Official Report 359KB pdf
I invite the committee to agree to the suggestion that we consider first petition PE522, which is fifth in the list of new petitions. That will allow Andrew Welsh to speak to PE522, in which he has an interest. He has to get away to attend an important meeting of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Is that agreed?
Care Homes (PE522)
Petition PE522, which comes from Ms Carol Main, concerns care homes for young physically disabled people in Scotland. The petition calls on the Parliament to encourage the Executive to investigate and remedy the lack of care homes for young physically disabled people in Scotland, including the Tayside area.
I thank the committee for its assistance in allowing me to go from meeting to meeting. Carol Main of Carnoustie, who submitted petition PE522, has asked me to formally present it to the Public Petitions Committee.
Carol Main has telephoned the clerk to pass on some other information. She said that care homes for the physically disabled should have provision for elderly, young and special needs patients and for respite care. She believes that the administration and registration rules should be changed to give priority to those with special needs.
Those recommendations are adequate and I am sure that the responses will clarify the Executive's position.
Perhaps we should ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for its opinion.
We might want to ask the Executive for any statistics on the increase in the number of young physically disabled people in Scotland. For various reasons, that number has risen. Young cancer patients have complained about the lack of suitable facilities and I should point out the considerable number of young men who have been seriously damaged in motorbike accidents.
Ms Main is not alone. I know of three similar cases in Moray and in other parts of the Highlands. There seems to be a gap in provision in relation to young physically disabled people. When you visit care homes, you often find one such person among all the old people, which is not a good situation.
Like Winifred Ewing, I am aware of a number of similar cases in my area. Recently, I wrote to the private-sector care homes to find out what their attitudes were. They acknowledge the difficulties of slotting young people into care homes, especially those that have a lot of elderly people.
Do we agree to the recommended action that I described and to the suggestions that we consult COSLA, seek the Executive's statistics on the increase in the number of young physically handicapped people and ask the Executive for information about any proposed closures of facilities for young physically disabled people?
Ms Main has turned to the Scottish Parliament to make her case and has been listened to by this committee. On behalf of Ms Main, I thank the Public Petitions Committee for its consideration and its action, which will help a vulnerable group.
Strategic Planning (Fife) (PE524)
The next petition that we will deal with, PE524, is from Iain Smith MSP and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reconsider its proposals, contained in the review of strategic planning, to replace Fife as a single planning area.
And I should also declare an interest, as I am a supporter of Iain Smith's petition.
I thank the Public Petitions Committee for this opportunity to present my petition.
Thanks. Members may now ask questions.
In the committee's papers, I find the suggestion that the committee might consider that the views of those who are opposed to the proposed city region strategic planning proposals as they affect Fife have already been taken into account. Could you comment on that? Is that true? It does not sound as if it is true, from what you have said.
I do not think that that is true. The analysis of the "Review of Strategic Planning" carried out by the consultants appointed by the Scottish Executive specifically excludes Fife and puts a separate Fife response into the document. In considering the breakdown of responses to the city regions proposal, it considers only those responses outwith Fife. That does not suggest to me that the views of the people of Fife have been fully taken into account by the Scottish Executive.
So would you simply say that the people who are opposed to the proposals have not had their views taken into account?
I would say that that is the case.
I declare an interest as a former Fifer and somebody who is dead keen for Fife to retain autonomy under the different stages of local government reorganisation.
Yes. There is no doubt about that. When Helen Eadie and I were members of Fife Council we strongly pressed the case for a strategic transport authority to cover Fife and the Lothians because of the importance of those transport links, but that does not imply that a single authority should also deal with strategic planning. Planning issues are wider than transport, and the interests of the rural communities that I serve would not necessarily be well served by a city region based on an urban area. The two issues are linked, but separate. It is possible to work together between authorities without having a formal single structure plan that crosses local authority boundaries.
I recognise your position on rural issues, as you represent North-East Fife. What about the west of Fife, where there could be conflicting interests between the Lothians and west Fife in relation to economic development? Is that a fundamental concern for you?
