University Marine Biological Station Millport
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-6139, in the name of Margaret McDougall, on the university marine biological station at Millport.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern that the University Marine Biological Station Millport will no longer be funded by the University of London and will close; understands that the station has been used by Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Napier, Heriot-Watt and West of Scotland universities and that, in 2012, 533 students from Scottish universities and 521 from English universities used the facility; considers that the Scottish Government has refused to intervene to take meaningful action, despite a 10,000 strong petition and a highly publicised campaign to keep the station open; further considers that this closure jeopardises 30 quality jobs on the Isle of Cumbrae, and believes that the loss of this station could cost the local economy in North Ayrshire up to £2 million and have an impact on school provision and other public services.
12:30
I thank the Presiding Officer and members from all parties for their support in bringing this debate on the future of the marine biological station at Millport to the chamber. I also thank all the staff employed at the station, who currently face an uncertain future, the academics from the scientific field, and members of the Cumbrae Community Development Company, many of whom have joined us in the public gallery, for their support. I know that they have had a long journey to get here. I thank all members who are going to participate in the debate.
The facility that is based on the isle of Cumbrae has been used for more than 100 years, and it has been a crucial part of a network of research stations around the British and European coasts. In the past 30 years, it has become a leading teaching facility. It brings thousands of students, not just from Scotland and the UK but from all over the world, to Millport.
The facility belongs to the University of London. On 20 March 2013, the governing board of trustees decided to close the university marine biological station in December this year, following the withdrawal of £400,000 a year of revenue funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This is not just an English problem, however. The station may be a University of London asset but, if it closes, the education of marine biology scientists will be affected for years to come, and the closure will have a devastating effect on a Scottish island community. That is why we need to do everything we possibly can to save the station.
Situated in the Firth of Clyde, the marine station at Millport is a unique and valuable resource, and I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Michael Russell, now agrees with me on that. Professionals who have worked both at the Scottish Association for Marine Science in Oban and at the Millport station have told me that Millport offers a rich variety of conveniently accessible habitats within walking distance, something that the SAMS facility at Oban does not offer. One such person, Dr Peter Barnett, who has been an honorary senior research associate at the station for the past 21 years, has joined us in the public gallery.
There is no doubt that the abundance and variety of marine life on the sea bed is invaluable to the students for their field studies. The station also has an 80-bed hostel for students on the site, and it owns research boats and seawater species tanks. Those are facilities that SAMS in Oban is not able to replicate. That is why there has been tremendous support, with more than 13,000 signatories from around the world calling for the station to be kept open.
I should also mention that the station has a rather quaint museum and an aquarium, which are enjoyed by tourists on the island.
The station has been used by the University of Glasgow, the University of Edinburgh, the University of St Andrews, Edinburgh Napier University, Heriot-Watt University and the University of the West of Scotland. In 2012, 533 students from Scottish universities and 521 students from English universities used the facility, which is contrary to the claim by the First Minister that it is not used by any Scottish universities. Unfortunately, despite the recognition for the station, none of the Scottish universities has come forward with a lifeline. I ask the cabinet secretary what discussions the Government has had with Scottish universities about the possible acquisition of the facility.
As regards the damage done to the local economy, it would be a travesty for such a small island, with a population of approximately 1,200, to lose 30 high-quality jobs—that is the equivalent of 4,000 jobs being lost on the mainland—and up to £2 million from the local economy. If those 30 families move off the island to find employment elsewhere, it will not only impact on local businesses; it will affect the viability of the local school and other public services. The impact will be much more than the loss of a marine research facility; the consequences for the island will be far reaching.
North Ayrshire Council, working with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, has commissioned an analysis of the commercial development potential of the facility, which is due to be completed by the end of June. I hope that that will produce a viable business plan to attract interested parties to invest the £10 million capital and revenue funding that is required to provide a sustainable operational structure, perhaps with a teaching facility and a commercial aspect, to secure the long-term future of the station.
I am not sure that the Scottish Government truly understands what the loss of the station could mean for the island and beyond. It is disconcerting that, at a public meeting in Millport on the marine station’s future that was held by Labour MP Katy Clark and attended by around 100 people on a wet and miserable evening last week, the Scottish National Party councillor Alan Hill said that he believed that this debate would make no difference. Does he have no faith in the Scottish Government?
