Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 29, 2003

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

Scottish Agricultural College

The final item of business today is the members' business debate on motion S2M-10, in the name of Adam Ingram, on the Scottish Agricultural College. The debate will be concluded without a question being put. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I am already horrified by the long list of names on screen.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament views with concern the plans by the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) board to move the college's teaching and research services from Auchincruive, Ayrshire and Craibstone, Aberdeen to Edinburgh; believes that there should be a full economic impact assessment that takes into account the effect that this move would have on students, staff and local communities before the proposal is approved by the Scottish Executive; questions the methodology used by the consultants in their review and report, and considers that there should be a halt to the movement of staff from the SAC campuses in Ayrshire and Aberdeen to Edinburgh, which runs contrary to the Scottish Executive's policy of dispersing agency and department jobs and offices outwith the central belt, until proper scrutiny is carried out by the Parliament and its committees.

It is with a mixture of anger and dismay that I rise to speak to the motion. Those feelings are shared across the spectrum of the SAC's stakeholders in Scotland and among staff, students and rural communities throughout the country who have bought into the SAC's mission to enhance the sustainability of our land-based industries, and into its vision to be a focus in Scotland for innovation and the transfer of knowledge to those industries. They are angry at the performance of an inept board—largely self-appointed and unaccountable as it is—and a succession of senior managers who have failed to rise to the challenge of change, to the point at which the financial viability of the whole operation is seriously under threat.

Those people are also dismayed that despite the intervention of the Parliament and the Minister for Rural Development last year to stop ill thought-out plans to close the Auchincruive campus, the board has come back this year with proposals to close not only Auchincruive, but to close Craibstone in Aberdeen, with a view to centralising its operations in Edinburgh. What more intuitively absurd proposition could there be, that in order to promote the rural economy, we must close rural campuses in favour of city locations?

The proposals have an all too familiar ring to them. When the centre is in trouble, the solution is to asset strip and sell off the outlying parts of the organisation—even though they might be perfectly functional or profitable on their own—and to consolidate on the site with which senior managers are more familiar and comfortable.

I have little doubt that the process has been in train for several years; Auchincruive in particular has suffered from the erosion and transfer of research capability. Perhaps the most blatant example is the transfer of grassland research away from Scotland's principal dairy farming area. Not only have staff and facilities moved away, there has been a deliberate policy of disinvestment. The maintenance backlog at Auchincruive is estimated to be £2 million and at Craibstone it is £700,000, but the figure is only £350,000 in Edinburgh. What clearer indication do we need of the board's long-term intentions? Perhaps a ban on initiatives to realise development opportunities that arise from underutilised physical assets would be a clearer indication. Such a ban has been in place at Auchincruive for some years.

Given the background, I am disgusted with the board's attitude that, if politicians do not like the proposals, they must cough up more taxpayers' money to bail out the board. That said, we are where we are, and there are hard choices to be made if we are to secure financial viability for any organisation that seeks to deliver education, applied research and advisory services to our land-based industries. Given the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's responsibility to achieve best value from public money, he would no doubt agree. The question is whether the board's proposals are based soundly on an objective appraisal of all the available options. I will be interested to hear from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development whether he agrees with me—and many colleagues—that the proposals are not based on such an appraisal.

After his meeting with the Rural Development Committee just prior to the break-up of the Parliament for the elections, Ross Finnie said that he and his officials were asking questions about the underlying assumptions that are built into the Deloitte & Touche report. I hope that Ross Finnie's deputy will share with us any answers that have been received. I also urge him to acknowledge that the proposals should be the subject of an urgent inquiry by the new rural development committee.

Many stakeholders are deeply sceptical about the options appraisal and the heavy influence of the SAC's executive management team in directing and informing the consultants. For example, the projected figures for future student numbers seem to be particularly dubious. Where will the increase of 400 full-time equivalent students over the existing number of 1,100 come from? All the evidence suggests that removing Auchincruive, which accounts for 60 per cent of the student body, will significantly reduce demand for the SAC's educational services. The notion that higher national diploma or higher national certificate students from local further education colleges will transfer readily to an Edinburgh campus for degree courses flies in the face of experience.

The financial performance of a centralised SAC would be critically dependent on student numbers. Failure to reach the target of 1,500 students—we should remember that the campus at Edinburgh King's Buildings has at present only 115 students—could lead to losses that would make the existing deficit and debt look like a drop in the ocean.

In scrutinising the plans, the Parliament has a duty to take into account considerations that are wider than those that exercise the SAC's board and management. The impact on the wider community of changes to the structure of the SAC must be assessed. A recently released report from Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire revealed that Auchincruive puts £10 million into the local economy each year, supports 410 full-time equivalent jobs and is supplied by 198 local companies. Craibstone will, no doubt, have similar figures to report.

I appeal to Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, to resist the temptation to put his accountant's hat on, and to remember that growing the economy is supposed to be the Executive's number 1 priority. In that context, can the deputy minister flesh out the proposal that is outlined in the partnership agreement for

"the establishment of a Rural Development Institute"?