I cannot pretend to speak for west Fife; I am sure that Helen Eadie is able to do that better than I. However, there is a question as to where the power will lie in those city region planning authorities. Another of the Executive's proposals is that the strategic plans will be site specific, whereas the present ones are not site specific. The city regions might determine which areas will get industrial, retail or housing developments, which would then be imposed on local authorities. Because such developments would be part of the structural plan, local authorities would have no choice but to include them in their local plans. That could make it more difficult for Fife to consider its overall economic development plans, because developments proposed by the city region could go to West Lothian, East Lothian or some other area. There are major concerns for Fife's ability to properly develop itself as an economic development area. Significant job losses were announced in Fife only last week. If we had the city region plan, there is a danger that Fife would not be able to respond to such announcements.
My question follows on from the first part of Phil Gallie's question. Do you think that enough cognisance was given by the Scottish Executive and the consultants to the fact that there is already a south-east Scotland transport partnership? That partnership embraces all the local authorities from Fife right down to the Borders and from Falkirk in the west right over to East Lothian. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was put on the statute book by Sarah Boyack, also created the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which deals with transport links across the Forth bridges. Do you agree that not enough emphasis has been given to those two quite powerful organisations in the context of the strategic transport planning that would be required?
That is a valid point and I agree with everything that has just been said.
You referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. Would you also want to seek comments from the Local Government Committee?
I am a member of the Local Government Committee, so I would be more than happy for the petition to be considered there as well. However, I know that that committee has a fairly packed agenda for the rest of the session. I would like to refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee because that committee has specific responsibilities for land use planning and would therefore be the most appropriate committee to consider it.
I would like to ask about the time scale. The "Review of Strategic Planning" was published in June 2001 and the "Review of Strategic Planning—Conclusions and Next Steps" was published in June 2002. In response to that second publication, you have come to this committee at the earliest time. What about the intervening time? Was opposition expressed throughout the period between the two publications?
Yes, it was. That is reflected in the document, which shows that there were 151 responses from Fife, compared with 331 in total across the whole of Scotland. Those totals do not reflect the large number of letters that I received and passed on to the Scottish Executive as part of my response. I am sure that other Fife MSPs did likewise. In January, we had a debate on the issue in Parliament, which also reflected the strength of feeling in Fife on that issue.
At that debate in January, the then Deputy Minister for Social Justice was not convinced by the arguments put by the Fife MSPs. However, the Executive has said that it is prepared to consider the matter and work closely with stakeholders in determining the question of boundaries and whether there should be additional strategic planning areas, one of which might be Fife. Is there any indication of the timetable to which such a decision might be made?
The impression that I got from the "Review of Strategic Planning—Conclusions and Next Steps", published in June 2002, is that the Executive has already dismissed the possibility of Fife being left as a single strategic planning authority and that it will go for the four city regions, although other consultations will take place. As far as the overall time scale is concerned, I believe that the changes will require primary legislation, and that is not planned in the current session. There is therefore time to consider the matter further, but the Executive appears to have dismissed Fife's being retained as a strategic planning authority.
Let us be clear about this. Appearing to dismiss Fife's claim is not the same as being on the record as dismissing Fife's claim. Is there an on-the-record dismissal?
The "Review of Strategic Planning—Conclusions and Next Steps" clearly concludes, when referring to the four city regions:
To implement those proposals, would the Executive have to introduce primary legislation?
Yes.
That is not planned before the election, is it?
I understand that there is no place in the current legislative timetable for this session.
So legislation could not be introduced before next May?
That is the earliest that it could be introduced.
Thank you. You are free to stay and listen to the discussion about what to do with the petition.
The alternative recommendation would allow a wider debate, and I would advise the committee to adopt that recommendation.
When public authorities ride roughshod over historical pride, there are bound to be strong feelings. That is evidenced by the very fact that we talk about the kingdom of Fife. There are not many kingdoms around, but Fife has always been referred to in that way and there is an enormous amount of support for retaining that identity. However, it looks as if the Executive has ignored that history. It is a foolish man who ignores history, because it will never go away. The kingdom of Fife will still exist and its people will be resentful. I would not be surprised if, at the next election, someone stands as the candidate for the kingdom of Fife—Fife members beware. This is a serious matter and even the suggested alternative action does not go far enough. We should ask the Scottish Executive to reconsider its decision.
