Chamber
Plenary, 22 Mar 2007
22 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Crichton University Campus
I thank Alasdair Morgan for securing a debate on Crichton campus and I thank Elaine Murray for doing so on a previous occasion.
Usually towards the end of a debate, most of the important points will have been made, but I will not apologise for repeating some, because the arguments in the fight to save Crichton campus cannot be made often enough.
Over the past few months, much of the discussion has focused on cost, profit and loss. There are conflicting views about who holds the purse and who can save Crichton campus. The University of Glasgow claims that because the campus is making a loss, new students cannot be admitted in September, but the university as a whole has a surplus that is far greater than the current deficit at Crichton, so it could easily step in to save this valuable resource.
Given that Crichton has been up and running for only 10 years, it has not had a decent chance to bed in or to show its true colours in respect of what it can put back into the community. At the moment, the campus is not fully resourced—it lacks a students union, recreational and sports facilities and a canteen. If it were fully resourced, Crichton would be more than capable of balancing its books, so it should be afforded the chance to do just that.
The Executive has bailed out many a big business that has been in strife, but it will not get round the table with the University of Glasgow and the Scottish funding council to take positive steps to save Crichton campus. The university, the funding council and the Executive are blaming each other, but it is within their powers to step in and save the day, either individually or collectively.
The debate is not just about the current balance sheet; it should focus on the social aspects and the future. The fact that Crichton campus has a higher ratio of disabled students than any other higher education institution in Scotland means that it lifts barriers for many people and opens up the world of higher education to folk who would normally be excluded from it. As has been mentioned, we should celebrate that.
Crichton opens its doors to students who have families and jobs and to people who are carers. It offers a unique setting in which students feel supported and, therefore, comfortable and able to complete their education, which is about enhancing lives, expanding minds and empowering people. Crichton is growing the future—we cannot put a price on that, nor can we let the institution dwindle.
Is the minister aware that lecturers from Glasgow were encouraged to settle in the community, put their children in local schools and become part of the wider community? That was a good thing, but what are those workers to do if the campus is allowed to disintegrate? They made important changes when they brought their valuable skills and expertise to the campus in the name of education. What will be the effect on their families and on the local economy?
The Executive was made aware of the threat to the University of Glasgow's presence at Crichton campus in a letter from Muir Russell in June last year, but for some reason it has chosen to sit on its hands. It is now time to take action. I strongly urge the Executive, the University of Glasgow and the funding council collectively to do the principled thing and get their fingers out to find a solution.
Finally, I congratulate the students from Crichton campus who have spoken up, demonstrated and asked difficult questions of the powers that be, and who continue to fight tooth and nail to save their education and the future education of people they do not even know. I ask the powers that be, who are letting go of a unique and valuable resource, to please show the same courage and determination to save Crichton. It is often argued by MSPs that we need to keep Trident to save jobs. I strongly disagree with that argument, but if we apply the same principles, keeping Crichton will cost a lot less and will produce a much more positive outcome. I sincerely hope that the minister will tell us that a solution will be found and that Crichton campus will be saved, resourced and developed.
Usually towards the end of a debate, most of the important points will have been made, but I will not apologise for repeating some, because the arguments in the fight to save Crichton campus cannot be made often enough.
Over the past few months, much of the discussion has focused on cost, profit and loss. There are conflicting views about who holds the purse and who can save Crichton campus. The University of Glasgow claims that because the campus is making a loss, new students cannot be admitted in September, but the university as a whole has a surplus that is far greater than the current deficit at Crichton, so it could easily step in to save this valuable resource.
Given that Crichton has been up and running for only 10 years, it has not had a decent chance to bed in or to show its true colours in respect of what it can put back into the community. At the moment, the campus is not fully resourced—it lacks a students union, recreational and sports facilities and a canteen. If it were fully resourced, Crichton would be more than capable of balancing its books, so it should be afforded the chance to do just that.
The Executive has bailed out many a big business that has been in strife, but it will not get round the table with the University of Glasgow and the Scottish funding council to take positive steps to save Crichton campus. The university, the funding council and the Executive are blaming each other, but it is within their powers to step in and save the day, either individually or collectively.