What relationship does he foresee between such a body and the SAC's rural campuses? It is time to think out of the box in which the SAC board wants to confine itself.

As the debate is heavily oversubscribed, I ask that speeches be kept to a maximum of three minutes, please.

I intend to keep within the three-minute limit in order to accommodate some of my colleagues.

I congratulate my constituent, Adam Ingram, on securing the debate. The Scottish Agricultural College at Auchincruive, which is in Cathy Jamieson's constituency, is an important part of the economy of Ayrshire and south-west Scotland. The impact of the recommendations of the Deloitte & Touche report on that economy appears not to come under the agenda of the SAC board.

I recently attended a meeting with MPs and other MSPs in Ayr. We were advised that an unknown—perhaps I should say "undisclosed"—organisation had requested Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire to undertake an economic impact assessment of the Deloitte & Touche report's proposals. My personal view is that that undisclosed organisation was in fact the SAC board. I would be interested to find out from Adam Ingram from where he got his information about the economic impact assessment.

In my view, the way in which the SAC board has conducted itself thus far is totally out of order, and I believe that no one in Ayrshire has any faith in the board. It is an absolute disgrace that public moneys have been used in a way that runs contrary to the new Scotland to which we all belong, which is open, transparent and accessible. I ask the minister to demand that Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire—a publicly funded body—share the findings at least with him, if not with local politicians.

Many opportunities are available on the current Auchincruive site. That fact is not new to the SAC board, although it has chosen to ignore those opportunities since it became responsible for Auchincruive in 1990. The three Ayrshire councils, the University of Paisley—Craigie campus—Ayr College, Kilmarnock College, the local branch of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the staff and students at Auchincruive, together with Ayrshire MPs and MSPs, have a vision that is built around the opportunities that are available at Auchincruive, which could secure the continuation of agricultural education and research and which could contribute to the economy of Ayrshire and Scotland.

Like many people in Ayrshire, I have no confidence that the SAC board can conduct a review in an open and transparent way—it would be required to publish the remit that was given to Deloitte & Touche in the first instance. I urge the minister to take those points into account when the SAC board makes its final recommendation to him later this year.

I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing this debate so early in the parliamentary session, and I endorse all that he said this evening.

I want the SAC to be prosperous and well run. However, I am well aware of the problems that it faces, and of the need to address them. They were first brought to my attention almost two years ago. That is why I welcome the minister's intervention on the restructuring exercise. I had believed that I would welcome the Deloitte & Touche report that followed, but that report did not yield what we, as politicians, had expected. Indeed, so much doubt has been cast on the report's value that it should be set to one side.

The problems remain, however, and it is for that reason that I called some months ago for a Scottish parliamentary inquiry into the future of the SAC. In my view, the Parliament would welcome it if the new rural development committee were to instigate an inquiry and prepare a report on the future of the SAC. I hope that the minister might be able to do something in that regard. Such an inquiry would have several advantages. First, it would introduce transparency into the decision-making process. Secondly, it would reassure us all that the £17 million of public funding that the SAC receives annually is being wisely spent. Thirdly, it would help the minister to come to a view about the future role of the SAC and the amount of Government funding that the SAC should receive in future.

In addition, we need to start considering other alternatives. For example, we could consider a future for Auchincruive outwith the SAC structure. For 80 of its 90 years' existence, Auchincruive was a free-standing institution of world renown—perhaps it could be so again. I share the view of most people in Ayrshire that it is unacceptable that the Auchincruive estate, which was so generously gifted by the Hannah family, should be sold off. Indeed, it beggars belief that Auchincruive's only value to the SAC is as an asset to be sold off to pay for the development of an Edinburgh site.

In addition, taking jobs and investment from the rural areas and regrouping them in and around Edinburgh flies in the face of the Government's jobs dispersal policy. The proposed transfer of assets from west to east represents asset stripping on a grand scale—

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

For those reasons, we need to consider a future for Auchincruive as a stand-alone site. Auchincruive could become the rural centre for the west of Scotland in the same way that a rural centre cluster exists at Ingliston. Organisations such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage could be encouraged to relocate from Ayr to Auchincruive. The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department might also consider moving from the centre of Ayr to the Auchincruive site. Commercial enterprises might also wish to locate there if a one-stop shop rural centre were developed.

Please wind up.

That would secure a future for Auchincruive in which student education could continue to be provided as well as scientific work. There could be an advisory service and veterinary investigation services. Indeed, given the close proximity of the Hannah Research Institute, there might exist the possibility that the area could be jointly developed into a bioscience park. The possibilities are endless and we need to be utterly positive about the future of the site.

I am sorry—

So am I, Mr Scott, because you are over time.

I will finish.

I welcome the cross-party support for a better solution than that which is currently on the table, and I welcome the feasibility study that is being carried out to assess the viability of such a future. I look forward to hearing other members' speeches.

I begin by congratulating Adam Ingram on securing tonight's debate and on making, if I may say so, a first-class speech. He hit all the nails right on the head.