I do not mind, as long as nobody stands as the king of Fife. An old republican like me would take great exception to that.
I thank Iain Smith for his attendance this morning.
Early-years Education and Child Care (PE523)
The next petition is from Ms Carol Ball, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to initiate a national inquiry into early-years education and child care, with a view to producing a report and recommendations on the way forward. Carol Ball and Elizabeth Hunter are here to speak to the petition. You have three minutes in which to make your case.
Hi. I am Carol Ball, from Unison, and this is Elizabeth Hunter, also from Unison. We thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak to the petition.
Thanks very much for an excellent introduction. Do members have any questions?
As nobody else has a question, I shall ask one, although I was going to stay quiet on this issue.
There is progression for people who work in the sector, but it is not recognised at the moment. There should also be a specific qualification that goes all the way from foundation level to managing the sector. Nursery nurses can gain a BA in early childhood studies, but that does not enable them to manage a nursery school, because the qualification is not recognised by the General Teaching Council for Scotland as an appropriate qualification.
If I lived in a village where there was no care provision for young children and I decided to start a nursery—with no qualifications, but perhaps with a lot of good will—could I do that?
I believe that you could do that, as no formal qualifications are required at the moment. However, we do not feel that that is the best way in which to produce quality child care. It is vital that youngsters are given the start that they need, which is why the profession should be recognised as I have said.
Do you know what proportion of young children in Scotland have access to properly qualified nursery nurses?
I can answer only from my experience. I am a nursery nurse in a local authority nursery. Unison has approximately 7,000 members in that position. The staffing ratio is 1:10 and nurseries are bursting at the seams. However, I do not have the specific figures.
So, many mothers cannot get that service for their young children.
No. A lot of mothers cannot get the service. It needs to be expanded.
So, until there is a rule about children's right of access to the service in their early years, there will be a difficulty, and the sector will not be recognised as a separate profession as long as anyone can enter it. More than a petition is required: a right of access should be given to all children.
Yes. There should be a right to access. Following the setting up of the Care Commission, by 2004 anyone embarking on a career in the sector will have to have a qualification. However, the level of that qualification is a matter of concern. We want the matter to be reviewed.
You remarked earlier that nurseries and nursery nurses do not merely prepare children for school; there are many separate benefits of early-years education and care. I cannot but agree with that. Nevertheless, it is the view of many teachers to whom I have spoken—and it is my view, as a mother who was fortunate enough to get her children into a state nursery school—that there is a big difference between children who start primary 1 after having attended nursery school and those who have not had that benefit. The ones who have attended a nursery school fit much more easily into a school and are happier there. Are you perhaps downgrading your argument by saying that you are not there to prepare children for school? You are there for that as well as for the many other functions that you perform.
I am sorry if I gave that impression. I did not mean to downgrade the profession. I am saying that it is not a case of a light bulb going on at age 5, when learning begins; a child learns from the minute it is born. Learning should be a continuum, although I know that there are difficulties when children move from primary schools to secondary schools, which I hope that the national debate on the purposes of education will identify. Teachers choose their profession, whether as primary or secondary school teachers. We have chosen to work in early-years education because we think that that education is vital, and we want to be valued and recognised for it. Whatever children learn at that stage should be part of the continuum.
You also have a direct responsibility for child protection in the early years. You have to be vigilant for abuse, for example, at a stage when it is much more difficult to gain information from a child. Is your responsibility for protecting children from abuse part of your case for saying that your profession should be more highly ranked and given greater respect?
Yes, I would say so. Some children remain in child care for longer than their parents are at work. They can be in child care from 8 in the morning until 6 at night—50 hours a week.
Roughly, what is the salary scale for nursery nurses?
After eight years, with two years' initial training, the top of the salary scale is £13,300.
That shows how we value children, as well as nursery nurses.
Yes.
