Crichton University Campus
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5444, in the name of Elaine Murray, on the threat to the Crichton campus in Dumfries. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises and applauds the success of the Crichton university campus in Dumfries over the past seven years and the contribution made by all stakeholders involved in this unique partnership; is therefore concerned that the University of Glasgow is considering reducing its presence on the campus and possibly withdrawing from the site; notes that the University of Glasgow is considering this action because of an £800,000 annual shortfall in running its campus at the Crichton, and considers that the Scottish Funding Council should assist the University of Glasgow to maintain its presence at its Dumfries site and that the University of Glasgow should defer making any decision to reduce its presence or to withdraw from the site until after this year's spending review and the forthcoming review of higher education funding.
I welcome the group of stakeholders who are in the public gallery. They comprise students, staff, the chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway Council, and people from the Crichton Development Company and the Crichton stakeholder group. We have a good representation of people who have a strong view on the future of the Crichton campus.
When Dr James Crichton died in 1923, it was his wish that his considerable fortune should be used to create a university in Dumfries. His widow, Elizabeth Crichton, tried valiantly to have his wish fulfilled but, unfortunately, the existing Scottish universities opposed the creation of a rival in the south. Instead, a psychiatric hospital, the Crichton royal, was created. For many years, it won international recognition as a centre of excellence.
When the treatment of people with mental health and learning difficulties moved away from institutionalised care, the opportunity arose to make Elizabeth and James Crichton's dreams of a university campus a reality. In fact, one of the ancient universities that had opposed the establishment of a university in Dumfries—the University of Glasgow—spearheaded the new development by signing the first Crichton accord in December 1996. Since then, the Crichton campus has grown into a unique collaboration between higher and further education partners: the University of Glasgow, the University of Paisley, Bell College, the Open University and Dumfries and Galloway College. It has been the topic of several debates and questions in the Parliament.
Each partner brings its own different and expert contribution to the joint venture, and each expands the choices that are available to students at this most beautiful of campuses. Many of those students, of all ages, would not otherwise be able to access a university-level education. The University of Glasgow's contribution to the mix is its liberal arts degree—a concept that was promoted by the former vice-chancellor and principal, Sir Graeme Davies, to provide a broad-based education and develop a wide range of transferable skills that would enable graduates to adapt in a rapidly changing workplace.
In 2000, my colleague, Wendy Alexander, who was then the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, allocated 150 fully funded places to the Crichton campus and made available £500,000 of capital for both the University of Glasgow and the University of Paisley. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has, more recently, demonstrated support for the collaboration between higher and further education through the allocation of £30 million to enable Dumfries and Galloway College to relocate at the Crichton campus, allowing the sharing of facilities between institutions and facilitating progression between further and higher education.
Sadly, an apparently irreconcilable difference of opinion has arisen between the University of Glasgow and the SFC. In my opinion, both bear some blame for the current impasse. Unlike the University of Paisley and Bell College, which will soon merge to become the university of the west of Scotland, the University of Glasgow does not share its fully funded student places between its different campuses. It sees its operation in Dumfries as additional to Gilmorehill and not part of its core activity. Because the only fully funded places on the Crichton campus account are the 88.4 that are allocated to the University of Glasgow through Wendy Alexander's intervention, the Crichton campus's budget for the University of Glasgow shows a deficit that is calculated to be around £880,000.
The SFC argues that it is providing £147 million to the University of Glasgow this year and that it is up to the university to decide how that funding is distributed. It also allocated an additional £900,000 of non-recurring funding to the University of Glasgow last week. Indeed, the University of Glasgow has managed to turn a deficit of £10 million into a surplus of £2 million, yet for some reason the SFC does not seem to value the liberal arts degree that is provided at the Crichton campus. It has said that it does not think that the degree contributes to the local economy, despite the fact that it includes courses in such things as cultural heritage, the environment and tourism—subjects that seem to be particularly appropriate in Dumfries and Galloway.