Since the SAC board announced its plans, my office has been inundated with letters, e-mails and telephone calls from staff, students and members of the public alike. They are all horrified by the prospect of Craibstone's and Auchincruive's closure. The vast majority of those people have been at pains to point out the serious flaws in the Deloitte & Touche report. Perhaps the most important of those flaws is the fact that the SAC hopes to increase the number of campus-based students. However, the National Union of Students Scotland has pointed out that almost 80 per cent of SAC students are currently based at either Craibstone or Auchincruive. Many of those students will be unable or unwilling to move to Edinburgh.

Another problem is that none of the report's proposals is financially viable beyond 10 years or so. I, for one, feel that any proposals that will radically change the structure of the SAC in the long term must be thorough and robust and must ensure the institution's longevity. The proposals in the report simply do not achieve that. I therefore welcome Adam Ingram's call for a full economic impact assessment into the proposals.

The fact that the SAC board has endorsed the recommendations contained in the Deloitte & Touche report without consulting the major stakeholders is, to be quite frank, staggering—staff and students should obviously have had the opportunity to give their views. I also find it incredible that the Scottish Executive, which is the SAC's biggest stakeholder and provides 40 per cent of the funding, was not consulted.

I am sure that none of us needs to be reminded that the proposals are wholly inconsistent with the Executive's policy of decentralisation and of trying to widen access to higher and further education.

An inquiry by the new rural development committee is absolutely vital if we are to get answers to the various questions that need to be asked before the matter can be taken forward. At its last meeting on 25 March, the previous Rural Development Committee, of which I was a member, agreed unanimously that the proposals that the board of the SAC made as a result of the report were unacceptable. I still feel as strongly about the issue as I did then and I hope that the new rural development committee, whatever its membership, will take the same view.

In conclusion, we cannot consider the issue purely on the basis of the SAC's finances. There are wider implications for students, staff, local economies and the agricultural industry as a whole. Millions of pounds of public money are put into the SAC, so Parliament needs to ensure that any decisions that are made on the future of Craibstone and Auchincruive are made in the public interest.

I wish to draw to the attention of the minister a benefit that is unique to Craibstone and which the Edinburgh campus cannot offer the agricultural community—a fully organic farm with staff who are fully versed in organic farming and who have years of experience. A price cannot be put on such an asset; it is simply invaluable. I very much doubt whether the Deloitte & Touche report even considered trying to put a price on it. Many people will not appreciate the significance of the unique status of the farm at Craibstone or of the staff who are employed in the organic research facility.

Conventional farming is about feeding the plant; the fertilisers and the herbicides are put on to ensure that the plant grows and the soil is merely the medium in which the plant grows. In organic farming, the soil is paramount. Building a healthy soil is the first and most fundamental priority. Many years ago, the Soil Association insisted that there should be a seven-year conversion period to achieve organic status. The principle was that it took that long to clear the ground of artificial inputs and to rebuild it organically.

The fact that the farm at Craibstone has been organic for 10 years gives a valuable insight into how the organic principle develops and shows how fertility builds over the years. That level of knowledge and expertise cannot just be acquired; we would have to start again and it would take 10 years to reach the point that we are at at Craibstone. If the Executive has any genuine commitment to furthering organic production in Scotland, a 10-year gap to achieve that level of knowledge is just not acceptable.

I have been told that the organic dairy herd is to be sold in July. I urge the Executive to act swiftly to put that on hold and to ensure that nothing is done about the sale of the organic farm until there has been independent financial scrutiny of the Deloitte & Touche report. If the SAC is to adhere to the concept of openness and accountability, it must release the financial report for independent scrutiny and time must be allowed for further investigation into how the organic expertise at Craibstone can be maintained.

Craibstone lies within my constituency of Aberdeen North. It is impossible to overestimate the depth of anger about the proposals in the north-east, which is felt throughout the agricultural industry and by many others beyond it.

A number of major questions about the conduct of the SAC and the background to the Deloitte & Touche report have already been raised and many remain unanswered. As John Scott and Shiona Baird have suggested—and as I proposed in the motion on the subject that I lodged—they can be answered by holding a parliamentary inquiry. Such an inquiry needs to be conducted soon, because the issue cannot be left hanging around for ever and a day.

I am very concerned that assets will be sold off. Shiona Baird is right—the dairy herd is likely to be sold in July. I do not believe that that relates to the Deloitte & Touche report. The SAC executive is taking action that will undermine future possibilities. Options will be removed bit by bit; it is all about asset stripping. As well as the dairy herd, the unique organic farm at Craibstone will be affected.

Will we get value for money? The Executive is finally committed to the idea of the western peripheral route around Aberdeen. Craibstone is conveniently placed there. If the land is sold prematurely as an organic farm, as straightforward farmland or for another purpose, we will not get value for the public pound. The land remains a public asset. The western peripheral route will enhance values in that area. Indeed, the SAC has—rightly, to an extent—attempted to sell some land for industrial and commercial development, but it has not been successful. A hasty decision might undermine the SAC's future.

