other hon. Members in Committee.
The Minister failed to give me an assurance, although he talked about £274 million new money for research over the next three years. That is welcome, but the point is how the new universities will manage to grab a slice of that cake. The central institutions had no research income other than that which they were able to gain on their own. How will they be able to compete with the existing universities? Either they will not be able to compete or, if they can, a proportion of the money available will be taken away from the existing universities. Universities such as
Column 339
Stirling, Dundee and Aberdeen will face retrenchment and will become mere teaching institutions. How does the Minister foresee that problem being avoided?
| Next Section
| Home Page |