Petitions

Paragraph 6 of the paper that members have before them indicates that a large number of the stakeholders who were involved in the discussions on 25 June were significantly dissatisfied with the proposals. I am not aware that any of the stakeholders that are referred to in that paragraph have changed their view. I have had representations from agricultural interests, the staff and the students, all of whom still regard the proposals with significant reservations.I have taken some trouble to go through Professor McKelvey's letter to the committee dated 16 September. I note that he has offered to keep the minister fully informed of the details of the business plan as that takes shape. The committee ought to monitor that carefully as well. Perhaps you could invite the SAC to keep the committee informed, too.I note also that, at the bottom of the first page of his letter, Professor McKelvey deals with the delivery of sub-degree education. He states: "Initially this will be by our own hand on existing sites, but moving to partnership delivery as soon as possible."As a consequence of that comment, I corresponded with several of the alternative providers who are potential partners. It is true to say that discussions have taken place between SAC and a number of the potential partners but, having spoken directly with Professor McKelvey and his deputy, Professor Atkinson, I think that it would be worth while to receive clarification from them of how that partnership delivery is to be achieved.From my reading of the letter, I assumed that the work would be subcontracted to universities or colleges, although it is rather doubtful that a university would be interested in delivering sub-degree level courses. My discussions with Professors McKelvey and Atkinson lead me to suggest that the SAC intends to continue to deliver those courses by its own hand, but not necessarily on the same site. The partnership that is being sought is with a place with the appropriate facilities where the teaching could be carried out. Clarification of that point would be helpful.The SAC does not appear to have considered the options that new technology presents. A big difficulty for people who want to continue with agricultural education, in particular at degree level, is the severe lack of student numbers and interest. The potential may exist for some of the appropriate coursework to be delivered by highly qualified people through the use of the new technology that is available, whereby classes can be arranged on different campuses and everybody can participate at the same time. That solution does not appear to have been considered, although other forms of distance learning seem to have been. Such developments could well mean that students who might have done only the first two years at Auchincruive or Craibstone could continue to do years 3 and 4 at those sites. That approach to education would be much more collegiate, rather than one that takes people away from their families and communities for the delivery of the last stage of their higher education.That approach does not appear to have been considered, but staff and students have suggested it to me and I would like it to be explored. I know that some potential partners would be willing to come and talk to the committee. I would be happy to advise the clerks about that after the meeting, if the committee so wishes.There is general acknowledgement of overcapacity on all campuses. In his letter, Professor McKelvey refers to overcapacity at Craibstone. I am pleased to say that he has promised to work with local councils, politicians and the enterprise company to develop the estate in partnership with other organisations. That appears to be happening. There has been a change of atmosphere that I welcome. It is also generally acknowledged that developments on landholdings at Craibstone could be advantageous and would not necessarily adversely affect the capacity of the college to deliver research and development, teaching or advisory work.I would prefer the committee to go with option A. The committee may be interested to know that, in response to written question S2W-3653, I learned that the student head count this year is 213 at Aberdeen—which is up from previous years, in spite of the doom and gloom of some members of the SAC's management team. The figure for Ayr, which is 376, is up as well. However, the picture from the SAC's preferred site for the concentration of education in future—Edinburgh—shows that the numbers are down, at only 130 students. That does not exactly support the idea that Edinburgh is an attractive campus or the idea that students would be willing to move to the area in the future. I hope that the committee will go for option A.

I do not think that we want to rehearse all the arguments for and against the various sites. However, some letters that we have received in the past couple of days suggest that the consultation that the minister was hoping for either has not taken place or has taken place in a manner that was not particularly helpful. Option A is appropriate but, in the immediate future, it is unlikely that we will have time to carry out what it suggests. However, the SAC's business plan is published in March and that would be a suitable time for us to reconsider some of the issues. We would be able to look back over a number of months and consider whether things had gone as we might have expected them to go. In March, we might be better able to fit such consideration into our work programme.