I am disappointed that the SAC is trying to asset strip Auchincruive and Craibstone to finance new buildings in Edinburgh. Craibstone has fantastic new buildings—the Ferguson building is ideal and was built to be fit for purpose—because the arrangement between the University of Aberdeen and the SAC failed. Those buildings cost £7.5 million, the bulk of which came from SEERAD. Will we have the same situation a few years down the road if the University of Edinburgh and the SAC disagree about funding? The proposed course of action would not be wise.

I am a novice in the issue and I am here to learn. Will Brian Adam explain whether Craibstone could establish the centre of excellence and the critical mass of academic achievement and research potential that exist in Edinburgh? Does he suggest that that could be moved from Edinburgh to Craibstone?

Mr Adam's speaking time has expired.

I accept that Margo MacDonald is a novice in the matter and it is nice that she also accepts that. A range of research and development is undertaken throughout the SAC. Some major work takes place at Auchincruive and some takes place in Aberdeen, including work with organic material and by the animal livestock group, which is scheduled to move to the Bush estate.

The critical mass concept is of dubious value. What we have are people who will not necessarily move but who attract grants. If the unit moves and the people do not move, will the grants move? No. The SAC undertakes three types of activity, including its advisory role and the research role—I acknowledge that excellent research and development is undertaken at the Bush estate.

I must hurry you, Mr Adam.

As others have said, we must think outside the box and produce an alternative solution. The way to do that is through a parliamentary inquiry by the appropriate committees.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it possible for me to move a motion without notice to extend the time limit for the debate, given that people are being cut off when they are just getting going?

It is possible to ask me about that, but I am not exercising the discretion to extend the debate this evening.

I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing the debate.

The SAC board's plans to shut the campuses at Craibstone and Auchincruive were announced at the outset of the election campaign. Brian Adam's predecessor in Aberdeen North, Elaine Thomson, was at the forefront of the campaign to keep Craibstone open and candidates from all parties met staff and students at a hustings to hear their grave concerns about the plans. I still share their concerns, because although it is clear that the SAC needs to rationalise, I do not agree that that means closing the Craibstone campus. Many of the issues that have been raised in relation to Auchincruive are echoed at Craibstone.

We must put in context the plans that have been announced. The staff and students whom I met at Craibstone expressed deep concern at the total lack of consultation with them about the plans, so the board was uninformed about how they would react. The plan suggests selling land at Craibstone when, as Brian Adam said, other developments in the city, such as the bypass, mean that the land will more valuable in the future.

Not all the financial data for Deloitte & Touche's report have been released to allow independent scrutiny. Apart from the plan's financial impact on the college, the Executive must consider the financial impact on agriculture in the north-east, which is an important industry in the region. I question how financially preferable it is to centralise the SAC's activities in one of the most expensive parts of Scotland. That will be an important issue for students who are deciding where to study. As John Scott said, such centralisation runs counter to the Executive's policy of relocating its agencies to other parts of Scotland. Overall, I question the robustness of the Deloitte & Touche report as the best financial option for the SAC. It is certainly a backward and bad option for farming in the north-east.

A lack of consultation with students means that the authors of the report have not learned that many will vote with their feet. Like Mike Rumbles, I received a letter today from my successors at the National Union of Students Scotland. It was pointed out that almost 80 per cent of SAC students are based at either Auchencruive or Craibstone and that many of them are unwilling or unable to study in Edinburgh. That is bad business for the SAC. The lack of consultation with staff means that their expertise and suggestions for alternatives to the plans, based on knowledge of the research being carried out and the education being provided, were not considered.

I was glad to hear the minister say that the decisions are not irrevocable, as I believe that they should be revoked. Craibstone campus should be kept open and better decisions should be made for the college and for the economic development of our rural communities, including those in the north-east.

My contribution will be brief. I have come to the issue in question somewhat later than many members and most of my knowledge of the SAC relates to its campus at Craibstone.

There are many excellent reasons for keeping Craibstone, which I am sure have been rehearsed in the Parliament in recent months. Equally, there are reasons why the status quo is unviable and why changes must be made in the near future. However, I have been forcibly struck by the very low morale of staff at Craibstone and their distrust—almost fear—of the SAC management, which appears to stem from a lack of transparency, informed debate and consultation between management and employees. Staff accept that changes need to be made in the SAC, but they would like to be taken along with management and not dictated to by them.

There are serious doubts and questions surrounding the Deloitte & Touche report, which is why staff are eager to see the financial data that were used in compiling the report and why they would like independent financial scrutiny to be carried out. They feel that the availability of the financial detail would make possible the exploration of alternative options. Through the deputy minister, I ask Ross Finnie to consider requesting the SAC to make available all the financial data that were used to compile the Deloitte & Touche report. That would go at least some way towards improving staff morale.

I think that we all accept that the status quo is not an option. We want the SAC to be a viable organisation and we agree that perhaps nettles were not grasped when they should have been a dozen years ago. However, I am deeply uneasy with the board's proposals, as it has not proved its case. Questions about the assumptions that underlie the proposals have been posed and have not been answered. To each question, the answer has not been, "We reached this conclusion because of A, B or C", but, "We considered this—full stop."