I am happy to work with anyone—political or otherwise—to find a viable solution, because this is not about politics, and it is not just about saving the marine station; it is about saving the fragile economy of an island in the already disadvantaged area of North Ayrshire. I hear that community ownership of the facility is being considered, although I have not been privy to the detail. Will the cabinet secretary expand on that proposal and say whether he supports the idea?
To conclude, I ask the cabinet secretary to give assurances that his Government is 100 per cent committed to finding a way to secure a long-term sustainable future, including an element of financial support if necessary, for the marine station and the community of Cumbrae. I urge everyone to come together on the issue for education, for science and for Scotland, so that we unite in doing everything that we possibly can to keep the marine station open and the island’s economy afloat.
I call Kenny Gibson, who is the constituency member.
12:37
I congratulate Margaret McDougall on securing this debate, which is on a matter that I first raised at First Minister’s question time on 20 December last year. In the months since, the cabinet secretary, Michael Russell, has chaired a number of meetings that have involved numerous stakeholders, including North Ayrshire Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the University of London, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, staff representatives and others such as the marine alliance for science and technology for Scotland and the Scottish Association for Marine Science, to secure the future of the university marine biological station Millport.
On Tuesday 30 April, I accompanied Mr Russell when he addressed the staff. On the same day, North Ayrshire Council’s Scottish National Party cabinet met to discuss the proposed marine station closure, the prospect of up to 28 job losses at the facility and what could be done to prevent that. I am delighted that the council has appointed Mr Paul Durrant, director of business development at the University of Abertay Dundee, to act on its behalf and with HIE on proposals for the future development of the Millport facility. The council will also work closely with Cumbrae Community Development Company to deliver local solutions to the closure. CCDC has appointed its company secretary, Mr Stephen White, to prepare an analysis and business plan for the continued educational use of the facility. The aim is to transfer the assets and establish a trust this summer to ensure continuity of the business. Alan Hill, who is a local councillor and CCDC director, has been leading on those issues for the council. Council officers have worked hard to identify solutions, and Mr White has also worked virtually non-stop on the matter in recent weeks. I hope that the new proposals will show a way forward for the station and, in particular, ensure that field studies work on the island is safeguarded and a strategy is developed to allow the business to grow.
Discussions are on-going with the University of London to secure a smooth transfer of assets and a legacy commitment. The continued involvement of higher education establishments in the station’s future is also crucial. A huge effort has taken place behind the scenes. Mr Russell secured a delay in closure of several months while co-ordinating work to keep stakeholders involved, informed and working together. His office has also approached all 10 Scottish universities that have an interest in marine biology to seek their involvement in the station, although to date, none has yet indicated an interest in taking over the facility. He has also ensured continuing SFC funding.
There is a widely held view that an injection of capital—an issue that I pursued over a number of years, under the leadership of Professor Atkinson before he retired—would resolve the situation. However, while money—capital and revenue—is an issue, and chronic underinvestment over four decades has undoubtedly led to the current state of affairs, academic leadership from a recognised institution is essential if the UMBSM is to continue to deliver the same level of academic excellence as before.
While the initial piece of work that is being commissioned will focus on the marine station, the council’s SNP cabinet agreed to a second phase of development aimed at boosting the existing community development plan and building on the potential for tourism and other developments on the island. That will include supporting and developing existing businesses; improving the streetscape and public realm, including the pier; reviewing land allocations to enable better development of the island’s tourism offer; and finding ways to improve and develop the Cumbrae brand through better marketing and tourism development.
Plans should be concluded by next month and, once future proposals for the station have been confirmed, potential funding sources will be identified, with a view to allowing the facility to operate self-sufficiently, without the need for on-going revenue support. To that end, there have been significant commitments of funding from HIE and North Ayrshire Council.
Everyone with an interest in the wellbeing of Cumbrae, its people, local businesses and, importantly, the staff employed at the UMBSM continues to strive to deliver the best possible outcome for the island at this difficult time. It is solutions that we need now, rather than continued discussion of a situation that we already know exists.
