Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2637, in the name of Adam Ingram, on the Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the important contribution that the Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, formerly the West of Scotland Agricultural College, has made and continues to make to the rural economy of Scotland; deplores the plans by the Scottish Agricultural College to downgrade Auchincruive to a mere delivery vehicle for education courses in association with Paisley University; views with concern the prospective closure of Auchincruive as a research and teaching facility if and when it amalgamates with the University's Ayr campus, and considers that such a closure would be detrimental to the economic development of Ayrshire and the south of Scotland.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the future of the Scottish Agricultural College at Auchincruive and to represent the views of the many people in Ayrshire and beyond who are campaigning to retain the college as a vibrant engine of change and growth in the rural economy. I am particularly gratified that members of the Support Auchincruive steering group are in the public gallery for the debate.
The SAC's mission is
"to enhance the sustainability of rural areas and communities and the viability of the industries on which they depend".
My contention is that plans to break up what is still a superb integrated facility, which contains teaching, research and advisory capabilities, not only runs counter to that mission, but would be a retrograde step that would be profoundly damaging to rural development, particularly in the south-west of Scotland.
We should note that Auchincruive puts nearly £9 million into the local economy, and underpins an agricultural industry that contributes 15 per cent of the area's gross domestic product. In the context of a national strategy for economic development, it makes no sense to dismantle a centre of excellence, and a growth point in an area that suffers from chronic economic underperformance, and to relocate that centre's functions to areas of Scotland that are overheating.
The SAC is clearly in financial difficulty, having lost £2.5 million last year. Its financial position has certainly not been helped by funding pressures, not least from the Executive, nor by a contraction in the number of students, which is a result of increased competition from other colleges. I do not accept the spin from the SAC's board and senior management that the college's poor performance is an inevitable consequence of the problems faced by the agricultural industry.
Over recent years, the board has made a series of plans, offering a series of short-term solutions and consuming badly needed cash, but providing few positive outcomes. There has to be a question mark over the business capabilities of senior managers who owe their positions to being successful scientists. By their nature, such people will tend to have a focused—some may say blinkered—approach, and will tend to favour their particular area of interest or even geographical site.
At least an element of that tendency would seem to have been at play in recent years, with the erosion and transfer of research capability from Auchincruive to Aberdeen and Edinburgh. For example, where was the logic in the transfer of grassland research away from the principal dairy farming area of Scotland, where poor weather and difficult soils perforce make grass the main economic crop?
In recent months, that trend has been accelerated, with no fewer than 18 staff, with combined teaching experience of 385 years, leaving Auchincruive. No wonder remaining staff are demoralised. The situation is tantamount to death by a thousand cuts, as one of my many correspondents on the issue vividly but accurately described it.
Maitland Mackie is another correspondent. He castigates me for dealing in soundbites and for seeking to preserve the status quo. What I seek is quite the contrary. I want there to be a reversal of his board's deliberate policy of running down a great institution. If that means that he, his board and senior managers must go, so be it. To downgrade or close Auchincruive in order to reduce overhead costs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The capacity of the Auchincruive estate should be regarded as a development opportunity. I note that the SAC is in discussions with South Ayrshire Council and Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire on options for a change of use. I would have thought that the prospects for establishing a bioscience or business park, or for leisure or recreational development, would be much greater with a fully functioning agricultural college of international repute on the site.
The SAC is in real danger of losing its client base if, on the one hand, it preaches diversification and rural integration to farmers and land managers while, on the other hand, demonstrating a complete lack of gumption in maintaining and developing the Auchincruive estate. Then again, SAC clients appear to be the last group to be consulted on the proposals for change.
What takes the biscuit for me is the SAC's assertion that the most important driver of the proposals for change is the need to secure delivery of substantive, competent research programmes, and to do so by creating focused research groups with critical mass and aligning those with potential partners. That is precisely what the SAC has been busy dismantling at Auchincruive over the past few years.
A single body at Auchincruive has provided education, research and advisory activities. The transfer of ideas and interaction between staff who are involved in various activities occur systematically. That results, first, in education being relevant to what is happening in the industry; secondly, in a research programme that responds to the needs of the industry; and thirdly, in advisory services that rapidly become aware of new research developments.
