Plenary, 06 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 6, 2007

Official Report 698KB pdf

---

Crichton University Campus

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-416, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on a sustainable future for the Crichton university campus. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to ask the Parliament to join me in welcoming the successful outcome that has been achieved to secure the future of the Crichton university campus. The outcome not only protects, but significantly expands, existing provision. It was achieved through the concerted efforts of a wide range of parties and it is being supported by the Scottish Government through additional funding.

The outcome actually exceeds the original objectives of the local campaigners. We have secured existing provision from all existing partners, including the University of Glasgow's liberal arts provision, we have provided innovative primary teacher education options for the south-west and we will support the postgraduate provision in the exciting new carbon centre.

The Government has achieved this outcome by addressing the issue with drive, determination and creativity. We dealt with the problem in the early days of the new Government because we heard the people of the south-west when they expressed their needs, aspirations and expectations. We see Crichton as a thriving and diverse centre of higher education that will contribute to the economy, culture and life of the region. We have equipped the academic partners to deliver that in the long term. [Interruption.]

Order. The member should not cross the floor. I beg your pardon, minister.

I commend the way in which the academic partners at Crichton and local stakeholders have worked together with the Scottish Funding Council to produce a shared vision for the future of the campus. The development of the academic strategy for the region is a key milestone.

The Scottish Government has committed £1.5 million a year, at full roll-out, to cover the additional costs of new provision and to secure existing provision. Additional funding will secure undergraduate liberal arts provision, with student intake to recommence from 2008-09; the development and delivery of broad-ranging four-year primary teacher training degrees; and postgraduate provision in climate change and environmental studies as part of the development of the new carbon centre. It will also cover unique infrastructure costs, which currently fall to the partners that operate at the campus.

I am particularly pleased that we will be able to deliver new provision of initial teacher training at Crichton. That will build on our aspiration to give students the opportunity to combine specialist primary teaching studies with a more broad-based degree. The fact that 20 per cent of probationer teachers withdrew from Dumfries and Galloway this year shows that we have particular circumstances to contend with in the south-west.

The solution has made long-term participation at Crichton financially sustainable for the University of Glasgow and the University of Paisley. The University of Glasgow has confirmed that, at full roll-out, it will break even on its Crichton operation and that it is committed to the campus in the long term.

I turn to the comments in Hugh Henry's amendment. I say to him that the funding will be maintained and is guaranteed and that funding for other institutions will not be cut to deliver it. On asking for guarantees, he, as a former minister, should surely know that ministers cannot direct or provide guarantees in relation to independent institutions. Indeed, Labour ministers regularly told us that on this very issue. What we can do, which the Government of which Hugh Henry was a member failed to do, is work with independent institutions to seek creative solutions. We have done that in this case. We have no powers to direct, which demonstrates just how remarkable the consensus solution is. The present Government seeks consensus; Hugh Henry's sought conflict.

The cabinet secretary said that, at full roll-out, the University of Glasgow's courses would break even. I am struck by one of the caveats in the academic strategy that was published at the same time as the funding announcement. Annex A states that the strategy will not be put in place

"unless there is sufficient demand from students, most importantly in Dumfries and Galloway".

What discussions have there been on that issue? What guarantee is there that if full roll-out of the University of Glasgow courses does not occur, a demand for further finance will not arise?

It is important to remember that the funded places are for Crichton campus. We are keen to ensure that the University of Glasgow maintains its position. It is essential that we encourage people to take part in the proposals for initial teacher training. One exciting measure that we can take in the south-west is to have the University of Glasgow work with Dumfries and Galloway College to consider possible articulation routes, particularly from the Stranraer campus. We can start to have a reach-out and to provide access to higher education in liberal arts and initial teacher training, which otherwise would not be available. That is a creative solution.

Will the minister give way?

I want to continue, because I have an important message to put across to the partners at Crichton.

I expect the academic partners to make their commitment clear to their students, staff and the people of the south-west. I want to see evidence of collective, shared and collaborative leadership that respects individual institutions but gives the Crichton campus a united sense of purpose. I will monitor the success of the partners in attracting students, not only from Dumfries, but from the rest of the region. I will also look to the Crichton Development Company to work closely with the University of Paisley to improve facilities for students and staff at the campus. I will take a close interest in the demand for the new concurrent initial teacher education degrees and in the success of the new carbon centre.

The high regard and enthusiasm for and the loyalty to the unique and innovative campus were highlighted throughout the campaign to secure its future and shone through once again during my visit to the campus last week. The visit was an excellent opportunity for me to meet representatives from the academic partners, local stakeholders, staff and students and to hear at first hand their views on the future for the campus. I also had the opportunity to meet founding members of the carbon centre and was impressed with their aims and ambitions for it. In particular, I was pleased to learn that the first postgraduate students at the centre will enrol this autumn on a course that is unique in the United Kingdom.

Before Jeremy Purvis's intervention, the minister said that this Government is seeking consensus whereas the previous Government sought conflict. I agree that this Government is seeking consensus, and I support that. I know what is happening: my wife is on the court of the University of Paisley. What is happening is extremely good, but is the minister not being very unfair—and is it not just a wee bit ungracious of her to attack, especially when Elaine Murray has been at the forefront of seeking consensus and a solution to this problem?

I am very pleased that Elaine Murray, Alex Fergusson, Alasdair Morgan and others congratulated the Government on providing a solution, but if Mr Foulkes wants to consider what is ungracious, perhaps he should consider the Labour Party's amendment to our motion.

I visited Dumfries and Galloway College last week. Work has begun on a new college campus adjacent to Crichton, and I believe that the relocation will help to deliver the potential to expand articulation routes with the colleges working across the south-west. I hope that that initiative, and others around Scotland, will help to deliver new models that will allow our students to access a rounded and high-quality education in their own localities. This is an excellent example of what can be achieved in rural Scotland through imaginative and committed approaches.

We must focus on the needs and expectations of people in our rural and island communities, and we must work with delivery partners to respond effectively. The Crichton model will not necessarily work in other parts of Scotland; different solutions will be required for particular challenges, but what we have demonstrated is what can be achieved through a shared vision.

I believe that we also have other examples in other areas of what can be achieved when people work collaboratively. The UHI Millennium Institute is a very different model from Crichton, but I would argue that it can be made to work for the diverse and diffuse communities it serves. I recently met senior representatives of UHI and Inverness College, and I visited Lews Castle College on Lewis. On both visits, I discussed the expectations and aspirations of local people for UHI and its partners. I made it clear that this Government shares those expectations and aspirations.

Let me reiterate the importance of Crichton to the south-west of Scotland. For the economic development of the region, it is important that opportunities to develop high-level skills are available at the heart of the region. That will be possible only if a higher education structure that works for the region is in place. I believe that Crichton can offer that to the south-west through an innovative and responsive model.

In social terms, it is critical that everyone can access and benefit from the opportunities available in modern Scotland. We must work hard to remove geographic barriers so that we can meet the needs of people in rural areas and respond to their expectations. By adopting flexible approaches such as the Crichton model, I believe that we can work with rural communities to achieve that.

In cultural terms, it is important that the south-west develops as a vibrant part of Scotland, making its unique contribution to the cultural development of the country, and drawing the benefits of that development back in. The campus sits at the centre of that vision for the region.

For economic, social and cultural reasons, it is crucial that all partners can move forwards with a long-term vision and on a firm financial footing. The development of the academic strategy and the additional support from the Government that I announced will ensure that those conditions are met.

There is a fresh wind blowing in Scotland. It carries with it hope, confidence and optimism. People want to respond positively to a can-do culture in Scotland. Hugh Henry and his Labour colleagues may want to skulk in the shadows of a can't-do culture in Scotland, but they will be left behind. The motion is about what can be done in Scotland with a will, with co-operation and with a vision of the Scotland that we want and can have.

I move,

That the Parliament congratulates local campaigners, including MSPs from all parties, on effectively highlighting the issues surrounding the future of Crichton University Campus in Dumfries, leading to a successful outcome; commends the work of the local stakeholders, academic partners and the Scottish Funding Council in developing an academic strategy for the campus; welcomes the allocation of additional resources by the Scottish Government to protect existing provision, help deliver the strategy and widen the range of higher education opportunities delivered in the south west of Scotland on a long-term sustainable basis, and recognises the importance of the ability of students in rural and island communities to access higher and further education.

I might point out to Fiona Hyslop that, far from being ungracious, we are actually accepting the motion. However, we are adding to it and, reasonably, asking for some assurances.

I will preface my remarks by reflecting on comments that Iain Smith made in yesterday's debate in the chamber. It is slightly bizarre that we had about one hour and 25 minutes to discuss the programme of government or governance—however the SNP wants to describe it—for Scotland, but have two hours and five minutes to discuss the investment of £1.5 million in one institution, albeit one that is important to the people of south-west Scotland. That is indicative of distorted and skewed priorities.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you confirm that the business motion that was presented to the chamber yesterday was endorsed by all members of the Parliamentary Bureau, including the representative of the Labour Party?

I can so confirm.

That was a bizarre comment by Mike Russell.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is absolutely true that the whole chamber agreed to today's order of business, but it is also true that any member is entitled to express an opinion on it.