The SFC has also criticised the course for attracting women returners—or, as they are somewhat patronisingly described on the website, middle-aged ladies. As someone who might be loosely described as a middle-aged lady, I find the phrase offensive. Strangely enough, the SFC is perfectly happy to support very similar courses that are offered at the University of the Highlands and Islands.
The Crichton campus can offer much to the delivery of the SFC's aims and objectives as detailed in its 2006 to 2009 corporate plan which, I imagine, was agreed with the Scottish ministers. The aims include working across further and higher education, improving the supply of lifelong learning, enhancing the skills and employability of local people, supplying professional development, and enhancing research contributing to the cultural well-being of Scotland. The Crichton university campus hits all those targets.
Provision at the campus enjoys widespread public support. I have with me two petitions, the first of which, raised by students at Crichton, has gathered more than 2,500 signatures. At lunch time, three students from Dumfries and Galloway presented another petition raised by college students and signed by 400 more people. There is also a petition running in the local press. That demonstrates the strength of feeling in Dumfries and Galloway about the Crichton campus's importance.
Sadly, despite all that, the senate of Glasgow University decided yesterday not to admit an intake of new students from Crichton this year, although it has said that it will review the decision in future years, depending on further developments. If there is full withdrawal, the campus will be diminished, student choice will be reduced and the other partners will be financially affected. Courses in, for example, social work, which are part-funded by Dumfries and Galloway Council to address the serious shortage of social workers in the region, will not go ahead this year. Unfortunately, there seems to have been little discussion with the council about what the implications for it might be. Prospective students have already been told that they will have to go somewhere else for their social work training.
I say to the minister that we cannot let this happen. The sad fact is that Executive investment in the south of Scotland lags behind that in the Highlands and Islands. According to figures supplied by the Crichton Development Company, compared with the Highlands and Islands we have, per capita, half the number of higher education students, one sixth of the capital investment in higher education, one seventh of the number of fully funded higher education places and one eighth of the recurrent funding. I am not criticising the Highlands and Islands for having that money; all we in the south of Scotland want is a bit of the action.
I ask the minister to help us negotiate a way forward out of this impasse. I have, for example, suggested to the SFC that more fully funded places could be allocated not to Glasgow but to the Crichton site, which could then be offered to Glasgow in return for a commitment to remain in Dumfries. In the longer term, the review of HE funding will, I hope, recompense universities for the additional expense of providing higher education in rural areas.
I believe that a solution is possible. My plea to the Scottish Executive is that it helps us to find it. After all, Dumfries and Galloway deserves it. [Applause.]
Before we move to the open debate, I remind those in the public gallery that it is not appropriate for them to applaud.
I am glad that Elaine Murray has secured a debate on a topic that is of such vital importance to the future of the south-west of Scotland. As time is very brief, I will be able to pick out only one or two points.
As a University of Glasgow graduate, I must declare if not an interest then certainly a bias. There is no doubt in my mind—and, indeed, in the mind of many others who have had any association with the Crichton campus—that Glasgow's association with the campus has been one of the cornerstones of its success and reputation.
The University of Glasgow is one of Britain's premier universities. It is a member of the Russell group and it has a distinguished record of research. In the research assessment exercise, 23 areas received a 5 rating, with five receiving the top 5* rating. I do not think that someone could be considered an academic snob for suggesting that we cannot replace that contribution simply by increasing the contributions from other partner institutions already on the campus.
As we heard from Elaine Murray, the Scottish funding council has questioned the relevance to the Dumfries and Galloway economy of the liberal arts courses that are offered at the Crichton by the University of Glasgow. Graeme Davis, whom Elaine Murray mentioned, was principal of Glasgow when the Crichton began, and he was clear that a desirable aim was for a broad-based university education that gave graduates a wide range of skills that would help them to prepare for a fast-changing world in which people needed transferable skills. I share that view. There is clearly a role for specialist, technological and scientific disciplines, but there is also clearly a role for the broad generalist. Heaven help society if we all become technocrats and nothing more.