At Auchincruive, there has been the added extra of continuing involvement with the food processing sector. The college is one of the few establishments in the world where expertise on the complete food chain, from farm to fork, can be found on a single site. That is a priceless asset, given the need to develop small, rural-based food processing enterprises—and it is being partly realised by the association with the Hannah Research Institute in the CHARIS project. In addition, Auchincruive retains strong links with the University of Glasgow and its basic and applied research output is renowned worldwide. It would be a real tragedy if the SAC board were allowed to get away with destroying Auchincruive's research capability instead of building on its immense reputation. I trust that the Parliament and the minister will stand in the way of those designs.
I am conscious that I have not focused my remarks on the importance of Auchincruive as an educational centre of excellence. I trust that colleagues with first-hand experience of the college will be able to expand on its virtues. I will confine myself to pointing out that the SAC's prospectus for 2002 outlines details of 40 courses and that Auchincruive delivers no fewer than 25 of them. It provides rural Scotland with a first-class learning environment that is fit for the 21st century.
I trust that the minister will be able to indicate this evening, first, that he will be sending Messrs Mackie and McKelvey homeward to think again about their disastrous proposals, and secondly, that on no account will his approval, let alone his funding, for the changes be forthcoming.
In the open debate, members should aim to speak for around three minutes, to allow everyone to contribute.
I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing the debate, which is of vital interest to the rural community of Ayrshire, particularly in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun. The issue is not party-political; it is to do with the maintenance of the farming community in Ayrshire and its ability to diversify and develop its skills for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
Many of my farming constituents have raised the issue with me and with my colleague Cathy Jamieson, in whose constituency the Auchincruive college lies. We have both raised the issue with the minister and I look forward with real interest to his response, as do my constituents. I will be able to transmit that response very quickly to the farmers of Kilmarnock and Loudoun as my colleague Des Browne MP and I have a meeting with the Kilmarnock branch of the National Farmers Union of Scotland on Saturday morning.
I am grateful to Robin Templeton of Midton farm in my constituency for informing me that Kilmarnock is the birthplace of farm education in Scotland. The Kilmarnock Dairy School flourished before Auchincruive was gifted by a local farmer to the West of Scotland Agricultural College in 1927 and the dairy school's functions were passed to the college.
The Kilmarnock Dairy School later became a maternity hospital serving Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and a number of members of the Parliament were born there. I will name them—Cathy Jamieson, Adam Ingram and myself. I understand, Presiding Officer, that your colleague Murray Tosh has indicated that some of his children were born in that very building. The building still stands and Adam Ingram passes it each day on the way home from the chamber.
Sixty per cent of the SAC's students study at Auchincruive. Of that 60 per cent, 60 per cent have a KA postcode. Willie Campbell, of Low Holehouse farm in Galston, is the chair of the Ayrshire branch of the NFUS. He tells me that the family of the farmer who donated the site are distraught at the suggestion that Auchincruive should be wound down.
The need for the continuation of Auchincruive as a driver in rural Scotland—and particularly in south-west Scotland—has been admitted by a research project conducted, interestingly, by the SAC itself. The current edition of Scottish Farming Leader, the magazine of the NFUS, refers to a report on the future of farming in Ayrshire, which says that it is inevitable that farming in Ayrshire will restructure. It points out:
"This is likely to occur through a greater agricultural specialisation on the one hand, and more pluractivity on the other. To help this process, suitable training and re-skilling will be required."
What better argument than that, expressed in the SAC's own words, for the need to maintain and develop further the rural education provision at Auchincruive? However, no consideration appears to have been given to applying those words to thinking on the future of the industry, despite the offer of partnership from Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire.
There is an opportunity to embrace new technology and new ways of working on an estate that has six listed buildings and which supports meetings of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens and the Royal Horticultural Society. The worldwide reputation of Auchincruive is well established. As one person said, it would make the ideal headquarters for a rural university of Scotland.
I urge the minister to persuade the SAC to think again about the role and functions of Auchincruive and to ensure a review of the proposals, which I am sure will lead to confirmation of Auchincruive as a full and essential part of the delivery of rural education for Scotland and beyond.