12:41
I congratulate my colleague Margaret McDougall on securing this debate on the future of the marine research station at Millport. This is not only a topical issue in her region; it is also a matter of the utmost importance to the future of the island of Cumbrae, North Ayrshire and all the people who live and work there.
In a small island community, the impact of any job losses, let alone 30, is significant. That is 30 fewer incomes being spent on the island, supporting the local economy and helping effectively to sustain the community, especially if those affected relocate to find work.
I note from the motion that more than 1,000 students from universities throughout Scotland and England have travelled to Millport to use the station. I have no doubt that the loss of those visitors, too, would seriously affect local traders. Indeed, the whole economy of North Ayrshire could lose up to £2 million.
As we have heard, the future of the research station at Millport is also of huge significance to the academic community. The facility is ideally placed in the Firth of Clyde, with a long and widely respected tradition of supporting internationally recognised research. Even today, with all the uncertainty over the future of the site, it continues to be regarded as a critical part of the country’s academic infrastructure and a key location for the study of marine biology, biodiversity and a range of related subjects.
It would therefore appear that the decision by the University of London to withdraw funding is extremely unpopular and incredibly short-sighted. If we allow the marine station to close, we will fundamentally change the character of the local economy and the local community on Cumbrae, as well as losing a great asset to the sciences in Scotland and the UK.
Earlier this year, more than 40 academics signed an open letter to the Scottish Government to ask for action on the marine station. I understand that a petition has gathered more than 13,000 signatures.
I see that the education secretary is calling for all interested parties to work together to find an alternative to closure. I completely agree. However, the issue here is one of funding and sustainability. If the Scottish Government agrees, I hope that it will be prepared to step in and help the community to find a solution that works for the academic community and the isle of Cumbrae.
12:44
I, too, congratulate Margaret McDougall on securing the debate and on the comprehensive motion that she has advanced.
Scottish Conservatives—locally through Annabel Goldie and myself, and generally through concerns expressed by our education spokeswoman, Liz Smith—share the dismay that the wonderful and much admired and respected facility on the isle of Cumbrae seems set to close.
Like the cabinet secretary, my colleague, Annabel Goldie, has visited the station and was highly impressed by what she saw and heard. We are both aware of the strength of feeling expressed through the petition to which others have referred, which has attracted in excess of 10,000 signatures—no small feat for an island with a population of around 1,400. The public meeting organised by Katy Clark MP gave further expression to that strength of feeling only a couple of weeks ago.
As the motion notes, some 30 islander jobs are at stake. That is all the more concerning given that Cumbrae is classed as a fragile economy. Together with the loss of the many visits to the station, which are detailed in the motion, that represents a potentially mortal blow: the further loss of around £1 million to the island’s economy. It is difficult to see how that can be easily absorbed.
What is not in doubt is the excellence of the facility, which gives rise to the question why has the Higher Education Funding Council for England withdrawn funding to the University of London? What are also not in doubt are the location of the university marine biological station and the excellence of the education experience to be gained. Cumbrae is ideally situated for the field courses in marine biology and microbiology. There is a variety of shore to hand and other coastal habitats are all within walking or cycling—which everybody does—distance of the marine station. In addition, the diversity of species and environmental conditions provide many opportunities for learning and investigation.
As Professor Mark Blaxter, a biologist at the University of Edinburgh, who co-ordinated the petition observed:
“It’s the only coastal field station in the UK that students can visit—1,200 from all over the UK visited last year.
It’s the place they go to experience on the shore and on boats what they’ve only heard about in lecture theatres. It’s where we see students turning from rank amateurs into being able to spout Latin names—it’s an incredibly important resource.”
For all those reasons, some 30 UK and European institutions use the facility, utilising some 6,000 to 7,000 bed nights annually.
In suggesting that the cabinet secretary intervene, I do not mean to suggest that he has shown any lack of interest. He is not a superficial man, and I am certain that he will have a complete and genuine grasp of the issues and what is at stake. Nor do I underestimate the future investment that seems to be required. I also support the considerable efforts of North Ayrshire Council, which will be all the more productive the more inclusive they prove to be. However, the arguments support the retention and development of the station not only because its loss will have a negative impact on those who wish to study marine science, but because its loss will have a lasting negative impact on the fragile Cumbrae economy. It can never be an industrial hub for heaven’s sake, but it is a unique centre of marine biology academic excellence that Scotland can ill afford to lose.
