New Petitions

Petition PE653 is from Charlotte Gilfillan on behalf of students and staff of the Scottish Agricultural College. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider the issues that relate to the decision of the college's board to relocate its education and research services to Edinburgh, contrary to the Executive's policy of job dispersal from Edinburgh and to the detriment of the college's ability to provide services for rural communities throughout Scotland. The petition outlines concerns about the SAC's plans for rationalisation, including the closure of two of its campuses, at Craibstone in Aberdeen and at Auchincruive in Ayr, and centralisation of its educational, research and development activities in Edinburgh. The petitioners argue that the proposed changes are unworkable. It is a topical petition. Do members have any views on it?

I am a bit concerned about what the petition says about the Executive's policy on dispersal of jobs. I have constituents who work for Scottish Natural Heritage and have been involved in the battle over that organisation's proposed move out of Edinburgh. I support the Scottish Executive's view that there should be relocation to rural areas, but we must also ensure that we are sensitive to personnel issues. With the SAC, the reverse is happening. It appears that the policy is to bring people back into the centre of Edinburgh, which seems perverse. That is a point that we ought to make in representations to the Scottish Executive. We need to ask what is happening. I do not know what other members think, but that is one of the concerns that I would like to raise.

I have not seen the press release that John Scott has referred to, so I do not know what else Ross Finnie has said. It would be helpful if the minister were to give some direction on the issue. It is my understanding that the Scottish Agricultural College is directly funded by the Executive; it is not funded by either of the funding councils.

The situation is not the same as that of other institutions. If Heriot Watt University, to use my alma mater as an example, were to find itself in a similar situation, there would be a greater devolved responsibility. Given that, as Helen Eadie has said, the same minister is involved as is the case with Scottish Natural Heritage, it is incumbent on him to draw to the college's intention—if he has not already done so—what the job dispersal programme is about and what it is trying to achieve.I have been lobbied by constituents who work at the college on the issue of what the college's board of management is doing. I know that we received the petition in June and that the convener wrote to the college, or to the principal—I am not sure which. Have you received a reply?

The information that we got back was that the college noted the petition and would look for further information. There is no response to the petition.

We now understand from press reports that the board of management has postponed the decision.

My understanding is that there is a suggestion that the decision has been deferred.

That would be helpful, as it would give us some room for manoeuvre.It is important that we go beyond the issue of the education and research services and consider the wider question of the future of the college and its rural base. I understand that it is driven by financial considerations but its decision seems to be a strange one. I suggest that we formally refer the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

We could add that point to the recommendation that has been made: we could send the petition to the relevant committee and ask for clarification from the Scottish Executive on the point that John Scott has raised, so that we know where we are on the decision.

Perhaps we also need clarification from the college about where it stands. Has it made the decision or will it reconsider the matter?

Is everyone happy with those suggestions?Members indicated agreement.