I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing today's debate. I welcome what he and Margaret Jamieson had to say on the issue. I, too, welcome to the chamber the delegation from Auchincruive. I thank members of all parties for the support the campaign has secured and the press for making the public aware of what is happening.
What is being proposed for Auchincruive could not be described as tinkering around the edges—it is radical surgery. The Scottish Agricultural College is proposing to destroy Auchincruive. We all agree that there is a need for change and progress, but everyone in Ayrshire is unhappy at what is being proposed. The students at Auchincruive are unhappy because they have not been consulted or considered. The staff are unhappy and demoralised because they, too, have not been consulted about the development of the plans—indeed, they usually learn of such developments from the press. The partner organisations and stakeholders at Auchincruive are also unhappy. Those involved in the tourism industry, the food industry, forestry, horticulture and agriculture are unhappy because they are all about to be left high and dry.
As Adam Ingram said, Auchincruive has delivered on its vision statement to
"enhance the sustainability of rural areas and communities and the viability of the industries on which they depend."
It is already delivering in educational terms what Ross Finnie asked for in "A Forward Strategy for Agriculture". Auchincruive is a Scottish rural resource that delivers integrated and cohesive, yet diversified, education to degree standard for rural students. The current plans will destroy that.
One member of staff told me:
"If we didn't have Auchincruive, we would be trying to invent it."
That aptly describes the views expressed in much of the correspondence that I have received on the matter, some of which the minister has seen.
Auchincruive is the jewel in the crown of the SAC. It is a degree-awarding institution in its own right and, with about 60 per cent of the SAC's students, it is the hub of the SAC's teaching capability. Maitland Mackie and his board want to relocate that facility to Aberdeen and Edinburgh, but he forgets that many of the students who currently attend Auchincruive have already scorned Aberdeen and Edinburgh to come to Auchincruive because of its international reputation. Given that more than 50 per cent of Auchincruive's students have Ayrshire postcodes, most would not or could not attend Aberdeen or Edinburgh. In effect, the SAC would lose its teaching capacity and with that its research capability. In short, the filleting of Auchincruive would destroy the SAC.
Of course the SAC must address its future and its debt of about £9 million—we would be castigating it if it did not—but throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the answer. I have no problem with change, but any change must be for the better. Moving agriculture education into Ayr town centre is not a practical option, even if it were achievable.
An alternative plan must be produced that puts Auchincruive at the heart of the SAC's future operations. An option might be to return to a more regional structure with better links between universities, colleges of further education, Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes and the state veterinary service.
At any rate, the SAC or perhaps independent consultants must come up with alternative proposals. If they are not prepared to do so and the board of the SAC is not prepared to do so, they must stand aside and let others take up the challenge. If assets or buildings need to be sold, so be it. If new partners need to be found and new partnerships need to be entered into, so be it.
Imaginative solutions must be found to address those problems satisfactorily from a Scotland-wide perspective. I urge the minister to use his influence to ensure that there is a future for the SAC with Auchincruive at the heart of it.
If the minister does not stop the vandalism, such an act of agricultural terrorism will leave Scotland without an integrated, high-quality teaching and research resource and we will all be the poorer.
I associate myself with the remarks made by Adam Ingram and Margaret Jamieson.
My father and family were heavily involved with the SAC at Auchincruive right back in the late 1940s and early 1950s when the college was single-handedly responsible for delivering huge improvements in Scottish agriculture over 40 to 50 years. It increased the output and efficiency of many businesses throughout the south-west of Scotland. It is also single-handedly responsible for the huge expansion in Scottish agriculture that took place over that period of time. I do not think that there will be one farmer in the whole of the south-west, or indeed up the west coast of Scotland, who is not indebted to the work that went on at Auchincruive over those years to help us deliver more efficient and productive agriculture.
The research and development work that was carried out at Auchincruive delivered not only for individual businesses: it delivered for Scotland. The basic research work and near-market research that were done there have led to much of the increased production and efficiency of Scottish agriculture over the years.