I do not recall saying that it was not.

It is disappointing that, notwithstanding the significance of the Crichton campus to people in south-west Scotland, we can find two hours and five minutes for this debate but there has been nothing from the SNP on new teachers seeking employment, nothing from the SNP about a debate on discipline in our schools, nothing from the SNP about raising attainment levels in education and, frankly, nothing from the SNP about education generally.

Will the member give way?

No. The SNP is trying to exploit one issue for headlines, instead of addressing fundamental issues of concern in Scottish education.

There is no doubt that the matter before us this afternoon is of great concern to people in south-west Scotland. Fiona Hyslop was right to pay tribute to Elaine Murray, to Russell Brown, to you, Presiding Officer, and to other people in the area who have campaigned for the retention of a facility there. However, as the minister knows, there are complexities and difficulties associated with the issue, which she has had to address in her work to arrive at a solution. She cannot say that she wants to see evidence, that she will monitor the situation and that she will take a close interest in demand for the facility at the same time as saying that ministers cannot give guarantees or accept assurances.

I acknowledge the work that has been done by many partners to produce a solution, to which the motion refers, but if that solution is to be sustainable, certain issues must be addressed. Jeremy Purvis was absolutely right to raise the issue of future demand, because funding flows from demand and sustainability flows from funding. It is incumbent on the Parliament to ask whether funding will be maintained throughout the session and to seek assurances that this is not a one-off solution. It is right that we should ask for guarantees that funding is not being provided to the detriment of other institutions. I am glad that Fiona Hyslop has acknowledged that.

It is also right that we should reflect on whether some of what has been done, especially in relation to rent, may not make it easy for institutions to walk away from the campus, because they no longer have any responsibility in that area. I recognise the effort that ministers and all the local partners have put in and the anxiety and clear wishes that have been expressed, but I hope that nothing has been done that will frustrate those wishes over the next few years, that people have not been given false hope and that they are getting a sustainable solution. I also hope that people in south-west Scotland will respond and that there will be sufficient demand to enable us to deliver.

The minister will acknowledge that we seek not just a facility, but one that delivers quality—not just value for money, but an effective facility that adds value to the educational experience of the students who take up places in it.

I acknowledge the difficulties that the minister has had to grapple with and the contribution that many people have made in arriving at a solution. I hope that the solution will be sustainable and that it will work. I also hope that the aspirations of the people of south-west Scotland are met and that their wishes are fulfilled. Finally, I hope that what has been delivered will lead to the long-term delivery of education in that part of the world and that it will make a long-lasting and effective contribution to Scottish education.

I move amendment S3M-416.1, to insert at end:

"and calls for an assurance that this funding will be maintained and guaranteed and that this is not being provided to the detriment of funding for other institutions, and further asks for a guarantee that none of the institutions will be able to walk away from any aspects of this arrangement."

The issue of the future nature of the Crichton campus in Dumfries was bubbling away for a long time before it rose to the surface just before the election. It is good that this debate is taking place in happier circumstances than those surrounding previous debates on the issue in the Parliament.

It is right to recognise—as the Government's motion does—and pay tribute to the nature of the Crichton campaign. It was a cross-party campaign, and it was all the better and certainly more effective for that. I cannot think of many occasions when there has been solidarity between the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats. I suspect that such occasions have been few and far between—if there have been others—but there was a genuinely consensual campaign to save the Crichton.

What was happening earlier in the year was perhaps not the end of the world—the minister at the time said that it was not a crisis. That might have been true on the face of it, but symbolically and in respect of what it meant for the future of the Crichton campus it was a crisis and it was a significant issue in the south-west. Lessons can be learned in the rest of Scotland, particularly in rural areas, from what happened—and what is happening now—at the Crichton.

The campaign to save the Crichton achieved cross-party support in the Parliament, but it did more than that: it galvanised the local community in Dumfries and Galloway and it raised interest throughout the education community in Scotland. One of the main reasons for that is that the Crichton campus is in many ways groundbreaking. The cabinet secretary mentioned that the model might not be appropriate for every part of Scotland, but it might be appropriate in other areas and lessons can certainly be learned from it.

The campaign was not only a political campaign: the support of businesses, community representatives, current and former students, and the local media—including the Dumfries & Galloway Standard—played a vital part in keeping the issue at the forefront of the agenda before, during and after the elections in May. The outcome of the campaign was in no way certain. If we had asked the participants in the debate in February, or the many people from Dumfries and Galloway who turned up to watch our proceedings, what they expected to happen, I doubt whether many would have said that they genuinely expected a solution to be found. The complexities to which Hugh Henry referred were also referred to by the minister at the time. Undoubtedly the situation is very complex.

It is surprising that it seems that the beginnings of the fracturing of the political consensus came after the elections rather than before. There was almost more in-fighting between political parties after the election than there was beforehand, which must be rather rare.

The cabinet secretary referred to the potential that is offered by Dumfries and Galloway College. Like the cabinet secretary, I took the opportunity to visit the college during the summer. Some very exciting opportunities are coming there. Obviously, there are also many challenges—particularly in relation to transport links to the campus.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary not only for realising the importance of a successful outcome to the Crichton campaign for Dumfries and Galloway but for working to achieve it and for the genuine efforts that she and the Government have made to involve all local representatives.

The Conservatives are happy to support the Government's motion. We warmly welcome the progress that has been made: it is good news for the Crichton and it is good news for Dumfries and Galloway. That is not to say that some of the fears Hugh Henry raised should be written off. There are genuine concerns and it would be concerning if the settlement merely tides the Crichton over and does not lead to a permanent solution.

The assurances on the maintenance of funding, on the protection of other assurances—something that has now been dealt with—and on the protection of the terms of the agreement sound innocuous. I understand why they would be attractive to anyone with an interest in preserving the Crichton, but it is fair to ask whether the previous Executive, in the light of its actions, would have made such assurances—assuming it had been able to find a solution.

In the debate last February, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning said that

"ministers cannot—and neither should they—direct or allocate funding to a particular institution."—[Official Report, 15 February 2007; c 32261.]

It seems to me that the Labour amendment is taking us very close to such an approach—the party is taking a different path from the one it pursued when it was in government. If that is simply to tease out further information from the Government, that is one thing, but if it is a fundamental change in approach, members should know.

The cabinet secretary touched on the Crichton's importance to Dumfries and Galloway. The campus is crucial if we are to deal with the challenging demographics in that area—they are not unique, but they are probably some of the most challenging in Scotland.

For many people, the question will be, "Where do we go from here?" It would be easy to say that the campaign has been a success, that the problem has been solved and that we should move on, but it would be wrong to say those things. The campaign might have been about saving the Crichton—if we want to use that phrase—but there is much more to do to ensure that its potential is fully exploited.

Welcome though the measures that have been announced are, I do not think that anyone would say that they take the Crichton to its full potential. If we can get back to the successful cross-party and cross-community campaign, it should continue. We need to think innovatively about how the campus can develop, how it can attract students to Dumfries and Galloway, and how it can retain more of the local population. That is not just down to the academic institutions, although I concede that it is mainly down to them. It is down to all of us—politicians, the Government and the wider community with an interest in the Crichton—to allow the campus's potential to be fulfilled. If the Crichton campus does not fulfil its potential, neither will Dumfries and Galloway.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's previous commitment to provide a funding package for the Crichton campus, although hearing it for the second time is a bit like living groundhog day.

The Liberal Democrats are fully committed to the widening of access to sustainable higher education. We are committed to lifelong learning and we are determined to press the new Scottish Government on secure funding for the sector. I look forward to hearing the Government's position on the matter as I can find no specific reference to it in the recently published programme for government. In that regard, Hugh Henry's amendment is right to call for an assurance that the Government intends to continue support for the Crichton in a way that is not detrimental to any other institution that is involved in the campus.

I will move on to the future of the campus and the history of how we came to be where we are but, first, like previous speakers, I pay tribute to the cross-party consensus and the people who were involved in the campaign, including the students and academic staff at the campus. Their efforts contributed in no small way to the recent announcement.

We would do well to remember that, important as the University of Glasgow is to the success of the project, it is not the sole participant. The newly created university of the west of Scotland—the child of the merger of Bell College in my region and the University of Paisley—has never been less than 100 per cent committed to the campus and is determined to make it much more than just an experimental venture. In addition, Dumfries and Galloway College, the various agencies and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council were clear from the outset that the campus was no mere outreach project. It is regrettable that some of the senior management, particularly the principal of the University of Glasgow, did not take that view and apparently looked only at the profit and loss account as a means of determining viability. Would that he paid such attention when he was responsible for matters here.

I acknowledge that, like us all, the University of Glasgow must live within its means, but its senior management must acknowledge that, like us all, it has wider social responsibilities. In the case of education institutions, that is because we are the funders. It is the population of Scotland to which the institutions are answerable. Narrow self-interest is not the way for such an institution to proceed.