It is a philistine proposition, which I would not expect from the body responsible for higher education funding, to say that arts courses are not relevant to Dumfries and Galloway. If they are not relevant there, they are not relevant in Edinburgh, Glasgow or the Highlands and Islands, as Elaine Murray said. As she also said, it is not as if the courses are not of great relevance to Dumfries and Galloway because of their concentration on the environment and tourism. Those are areas in which our economy could expect to grow and prosper.
The people of Dumfries and Galloway feel as if they are being treated less favourably than people in other parts of Scotland in many ways. The Crichton has produced a briefing note setting out how similar we are to the Highlands and Islands in many areas of deprivation and social make-up but how far we differ from the Highlands and Islands in the amount of money that we receive for higher education, on which Dumfries and Galloway is short changed.
We are not talking about a lot of money. Considering that the funding council's budget is £1,647,201,000, the amount that the University of Glasgow is looking for is peanuts. It should not be beyond the wit of the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to sort that out.
Higher education is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Regardless of the administrative means that the Executive chooses to discharge that responsibility, it has the final responsibility. The south-west of Scotland expects a quality of higher education no less than that of any other part of Scotland. People have a right to hold that expectation and there is a strong justification for the feeling that, until recently, they were discriminated against.
In the final analysis, I do not think that anyone in the south-west of Scotland or in the chamber wants to lay responsibility on one body or another. I am not interested in apportioning blame to the University of Glasgow, the funding council or the guidance given to the funding council by ministers; I am interested in getting the problem sorted out. I am convinced that that requires the continuing presence of the University of Glasgow on the Crichton campus. It is the Executive's duty to make sure that that happens—nothing less than that will satisfy me or the people of the south-west of Scotland.
I congratulate Elaine Murray on lodging the motion and I echo her warm welcome to those who have made the journey up from the south-west for the debate.
Let us be in no doubt that yesterday's decision by the court of the University of Glasgow not to admit an undergraduate intake in September has confirmed our growing fear that the credibility of the Crichton university campus project is now at crisis point. The decision represents a major step towards the University of Glasgow's complete withdrawal from the campus, taking with it not just the various high-quality courses and research that it provides but, almost more important, the gravitas, recognition and acceptability that that university brings with it.
It is said by some—regrettably the funding council appears to be among them—that it does not matter because the other partners will expand to take up the slack, so we do not need Glasgow. However, few who say that live in south-west Scotland. They feel betrayed, humiliated and patronised by what is happening and some of what is being said.
Why is the University of Glasgow's presence so important to the project? It is because of Professor Sir Graeme Davis's vision for a new type of higher education on the Crichton campus that would reflect the changing world of business today. Did he succeed? Let me read from an e-mail that I received at the end of January:
"I am a product of this very campus. If I can be so bold as to say so, I am an exemplar product of which this university campus aims to produce. By this I mean I am a young student who moved to Dumfries, from a big city, specifically to study at this chosen campus due to its unique variety of degree paths and course options. I have subsequently found employment in Dumfries and Galloway and have been able to put areas of my degree to good use. Is this not what is wanted from such a campus? Am I not living proof that this campus produces employable young graduates?"
Surely that says all that needs to be said about the campus's relevance for students.
What about the relevance to the local economy and the region's social needs of the research and courses that the University of Glasgow provides? That is something else on which the funding council appears to pour scorn. A well-known and respected constituent of mine stated in an e-mail that I received:
"Since returning to Galloway seven years ago I have been involved in four areas of activity: children's panel, community development, art heritage research and political activity. In each of these areas Glasgow University at the Crichton is relevant to my work. We are desperately in need of social workers in Dumfries & Galloway. The University is training social workers at the Crichton. As a Communities Scotland mentor I am working with several communities in D and G. In my current and previous project we involved research staff from the Crichton in our work. In my art research I work closely with Glasgow University staff concerned with the cultural identity of South West Scotland. At a time when a lot is being done to enhance Highland identity and sense of well being, the role of Ted Cowan and others in enhancing our identity cannot be underestimated."