12:47
At the outset, I declare an interest: I once worked for North Ayrshire Council as a community worker that covered the isle of Cumbrae.
I am delighted to contribute to the debate because I know how important the subject of the exceptional biological science facility based in Millport and the recent decision to close this important national resource are.
I thank my colleague, Margaret McDougall MSP, for her on-going campaigning and support, and for securing the time in the chamber to reflect on the damaging decision and to consider the effects of closure on the local and national economies.
The university marine biological station Millport is ideally situated for marine biological teaching and research. In addition to providing marine biological teaching for its parent university, the University of London, the station also has a substantial national role in providing facilities and logistical support for field teaching by universities throughout the UK. It has a long tradition of quality marine biology research with a worldwide reputation, and it is a Scottish research facility that the entire nation can be proud of.
With the continued threat of global warming, it is perhaps more important than ever before that research and education facilities exist to allow people to appreciate and understand the scale of the problems that we face and to develop effective responses to environmental and biological disasters.
Producing well-trained and well-educated people who make a significant contribution to biological sciences is a proud tradition of Scots and the Government must do all that it can to ensure that that tradition continues, despite the closure of this exceptional facility.
We know that the Higher Education Funding Council for England has withdrawn the £400,000 that it awards the University of London to run the station. While that is a devastating blow for the staff and students who use the facility, I believe that we should invest in the science facility at Millport to safeguard the jobs and maintain the quality of Scottish scientific research.
Last month, the Government offered support to the staff of the facility, but that did not extend to a commitment to funding it independently following the regrettable decision by the University of London. As was mentioned earlier, I believe that the Scottish Government’s approach is short-sighted and will impact negatively on the local economy in North Ayrshire and the quality of research undertaken by Scottish universities and their students.
12:51
At the outset, I state unequivocally that the Government treats this threat to the community of Millport and the island of Cumbrae very seriously indeed. I have been working and I will continue to work, along with my colleagues—including John Swinney, who obviously has a responsibility in terms of economic development—as closely as possible with all the stakeholders and all those who are prepared to work together to do everything that we can to help. That has been my intention from the day and hour that I heard of the likely decision of the University of London and it will continue to be the Government’s position until we have a successful outcome. I do not want anyone to doubt that in any way.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on the record at the very beginning. I have been working very closely with the stakeholders, elected representatives, the community and the staff, and I will continue to do so—as will my officials—so that we are absolutely certain that we can try to get the best possible outcome.
We have been engaged on this issue throughout the period. We have stepped up to the plate on numerous occasions and we will continue to do so. It is unhelpful for any suggestion to be made that that is not the case. It is not a question of backing one place against the other. That is also a wrong and divisive suggestion.
For those who are unaware of the full background to the situation at the marine station, it might have been easy to become a little confused by some of the accounts that we have heard. The decision to close the Millport facility was taken by the University of London. Despite being located in Scotland, the station has been under the ownership of the university for more than 40 years. It is absolutely true that in those 40 years it has been much valued; thousands of students from Scotland, the UK and overseas have used it on a regular basis and each has paid the University of London for so doing. In fact, we have added money to the station despite that situation. The Scottish funding council contributed £125,000 last year to assist the University of London to make marine science provision. It did so, because the funding gap—the subsidy that the station required—had been growing all the time.
Mr Jackson asked the apposite question, why has HEFCE withdrawn its funding? I will come to the total in a minute. It has withdrawn its funding because of the failure of the University of London over a long period to invest and produce a viable business plan, which is much to be regretted. The Higher Education Funding Council for England presently contributes just under £500,000, so we are talking about £625,000 in total revenue support. The University of London claims that it also provides a very hefty subsidy. So, there is a big revenue shortfall in the station. There is also a capital need, because the station has fallen into a state of disrepair—there is no other way of putting it. The capital funding required is between £7 million and £10 million.
The Stevely report commissioned last year by the Higher Education Funding Council for England highlighted the failure to invest and emphasised the critical financial situation that the University of London had allowed to develop.