There is over-provision of built estate, but how can the answer be more new build? How many failing businesses cure their problems by building new headquarters? The number of administrative staff is noted but not examined. The recommendations build on a shaky foundation of proceeds from the sale of assets that may not realise the sums that are projected and the assessed value of which rests on, for example, planning permission for change of use. It was mentioned that, in many cases, the assets have been acquired through generous local benefactors. Assets such as the organic farm that a colleague of mine mentioned, a recently created golf course or soil demonstration plots that have been there for 100 years cannot be quickly or easily replicated.

The report argues for close working with other bodies. Local authorities and enterprise companies in the north-east have an immediate interest and considerable expertise in rural and agricultural matters. The Rowett Research Institute and the Macaulay Institute, which are in close proximity to Craibstone, are world-class institutions. The University of Aberdeen offers a degree course in agriculture. There is critical mass to spare in the north-east.

The SAC board may have arrived at the right answer, but it has not shown the workings. Until it can produce a robust business plan based on solid evidence, it should not proceed with anything that cannot be undone, such as the sale of its organic dairy herd. If it is certain that it is proceeding wisely, it should be able to prove its case.

I rise to oppose Adam Ingram's motion on the SAC. The issue is extremely difficult for the college. The basic problem stems from the SAC's establishment 13 years ago, when it was formed as a result of a merger of three colleges. Since that merger, nothing has been done to rationalise the accommodation of the services that the college provides.

The costs that the inherited facilities incur are huge. Let us be absolutely clear: no business or body that is partly funded from public resources can continue with four times the space that it needs at an annual cost of £4.6 million. That is a gross waste of taxpayers' money.

Will the member give way?

No. There is a lot that I want to say.

Following the board's recommendations, Ross Finnie called for the independent Deloitte & Touche report. It is now absolutely vital that Ross Finnie does not rewrite the rules because some members do not like the results of the report.

Let us also be clear about who makes the decision. The SAC is a separate company—it is not part of an Executive department. Its directors are required by law to take decisions that are based on the most financially prudent route for the college and that are in the college's best interest.

Will the member give way?

No.

Unless the college gets the position sorted out for once and for all, it simply cannot survive. [Interruption.] Members might not like to listen to what I am saying, but it is important that they do so.

The college has already cut costs by reducing staff, but the unnecessary overhead of teaching facilities at three locations simply cannot be allowed to continue.

The findings of the Deloitte & Touche report followed a consultation with 10,000 stakeholders. Those findings were clear cut, allowing the Executive and the SAC board to identify a clear way forward. Contrary to many assertions, rather than centralisation in Edinburgh, the study advocated a hub-and-satellite model. It is important to note that the SAC intends to retain its advisory services throughout Scotland near to where its customers—the farmers—are based.

Let me turn to what Ross Finnie said—rather surprisingly—about the decision being contrary to the Executive policy of dispersal of jobs. I repeat that as the SAC is not a non-departmental public body, the minister cannot tell it where to put the jobs.

Will the member take an intervention.

No, thank you.

The member is in her last minute.

Ross Finnie and Jim Wallace should be encouraging the college to do what is best for the college, which is research and development. The college's decision fits absolutely with the Executive's strategy on bioscience clusters. The ministers need to take cognisance of that.

Can the deputy minister confirm that the final decision will be taken by the SAC itself? One of the things that the Parliament has been criticised for in the past is that it has been swayed by vigorous lobbying into taking what are sometimes the wrong decisions.

The SAC is making absolutely the right decision. Agriculture in the 21st century is different from that of 50 years ago. The plan for the future takes into account the changes in the distribution and nature of agriculture in Scotland and advances in information technology. The Scottish Agricultural College deserves the support of the Scottish Parliament.

The minister has indicated a willingness to extend the debate in order to accommodate additional speakers. In those circumstances, I am now prepared to accept the motion that Mr Fergusson indicated that he was willing to move, if he will now do so. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] I was cardless. After your former strictures, I thought that I would remove my card.

I move,

That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended for up to 10 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

I ask the remaining speakers to take two minutes each.

I congratulate Adam Ingram on securing the debate. As Mike Rumbles said, he hit the button on virtually every issue that he raised. Many of the other speakers made points that I also wanted to make, but I will not repeat them.

I admire Rhona Brankin for standing up and saying what she said. She spoke for her constituents in the same way that many of us have spoken for ours. However, logic does not seem to be on Rhona Brankin's side. The fact is that we are talking about agricultural colleges in rural communities, and the closure of Auchincruive and Craibstone would certainly have devastating effects in those areas. Deloitte & Touche has not got down to the bones of that matter, and it must be addressed.

Despite that, I should remind Rhona Brankin that she has supported the Executive's policy of jobs dispersal. Although the SAC is not technically a Government body, the fact is that a major element of Government funding goes into it. As a result, the Government should have some exercise over the central policies and issues that it wishes to be addressed if the college has to be relocated and—as I accept—rationalised in order to live within its means.