The University of Glasgow's continued presence on the Crichton campus is critical to fulfilling the fantastic potential of the whole project.
Last year, Nicol Stephen said in reply to a question from Elaine Murray:
"The Crichton campus has been a great success story for all of Dumfries and Galloway and I want to do what I can to encourage its future development."
In response to a supplementary question that I asked, Nicol Stephen said:
"The success of the Crichton campus has brought provision to an area that traditionally has been underrepresented in higher education. We need to do more rather than less."—[Official Report, 19 January 2006; c 22574-75.]
I whole-heartedly agree with that. Only two weeks ago, in response to a question that I asked at First Minister's question time, the First Minister said:
"the Deputy First Minister and I both whole-heartedly support not just the maintenance of the campus but its improvement and development."—[Official Report, 1 February 2007; c 31731.]
The First Minister reiterated that to Dr Murray today.
If what is happening at the Crichton were happening at the UHI Millennium Institute, there would be a traffic jam of ministerial cars heading up the A9 to sort it out. That institute provides liberal arts courses, but we are being asked to accept that there is no place for such courses in the lives of citizens of the south of Scotland, who I presume are seen as second-class citizens.
I believe that the University of Glasgow wants to stay at the Crichton in the long term but that the funding council does not want it to stay there. I firmly believe that only direct ministerial intervention can sort out the problem. In the light of the robust quotations that I have read out, ministers must act now. It is time for the Government to put up or shut up. There is a time to be a hands-on Government, and that time has surely come.
I congratulate Elaine Murray on securing this important debate. Indeed, the debate on the threat to the Crichton campus is currently the most important debate for the people of south-west Scotland.
We have heard a tale of two regions. We have heard that people in the Highlands earn higher wages than people in the south of Scotland do, but the Highlands region qualifies for higher levels of European funding. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has wider powers than Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway has and it has a social remit. It also receives 3.5 times the funding of Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway per head of population.
The UHI Millennium Institute receives six times the capital investment that the south of Scotland receives and around eight times its revenue funding for higher education places. The UHI now runs a wide programme of courses—it has arts, humanities and social sciences, business and leisure, health, and science and technology faculties. However, the Scottish funding council tells us that there is no room for the liberal arts in the south of Scotland, because they contribute nothing to the economy. It has been said that if the liberal arts contribute nothing to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway, they contribute nothing to the Highlands economy and have no place in any of our universities. It is arrant and ill-informed nonsense to say that Dumfries and Galloway, where the tourism industry is one of the biggest employers, makes no economic gains from a course on tourism, heritage and development, and that the region whose strapline is
"The natural place to live"
has nothing to gain from a course on environmental sustainability.
As we all have this past fortnight, I have received in my postbag the statement that Natural Power Consultants in Dumfries and Galloway, which is one of the country's most important renewables consultancies, cannot get graduates of the right calibre. Bibliographic Data Services, which is based on the Crichton campus, relies on high-quality graduates. I have heard from a consultant who employs graduates at the Crichton; an arts venue in Gatehouse of Fleet; and many others, including many locally based, mature female students who have gained in their education because of the presence in Dumfries of the Crichton. They have the same rights to get that education as anyone else in the country has.
Every one of the e-mails and letters that I have received speaks about the importance for the region of the presence in Dumfries of the University of Glasgow. The interdisciplinary nature of the degrees and the outstanding levels of research and publication at the Crichton are unique. The funding council's research has noted the key importance of the University of Glasgow's involvement in the Crichton campus, yet it is ignoring its own research. The campus keeps and attracts the most talented part of the population in a region that is haemorrhaging its young people.
I say to the minister that this is a genuinely cross-party campaign. The late Donald Dewar praised the University of Glasgow's campus at Crichton. The current First Minister said that ministers are very committed to the campus, at least at its current scale. The message from this debate is clear. Every single person who knows anything about the Crichton knows that the current scale of operation cannot be achieved without the presence of liberal arts, and without the prestige and academic achievement of the University of Glasgow. The University of Paisley and Bell College cannot and have made it abundantly clear that they do not want or intend to replace the work of the University of Glasgow.