Thankfully, in the past 10 to 15 years, nursery schools have proliferated and greater effort has been put into providing day care for infants who are just months old. That is to be warmly welcomed. How does that complicate the bigger issue? As many parents go out to work, very early care is an issue. When I was a member of Fife Council, my colleagues and I used to debate that. Nurses used to be thought of purely in the context of nurseries for children who are four years old; the earlier stage, which is more common now, was not considered. Should the qualifications for dealing with the two aspects be different?
No. Qualifications should encompass those aspects, because we are dealing with a continuum. A nursery nurse's qualification qualifies them to work with children from birth until the age of eight, so a nursery nurse can enter the primary sector, too. That encompassing qualification is needed to provide the widest picture and to decompartmentalise the sectors.
Part of the qualifications problem relates to students. Colleges are so keen to have people in positions that, sometimes, the calibre of students is not what we are looking for. One college said that one girl was not accepted because she did not have a grade 4 in standard grade English. Another college has a 15-year-old girl as a student. At 15, a person cannot legally baby-sit, let alone work in what I would consider the sector.
I am becoming slightly concerned. The petition says:
That is a difficult question to answer. As a professional, I have a vested interest. Parents should have freedom of choice between local authority and private nurseries, but the people who work with their children must be qualified. They need to know what they are trying to achieve. I make no excuses for saying that such people should have a qualification.
By taking that line, you say that parents will lose some choice. Some people have had their own little nursery schools for a long time and seem to be successful and to be meeting a need. I am sure that many such individuals who have been in the business for a long time do not have the qualifications that you mention. Scottish vocational qualifications are relatively new.
That may be, but obviously such nurseries have not been inspected. They are registered and must meet some criteria to function, but the system is not robust enough to measure the value of such nurseries and the achievements in them. I am not saying that children do not benefit from those experiences, but properly qualified people are needed. Some people think that everybody can do the job. Not until somebody starts the job do they realise the complexities, which are increasing. The profession is becoming more complex and standards must be raised.
Why should such a profession become more complex? Some people might have taken children successfully through nursery for years. As Dorothy-Grace Elder said, there is a difference between children who have been to nursery school and those who have not. That could be extended to playgroups, although I know that you will not want to follow that line. Nursery schools have existed for many years and have got along fine. What has suddenly become complex?
The answer relates to the way in which society has developed. There are more single parents, more breakdowns of family life and drug intake has a high profile. As professionals who work with children, we must deal with all those issues, which I did not have to deal with when I entered the profession 21 years ago. Developments in society make the job complex.
I am trying to get my head round the issues. By the way, Phil Gallie's comments do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the committee.
I would not claim that they did—heaven forbid.
It has been mentioned that nursery nurses are appropriately qualified but that many others who work in the profession are not. Will the witnesses give us an idea of the minimum standards that the Scottish Social Services Council is likely to accept? What minimum qualifications do people need to work with children in nurseries?
In local authorities, the minimum standard is SVQ level 3, which is equivalent to the old nursery nurse qualification, or a higher national certificate. The difficulty is that an HNC alone does not meet the national occupational standards, so some components of a national certificate are required. That makes finding out what someone is qualified to do complicated.
The Executive's response to your call was that your proposal would impose a rigid qualification framework that left the sector unable to respond to changing employer and employee requirements. That suggests that the Executive wants fairly low qualification requirements to ensure that enough people are available to look after children, whether or not they are qualified.
I agree that the Executive is probably trying to do that. The petition calls on the Executive to review the position and not to take that line. I have not worked with someone who has an NC. I have trained students who are studying for that qualification, but I do not know what their jobs will be. Would they only assist a nursery nurse? I am not sure where they would fit in. You cannot play with children's lives. People who are not qualified should not practise.
You mentioned the BA qualification. How many people who work in the sector have that qualification?
There is a lack of opportunities in the sector for people to take higher qualifications, although I cannot give a figure. I know that even if people achieve a higher qualification, career progression is non-existent because there is nowhere for them to go.