One issue that has not been mentioned is the cost of property in Edinburgh, which according to a recent report is almost twice the level of any other area in Scotland. Given that, I do not understand how staff can be expected to move from Aberdeen or Ayrshire to work in Edinburgh. The logic is that we should move in the other direction, because doing so must have benefits for students.

I re-emphasise that members must limit their speeches to two minutes.

The fate of the remote colleges at Craibstone and Auchincruive has been driven by a matrix provided by the SAC board. The matrix contains 121 numbers that show the weighting and importance given to different topics that were chosen by the board—not by the consultants, who were told not to touch it. In fact, one need change only four of those 121 numbers to conclude that the answer to this situation lies in Craibstone and Auchincruive, not Edinburgh. That is what is called in consultancy-speak a sensitivity analysis. The consultants were denied the opportunity to carry out such an analysis; the Parliament should not make the same mistake.

Location and success are not inescapably joined together. When I was on holiday last summer, I visited the successful North Atlantic Fisheries College at Scalloway on Shetland, which is as far away from Edinburgh as it is possible to get. It is possible for Auchincruive and Craibstone to be similarly successful.

Location does matter. Edinburgh became a centre of scientific excellence, particularly in medicine, for the whole of Europe because the streets outside the chamber to which we will return next week were a cesspit of morbidity and ill-health. The cry "Gardyloo!" in those streets determined that the medical college came here hundreds of years ago. The same logic says that an agricultural college will flourish when it is next to its key stakeholders in the rural communities. Our environment and rural development committee must examine the issue anew, and I am sure that the matter is not closed in the Parliament.

I want briefly to correct a misunderstanding that seems to exist in certain quarters. Although I have received letters from many members of staff and students, particularly from Craibstone, I have also received communication from the same representative groups in Edinburgh. Those groups have sensibly suggested that it would be worth while to argue for a centre of excellence in Edinburgh that would have the ability to raise educational standards to the very pinnacle.

The problem is that that is not what Craibstone and Auchincruive are all about. My experience, particularly of Craibstone, suggests that the colleges have produced modular, broad-based courses that deliver to the local farming community and those who wish to get into the various industries. The problem with going for the pinnacle of excellence is that it does not produce such a broad base.

The courses at Craibstone in Aberdeenshire were delivered largely in conjunction with Aberdeen College's campus at Clinterty, where modular land-based courses were also provided. Sadly, Clinterty is already further down the road of removing farming assets: the farm there is in the process of being sold off. If we lose Craibstone, we will have no broad base or bottom to the educational ladder.

Those who take the courses at the bottom of that ladder are not those who are able to come to Edinburgh as students; they are 16-year-olds who are living at home or in college accommodation. As other members said at question time this afternoon, many of them are working the family farm part time as well as taking a course. That was the experience that I had with my son during his education. It is that broad base that we must be prepared to protect, and it is the modular courses, especially those available to 16-year-olds, that must be a priority.

In 1995, I lived for a year on the Craibstone campus while undertaking a master's degree in sustainable agriculture. It was an excellent course, run jointly at that time by the SAC and the University of Aberdeen. Even then, the reputation for research, teaching and advisory support on organic and sustainable farming topics that had been built up at Craibstone was well known in academic and industry circles. It was enough to lure me away from the Stirling area to relocate to Aberdeen, and I was joined on the course by students from as far away as Germany and Zimbabwe. What was pivotal to the reputation of the course was the quality of the organic teaching, research and advisory personnel clustered around Craibstone, and the fact that the estate has its own organic farm, which allowed research to be conducted and teaching to take place there.

I am deeply concerned about the proposed move, not least because the provisions in the partnership agreement could point organic farming in Scotland in a positive direction, but only if we have a first-class organic research, teaching and advisory cluster here. What concerns me further is the potential clustering of facilities around the Bush estate and the possible reasons that underlie that proposal. Unlike Rhona Brankin, I do not see the future of Scottish agriculture as being bound up in biotechnology, some aspects of which have little application in Scotland, little support from farmers and, more important, no market. In Scottish agriculture, where we should be responding to market signals, we must wake up and smell the organic coffee.

I support the motion and I urge the SAC to reconsider the options available in conjunction with the Scottish Executive. I believe that the success of the Executive's organic action plan may depend on it.

I want to make a couple of very sharp points. First, the Deloitte & Touche report is not an independent consultants' report that considers the issue comprehensively and objectively. A definition and remit were given to Deloitte & Touche to suit the answer that the board wanted in the first place. That done, criteria were selected and the board members came back in and, against subjective observations of their own—not objective criteria set by the consultants—decided that the answer was Edinburgh. Requests to the board and to Professor McKelvey to tell us which criteria the board used still go unanswered.

When I was in consultancy, people used to joke that consultants borrow one's watch to tell one the time. In this case, the board did not tell the consultants the time; they reset the watch to suit themselves. Rhona Brankin may have the idea that the Deloitte & Touche report is an objective report that can be taken seriously, but if she had studied the matter she would realise that that is nonsense. I am glad that she is no longer the minister dealing with the matter.