This is the minister's responsibility. I hope that he will not just mouth commitments tonight but will act on them, meet the funding council and work as hard as he can to find a way through this impasse—we know that he can do it. Will the minister act now and give us that commitment tonight, or will he go down as the minister who oversaw the end of the Crichton and its current breadth, range and quality?
I thank Elaine Murray for securing the debate. I also acknowledge and thank the number of people who have come along today. I think that we would all agree that this is a fantastic turnout for a members' business debate. I hope the minister has noted that, because it shows the strength of feeling that there is in Dumfries and Galloway about saving the University of Glasgow's Crichton campus.
We acknowledge the importance of higher education in Dumfries and Galloway, and all of us here tonight are of the same view that something has to be done to change the situation before it is too late. We need to ensure that a broad-based curriculum is on offer to students in the south-west of Scotland. That includes the University of Glasgow's liberal arts courses, which were mentioned by Chris Ballance and others and which include literature, philosophy, history, anthropology, archaeology, tourism—the list goes on and on. The range of subjects is broad and represents an excellent offer for students in the area.
Having a campus in Dumfries and Galloway and encouraging women returners should be celebrated. Being able to access higher education locally is something precious that we should all want to encourage. I believe that equal education for everyone throughout Scotland is an important part of this debate. If we are saying that people in Dumfries and Galloway do not deserve the same equality of education that people in other parts of Scotland have, we are saying that we do not believe in an equal education for everyone in our country. That is a very poor message.
As other members have said, it is also important that we consider the demographic situation in Dumfries and Galloway. It is well known that when students leave their home area to go to university elsewhere they often do not return. One way of ensuring that we keep these people in their area is to provide higher education for them there.
Solidarity stands for education as an end in itself, not only as a means to an end. Education is intrinsically beneficial. For that reason, I disagree with some of the arguments that have been made today—but only mildly so, because I also understand the broader input of education.
Funding to retain University of Glasgow input at Crichton is crucial. It is essential for the long-term viability of the campus. It is important that the funding council provides assistance by providing appropriate financial support to the University of Glasgow; I believe that it would have to cover an annual shortfall of £800,000.
At the start of the debate, Elaine Murray outlined the history and background to the situation. I appreciate that, and she did it well. I will make a plea to the minister. The Crichton's future is linked to the University of Glasgow. That is how it is. I ask the minister to sit round the table with all involved, including the funding council, to secure the future of the University of Glasgow at Crichton campus. I hope that in the next week or two we can see progress being made and that we can secure the future of the campus.
We should look at the number of people who are in the public gallery and think about all the e-mails that we have been inundated with. People in Dumfries and Galloway feel very strongly about the matter. I ask the minister to do his utmost to turn the decision round.
I thank Elaine Murray for bringing this important subject to the chamber. As the first non-South of Scotland MSP to speak in the debate, I will discuss the national importance of the Crichton and consider how we can make progress and find solutions.
The debate so far may have been blighted by a number of negative factors. I think that an impasse has been reached in relation to the funding council and that there has been some brinkmanship by the University of Glasgow. I also think that there has been a degree of abdication of responsibility by the Executive. I do not expect the minister to deliver instructions to independent universities—I do not think that he can do so, but he can reflect leadership in Scotland by bringing all the partners together to consider possible solutions to an important problem.
We must start to look at whether institutions and universities in Scotland should only be centrally based. We will have a desperate need in the future: 40 per cent of teachers are due to retire in 10 years, a similar situation will arise in respect of social workers and we have an aging population in general, but particularly in Dumfries and Galloway. We must find a national solution, not only for education but for social provision and for the economy. That is ministers' responsibility. In that context, the minister could easily intervene to bring all the partners together.