If the university is as pleased with the saving of the campus as it claims to be and if it is sure in its commitment to it, I for one look forward to seeing its long-term strategy for recruitment and marketing as an integrated part of the university's development plans, not just as an adjunct to them. I also look forward to learning what it sees as the break-even point. Critically, we and—more important in my view—the staff on the campus need to know whether the adoption of responsibilities for infrastructure by the other institutions will result in any job losses on the campus, where they might occur and when that might happen.

If Scotland is to compete effectively in the global economy, access to quality higher education opportunities cannot, and indeed must not, be restricted to people who live in or have ready transport links to urban or semi-urban centres of excellence or to people who have the financial wherewithal to move to such locations. Although the university of the Highlands and Islands offers an education gateway to the communities of the north-west, the opportunities for south-west Scotland, as represented by Crichton, had previously been thin on the ground. The fact that the people in those areas who seek an education gateway now have such an opportunity is to be welcomed.

We must also be clear about the value of the campus to the economic development of the area—which the cabinet secretary referred to—not only during the redevelopment phase but in the longer term. Even a cursory look at the constituencies that are close to the campus clearly shows the need for Crichton and the education opportunities it offers. According to the national health service constituency profiles in 2004, 39 per cent of adults in the Dumfries constituency have no qualifications. In Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, the figure is 31 per cent, while in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley it is 40 per cent. According to those figures, every constituency in the area is performing worse than the Scottish average—although I fully acknowledge that constituency members may have more up-to-date and accurate figures. Crichton is a vital resource for the area.

I believe that the challenge for all involved is to confirm their long-tem commitment to the campus, and I ask the cabinet secretary to extend her support for Crichton to the whole of the higher education sector by fully funding the £168 million budget increase request from Universities Scotland.

Of the three debates on the Crichton that we have had this year, this is by far the one that gives me the most pleasure to take part in.

I start by reiterating the importance of the Crichton to the economy of south-west Scotland. As we know, the dream went back to the original Crichton bequest in 1923, but it was not some idle amateur intervention in the professional world of education. The need for a university in the south-west was real then, and the statistics produced recently in the academic strategy show that it is no less necessary now.

We see, for example, that participation rates among people from the most deprived areas in Dumfries and Galloway are much lower than expected. We are then told that we should treat that figure with caution—I am afraid that it is the only available figure, so we will need to use it. Dumfries and Galloway has the lowest male participation rate for undergraduate students in Scotland. Undergraduate population rates as a whole in Dumfries and Galloway are lower than expected, and even the standardised participation rate is much lower than the national average.

However, the strategy also says that there is no high level of unmet demand for undergraduate places, so where do they go? The answer is that they go elsewhere in Scotland, predominantly to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Do they come back? Well, the problem is that a lot of them never come back. The fear is that those who go, and the more who would have gone had the crisis continued, are a valuable, skilled and young resource that is largely lost to the local economy for ever. That shows itself in our great difficulty in Dumfries and Galloway in recruiting professionals. Whether they are for doctors, dentists, social workers or teachers, vacancies down there exist longer. When there is a short leet for a promoted post, often only one person applies. That reduces the availability of professionals and the quality of public services and it hits the local economy. The local community knows those facts, which is one reason why the protest movement that members have described was so vociferous and effective. Rarely in my experience has any issue united so many strands of opinion in the south-west.

The minister talked about consensus but, fortunately, I have no obligation to do so. The pre-election period was deeply depressing. We had two debates on the Crichton campus. If Hugh Henry is worried about this debate wasting time, he should reflect on the fact that there would have been no need for it if the 1.5 hours of debate earlier this year had been used more effectively. If he wants to discuss other issues, there will be Opposition time next week in which to do so.

At no time in our two debates earlier this year did the Government give any commitment about the University of Glasgow's continued presence at the Crichton. A commitment on the Crichton campus as a whole was given, but that was it, and that commitment was never in doubt in any quarter. With respect to the University of Glasgow's involvement, there was only a ministerial wringing of hands on a scale that would have made Uriah Heep proud. It seemed that the ministerial strategy was to kick the matter into the long grass, let the University of Glasgow drop a year's cohort of undergraduates and say that the Government was powerless to intervene anyway. The strategy seemed to be based on the thinking that, after the election, everything would be a fait accompli. That is why I am delighted to congratulate the minister, who has achieved exactly what people in the south-west of Scotland wanted. We have replaced doubt with certainty, despair with hope, and contraction with the prospect of growth.

Oppositions lodge amendments to motions because that is what Oppositions do, but should they bother if there is nothing sensible to say? The Opposition is playing politics. It is trying to distract attention from its own dismal record compared with what the Government has done. It is seeking a commitment that no other university in Scotland has. It said in two debates that it could not direct funding, but it now wants us to do precisely that.

There is a more serious issue. When students and staff are committing themselves to studying or working at the Crichton, they do not want doubts to be sown about the institution's future. After a one-year gap in enrolment, there may be a credibility issue for some people, but the minister's announcement should help to dispel that problem. We should all work towards that end. It would be unfortunate if posturing by the Opposition caused anyone to doubt that the Crichton's future is other than set fair. Even today, Hugh Henry raised the canard that the solution that has been reached will make it easier for institutions to walk away from the Crichton project.

The original Crichton bequest talked about having a university for the south of Scotland as an autonomous institution, although in reality we are talking about the south-west of Scotland—geography prevents anything else. Should having such a university be a long-term ambition? The proposal certainly has attractions in respect of the status that the institution would have, but the current arrangement brings the prestige of the various participants in the project. That is why the presence of the University of Glasgow is vital. The arrangement possibly saves on administration costs and results in a wide variety of courses and possibilities of articulation. I do not rule out a university of the south of Scotland or university of the south-west of Scotland for ever, but I suggest that the medium-term and current priority is to build on the excellent foundation that exists. It is not the structure but what is delivered that is important. It is because the University of Glasgow's presence was an essential part of that delivery that its loss would have been such a blow. That is why retaining it is an achievement.

There is still much to do—we need to build up participation, particularly from the west of Galloway—but the minister has given us a good start.

I could speak about the Crichton for two hours and five minutes, but I promise that I shall not.

Back in January 2000, my Westminster colleague, Russell Brown, and I were delighted to accompany Scotland's first First Minister, Donald Dewar, to the inauguration of the Crichton campus in Dumfries. In his speech, Donald Dewar highlighted the opportunities that there would be for higher and further education institutions to work together and the opportunities that there would be on the campus for business and higher education collaboration.

It was more than an official engagement for Donald Dewar. He was enthralled by the Crichton campus, as successive ministers have been on their arrival. He was intrigued by the liberal arts undergraduate courses that his alma mater, the University of Glasgow, was delivering there. I recall that his officials became increasingly anxious as they could not prise him away from the campus and feared that he might be late for subsequent engagements. As one of those was a Burns supper, it must have been something pretty special to keep him away from a meal—as all of us who knew Donald well will appreciate.

The success of the Crichton experiment took even those who were most closely associated with it by surprise. Even in the early days, there were concerns over the sustainability of its funding. I arranged a meeting between representatives of the University of Glasgow and the University of Paisley in November 2000 with the then Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Wendy Alexander. She took us by surprise by announcing that she was allocating £500,000 to the campus, and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council awarded the first 150 fully funded places to the Crichton campus, split between Glasgow and Paisley universities.

As a man from Annan, Jim Wallace, who later became Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, also understood the importance for Dumfries and Galloway of having higher and further education opportunities available locally. Several members, including Alasdair Morgan, Alex Fergusson and me, met him to highlight the funding issues that were concerning us all at that time, and Jim Wallace issued a letter of guidance to the funding council—I think in 2004—specifically highlighting the Crichton as an example of good practice. Since the beginning, there has been cross-party unanimity in support of the Crichton.

I have just mentioned our meetings with Jim Wallace. Michael Russell might recall that he and I had a meeting about the issues that had been highlighted to us with Roger McClure way back in the first session. As other members have said, the degree of cross-party support for the campus has been exceptional. I should also mention Chris Ballance of the Scottish Green Party and Rosemary Byrne of Solidarity, who were vocal in their support for the campus in session 2.

I would like to add the name of Murray Tosh who, both as a Conservative candidate and as an MSP, worked hard with Elaine Murray, me and many others.

I am of course happy to endorse those comments. Most of all, however, it was the students who would not let the issue go once they discovered that the University of Glasgow might pull out of the Crichton campus. They demonstrated and petitioned; they undertook letter-writing campaigns; they e-mailed everybody they could think of; they visited the university senate; they went to the court; they went to the funding council; they came to attend the debate at the Parliament on 15 February this year; they marched in the summer from Dumfries to Gilmorehill to impress on Sir Muir Russell the importance of the institution to them. This is their victory more than that of anybody else. For myself, I just felt honoured to play my part.

I always believed that a creative solution could be found to keep Glasgow's undergraduate courses in Dumfries. I felt that the university was being premature in withdrawing this year's allocation and that it was not giving the time to create a solution. When the university asked for the sum of £800,000, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council did not actually say no—although it did not say yes either. It suggested the development of an academic strategy. The first draft of that strategy was disappointing, but the partners managed to get back round the table and, with the help of the Scottish ministers, an innovative solution was found.