In those circumstances, it was eventually not possible for HEFCE to continue to fund the station. The problem was finding at very short notice the funding required in capital, which is very substantial, as well as any revenue funding. We have come together in Scotland with a willingness to try to make a difference, to preserve the provision of marine science field studies and to provide a secure future for the island of Cumbrae.
I represent a large number of islands—more than any other member in the chamber—and I entirely understand the effect of a closure on a small island community.
I have spoken to the University of London and given it options to mitigate its decision, which it has not taken. I have also personally suggested to the vice-chancellor that the university considers giving the facility to the community or some other body. I have visited the station—in fact, it was my second visit—and spoken to the staff there. I have listened to opinions. I have convened several meetings with stakeholders who have an interest in the facility and the local economy, including the University of London; North Ayrshire Council; Highlands and Islands Enterprise; the marine alliance for science and technology for Scotland, which brings together the universities in a marine science pool; the Scottish Association for Marine Science; the Scottish funding council; and Kenny Gibson, MSP for the island—I will come back to him in a moment.
From those meetings, we have developed a number of proposals on the way forward. I have tasked those from the marine science organisations to work on proposals that will preserve marine science fieldwork in Scotland, including historical data collection, which is carried out from Millport. It is important to recognise that one of the big assets of the station is the long sequence of historical data that has been collected. We are keen to see staff from Millport involved and absorbed into that. In the circumstances, of course, we also need to provide support for all the other staff, so we have already activated the partnership action for continuing employment team, which stands ready to help. No formal notices have been issued as yet, and that is required, but when that happens, the PACE team will be there to help.
However, I have to tell members that, of all the universities in Scotland—the SFC has contacted all of them—not one has been prepared to come up with the capital that is involved. That is not surprising. It would be unrealistic to expect any university, at this late stage, to alter its long-term plans for strategic investment to compensate, essentially, for years of underinvestment by somebody else. We have enormous pressure on capital investment in Scotland owing to the ridiculous situation that we are in vis-à-vis our budget, and that is a problem.
Other people have been trying hard, too, and we have all said that we need to get that viable business plan and investment so that we can support the station in some way. When I went to the island last month, I met opposition members from North Ayrshire Council and Margaret McDougall to talk about our plans. I emphasised then, as I do now, that the best way forward—indeed, the only way forward—is for everybody to work together. It is not to be divisive or to blame others but to see whether we can find a joint way ahead. I said to Margaret McDougall at that stage and have now confirmed in writing to Katy Clark that I would invite her to join the stakeholder group, and if she cannot attend, Margaret McDougall can attend in her place. In addition, I spoke to North Ayrshire Council. I was asked by two opposition councillors—a Labour councillor and a Tory councillor—and I spoke to the council to make sure that it was continuing to keep local members involved.
On local members, I pay a very strong tribute to the work of Kenny Gibson, which has been absolutely tireless. I have known Kenny Gibson for a long time. He is not a man who rests on anything, and certainly not on his laurels. He has been absolutely tireless in pursuit of this and he will continue to be so. I also pay tribute to Alan Hill and to the leader of North Ayrshire Council, Willie Gibson. There has been an absolute focus on taking the issue forward, and that will continue.
North Ayrshire Council’s views and activities are important. The local member referred to the new analysis from the University of Abertay of the station’s commercial development potential and the work that is being done to find other partners. In the meeting that we had with staff, I was impressed by some of the ideas that came from them, and that is feeding into the process, too. We will go on considering funding commitments that were previously made by bodies—smallish but important funding commitments such as those of the coastal communities fund and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Those commitments were made before the University of London’s decision, and maybe we can harness them back in.
All that work is going on and will continue. Once we have some account from the work that North Ayrshire Council and HIE have commissioned, we will bring the stakeholder group together again to look at that.
However, I make a final plea. I made it to the opposition members when I met them in Largs, but they do not seem to have listened, so I want to make it again. The success of the venture will mean everybody working in the same way—working with the members of the community, who are very welcome here today and who need to be reassured that such work is taking place; with the development company; with the local representatives; and with North Ayrshire Council. The surest way in which to not succeed is to sow division in such a campaign. I look forward to working with everybody, and I make the pledge again that I made at the start of this speech: we will continue to work, and the object will be success.
12:59
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—