My second major point relates to the need that Margaret Jamieson quite rightly emphasised for an economic assessment. We have a wider responsibility to the taxpayer, and not just for the financial viability of the SAC, important though that is. We have a responsibility to everyone in Ayrshire and Aberdeen who relies for their job on those colleges and campuses. It is absolute lunacy to shut down facilities in economies that are feeling the cold and which are up against it and place all those jobs and all that money in an overheated Edinburgh economy. I understand that Rhona Brankin has to engage in pork-barrel politics because she represents an Edinburgh area. Let the rest of us consider the matter objectively and do what is right for the whole of Scotland.

Like many other members, I have had phone calls in the middle of the evening and so on from farmers, students and staff. We have all received the information and I will not go over a lot of what has been said in the debate.

Among the meetings that I attended was the public meeting that the SAC held at the Thainstone market. The meeting was chaired by Dr Maitland Mackie, who is the chairman of the SAC board and is from a farming background. I challenged the assumptions of the board; he did not like that. I challenged the assumptions that his staff team and his researchers, who do world-renowned research, would be happy to move; he did not like that. The suggestion that students might not want to move to Edinburgh did not go down well. When I challenged the assumptions in the report, he said, "This is not a business plan." This is not a personal matter, but if the board is saying that it has to have a business plan to go forward and Maitland Mackie stands up on behalf of the board in front of hundreds of people at a public meeting and says, "This is not a business plan," how on earth is the board fit to make the decision?

I say to the minister that he has an involvement in the matter because he provides the SAC with 40 per cent of its revenue. Many members have asked for the new rural development committee to examine the issue; the Parliament has a right to examine it on behalf of all the people of Scotland. The fact is that at that public meeting Maitland Mackie said that it was "over to the politicians". If that is the view of the board chairman, he should give the matter to us to deal with in a parliamentary committee.

Brian Pack, who runs the biggest farming co-operative in Scotland, the ANM Group Ltd, which is situated just up the road from the Craibstone site, stated in The Press and Journal recently:

"If we lose Craibstone, then SAC also loses something precious and that is something that is not captured in the figures."

That sentiment is shared by Aberdeen City Council, which passed a motion opposing the closure of Craibstone; Aberdeenshire Council; Moray Council; the local agricultural advisory committee; and the staff and students at Craibstone and Auchincruive, who are also opposed to the proposal. That is one of the reasons why so many MSPs have turned out for the debate and why there is such a high demand to speak from members who represent areas the length and breadth of Scotland.

I support the comment made by Alex Neil that we must consider not only the economics of one site against another site, but the economic cost to local communities, because any savings from closing the wrong sites will have an economic cost. In the north-east of Scotland, the situation that other rural industries currently face is a problem.

I will address the education aspect of the debate, as not too much time has been devoted to that matter. The proposal that is on the table to split the teaching element from the advisory and research elements is wrong because it means that the quality of education will deteriorate. The synergy of having advisers and researchers working with the teaching side is valuable and that would be lost under the consultants' proposal. We cannot consider only the salvage costs of the sites when taking the decision. The consultants admitted to the Rural Development Committee that the fact that more cash would be gained from selling Craibstone, because it is a valuable piece of land, is the factor that disadvantaged Craibstone.

It is imperative that the minister takes a hands-on approach to the issue and that the new rural development committee—I hope along with the education committee—launches an inquiry into the issue.

I thank all members for their co-operation in enabling all those who wanted to speak to participate in the debate.

I thank the Presiding Officer for his generous agreement to extend the time available for us to debate this important issue. I suspect that even with that generosity I will not be able to cover every point that has been raised, but I make the offer that I always make in such circumstances to enter into one-to-ones with members on any matter that continues to concern them after I have spoken.

I add my congratulations to Adam Ingram to those already given by other members on securing this important debate. It mirrors his success in securing a similar debate on the same topic a little more than a year ago. I also express my personal gratitude to Cathy Jamieson, who is sitting on my left-hand side, for her continued interest in the SAC and for her contribution to developing policy in her capacity as the constituency MSP in Auchincruive.

At the time when Adam Ingram lodged the motion in response to the SAC's continuing financial and operational problems, Ross Finnie asked the college to conduct a review of the services that it should be aiming to provide and then to conduct an appraisal of the options for delivering those services. The SAC engaged the external consultants Deloitte & Touche to assist with that work. Following extensive consultation with stakeholders, the consultants produced the first of two reports in October. As a result of that, Ross Finnie and I reaffirmed the need for the Scottish Agricultural College to complete an analysis of its education markets and, importantly, to provide a clear education strategy, which is the overriding objective. We agreed that the SAC should proceed to appraise the options for the physical infrastructure that is required to deliver its education and research services. The SAC proceeded to appraise the options for delivering its services and published the first volume of the Deloitte & Touche phase 2 report in February.

A key issue that emerged from that work was the fact—which has been mentioned—that the SAC's combined estate was five times greater than its requirements. That meant that significant cost savings and economies of scale and staff utilisation could be achieved through rationalisation. The option appraisal process that was conducted by Deloitte & Touche was extensive and 10 different options were considered. Those options included all those that have been discussed tonight and others. However, the option that was recommended by the consultants for both financial and non-financial reasons was that the SAC should consolidate its campus-based education and research facilities in the Edinburgh area. That remains the SAC's preferred option.