We must also consider the issue of wider access and participation. One of the current shortcomings in Scotland is that education is seen as individually and institutionally driven. I know that provision is co-ordinated in the east and west of Scotland, but if we saw wider access and participation in a national context—as the funding council can and should do—we could provide solutions.
What is striking about the Crichton campus, with its liberal arts degree, is that it aims to provide broadly based, interdisciplinary education. We want our future teachers, social workers and so on, who have been talked about in the debate, to have a broad-based degree that they studied for in their locality. If they do not have such an education, we cannot expect to have an appropriate workforce in the future, given that we will have an aging population and fewer graduates under the age of 25. Perhaps Crichton is leading the way in providing what could be a national solution.
The approach that has been taken to the supply of Gaelic teachers has involved outreach and part-time work, for example. People in the peripheral and rural parts of Scotland deserve the same education, and access to education, as anyone else, but that will not be achieved through distance learning.
I feel passionately that we should see the issue in the round. The minister can bring people together, and that is the responsibility that we want him to take up. We want creative solutions, and the solutions are in our hands. We need to nurture and develop the Crichton because it is a precious stone in the landscape of Scottish higher education that should be burnished. However, it is being allowed to fade because a variety of partners will not take responsibility for it. We in this Parliament must have the political will to say that we will not allow the situation to continue. The University of Glasgow should maintain access and take responsibility, and we should co-operate with it. We should look at the university's access and retention role as it relates to Scotland more widely.
The funding council should not be so narrow in its view of funding solely vocational education in the south-west of Scotland. If we are to have the teachers and social workers of tomorrow that were mentioned earlier, people in the south-west need access to a rounded education.
The Scottish Government needs to start thinking of the periphery as the centre of Scotland. If it does not, it will treat Scotland as only parts, rather than as a whole nation. If we were to treat the peripheral and rural parts of Scotland as though they were at the centre of the country, we might have a different perspective on what is important and start providing solutions for Scotland as a whole, rather than as parts. In that spirit, I hope that all parties will come together to intervene under the strategic leadership of the Executive. It is not over by any means; the Crichton is not going. Let us make it the best that it can be, rather than all that it has to be in the current circumstances.
I also thank Elaine Murray for securing today's debate on what is a very important subject to Dumfries and Galloway, as well as to the south of Scotland and Scotland more generally. If anyone is any doubt about the importance of this debate, they need only look at the public gallery and see the number of people who have travelled up here today. Members from the south of Scotland will have received a significant volume of e-mails and correspondence on the subject. It is very important that the Crichton flourishes, and we need to do everything that we can to ensure that that happens, rather than simply talk about it.
Many other members touched on the demographic trends in Dumfries and Galloway, which are truly frightening in some respects. The depopulation of young people from the area will have serious connotations if current trends are allowed to continue. Those trends are based on the continuation of the Crichton project rather than on its diminution. If we want to retain young people in, and attract them to, Dumfries and Galloway, surely a project such as the Crichton is one of the key ways of achieving that.
The project will be successful only if it is a broad one. Members spoke about the interaction of other institutions. Alasdair Morgan mentioned the importance of offering general as well as vocational education at the Crichton, and he is absolutely right. We have to value education in itself. Many people who undertake a general education will subsequently be of great importance to the economy and the future of Dumfries and Galloway. A broad range of institutions and subjects on the campus is crucial to making the Crichton as much and as attractive as it can be.
Other members touched on one of the thorniest issues—equity with the Highlands and Islands. We should be clear that none of us seeks to take anything away from the Highlands and Islands; none of us decries the concept of the UHI Millennium Institute or anything else. We simply want fairness and equal treatment because some of the challenges that the south-west and south of Scotland face are similar to those in the Highlands and Islands. There is no reason why we in the south should be treated less favourably than people in the Highlands and Islands. There is a serious case for the Government to look closely at how the Highlands and Islands is treated and how the south is treated and to implement measures to ensure that they are treated equitably.