The debate is not just about the current balance sheet; it should focus on the social aspects and the future. The fact that Crichton campus has a higher ratio of disabled students than any other higher education institution in Scotland means that it lifts barriers for many people and opens up the world of higher education to folk who would normally be excluded from it. As has been mentioned, we should celebrate that.
Crichton opens its doors to students who have families and jobs and to people who are carers. It offers a unique setting in which students feel supported and, therefore, comfortable and able to complete their education, which is about enhancing lives, expanding minds and empowering people. Crichton is growing the future—we cannot put a price on that, nor can we let the institution dwindle.
Is the minister aware that lecturers from Glasgow were encouraged to settle in the community, put their children in local schools and become part of the wider community? That was a good thing, but what are those workers to do if the campus is allowed to disintegrate? They made important changes when they brought their valuable skills and expertise to the campus in the name of education. What will be the effect on their families and on the local economy?
The Executive was made aware of the threat to the University of Glasgow's presence at Crichton campus in a letter from Muir Russell in June last year, but for some reason it has chosen to sit on its hands. It is now time to take action. I strongly urge the Executive, the University of Glasgow and the funding council collectively to do the principled thing and get their fingers out to find a solution.
Finally, I congratulate the students from Crichton campus who have spoken up, demonstrated and asked difficult questions of the powers that be, and who continue to fight tooth and nail to save their education and the future education of people they do not even know. I ask the powers that be, who are letting go of a unique and valuable resource, to please show the same courage and determination to save Crichton. It is often argued by MSPs that we need to keep Trident to save jobs. I strongly disagree with that argument, but if we apply the same principles, keeping Crichton will cost a lot less and will produce a much more positive outcome. I sincerely hope that the minister will tell us that a solution will be found and that Crichton campus will be saved, resourced and developed.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5726, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, on Crichton campus and the University of Glasgow....
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the work to develop an academic strategy for higher and further education in Dumfries and Galloway but, conscious that the failu...
Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I thought for some time before lodging the motion for members' business because I was conscious that the proposed withdrawal of the University of Glasgow fro...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I call Elaine Murray, to be followed by Murray Tosh.
Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
Five weeks has elapsed since my members' business debate on the issue, on 15 February, and I am disappointed that the proposed meeting between the Scottish E...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Murray Tosh has indicated that he will drop down the list in favour of his colleague Alex Fergusson.
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con):
Con
I would have been perfectly happy if Murray Tosh had spoken next, but I am happy to step in.I congratulate Alasdair Morgan on securing the debate. Although t...
Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green):
Green
I congratulate Alasdair Morgan on securing today's debate. It is important that we have another debate on the subject because, although it has been only five...
Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
I thank Alasdair Morgan for securing a debate on Crichton campus and I thank Elaine Murray for doing so on a previous occasion.Usually towards the end of a d...
Murray Tosh (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
As a former member for the South of Scotland, I would have wished to participate in the previous debate on the subject that was held some weeks ago, which wa...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
Does the member agree that a constructive way forward might be to focus on Dumfries and Galloway's teacher recruitment problems? Perhaps ministerial guidance...
Murray Tosh:
Con
That suggestion sounds perfectly sensible. I do not know whether ministerial guidance is necessarily the right mechanism to use, but I have no doubt that the...
The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
Lab
I congratulate Alasdair Morgan on securing this welcome debate, which allows us to continue to acknowledge the Crichton campus's important contribution to im...
Alasdair Morgan:
SNP
Should it be an objective of public policy that higher education courses of the type that the University of Glasgow currently offers be available somewhere i...
Allan Wilson:
Lab
It should be the objective of public policy to secure not a regional approach to higher education provision throughout Scotland, but an approach that determi...
Chris Ballance:
Green
Does the minister accept that there is a difference between higher and further education and, if so, does he accept that if one of those no longer takes plac...
Allan Wilson:
Lab
Through close working with Dumfries and Galloway College and other colleges, the newly merged institution will be able to provide strong transitional support...
Alex Fergusson:
Con
I hear what the minister is saying, but can he confirm for the sake of clarity that he believes that the quality of educational provision, to which he referr...
Allan Wilson:
Lab
I do not envisage the University of Glasgow's not being present on the campus. There is a danger in the member's point that he may be arguing that provision ...
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—