The south-west of Scotland is the centre of dairy, cattle and sheep production. It therefore makes little sense to run down the service and shift it to the arable east. It makes little sense to me, although I suspect that my colleagues in the Conservative party will argue against that. It makes no sense whatsoever that when the major production of livestock takes place in the south-west and on the west coast, services should move to the arable east.
We must acknowledge that the SAC faces a serious financial predicament that it has to resolve. There is no doubt that demand for advice, for research and development and for further education has reduced over recent years as agriculture has gone through a severe recession. A new role has to be mapped out for the SAC, but it is vital that before any rationalisation takes place the SAC take a step back and reconsider what that future role is and how it intends to deliver it.
There is no doubt that there is still a demand for the services that Auchincruive provides. We still need a centre of excellence in Ayrshire. It is the centre of the Scottish dairy industry. Auchincruive deserves a reprieve and I ask the minister to engage with the SAC and ask it to think again.
I have been noting who has been speaking for each party. I am not going to get everyone in. I am conscious that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development has been doing night duty for a number of nights. Minister, are you prepared to go on until 6 o'clock and not a minute longer?
Yes.
I will therefore take a motion without notice to extend the debate until 6 o'clock.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.00 pm.—[Mr Murray Tosh.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate Adam Ingram and every member who has spoken on the powerful and cogent way in which they have presented the case. There is no point in repeating their excellent arguments in favour of an establishment that has an international reputation.
I will address some questions to the minister. We require an independent audit of the whole process that has been carried out to date. Although John Scott and George Lyon are correct to argue that a fresh plan should be produced, it is perhaps optimistic to hope that the fresh plan could be produced by the authors of the previous report, which we have all condemned. In my opinion, it is axiomatic that unless there is an independent audit of the whole process, of which the minister instructs the initiation tonight, the outcome will inevitably be less than satisfactory.
Such an audit should consider several matters. First, those who put forward the plan assert that the cost of the new campus in Paisley and the move to Aberdeen would be £20 million. Oh, really? Should not that assertion be tested by an independent audit?
Secondly, what regard has been paid to the wishes of existing students and of potential future students? What attempt has been made—through market research or consultation, for example—to assess how many of those students would go to Aberdeen now or in future? John Scott made that point. If they would not go, as has been postulated, what impact would that have on the £20 million?
Thirdly, is Auchincruive responsible for the SAC's apparently parlous financial plight? Those whom I had the pleasure of meeting this afternoon asserted that that is simply not the case. Although the minister might be on night duty, I hope that he will address the fact that in the directors' report £1 million was written off to "failed joint ventures". Does not that merit close scrutiny? Premature retirement charges accounted for £190,000 and the golf course valuation was written down by £229,000. I have not been as closely involved as the local member of the Scottish Parliament, but I believe that all those matters merit serious consideration.
The minister is directly responsible. Although I would be exaggerating slightly to describe his failure to thwart the proposed decision as an act of terrorism, it would amount to an act of vandalism. His proposed course of action surely runs counter to the forward strategy for Scottish agriculture, to the Executive's commitment to the skills economy and to integrated rural development. I see that I am running counter to the Presiding Officer's wishes. Therefore, I will close on that point.
I hope to be very brief. I had better declare an interest. I am probably the only member who received his further education at Auchincruive. [Interruption.] I am sorry about my mobile phone, Presiding Officer.
I am the proud possessor of the letters ONDA, which follow my name. I do not often use them because although NDA stands for national diploma in agriculture, sadly the O stands for ordinary. The course did not last particularly long. I hope that some members agree that one has only to look at me to recognise the quality of the education that Auchincruive provides, to which Adam Ingram referred.
I congratulate Adam Ingram and John Scott on their role in introducing the issue in the Parliament. I am sure that Cathy Jamieson would have done the same if she had not been prevented from doing so by her ministerial responsibilities.
Auchincruive provides a unique setting—it offers on-farm education within an estate. When I was at Auchincruive, I had had the benefit of two years away from school before going there. For a lot of the students, it was their first experience of being out of school and away from home. It is important to realise that Auchincruive offers a homely setting to its very young students, in which they can grow up while they continue their education. We all learnt a great deal at Auchincruive—some of it was even about agriculture. It is important that that type of growing-up experience can take place in an ambience such as exists at Auchincruive. I believe that Auchincruive is unique, but I recognise that my feelings about it are entirely emotional and should not come into the argument.