I have no hesitation in congratulating the cabinet secretary on her work to achieve that. I thank her for her support in the previous session, including during my members' business debate in February. Saying that does not mean that I have changed my view about how Scotland benefits from being in the union, and I still do not see the need for some interminable conversation about the powers of the Parliament, but I will be happy to congratulate ministers when they use the powers of this Parliament to good effect, and I believe that the minister has done so on this occasion.

The Labour amendment takes up some residual concerns of staff and students and seeks reassurance. I have read it differently from how the minister has read it. I know that the Government cannot direct the funding council—I was told that often enough earlier this year—but I wanted the Parliament to ask the University of Glasgow to commit for the long term. We have all worked hard for Crichton, so I would like to hear Sir Muir Russell publicly saying on behalf of the university, "Yes, we are staying at the Crichton campus for the long term." We would all like to hear that, as none of us wants to be back here to go through another debate on the matter in three years' time. That is my interpretation of the Labour amendment.

The retention of the University of Glasgow was not for me about its being a prestigious and ancient university, but some snobbery has crept in at times, which has rather denigrated the contribution of the University of Paisley and Bell College. I commend Paisley and Bell for their commitment to the Crichton campus. Much of the good news about the amalgamation of those two establishments and their commitment to the four sites at which they are based was overshadowed by the bad news about the University of Glasgow. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as my youngest son is about to become a student at the university of the west of Scotland at Crichton.

David Mundell's comments about miracles were mentioned yesterday. It is perhaps not the first time that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland has made remarks that he later regretted.

The funding council and the University of Glasgow underestimated the people of Dumfries and Galloway and our pride in our flagship university campus. We would not roll over and allow it to be diminished. The prospect of reducing the campus created a firestorm that few outside Dumfries and Galloway would have expected. The new academic strategy is a victory for the people and most of all for the staff and students who campaigned tirelessly for the solution. As I said, we should make it clear to everybody in Dumfries and Galloway that they will not have to go through such a situation in the near future, that the academic institutions are here to stay in Dumfries and that they will expand what they are doing there.

I congratulate the Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on their response to the threat to the Crichton campus. They have turned a problem into an opportunity. In my short speech, I will suggest ways in which they and we can turn the opportunity into a renaissance.

We have heard much about exploiting Scotland's energy endowment—sun, wind and wave—but we must remember the endowment of the mind. In summing up his tumultuous mental life, our greatest modern poet and founder of the Scottish renaissance, Hugh MacDiarmid, quoted William Blake: "Energy is Eternal Delight". We, too, can exploit cultural energy and the heritage that it leaves. Rescuing and expanding Crichton is the right challenge at the right time, for the following reasons.

We can draw a circle with a 50-mile radius that has its centre in Crichton. MacDiarmid was from Langholm. His 19th century counterpart Thomas Carlyle—coiner of the "cash nexus" and "the condition of England"—wrote his greatest work in the hill country to the north of Dumfries. From Weimar in 1828, the great Goethe congratulated Carlyle on his Scottishness and remarked how national difference energised culture and its communication.

Crichton lies at the centre of one of the half-dozen great cultural landscapes of Europe—regions in which the blending of nature, tradition and intellect has had extraordinary effects. The Solway region is traditionally the debatable land, but it is truly comparable to the Tuscany of Dante and Michelangelo, the Weimar of Goethe and Schiller or the Geneva of Voltaire and Rousseau. This is the country of Scott, Burns and Hogg, and south of the Solway is the country of Wordsworth, Coleridge and Ruskin. This is the country of "Redgauntlet" and the literary ballads; of the great ballad tradition that can be measured against the Greek epics or the Hollywood westerns; and of tides of ideas. From the ideas of the Solway region set out the rechristianising of Europe after the dark ages and the reordering of a broken world in 1918—from Ninian's Candida Casa to Woodrow Wilson's Covenant of the League of Nations.

That is the inheritance. We must teach it, for our civilisation is in a tight place that requires intellect and not emotion—in Carlyle's terms, a "seriousness amounting to despair". That reminds us of the thriller, "The Thirty-nine Steps", and of old Peter Pienaar—Buchan's invention—who always said, "We must make a plan."

We should forget about the bean-counting that brought about the threat and think instead about higher education as a birthright. Scots such as John Anderson, Lord Brougham and James Stuart pioneered mass higher education. Forty years ago, in the Open University—in which I was a tiny cog—Scots such as Jennie Lee and Walter Perry married that to new educational methods and communications technology. Such methods are changing yet again with the web and e-mail, which enable the facilitation of niche markets, regional studies and cultural tourism. As costs fall, the potentialities for local communities such as the Scottish south-west increase.

The Crichton's and Scotland's future lies with summer schools, compact seminars and cultural projects that are aimed at the new kind of tourists, who come from educated backgrounds and want to contribute to second homes to which they feel they belong. We have seen how much the Celtic renaissance in Ireland depended on its culture as much as on pharmaceuticals or software.

This is an age in which higher education has gone walkabout. The innovations that I have mentioned do not cost much, but they take tact, co-operation, and a stimulating environment, and they are all actually or potentially present at the Crichton and on both sides of the border in the partnership that they foresee, which is one of good neighbours, not one of strictly laid down laws of sovereignty and the like.

This is our chance for a new type of Britain, or a new type of union between equals and neighbours. I hope that we take that chance.

I speak in support of the Executive's motion. My colleague Derek Brownlee has already paid tribute to the cross-party campaign that led to the saving of higher education at the Crichton campus, and I endorse his remarks.

I have to oppose the rather mean-spirited Labour amendment. I gently point out to my friends in the Labour Party—and to their Liberal Democrat colleagues—that they had their chance to deal with the issue while they were in government and they failed to deliver. Frankly, it is a bit like carping for them to be criticising what is happening now.

In the short time available, I seek to address a couple of wider issues that arise from the situation at the Crichton, the first of which is covered by the final part of the Executive's motion, where it refers to recognising

"the importance of the ability of students in rural and island communities to access higher and further education".

What happened at the Crichton campus highlights a wider issue. There is no doubt that delivering education in this way rather than on the traditional model of having a centre of learning on a campus comes at a cost. It costs more to have decentralised education. I hope that we would all come at the argument from the starting point of agreeing that decentralised education is a good thing. It gives people the opportunity to study closer to home. In particular, it gives mature students or those who have family commitments and cannot go down the traditional route of leaving their home town to study in a city or traditional seat of learning for terms at a time the opportunity to gain qualifications nearer to where they live.

Of course, to an extent, the Open University fulfils that role, but not everyone necessarily wants to follow the distance-learning route. People might prefer to study through a more traditional method. That is the sort of gap that the Crichton campus has filled successfully so far and will fill in the future.

This issue is not just one for the south-west of Scotland but is also particular to the Highlands and Islands. I followed for years and with great interest the campaign to establish the university of the Highlands and Islands to see where it progressed. I was brought up in the Highlands and, like many of my generation, when I reached the age of 18, I had to leave to study elsewhere. Far too few of my peer group returned to the area, and that happened in the Highlands for decades, if not for more than a century. Talent and people were leached away from the Highlands and Islands and that has had a negative impact. Alasdair Morgan made some similar comments.

The university of the Highlands and Islands is not restricted to the Highlands and Islands. The region that I represent has Perth College, which is part of the UHI network. It is doing a lot of excellent work in Perth and in outreach centres that bring people in from throughout Perthshire. Again, I am talking about mature or adult students who might not have had access to the traditional path of higher education.

The huge advantages to a town of having a university—the vibrancy that is created by the existence of a student quarter, the buzz, the energy and the spin-off from new ideas—are well documented, which is why it would be tremendous if university colleges were established in Inverness and Perth. Universities bring clear economic advantages. That is why the UHI project is so exciting, for Perth as well as for the Highlands and Islands.

However, funding is an issue. When the cabinet secretary winds up the debate, I would like to hear her say that the Scottish Government recognises that such a model of higher education delivery will ultimately be more expensive than the traditional, campus-based model. I would like the Executive to acknowledge the importance of such a model and say that it is prepared to bear the cost.

I will briefly address higher education funding as a whole. The cabinet secretary is well aware that university principals are concerned about a potential funding gap between Scottish institutions and those south of the border. Scottish institutions have been well funded historically, but the introduction of top-up fees down south has led to a situation in which English institutions are becoming better funded and—perhaps more serious—have a borrowing capacity to invest in infrastructure that exceeds that of Scottish institutions. The situation will be exacerbated if the cap on top-up fees in England is lifted after 2009, as it may well be.

The funding gap is potentially serious. We cannot afford to have the status of Scottish universities reduced as they lose qualified and talented academics to the south, where there are opportunities for higher salaries and better facilities. That is why we have called for an independent review, to consider the future of higher education funding in Scotland.

I acknowledge the member's call for an independent review. However, the outcome of the spending review is about to be reported to the Parliament. Will he support Liberal Democrat calls to fully fund Universities Scotland's bid for a £168 million increase in funding in the spending review, to ensure that the long-term situation that he forecasts does not come about?

I must defer to my party's finance spokesman on the details of the budget. Mr Purvis is right to identify the medium-term issue during the next three years, but the independent review that we are calling for would look further ahead. If the review were established, it would not consider the next three years, because it would probably take two or more years to report; it would consider the situation in the longer term after 2009.