I saw the minister raise an eyebrow when Fiona Hyslop spoke about not intervening directly in decisions by universities. I understand the controversial nature of telling a university what to do, but taxpayers' money funds such places, and taxes are paid in Dumfries and Galloway as they are everywhere else. If we cannot tell the University of Glasgow where to put its student places, surely we could ring fence finance for the Crichton more effectively to ensure that it is sustained.
There is a way forward that we can look at on a cross-party basis—it is not all doom and gloom. There is an opportunity for us to make this work and it is important that the minister takes that away from this evening's debate. I would like him to comment on the powers that he has to give more direction to ensure that the Crichton money is rooted at the Crichton and is protected.
Alex Fergusson quoted some constituents and I will end with another important quote:
"the truth is that we need more, better-educated young people with higher-level skills if our economy is to meet the global challenge from fast-growing economies such as India and China, which are already investing substantially in higher education."
Those are the words of the Prime Minister, writing in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. What he says is as true of Dumfries and Galloway as it is of the rest of the country. I hope that the Executive will acknowledge that by showing some support for the Crichton.
Early in the Parliament's first session, I had the honour and great pleasure to take part in an environmental symposium at Crichton College. I kept up that relationship during my first four years in the Parliament, before my friend and colleague Chris Ballance was elected as a representative for the South of Scotland. I was thoroughly impressed with the atmosphere on the campus, the students' commitment to their studies and the concept of a university in the south of Scotland, which is what the Crichton is—it is not a campus; it performs all the functions of a university.
We do not need to defend the Crichton campus simply on the basis of the contribution that it makes to the local economy. In fact, its contribution to social capital and to the social economy of Dumfries and Galloway is even more important than its contribution to the rest of the economy. That is why the comment by the head of the Scottish funding council is so unacceptable and appalling. It undervalues the huge contribution that the Crichton campus is beginning to make to the social economy in the area and it demonstrates a small-minded, materialist, consumerist attitude to education that flies in the face of five centuries of Scottish liberal educational tradition. The head of the Scottish funding council deserves to be thoroughly told off for expressing himself in such a way.
If I had been elected rector of the University of Glasgow rather than rector of the University of Aberdeen, I would have resigned on the spot following the senate's decision, which was precipitate and unacceptable. All that I can say to the minister is that I hope that it is within the limits of what the Executive can do to work towards resolving the crisis that the Crichton campus faces before it gets any worse. Enough damage has already been done to the Scottish funding council—as a result of the opinions that have been expressed—and to the reputation of the University of Glasgow.
I thank Elaine Murray for providing us with the opportunity to debate a subject that is of great importance to our policy position, and for her speech, which encapsulated the issues better than most.
In the light of what has been said, it is important to stress that the members who are present have been unanimous in sharing our strong appreciation of and support for the Crichton campus in Dumfries. It would be wrong to forget that during the present dispute. I whole-heartedly echo the view of Elaine Murray and other speakers that we should congratulate and applaud all the staff, students and local people who have made the campus such a success that its future has been the subject of one of the most impassioned debates that I have listened to in my time in this place, which is coming up for eight years.
I fully recognise the concerns that have been raised about the news that the University of Glasgow is reconsidering its provision at the campus, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the innovative cross-sector development that the Crichton experiment represents has improved accessibility to higher education in the south-west and formed strong links with local businesses and the community, as we have heard from members. Jointly, we ought to strive to ensure that we build on that success. That is an important message.
In that context, the proposed merger of the University of Paisley and Bell College will establish a brand new university with a new regional mission, which obviously will include the south and south-west. At the same time—and this is not to be sniffed at—the Scottish funding council is investing more than £28 million of new capital, which the Parliament voted for, in relocating Dumfries and Galloway College to Crichton and improving shared facilities, such as the library, for all who are based there. That significant investment will reap dividends for the people of Dumfries and, more widely, those in the south-west. I stress that that is a good news story for the region as a whole. I think that Derek Brownlee also made that point.
By no stretch of the imagination does the situation constitute a crisis. Those exciting new developments should not be blighted by the fact that one institution is choosing to refocus in order to improve its delivery in other areas.