A number of questions have not been answered properly. Where in the overall financial structure of the SAC is the financial justification for the proposed decision? There has not been enough financial to detail to show that closing Auchincruive would provide the answer that is needed. Secondly, why has the SAC gone so far down this route without consulting the Minister for Environment and Rural Development? If the closure of Auchincruive is not a question of rural development, I am not sure that I know what is. I find it extraordinary that the SAC has not, as I understand it, provided further detail. The SAC may be losing £2.5 million a year, but surely the answer is not simply to close a unique institution.
Auchincruive was gifted by John Hannah—whose grandson is, I believe, in the public gallery today—for the purpose for which it is used. Closing Auchincruive is certainly not the answer if better justification cannot be given than that which has been evidenced so far.
I am too young to have been born in the same place as Margaret Jamieson and Adam Ingram, but I am sure that there is all-party consensus on the motion. I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing the debate.
The Scottish Agricultural College has spread several myths about the rationale for its apparent decision to destroy Auchincruive. For example, we have heard that the students would like the facility to be moved to Aberdeen or Edinburgh. I find it absolutely amazing that, if the whole objective is to cut costs, the SAC should propose a move to either of the two most expensive places in Scotland to do business. In this day of e-commerce and e-learning, it is a nonsense to argue that the facility must be physically close to the University of Aberdeen, which is behind the UHI Millennium Institute that covers one third of Scotland's landmass. I do not see why it is necessary for the facility to be moved up to Aberdeen. The arguments that the Scottish Agricultural College has made do not add up.
I support Fergus Ewing's proposal for an audit of the rationale that has been given. That audit should have two parts. First, it should examine what the SAC is really up to and evaluate its decision on Auchincruive. Secondly, the audit should examine Auchincruive's potential. Others have already mentioned the possibility that Auchincruive could be built up as a centre of bioscience, which would provide huge opportunities for taking in international students and for entering international markets. If any organisation should know about that, the Scottish Agricultural College should.
There is no doubt in my mind that Auchincruive is a major asset not only to the economy of Ayrshire and the west of Scotland but to the Scottish economy and further afield. Will the minister tell us what is the estimated underspend in this year's rural development budget? Will he consider whether some of that underspend could be used to address the Scottish Agricultural College's present situation?
Auchincruive must be our top priority, but there is a wider question about the relationship between it and its sponsoring organisation within the Scottish Executive. Speaking as the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I believe that the minister should consider the possibility of transferring responsibility for the SAC to either the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council or the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. Auchincruive is involved in both teaching and research. If the institution came under the aegis of one of those councils, I am sure that, in time, it would develop proper letters of guidance and proper budgeting. That would be to the benefit of everyone concerned. I hope that the minister will take those recommendations into account.
Let us look on this all-party consensus not simply as an opportunity to save Auchincruive but to develop Auchincruive so that it can in future make an even greater contribution than it does at present.
With the possible exception of Fergus Ewing, most speakers in today's debate have come from Ayrshire. I first came into Ayrshire in around 1974, when I guess Auchincruive had greater renown than Kilmarnock Football Club—I always like to stir up things a wee bit. At that time, Auchincruive was well respected and well known from one end of Scotland to the other.
To be serious, however, there has been consensus in today's debate. I congratulate Adam Ingram on the way in which he introduced the debate. The contents of his speech spoke for most of us. I also agree with the comments of Margaret Jamieson and with John Scott, who is well respected in Ayrshire's farming communities.
I am not a farmer, but for me Auchincruive has a name that stands out in a particular way. Although wind farming and renewable energy are very much issues of the day, not many people know that Auchincruive might have been the site of Scotland's first wind generator. The South of Scotland Electricity Board sited a specialist wind generator at Auchincruive as an experimental unit. That it did so says a lot about Auchincruive. It is not simply a teaching institution, but one in which research and knowledge are in-built. What worries me is the dispersal of those qualities.