I know someone in Fife who has the BA, but who was refused when she applied to teacher training college. The problem is not that people do not try to get qualifications. Not everyone with the BA wants to be a teacher, but there is nowhere to go with that qualification.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence. They are free to stay and listen to the committee's debate on the petition.
The witnesses' presentation was most articulate.
Yes, it was first class. The cover note on the petition states that the Executive is trying to increase the number of qualified workers in early-years education and to promote career opportunities in the sector. It is suggested that we write to the Executive to seek its views on the issues that are raised in the petition, with a particular request for details of the Executive's view on the merits of the type of inquiry that the petitioners propose. We might also want to ask the Executive to say whether it has achieved the aims that were outlined in its action plan of 2000.
When we write, can we take up the point, which was articulated so well, that the nursery experience is not just preparation for school, but also character preparation? I have visited many nursery schools in which there were qualified people. It has been pointed out to me that, for children who are born with a character flaw, such as aggression, the experience of being with other children at that vital age often sorts out the problem. If such children do not go to nursery, the flaw of aggression might be there for ever.
We can send with the correspondence a copy of the Official Report of this part of the meeting.
I support the suggested actions. Might we also seek the views of Children in Scotland, which has done a lot of work on the issue? When I was a member of Fife Council and when I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee, I did a lot of work on the issue. I am sympathetic to the petition. Children in Scotland, which is intensively involved in some of the issues, can give us another perspective and might add to the information that we receive from the Executive.
Okay, we will ask Children in Scotland for its comments on the petition.
As well as the other worrying issues that we have heard about, the covering note to the petition contains a further worrying line. It states:
We will refer to that in the correspondence.
I am happy to go along with the suggested actions in the cover note. I have reservations about the petition, but I want to see the responses that we receive. However, I distance myself from the talk of setting standards for nannies. The issue of nannies comes down to parental responsibility and choice. When people put their children into someone else's care, it is up to them to ensure that that individual is capable, suitable and has the correct disposition to look after their children. All the qualifications in the world will not solve that problem. Parents should check the background of the individual to whom they entrust their children. For goodness' sake, we must recognise that parents have responsibilities, that they love their children and that, in the main, they want to ensure that their children are well cared for.
The time to argue about that is when we receive the response from the Scottish Executive.
Whether we call people nannies or childminders, I am sure that the petitioners would agree that regulations are already in place for such people. Dorothy-Grace Elder made the valid point that the state has a duty to set standards. Children are the flowers of our future. We must ensure the quality of the people who look after them. As the convener said, we can debate that matter later.
I am sure that we will return to the argument when we receive the Executive's response. Do members agree to the suggested actions?
Public-private Partnerships (Schools) (PE526 and PE527)
Petitions PE526 and PE527, which call for a review of the use of public-private partnership schemes, are from Mr Jeff Knight, on behalf of the Rayne North Action Group. I welcome Nora Radcliffe, who is here to speak in support of the petitions. I also welcome Mr Knight and Sharon Duncan. They have three minutes to make a statement.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our petition. Our protest is not sentimental. The examples that we will offer are local, but the arguments apply to all areas of Scotland. We have received strong support from our small but increasingly cohesive community. The petitions follow on from an initial petition, which had 1,000 signatures, and a children's petition. I understand that the committee has access to those petitions.
I will add a bit of meat to that. As Sharon Duncan has just said, we focused mainly on figures that Aberdeenshire Council gave us, such as the housing potential for the area, the current school roll and projected school rolls, and population trends and ratios. We also made reference to an extract from the Aberdeenshire local plan, which is a fairly significant document that was not put together overnight.
The aim of our petition is to ensure that proper audit procedures are put in place. There should be assurances that future bids that the Executive receives will be accurate, to allow informed and safe decisions to be made. We are trying to prevent closures of good, viable educational establishments such as ours in Rayne North and Old Rayne, being based on misrepresentation and poorly informed decisions. We are trying to stop such closures happening for purely financial reasons that are not necessarily apparent from the submissions that the Scottish Executive has received. The greatest predictor of the future is current practice. We want to encourage a more democratic and fair form of consultation.