The minister should just cut to the chase: does he or the Executive have a view on whether they would prefer the University of Glasgow to stay at Crichton campus? If they do, and it is a positive view, are they prepared to do anything to try to bring it about?
I advise the member to be patient in that regard.
On student numbers, I believe that the overall level of provision at the Crichton campus should, at the very least, be maintained. Alasdair Morgan may not think that that is important, but it is. Assertions that participation in higher education in Dumfries and Galloway is the lowest in Scotland are simply not true. The participation rate in Dumfries and Galloway is about the same as it is in Edinburgh and higher than it is in Glasgow.
Fiona Hyslop made a point about ministerial intervention, but intervening is not something that I would chose to do, on a whim or otherwise. By law, ministers cannot—and neither should they—direct or allocate funding to a particular institution. I did not make that decision on my own. The Parliament, including members of the Scottish National Party, took that decision less than two years ago. The principle is important and it should be upheld. However, we have advised the Scottish funding council that it should ensure that adequate further and higher education provision is available in the south of Scotland. That important point was made. In the statement that it issued yesterday, following its meeting with the Crichton partners earlier this week, the funding council confirmed its commitment to do that. I welcome the funding council's proposal to provide funding to support a review of the academic strategy in the region. Obviously, the matter is one for the Parliament and other places to debate and decide.
The Executive's commitment to funding in the region has been called into question unfairly. The funding council has provided significant support to Crichton. I doubt that that statement can be denied. In addition to the new funding of £28 million that I mentioned, as Elaine Murray said, £2.3 million in initial strategic change grant payments were made to support the early development of the campus. The Crichton partners also received an additional 100 funded student places in 2001-02 and another 50 in 2002-03.
The minister's allotted time is running out, and we would very much like him to address the question that Alasdair Morgan asked: does he support the range of courses that Glasgow University offers at Crichton? If so, will he act to ensure that those courses from that university remain on campus?
I thought that I had just explained to Chris Ballance and other members that ministers are denied by law from doing what he suggests. [Interruption.] Chris Ballance may not accept that, but that is the law that members passed.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
Let me make progress.
The funding council allocates a block teaching grant to institutions. It is up to each university, as an autonomous body, to decide how to allocate its resources to its activities and facilities. As has been said, in 2006-07 Glasgow University will receive just over £100 million in public funds for learning and teaching. It could use those funds for its activities at Crichton, but I do not believe—and neither does the Parliament—that it would be right or proper for me to tell Glasgow University or any other institution what it should offer in the parts of Scotland in which it operates.
Will the minister give way?
I will continue my point.
Comparisons have been made with the level of provision and investment in the Highlands and Islands—Alasdair Morgan made such comparisons—but that is like comparing apples with pears. I offer to assist. The funding council does not fund higher education on a regional basis—nor should it—and the model that is being developed in the UHI Millennium Institute is very different from the Crichton model. People from the south-west may argue that their funding is less than that in other parts of Scotland—Alasdair Morgan and Derek Brownlee repeated the assertion—but each student place at Crichton receives 4 per cent more funding than a student place at the UHI Millennium Institute and 13 per cent more than the Scottish average. That shows the danger of playing with regional arguments about the allocation of higher and further education funding.
Will the minister meet the funding council to discuss the issue?
Do not intervene from a sedentary position, Mr Ballance.
I ask Chris Ballance to be patient, as I will come to that point.
I pay tribute to Glasgow University for its support of Crichton campus and I hope that it will maintain its connection with and support for Crichton. I encourage the funding council to complete its work to develop the academic strategy for the region as soon as possible. All partners should be involved in that process.
I am happy to meet the funding council and the University of Glasgow and to do whatever I can to bring the partners together to reach an amicable solution to the issues that have been raised, to ensure that the important future of higher and further education, in which we are investing seriously in south-west Scotland, is delivered to the maximum advantage of the people who will benefit from that investment.
Meeting closed at 17:53.