No party in the Parliament supports the introduction of top-up fees in Scotland. However, if we are not going to introduce top-up fees, we must all address a serious situation and try to find another way to fill the funding gap. We must consider all the options.

I have addressed wider issues, but I reiterate my party's support for the motion and for the work that has been done by the cabinet secretary and the Executive in helping to secure the future of higher education at the Crichton.

I ask members to forgive my croaky voice. I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the debate and for meeting me, the Presiding Officer, Elaine Murray and Alasdair Morgan at the Crichton last week.

I will add to the list of great academic names of Dumfriesshire James Clerk Maxwell, the father of physics, who came up with a theory of relativity long before Einstein. I might take away John Buchan and James Hogg, who were Borderers and would have had no great link with Dumfriesshire—James Hogg was my old neighbour.

The Crichton campus in Dumfries has been the subject of one of the finest campaigns ever undertaken by dedicated students and staff. The Parliament should acknowledge their efforts. Very few campaigns in Scotland have gained support from all the major parties. The campaign grabbed the attention of the south of Scotland as a result of the campaigners' dedication, which was so great that they spent five and a half days walking in dignified fashion from the campus in Dumfries to the University of Glasgow—Elaine Murray mentioned that.

I am sure that the campaign will continue, because continue it has to—the eye cannot be taken off the ball. The Crichton campus is a wonderful example of how dedication and co-operation can overcome obstacles to the provision of liberal arts and other university courses in an area that, until recently, was devoid of such a valuable asset.

The Crichton has succeeded in attracting young people into university education from families where that has not been the norm. Importantly, it has overwhelmingly surpassed expectations in encouraging age and gender groups back into education, where others have struggled to do that. Praise has indeed to go to the Crichton for being Scotland's first multi-institutional campus.

With any co-operative project, buy-in from stakeholders is important. On this occasion, the stakeholders are many and varied. As other members have said, they are the University of Paisley, Bell College and, of course and importantly, the University of Glasgow. In addition, the stakeholders include the local enterprise company, the Crichton Development Company and—most importantly—the staff and students, not only those from the south-west of Scotland whom the campaign directly affects but those who come from all over to study at the campus.

The Crichton offers a great environment in which to work. To those members who have not visited the campus, I say that it is probably one of the most beautiful educational sites in the United Kingdom. It is therefore highly appropriate that new investment is being made in a carbon centre at the campus, given the south-west of Scotland's expertise in the forestry industry, which is aided by Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. An example of such innovation and past Executive support can be seen nearby at the E.ON UK biomass plant at Lockerbie, which promises to create 300 jobs in the area and to use an estimated 220,000 tonnes of renewable wood products per year to produce electricity. Of course, that was kick-started by the Liberal Democrats in coalition.

I am sure that most members and the wider public will agree with me about the welcome nature of the cabinet secretary's announcement of the extra £1.5 million. Let us hope that the Administration is not just handing out a token sweetie—although I could do with a sweetie this afternoon. The announcement may be welcome, but an assurance that no other education projects or institutions will suffer as a result of that movement of funds would also have been welcome. The cabinet secretary has addressed the issue to some extent, but I am sure that we all agree on the usefulness of seeing the exact details and conditions.

Marketing the campus is essential. I am sure that damage was done in the past as a result of uncertainty about whether the University of Glasgow would stay involved in the project. We heard Hugh Henry and Jeremy Purvis express their concerns about the level of future demand from students. I urge stakeholders, including the cabinet secretary's department, to come up with a detailed marketing plan for the campus and its courses in order to ensure continued long-term demand. Staff also need to receive assurances that no redundancies are in the offing.

We Liberal Democrats, students—past and present—and, of course, staff need to see the Government make a long-term commitment to the campus. We also need to see engagement from all the stakeholders, including the University of Glasgow.

The Liberal Democrats will not take our eye off the future of the Crichton campus and its long-term sustainability. The focus will not go away from the Crichton—ask any of the campaigners or the media. The Crichton campus is a jewel in the crown not only of Dumfries and Galloway but of Scotland.

As a South of Scotland MSP, I am delighted that the new SNP Government managed to save and develop access to university education at the Crichton campus in Dumfries. I hope that the local community will continue to be involved in helping to develop the campus in a sustainable way.

Until I became elected to represent the South of Scotland in the Parliament, my only real contact with Crichton was when, as a student at the University of Glasgow, I tried to borrow books from the library and discovered that the only available ones were down in Dumfries. I am pleased that the link with the University of Glasgow has been preserved and that the educational opportunities that are available at the campus have been expanded. The First Minister and cabinet secretary should be congratulated on their efforts to ensure that this level of education is available in the south-west of the country. The decision was the correct one. It is in keeping with the kind of Scotland that the Government wants to create—a smarter Scotland.

Others who should be congratulated are the stakeholders at the campus, including the University of Paisley, and the local MSPs who remained committed to Crichton, notably Elaine Murray, Alasdair Morgan, Michael Russell, Alex Fergusson and others whose names were mentioned in the debate. When some questioned how Crichton could be saved without amending the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992, and others suggested that only a miracle could save it, the new Government stepped in and took full, considered and direct action to ensure its future. That action is a good example of Government working as it should. There was no humming and hawing; positive action was taken. That contrasts with the previous Executive, which failed to deal satisfactorily with the precarious situation that the Crichton faced for more than a year.

Although the new Government can take some of the credit, it should not take it all. In addition to all those whom Derek Brownlee cited, quite correctly, as having been involved with the campaign, I note that the Crichton university campus students association ran an excellent campaign with the assistance of students and staff, which attracted attention and captured the imagination. As Elaine Murray mentioned, the students' passion for their place of learning was shown by walking 100 miles to the University of Glasgow, by producing a book of essays on how important the campus is for them, and by holding demonstrations and organising a letter-writing campaign. That tenacity and dedication should not go unnoticed by the Parliament, so I am pleased that the campaigners are given due credit in the motion.

We are an open Parliament and we are accountable to the people. We need to respond to the people's wants and needs, and to do so for the greater good of the country. I can only imagine how delighted the students must be with the success of their campaign. I say that I can only imagine because, although I marched as a student along with thousands of others, our calls for free education fell on deaf ears.

Support for the campus has come not just from Dumfries and Galloway but from across the world, which demonstrates the wonderful international reputation of the Crichton campus. The issue grabbed the attention and united staff, students and politicians in such a profound way because the campus has proven to be such a huge success. It has provided a useful seat of learning to those who would not normally have access to higher education. The fact that 56 per cent of the student intake comprises students who are the first in their family to attend university is hugely significant. It is also significant that students from more than 20 countries around the world choose Dumfries as their place of study.

The campus has also proven to be vital to the vibrancy and long-term sustainability of the rural south-west of Scotland. Providing access to further education and university education is essential if rural areas are to keep young and ambitious folk. As Alasdair Morgan and Murdo Fraser correctly pointed out, if that is not offered, young people will simply leave. With the announcement of new opportunities at undergraduate and postgraduate level and improved education, infrastructure and health provision, the campus has the opportunity to develop in an exciting way—as Chris Harvie mentioned earlier—that will assist the whole of the south of Scotland to flourish.

When the Crichton was opened, the previous Executive was rightly proud of the innovative nature of the project. The new Government is carrying on that work and helping to develop that vision further. If we want a smarter Scotland, we need to ensure that education is accessible to everyone, not just those who live near a city. When we find something that works, such as the Crichton campus, it is down to us to protect it.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Like others, I recognise and am grateful for the cross-party way in which the campaign has been run by students, staff and MSPs of all parties and—in some cases—of none. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Elaine Murray, who spoke earlier.

I should perhaps register an interest of sorts in that, many years ago, I used to live and work in Dumfries. At one stage—hard though it may be to think this now—I was a fresh-faced councillor on the former Nithsdale District Council. Although I am not a representative of the area today, I believe that the debate raises common themes about the impact of delivering higher education in rural Scotland.

The motion's final clause acknowledges

"the importance of the ability of students in rural and island communities to access higher and further education."

Of course, that has been a challenge in the Highlands and Islands for many years. In the context of today's debate, it is worth noting the strong collaboration that has existed between the Crichton campus and UHI Millennium Institute through their working together on the dental action plan. That is a good link to consider.

It would be churlish not to recognise the work of the new Scottish Government in putting extra funding into the project—I certainly acknowledge it—but we also need to acknowledge the other long-term issues in further and higher education. In the time available, I will discuss some of those issues and will compare and contrast the Crichton project and UHI, with which, as a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am highly familiar.

Like UHI, Crichton delivers higher education provision in areas that have been underserved from the point of view of local access. Both institutions need to be allowed to recruit more students and to grow to a viable size—size is a crucial issue in higher education. That can happen only if the Scottish Government allocates funding to the Scottish funding council for additional student places. For example, although UHI caters for just under 3 per cent of the HE students in Scotland, more than 8 per cent of the unfunded, fees-only students in Scotland attend the institution. It is clear that that is a disproportionate burden for a new and developing institution to carry.