I cannot understand why the college seems to be cutting across Scottish Executive policy by attempting to take expertise from Ayrshire, which is an outlying area, and passing it to centres of economic well-being such as Edinburgh and Aberdeen. If that is done, things will seem to be the wrong way round. I ask the minister to address that matter. I also ask him to pick up on the issue with the Scottish Agricultural College.
If one visits Northern Ireland and Ireland and talks about Auchincruive, people recognise the name, but if one talks about the Scottish Agricultural College, the name is fairly meaningless. That is a symbol of Auchincruive's position in Scottish agriculture.
I am all for change and I recognise that the agriculture industry, more than any other, is going through massive change, but we should not change centres of excellence when we cannot put something better in their place. If we step back and analyse what is happening at Auchincruive, we can see that Scotland is losing a great opportunity.
We are considering different ways of managing our land and of tackling important environmental issues. That is why getting rid of an institution such as Auchincruive is being considered. What will happen is that, as the college is eroded bit by bit, the objective will be to lose Auchincruive. That should not be allowed to happen.
I congratulate my colleagues again for proving their case so well.
Much has been said about consensus in the debate and consensus about the motion. However, it is interesting to note that those who have made speeches so far—apart from my colleague Fergus Ewing—have come at the subject from a particular angle, which is that of representing their constituents and constituencies in the south-west of Scotland. It is quite right that they should do so.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, but I want to make it clear that I do not support the motion. I want to ensure that a Scotland-wide perspective is heard in the debate. As I said, Adam Ingram and several other members who represent constituencies in the south-west of Scotland have quite rightly, on behalf of their constituents, made it clear that they deplore the actions of the Scottish Agricultural College in proposing to downgrade Auchincruive. If I quote Adam Ingram's motion, he said that it would become
"a mere delivery vehicle for education courses in association with Paisley University".
However, it has not been made clear so far that the plans that the Scottish Agricultural College has announced for Auchincruive are part of a robust major restructuring plan. The college sees the plan as addressing a problem that is faced not only by the south-west of Scotland but by the whole of Scotland.
The restructuring plan has been produced as a result of hugely difficult market conditions. The SAC is after all, a helpmate in the economic development of the rural economy throughout Scotland. I know that the SAC values immensely the working relationships that it has established with the University of Aberdeen, the University of Edinburgh and the University of Paisley. We should be very careful about MSPs from the south-west making an understandable rush to protect Auchincruive.
I appreciate that Mike Rumbles is opposed to the motion, but will he support my suggestion that an independent audit be carried out before the situation proceeds? Would he welcome such an announcement from the minister?
Mr Rumbles is on his last minute.
I will come to the point that was made by Fergus Ewing. I support his suggestion. I am simply saying that we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water and put at risk everything that has been done so far. I know the SAC and am sure that it would be willing to pause in developing its plans in order to enable another look to be taken. I commend that reasonable approach to the minister and I hope that the Scottish Executive and the minister will assist in that process.
Everyone must be assured that the SAC's plans are the right ones. However, if the minister wants to undertake a further review, he must do so quickly if the rural economy throughout Scotland is to be properly and effectively supported.
I apologise to David Mundell and Jamie McGrigor, who were beaten by the clock. Minister, you have until 18:00 to respond to the debate.
I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing this important debate.
I should start by saying that I regret deeply the handling of the issue. I do not find it helpful for a management group to conduct the potential restructuring of an important Scottish institution through the columns of the press. With all due respect to Adam Ingram, that means that we are conducting the debate in a vacuum, because we are not in possession of all the necessary facts. That said, Mr Ingram is properly expressing real concerns about the implied threat in the statements that have been made.
Alex Neil raised the question of the SAC's relation both to the economy and to the Scottish Executive, which is an issue that I have been considering for some time. At this point, I do not wish to become partisan, because the debate has been very harmonious. However, five, six or seven years ago, it was suggested that the SAC ought to have a more independent role and that, apart from generating income from its service facility, it ought to be more self-funding. I feel that that approach has left the college out in its own pool; it is not so much that it is a creature of Government that delivers policy, but that it is not quite capable of financing itself because of its multifunctional role.
I am reluctant to consider transferring responsibility for Auchincruive to the educational funding councils, because of the historic link between the functions of the SAC and the Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes. Much of the pure research that was carried out in the Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes was given a practical application through the operation of the SAC.