The Deloitte & Touche phase 2 report makes a powerful case for some form of rationalisation of the college's facilities. I welcome the fact that many members tonight, and others elsewhere, have commented to ministers on the report. The SAC recognises that the status quo is untenable and accepts the need for change. That said, there are concerns over the SAC's proposals, which I share. After careful consideration of the report, Ross Finnie and I raised several concerns about the college's proposals.

We asked the college to undertake further work on its education strategy and projected student numbers—the very ethos of the college's proposals. We also asked the college to set out clear proposals for how it will respond to local student markets where it plans to withdraw from campus-based provision; to revisit the financial assumptions to see whether any of the options could be made financially sustainable, as none of them is financially sustainable as proposed; to come forward with proposals to address the funding gap that remains in the SAC's preferred option; and to consult staff and stakeholders on its proposals—something that we would have expected to happen anyway.

Ross Finnie and I have asked the SAC to take those concerns fully on board and to come back to the Executive with revised proposals. I stress the fact that no decision has been made on the final outcome of the option appraisal work.

I am concerned—as are others—that, although the SAC, rightly, has not acted on any of the recommendations in the Deloitte & Touche report, it is acting on other matters, including the dairy herd and the farm at Craibstone. It has already issued redundancy notices to staff there, although it withdrew them. There are rumours that it might be about to issue them again. Can the minister give us an assurance that he will go to the SAC and ensure that no steps—not just the ones that are mentioned in the Deloitte & Touche report—are taken before there is an opportunity for Parliament to conduct an inquiry?

I will preface what I am about to say—which I suspect is what Mr Adam wants to hear—by affirming that it would be an injudicious minister indeed who sought to pre-empt any decision in favour of or against a parliamentary committee inquiry. That is entirely a matter for parliamentary scrutiny and for the committee. As the minister, I believe that the SAC should postpone any decisions on, for example, the disposal of the Tulloch unit until the outcome of the wider strategic review to which I have referred has been determined. That would also allow my department to consider the implications of possible dispersal for the research programme to which Shiona Baird and others referred.

We share the concerns that members have expressed about the option appraisal methodology on which the phase 2 report is based, and about proposals that run counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Executive's relocation policy. We also share concerns about the possible economic impact of the proposals and the wider economic impact that we, as ministers, require to take into account in the decision-making process. We also share concerns about possible pre-emptive decision making by the SAC, which would subvert the democratic process.

As should be self-evident by now, I am not here to defend the SAC's proposals. However, it is important—and I respect what Rhona Brankin has to say—that any debate and opportunity for comment are used to assist the college with the process of change and to help it to become operationally and financially viable so that it can provide the best-quality education to future generations of students. That can be done best by focusing on the SAC's preferred option and by challenging, I believe, the assumptions in the Deloitte & Touche report.

Perhaps I may comment now on specific concerns that have been raised. I think that Alex Neil is perhaps still a practising consultant; there is probably a better future in that than there is in nationalism. However, it is perhaps inevitable that there is always an element of subjectivity in the appraisal methodology.

What about my reports?

I seem to remember that some were more subjective than others.

Inevitably, there is an element of subjectivity in the appraisal methodology—for example, in the determining and, crucially, the weighting of the non-financial criteria. However, I am sure that Alex Neil will agree that the important aspect is to ensure that the process is balanced appropriately at the end. I, for one, am not convinced that that has happened.

On the economic impact, there is little doubt that the SAC cannot continue as it is—I think that I have made that clear, too—and that the scale of change that is needed cannot be implemented without having an economic impact. I repeat that ministers must take account of wider economic impacts than the simple economic impact to which the report refers. However, that situation is some way off and we await revised proposals from the SAC.

Nevertheless, as it stands, the SAC's preferred option runs counter to the spirit of the Executive's relocation policy. That is why Ross Finnie and I have asked the SAC to re-examine the extent to which it proposes to relocate services from south-west and north-east Scotland. That re-examination will include consideration of whether some of those services could continue to be provided in the Aberdeen and Ayrshire areas either by the SAC alone or in partnership with other organisations.

I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the time to address the points that have been raised. As regards concerns about the SAC taking pre-emptive decisions, the college announced last month that no irrevocable decision on the future structure of the SAC would be taken until the planning process is completed. On the question of who will take the decision, the SAC's public statements have indicated that a final decision on the matter has been taken. However, that is not so. The proposals require the agreement of Scottish ministers to the reinvestment of the disposal proceeds of surplus assets that were acquired with the Executive capital grant. Further, as members will know, the SAC relies on continued funding by the Executive because we pay for several of its functions and services. I hope that that answers the question that Rhona Brankin posed.

Ministers have concerns about the SAC's preferred option. We have asked the SAC to address those and to submit revised proposals. I urge Adam Ingram and every other member who has specific concerns about or who supports the proposals to register either those concerns or that support with the Scottish Agricultural College, if they have not already done so.

Meeting closed at 18:05.