In addition, further education colleges receive a funding premium that is based on island and rural remoteness, which, as many members have identified, recognises the higher costs in such areas and the relative inability of institutions located there to take advantage of economies of scale. At present, the same funding premium is not available through the higher education stream, so Crichton and UHI face similar challenges in delivering HE to island and rural populations.

Another point that has already been made, but which is worth stressing, is that although higher education for young people in rural areas is vital, we must not forget the lifelong learning agenda, which is about adults of all ages. It is extremely important that they have access to the whole skills agenda, which often requires local access to part-time provision to tie in with their employment and personal commitments. Crichton and, to an even greater extent, UHI offer innovative examples of how that can work in the long term.

Given that young people in the south and south-west of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands have left their communities in search of further and higher education, local provision is vital. A key point that is worth stressing is that universities exist not simply because they are nice places, but because they are crucial for the development of our economy, in that they carry out research and development and provide continuing professional development. Another element is the cross-fertilisation that is facilitated through connections with international academic institutions. Cross-fertilisation is extremely important and it would not happen if we did not have universities in the south-west or in the Highlands and Islands.

There are another three issues that I want to stress. First, sponsoring universities have a key role to play in further development. UHI has the University of Aberdeen, the University of Edinburgh and the University of Strathclyde. As has been mentioned, Crichton has the University of Glasgow and the University of Paisley—in which context Bell College deserves a mention in dispatches—as partners. Sponsoring ensures high standards in teaching and enables the building of strength in research, which is key for the future.

Secondly, we should never forget the crucial role that regional development plays. A knowledge-based economy requires strong universities at its core. Just as the south-west needs the Crichton campus, the Highlands and Islands needs UHI to reach the next stage of economic development.

Thirdly, we must examine quality. The University of St Andrews has proposed merging its world-class Gatty marine laboratory with UHI's Scottish Association for Marine Science to form the Scottish oceans institute. Such initiatives can be replicated at Crichton in the future.

The Crichton university campus and UHI are excellent examples of slightly different models of further and higher education provision for rural and island communities in the south-west and the north of Scotland and its islands. As I have said, I welcome the Government's package for Crichton, but flag up the fact that there remain long-term issues that must be examined. UHI needs to move to the next stage, which is the attainment of full university status. I will meet the cabinet secretary in a few weeks to discuss that further.

Living in rural and island communities should not be a barrier to education and training. We must keep young people in the communities in which they are born and brought up to ensure the future development of those communities. We should never forget the need to provide lifelong learning opportunities for adults of all ages so that they can maximise their potential. Education is the greatest agent of economic development. Long-term, sustainable solutions are necessary if we are to revitalise our rural and island communities.

Other members have already adequately expressed their pleasure—shared, I am sure, by the whole chamber—at the news that Glasgow's Crichton campus has been saved. With due respect to Elaine Murray, and despite the wave of self-congratulation sweeping the chamber, I do not think that David Mundell alone thought, in February, that a miracle would be needed to produce this result. Truly, a miracle has occurred and we should be grateful for it.

As a former medical practitioner, I have long been intrigued by the links between education and medicine at the campus. As Alasdair Morgan pointed out, Mrs Elizabeth Crichton originally intended to use her late husband's huge fortune—which, like the general practitioners of today, he had earned in medical practice—to endow the university of Dumfries on the site. However, that turned out to be impractical. Instead, she used the money to found a modern psychiatric hospital, which opened in 1839 under the unfortunate name of the Crichton Institute for Lunatics.

To understand fully the significance of this institution, we need to understand something of the ways in which mental illness was commonly treated in those days. Only a few years earlier, people paid to tease and laugh at the inmates of London's large mental institution, the Bethlehem royal hospital—or Bedlam. The mentally ill were treated with regular beatings and freezing cold baths and were often made to stay in bed every Sunday to give their carers some time off. Apart from the latter stipulation, it sounds a bit like the boarding school I attended many years ago.

Mrs Crichton had other ideas. She commissioned Sydney Mitchell to design a true asylum, with elegant pavilions set in idyllic parkland. Rich patients could have their own servants and gourmet food, while the poorest patients lived in dormitories and were fed gruel. However, all benefited from the beauty of the surrounding countryside.

The first medical superintendent, Dr WAF Browne from Stirling, also had modern ideas about treatment. Patients had a task for every hour, they had their own magazine and they took part in plays such as Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night". Activities included singing, playing musical instruments and studying languages such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic. The link with education was maintained even then, although the treatment, alas, turned out not to be very successful.

Although Dr Browne worked in Dumfries, he very sensibly took his Edinburgh-born wife back to that city when the time came to be delivered of her first baby. As far as I can gather, the delivery took place in a house not far from here on Holyrood Road, approximately on the site of the multistorey car park opposite the old Salvation Army hostel.

Mrs Crichton consented to be godmother to baby James, who was given the surname Crichton-Browne to mark the honour. Later, he became a medical student in Edinburgh and a president of the Royal Society of Medicine which, at the time, was based in a tenement on George IV Bridge. It was there that he gave his first dissertation—as I did, 100 years later. The building was subsequently demolished to allow the erection of the monstrosity that became familiar to many members as the temporary office block for the Scottish Parliament. James Crichton-Browne, too, became interested in education, specialising in the dangers of overeducating young women and earning a knighthood for his work.

However, I digress. Mrs Crichton would no doubt have been overjoyed to find that, 156 years after her hospital opened, it would be the home of the university campus that she had originally desired. By strange coincidence, at the same time, another of Sydney Mitchell's mental asylums, Craighouse in Edinburgh, was converted into the headquarters of Napier University.

Elizabeth Crichton had the foresight to appreciate the fact that the local provision of high-quality university education helps to keep talented young people in an area instead of forcing them to cities, whence many never return. The brain drain is certainly not a new phenomenon. That truth is even more evident today. The loss of the Crichton campus, or even a substantial part of it, would have been a disaster not only for the Dumfries area but for the whole of south-west Scotland. This £1.5 million is a fantastic investment in our young people's future, and shows that this SNP Government is for all of Scotland, not just the urban central belt.

I appreciate Hugh Henry's concern that one day the universities involved in the Crichton campus may pull out, even after £1.5 million of Government money has been invested—after all, he has had his fingers burned. He supported a Government that invested £50.75 million in regional selective assistance for the Motorola factory in Bathgate, of which only £16.5 million was clawed back when it closed in 2001, with the loss of 3,100 jobs. His Government also invested £13.1 million in NEC Livingstone, of which only £2.5 million was recovered when it closed in 2002, with the loss of 1,260 jobs. I say to Mr Henry that no one can guarantee the future, but nothing ventured, nothing gained—and Crichton is a fantastically good investment.

My party has kept its electoral promise and I am proud to be associated with it.

We move to wind-up speeches. I call Jeremy Purvis.

I, too, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, commend all those involved in the campaign for the Crichton campus and all those who spoke with passion and determination about learning in south-west Scotland.

The debate has been interesting. I thank Mr Harvie and Dr McKee for providing a history lesson. Two historical figures from my constituency in the Borders were borrowed to demonstrate the history of learning in Dumfries and Galloway. I make no comment about the mental health heritage of the area.

It is worth putting into an overall context the environment in which we are having this full debate on this one campus. The Scottish funding council published its report on Scotland's colleges' performance last week, from which it is worth highlighting some figures. Almost all students from Scotland's colleges—95 per cent—progressed beyond the first quarter of their courses and 86 per cent completed their programme. Of those students, around 80 per cent gained their awards or went on to the next year of study. Twenty-six per cent of students came from the most deprived postcode areas, in which 20 per cent of the population live. In the 2005 survey of students' experiences, 92 per cent said that they were satisfied with the quality of learning that they experienced. However, as Hugh O'Donnell pointed out, there is a need for further progress in the wider area that we are debating this afternoon.

The new Administration has inherited not only a higher education sector of quality, but a strong, combined further and higher education sector. Of course, the Administration also inherited the difficult situation affecting the Crichton campus in Dumfries. In 1999, the campus was a pioneer that had the laudable intention of bringing together providers of higher education and further education to ensure that learning opportunities in higher education were available in south-west Scotland. Inevitably, a pioneer experiences practical difficulties from which others learn. There are often difficulties around basic issues, such as bricks and mortar, shared responsibilities, maintenance and ownership. However, there are also difficulties around educational aspects concerning demand, provision and delivery. A leader and pioneer in its field must often overcome difficulties.

In my constituency, which has the exciting co-location of Borders College and Heriot-Watt University at the Borders campus, there was close scrutiny of the issues surrounding Crichton. As was the case with the example in my constituency, the package of support that we are debating today comes alongside an academic strategy—rightly so. Any investment from Government that is given to the funding council and passed on to institutions must be anchored in an accountable learning strategy.

One role of this Parliament is to set the overarching aims, and I know that there is considerable agreement across the chamber on that principle. It is right and proper, therefore, that the Crichton campus has an academic base for its future. It is also right and proper that the group that developed the strategy has 14 stakeholders and partners, with the University of Paisley, the University of Glasgow and Bell College inevitably being in the lead. Those partners are outlined in annex A of the academic strategy, which also includes a critical rider—a crucial caveat—that may cause some concern, but which allows us the ability to scrutinise. It states:

"Many of the details of implementation of the strategy cannot be described at this early stage. Some of the actions will require more work to establish their feasibility and exactly how they would be implemented. But the strategy contains nothing that we do not think we can deliver together."