I want to take a moment to put the SAC into context. I appreciate that, because of their interests, members are especially concerned about the Auchincruive campus. However, I do not agree that people abroad or furth of Scotland understand us if we mention Auchincruive, but do not know what we are talking about if we mention the SAC. I am sorry, but that is not the case. I can tell members that people in Ireland, Belgium and France very much recognise the SAC for its work. Indeed, in Ireland, much of the way in which Bord Bia operates is modelled on the SAC.
Let me make it clear that the SAC is a national asset that makes a huge contribution to the rural economy. For much of its recent life, it has occupied a niche in transferring knowledge to that economy. Moreover, it is the largest single provider of vocational degrees and it carries out research. I should add that it is also the largest single provider of consultancy services in rural economies. Those functions are extremely important for the whole of Scotland. Through its veterinary service, the SAC is also the mainstay of Scotland's contribution to national disease surveillance. As a result, we must acknowledge that the SAC makes a huge contribution.
The difficulty is that the SAC's activities are conducted on three sites. However, because of the contribution that those sites make, my department continues to invest heavily in the college's three functions. We are the SAC's biggest single client and we provide it with £18 million of recurrent funding each year.
However, there can be no room for complacency. We must recognise that criticisms have been made and that there have been difficulties in the college. There has been criticism of the way in which the college has delivered the entirety of its educational function—I am talking about the SAC as a whole. There has been criticism of the quality of some of its research and there has been criticism of some of the ways in which it has delivered its services. As members have said, the SAC is facing financial difficulties. As in any business, it would irresponsible for the board not to address those difficulties.
I take the view that any business plan should be placed in the context of what one believes SAC's objectives should be. Before designing a plan, we must understand what the college's future role is to be. The plan should meet the objective; the objective should not be ignored when drawing up the plan. What has happened is unfortunate, although I acknowledge that the college needs to consider a wide range of options and that it needs to examine longer-term options and solutions.
In due course, the SAC's proposals will have to be submitted formally to me for approval. It might be helpful to members if I set out the three key requirements that will be uppermost in my mind when considering those. First, the SAC will have to have agreed with its major stakeholders a clear view of its objectives. That is essential if the college is to make itself fit for purpose. Taking account of clients' needs will be an essential part of the process.
Secondly, the SAC will need to have examined the range of options that are open to it and to have set out convincingly the case for any preferred option.
Thirdly, worthwhile proposals will have to pass the tests of quality, relevance to the Scottish agricultural strategy and—of course—value for money.
Will the minister give way?
I will give way to the member when I have finished making my point.
Some days ago, I asked the SAC to pause to consider exactly what it is trying to produce and to take account of the criteria that I have just set out. Within that framework, those who wish to advance the case for Auchincruive will have an opportunity to do so.
Among the criteria that the minister mentioned, I did not hear the significance of job dispersal for rural development. Is that one of the considerations that he will bear in mind? Clearly, moving jobs to Aberdeen or Edinburgh will not further that objective.
I have set out my principal criteria. I am very concerned that jobs should be properly dispersed throughout rural Scotland. However, my real concern in this case is to end up with a clear and agreed view of the SAC's objectives throughout the rural and agricultural community, in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the next 50 or 60 years. Time has moved on and I do not believe that the college can propose to close the facilities in Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Auchincruive, or make proposals concerning education, services or research, without making a decision on its objectives.
That is why, unlike Fergus Ewing, I do not believe that an independent audit is necessary at this stage. I want discussion of the college's objectives and I am told that Bill McKelvey, the new chief executive of the SAC, is very happy to have such a discussion. I also want the college to pause to think about the plan. I will then consider whether the details of the plan need to be further examined by people who are skilled at giving objective and independent advice.
I am very happy to endorse the important contribution that is made by the SAC at Auchincruive, but the remainder of Adam Ingram's motion is premature. It prejudges the outcome of the process that I have started and which has not yet reached a conclusion. I believe that that process will provide those who wish to put the case for Auchincruive, and to point out its merits, with an opportunity to do so in a proper, structured context.
I hope that members who have contributed to the debate find that to be a constructive response.
Meeting closed at 18:00.