Crucially, such a partnership will provide for the future success of the Crichton campus and other proposed models for joint education provision by the further and higher education sectors.

The funding and the strategy are welcome, but one of the minister's comments requires close scrutiny. The funded places will be for the campus, but there is no guarantee about long-term sustainability, because if the University of Glasgow does not fill all its places, it may continue to demonstrate a lack of financial sustainability and might not break even.

It is important that we, collectively, provide leadership to those in the south-west of Scotland and assert to them the long-term nature of the commitments that I have received from the institutions concerned. An institution does not embark on a four-year initial teacher training programme unless it is in there for the long haul.

I agree absolutely with the cabinet secretary. We should perhaps cast an eye to the Scottish Borders campus, where Heriot-Watt University, one of the principal players, is locked into an agreement that provides sustainability for 13 years. I wonder whether that was considered as part of the cabinet secretary's work.

The academic strategy sets out a valid rider, which I quoted earlier and will quote again:

"However committed the partners are, the provision described in this strategy will not continue unless there is sufficient demand from students, most importantly in Dumfries and Galloway but also beyond."

That is not defeatist and nor is it appropriate to say that parties that highlight it are in some way skulking. We are realistic: it is our duty as members of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the work of the Administration and of institutions that receive public funds.

Rural areas are often characterised by greater fluidity in student movements. We have seen a change in culture from the previous preconceived ideas about the type of provision that is needed in rural areas, some of which were held in the university sector. In my constituency, it was proposed to move the school of textiles and design from the Borders to Edinburgh, which would have had a considerable impact. Discussions with the Heriot-Watt University leadership at the time were interesting and alarming, with regard to how they viewed provision in rural areas as opposed to what they saw as a better market in urban areas. However, I am delighted that the university and its new principal Anton Muscatelli and his team support the Borders campus. I hope that the principal of the University of Glasgow and his team will replicate that and provide equal support in Dumfries and Galloway.

I am a passionate advocate of rural provision, so I am excited about the Crichton model and the Borders campus and other developments that may follow. We are not developing a university of the south of Scotland, but I hope very much that we will have a university of the south-west and a university college campus in the Borders.

It is regrettable that some SNP members have suggested that the developments are new and occurred post-election when, of course, they are not. I support absolutely the work of the new Administration in taking on the work of the previous one and the work of the south of Scotland learning strategy and the south of Scotland competitiveness strategy, which the Minister for Environment knows well. I trust that the new Government is as committed as the previous one to delivering those two strategies in the area.

Just because we are all committed to widening access to rural further and higher education does not mean that we should not scrutinise—as I said, that is our job as MSPs. The cabinet secretary said that where she wanted to bring consensus, the previous Administration had sought conflict. I am disappointed that she said that on the record, although I am not entirely sure that she believes it.

The co-location of Dumfries and Galloway College will cost £21.7 million and the Borders campus development that is under way will total £32 million, which means that more than £50 million is committed to those institutions in the South of Scotland region. All the parties, as well as the 14 partners, the public, learners and those who wish to take part in the exciting developments will be part of their future success. We cannot simply say that nothing happened previously, although we can be positive about what should happen in the future.

By this stage in the debate, it has become abundantly clear that the Scottish Conservatives warmly welcome the new Scottish Executive's—or Government's—announcement of additional funding for the Crichton campus, and that we welcome the emergence of the academic strategy. We continue to support strongly the excellent work that is done at Crichton, and we praise the spirit that has been shown by staff and students in their campaign to protect their institution.

Many people have praised MSP colleagues in the south-west who have done so much to make the case for resolving the impasse in favour of the University of Glasgow's retaining its status at the campus. If I may borrow a phrase that is usually associated with other political parties, and "speak up for those who have been denied a voice", I too pay great tribute to those efforts.

In the introduction to the prospectus for the University of Glasgow at the Crichton campus, Professor Ted Cowan, its director, says:

"As long as humankind has been resident on this planet, individuals have wondered about the meaning of existence, asked questions about the plight of humanity … and have speculated on whether there might be a better way of doing things."

In six minutes it would obviously be totally impossible to explain the meaning of existence, but it is right today to ask questions about the plight of people who live in rural areas and who may wish to take up the challenging questions that are encountered in higher and further education. On this side of the chamber, we will not hold back from suggesting that there is perhaps a better way of doing things. Wider lessons can be learnt from Crichton, including lessons on university funding.

I want to refer to the specific events that have given rise to this debate. At the time, we made plain our concerns over inaction that would have resulted in the withdrawal of the University of Glasgow from the campus, which would in turn have burdened the local area with further social and economic difficulties. The loss of young people to the cities has been a major contributor to those difficulties. Between 2001 and 2005, there was a fall of 6.3 per cent in the population of people below working age in Dumfries and Galloway. That figure is disproportionately high for Scotland as a whole, but it reflects a picture that is common in rural areas. It is imperative that depopulation be not allowed to continue unchecked; if it were, that would store up serious employment difficulties for the future.

Many of the young people who leave are intelligent and hard-working. They leave to go to university but never return, and although school leavers from Dumfries and Galloway are actually slightly more likely to enter full-time further education than those from other regions, only 12.7 per cent of those undergraduates stay to study at the Crichton. I presume that the rest study outwith the area. The problem is much worse for postgraduates, almost all of whom, although they are registered as living in Dumfries and Galloway, currently attend institutions outwith the area.

As the introduction from Professor Cowan that I quoted implies, the Crichton campus was founded on noble ideals. Giving rural areas higher education provision is not least among those. If both undergraduates and postgraduates are given opportunities to access higher education in their local area, it is much more likely that young people will stay put, for reasons of convenience and cost. Equally, some young people—who might otherwise have been put off entirely—may decide to attend university for those same reasons. If a rural campus is very good, it may even attract a significant number of students from further afield, although that is more of a long-term goal for the Crichton.

It should also be noted that campuses such as the Crichton are often the only means of providing access to tertiary education to many mature students, who generally have families and jobs and hence find it difficult to relocate.

The member makes a very important point: the demographic challenges of the south-west are considerable. Does she acknowledge that we have to provide access for mature students so that they can provide the professional services that will be needed in the area, and does she also acknowledge that the staff that will be needed in the campus, and the students that will be attracted to it, can help to provide a lifeline so that the demographic challenge in the south-west can be met?

The cabinet secretary makes a perfectly valid point. The security that goes along with resource provision will be extremely important.

There will also be benefits to the local economy in retaining bright young people in the area through their university years and beyond, in upskilling the existing local workforce, and in presenting local employers with easy access to a pool of very good-quality graduate labour, and to the technical expertise and facilities of a university.

More widely, we must add that the uncertainty that has been experienced over the future of the campus, however unfortunate that was, has bolstered the case for a wide-ranging review of the way in which all higher and further education is funded in Scotland. Sufficient funding must be provided and—as my colleague Murdo Fraser has said this afternoon—the provision of funding on a decentralised basis will be a major issue in the future.

Funding must be sustainable on a long-term basis—not just for a few years, but for a long time in the future. If we recognise that outreach campuses that offer a large number of courses to a small number of students in rural areas are desirable, we must also recognise that there is a need for different and much more generous funding. As well as supporting the cabinet secretary's motion, I urge her to turn her attention to the generous funding arrangements that must be put in place for all university campuses and all further developments in higher and further education.

Like all members who have spoken, I warmly welcome this funding solution, which we all hope will secure the future of Crichton campus.

The debate began with some rather ungenerous remarks, not just from the cabinet secretary but from all sides of the chamber. It is worth my repeating that the Labour Party accepts the terms of the motion but has sought to add an amendment to ensure that the campus is genuinely sustainable in the future. It is not a critical or, as Murdo Fraser put it, a "mean-spirited" amendment; rather, we hoped that it would be helpful.

Derek Brownlee pointed out that the campaign to secure the Crichton campus was and is a cross-party campaign. It is clear from today's debate that members from all parties are pleased by and relieved at the outcome. It is worth my pointing out that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have a positive record on Crichton. This debate is about not just the £1.5 million that the new Administration is investing, but the £30 million or more that the previous Executive invested over the past eight years.

Elaine Murray reminded us of Donald Dewar's delight and pleasure at the opening of the Crichton campus, of subsequent funding decisions by Wendy Alexander and Jim Wallace, and of the support that MSPs, including the Presiding Officer, Alex Fergusson, and many others who are in the chamber today have given to the campus. In particular, she reminded us of the campaign by students and staff to maintain Glasgow university's involvement in the campus and to secure its future. Before patting ourselves on the back, we should thank them. As Alasdair Morgan pointed out, the Crichton is now an essential element in the economy of the south-west of Scotland. The commitment of staff and students keeps it that way.

Aileen Campbell, Christopher Harvie and David Stewart highlighted not just the importance of the decision that ministers have taken, but the need to move to the next stage in developing the further and higher education institutions in the south-west of Scotland and the Highlands. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will have noted the cross-party support for such development and the benefits that those institutions have brought to their respective communities.

I will echo another point that members have made today. Although the funding decision is welcome, it is to be contrasted with the lack of certainty that surrounds the funding of higher education generally. Hugh Henry began by highlighting substantive issues such as the future of probationers, the schools estate and class sizes, which are crying out to be debated by Parliament. In particular, a question hangs over financing of our university sector. Murdo Fraser, Liz Smith and Hugh O'Donnell made the point that the new fees regime in England and Wales has created a great deal of anxiety in all universities. Will we lose staff and students to institutions south of the border? We really need to debate such issues and to hear the new Administration's views on them.

Despite today's debate and the welcome financial support that has been provided, there are still underlying anxieties about Crichton's future. I ask Mr Russell to expand on the cabinet secretary's opening remarks about the long-term commitment to Crichton's future of Glasgow university and other funding partners. However, given the cabinet secretary's assurances that funding will be maintained and has not been provided to the detriment of other institutions, we are not minded to press our amendment. We will seek the chamber's permission to withdraw it.

I thank Mr Macintosh for indicating that the amendment will not be pressed—I am certain that that is the appropriate step. It reflects the spirit of the debate today, which has been overwhelmingly positive, and it reflects the assurances that the cabinet secretary has given, not only in the chamber but throughout the process.

I pay tribute to the overwhelmingly positive nature of the debate. The only negative contribution came at the beginning from Mr Henry. Mr Henry exemplified in my mind P G Wodehouse's memorable remark that

"it is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine."

Mr Henry's approach was out of keeping with the nature of the debate, so I am glad that sense eventually prevailed with the charm of Mr Macintosh being applied to the problem.

On a serious note, I declare a number of interests in the matter. The earliest of them is that I visited the Crichton site more than 40 years ago to visit a relative who was an in-patient at the Crichton when it treated people with depression and other nervous illnesses. That was an upsetting experience for a child, and I remember it very well. The air of hope and the positive nature of the work that is now being done at the Crichton and the way in which it draws people in never fails to excite me every time I go there, because it contrasts so strongly with that childhood memory. Another interest that I wish to declare is that I gave the first public lecture at the University of Glasgow's site at the Crichton in 1999. Finally, I am proud of the fact that—although perhaps he is not—Ted Cowan, the current principal, was my tutor in my first year at the University of Edinburgh.

The Crichton is a place of amazing potential, which will be fulfilled not only as a result of the actions that have been taken by my friend the cabinet secretary but because of the tremendous abilities and enthusiasm of all those who are associated with it. We should pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned with vigour in recent months to ensure that that potential is not diminished in any way.

I am happy to pay tribute to Elaine Murray. She and I have had a strong and positive relationship on this and on other matters. I am glad that we have been able to work so constructively together with a wide range of people: Alex Fergusson, Alasdair Morgan, members who have spoken in the debate such as Mr Brownlee, Mr Hume and Mr Hume's wife, Lynne Hume—who was a candidate in Dumfries during the recent election—and a range of other people.

The real impetus to the campaign has come from the people of Dumfries. The local newspaper, the Dumfries & Galloway Standard, took up the matter as its campaigning issue and has followed it through tremendously enthusiastically up to the present day. The students walked from Dumfries to Glasgow and did much else, including buttonholing every politician they could find not only in Dumfries, but throughout Scotland. Of course, the participation of the people of the town is always very important. I am struck in Dumfries by the fact that it sometimes feels that Dumfries does not matter in the councils of Scotland—a matter that I have to say is not helped by the imprecation towards the start of the debate that the issue was not important enough to detain the chamber for two hours. The people of Dumfries matter. In November 1706, the largest demonstration against the Act of Union took place in Dumfries.

Hear, hear.

Absolutely. I am happy that it may happen again.

Dumfries was invaded by a group of men on horseback who fenced the market cross, burned the articles of union and told the provost of Dumfries, who was a delegate to the Parliament, that on no account should he support the Act of Union. That action made Dumfries matter in the debate that took place during the winter of 1706. One of the things that this Government has to do is to make not only Dumfries matter—although that is important—but to make every part of rural Scotland matter to this Parliament. This debate and this issue should tell the people of Dumfries and the south-west of Scotland that they matter, that their concerns matter and that this Government will ensure that that is always borne in mind.

The investment that is being made today is not small by any means, but Mr Fraser in particular raised the issue of funding for rural delivery. My colleague the cabinet secretary informs me that the Scottish Funding Council is reviewing the costs of delivery, including the costs of rural delivery and delivery in areas of deprivation, as part of its funding methodology review. The cabinet secretary will, apparently, write soon to the chair of the council to reinforce the messages that require to be reinforced.

Jeremy Purvis and Elizabeth Smith raised the question of demand. It is important to acknowledge that the number of places that the package allocates for primary teacher education is a conservative estimate of continuing local demand. There is a larger demand that is currently met outside—with an associated loss to—the area. Given that demand, I am certain that the places will be taken up. Regarding demand for the liberal arts, there are currently more students than funded places, which was one of the problems that already existed.

The Government aims to—and does—work competently, quickly and with vision. There are three aspects to the Government's approach to the Crichton campus. First, we worked with all partners to deliver an effective, value-for-money solution. Secondly, we acted quickly and ensured that others did the same. Thirdly, we considered the issues from fresh perspectives to identify a creative solution. It might, as David Mundell MP has asserted, have required a miracle, but the miracle was the ability to consider things in a different way. That is precisely what the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have done.

On a factual point, the minister said that the Government acted quickly to rectify the situation. Will he tell Parliament when work started on the draft academic strategy?

Mr Purvis has to take on board that the question is not when the work started but when it was completed. On 8 March, I spoke at a public meeting in Annan with the First Minister—of course, he was not First Minister then. He made a clear, high-level commitment that a new SNP Government would ensure that the issue was resolved. If my memory serves me correctly, he became First Minister on 16 May. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning took office a day later, so she had one day less to work on the matter. The solution was announced on 20 August. Time was of the essence and the solution was delivered such that there was no delay whatever.

We have to consider the detail of what the Government has done as well as the broad sweep. We did not respond to the University of Glasgow's calls for additional funding simply by handing money over—that would have been a bad move. From the outset, the cabinet secretary, her colleagues and those who support her looked for an approach that would protect existing delivery in a way that would maintain momentum on the development of the campus and its future potential within the region and within the ecosystem of Scottish higher education. The development of initial teacher education for those who wish to study and then work in the region does just that—it opens up new options to respond to the needs of the region and the nation. The development of the campus infrastructure does the same. It will be led by the University of Paisley as part of its ambitious and innovative multicampus strategy. Again, it will make a contribution to the area and the nation.

In the minute or two that remain to me, I will concentrate on an issue that is particularly important to me, given my responsibilities as Minister for Environment. The development of the new and unique carbon centre will bring to the region additional postgraduate and research opportunities in a field that is of national and international significance and which has clear economic potential. One cannot live or work in the south-west of Scotland without knowing that the impact of climate change is already upon us. The temperature has been rising and rainfall has been increasing. One has only to walk down the Whitesands from time to time—as I know Elaine Murray does—to know that the rate of flooding of the river is increasing year on year.

The issues of climate change will face us all for a long time to come and some of the solutions will come from the carbon centre at the Crichton campus. I pay tribute to those who are involved: Mary-Ann Smyth and Vimal and Gillian Khosla are key figures in promoting the carbon centre, which will help to address the needs of the energy sector in the region and be of national significance. It will drive the local aspiration to become the first carbon-neutral region in these islands. It will provide opportunities to commercialise the activities of the higher and further education sectors—again, good news for both the region and the nation.

That development is an example of innovative thinking. It shows where we can look to utilise natural resources and enable communities to benefit economically and environmentally from renewable energy. That demonstrates that rural communities can benefit from cutting-edge industrial development in 21st century Scotland. Certainly under this Government they can, because they are responding to need and we are happy to support that.

The Crichton carbon centre will work collaboratively with a range of Scottish universities, offering academic expertise in return for access to research facilities. It is a great example of Scotland—and Dumfries—capturing benefits to create a wealthier, smarter and greener nation.

The Government's expectations for the Crichton campus are high. We would not have been involved, nor would we have intervened as we have if we did not have the highest expectations and strongest aspirations for it. We look forward to working with the people who work at Crichton and with all the people of the south-west so that it can become an exemplar in innovative delivery of higher education in rural communities. It is now important that the people who are involved—those who have been most affected and who have campaigned—can move forward with confidence. That is why I am glad that the negative amendment will be withdrawn.

Parliament can send a completely united message: Crichton can move forward, and we support it. The academic strategy and the Government's additional support will help the region to seize the opportunities that are offered. A strong foundation has been put in place, not only to preserve what already exists but to move in new directions that will meet the needs and expectations of the people of Dumfries, the south-west and the whole of Scotland. I therefore commend the motion to the Parliament.

As we have reached the end of the debate before the time that is set out in the business programme for the next item of business, under rule 7.4.1(d) I now suspend the meeting until 4.59 pm.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—