The petitioners have put their case eloquently. I will add a word or two about the background. Without going into the merits or demerits of public-private partnerships, the fact that the costs are fixed means that bids must be of a certain size. For a rural authority that has small rural schools, that means having to bundle things together in order to come up with a proposal, which leads to all sorts of difficulties.
I am concerned that the Scottish Executive seems to have acted in conflict with itself with respect to the acceptance of the local action plan and of the PPP. How much emphasis have you put on that in the course of your past contacts and what has been the reaction to your comments?
We have restricted our campaign to Aberdeenshire, but our efforts to highlight discrepancies have been greatly ignored. We do not know where the numbers that were put forward by Aberdeenshire Council came from, but we do know that the numbers that were published by the council's planning department are not consistent with those that were published in the consultation documentation and in the bid. We would like to address that discrepancy. The feedback from Aberdeenshire Council, as with anyone with whom we have tried to speak, has been minimal, to say the least.
I do not think that we are permitted to get into the details of the school closures but, if Aberdeenshire Council has deliberately provided two sets of figures, it could be argued that that is bordering on fraud. I wonder how much the same thing happens throughout Scotland and whether Aberdeenshire is a special case. I would like to follow up on that point when the committee discusses the petitions.
I am glad that Mr Gallie said that so that I did not have to. I think that Mr Gallie is right: it is cause for great concern. Aberdeenshire Council put in a bid for £35 million and other councils have submitted bids for much more than that. If the practice goes on in one place, I am sure that it goes on in others. Again, I did not want to say what Mr Gallie said.
That is what we are here for—to take the buck.
I think that the phrase that we used was "parochial and prejudicial". We steered away from "fraud".
When Aberdeenshire Council puts together its bid for £35 million, it must present an outline business case to the Executive. Who checks the figures? Is that done transparently? We assume that the Scottish Executive examines the bid in detail, but do we know whether its attention is drawn to inconsistencies such as those you have highlighted?
The Scottish Executive examines the information that is presented to it, but I do not know whether it has the necessary access, or the time, to examine the detail behind it. I feel that the information that is presented to the Executive is perhaps limited, to say the least, and that the Executive acts on what it trusts is the best information available. In the case of Aberdeenshire Council, the information from the local planner was available in the public domain, at least in draft form, well before the bid was put in place. The information was issued as a finalised document about two weeks ago. That represents the best information that the council had available to it at the time—information that it has ignored.
That is happening against the background of closures of rural schools. A report from seven or eight years ago said that Scotland had lost some 230, mainly primary, rural schools. However, we need a more up-to-date report on that.
As I said, the Aberdeenshire local plan is a huge document, which took a lot of time to put together. The plan details the predicted housing for the Aberdeenshire area through to about 2015. The plan shows huge growth all around our locality, but that growth is not reflected in the figures that have been used in the school bid that was put forward by Aberdeenshire Council's education and recreation department. Obviously, two of Aberdeenshire Council's departments are not speaking to each other.
So the council did not use the detailed statistics that it had compiled.
Absolutely.
The numbers in the bid that went to the Scottish Executive do not add up. Unaccountably, seven children suddenly disappeared from our area—we thought that the council was planning a cull.
I was also struck by the fact that the size of the new school is based on the education and recreation department's figures. If the planning department's figures are correct, the planned new school will be too small by the time it is built in 2005. It is interesting that the two schools that the council plans to close would, without any modification, have the capacity to take up the extra roll. For me, the proposal is a complete waste of money.
It is a shocking situation. The council has the detailed statistics. As far as I know, the planning people are always consulted on such things by the education authority.
We are talking about the closure or amalgamation of three schools. Will you comment on the current condition of the fabric of the three schools?
The schools at Old Rayne and Rayne North are fit for purpose and still have additional capacity available. The schools have stood for 120 years and are solid granite-built schools. Without a word of a lie, I can tell you that the local MP and MSPs that we invited to a coffee morning walked in and said, "You're joking. They're not going to close this." The schools glow—they have an internal glow and a traditional glow. The children love the schools and willingly produced their own petition. The schools are windtight and watertight and are fit for purpose.
That was the question that I wanted answered. My understanding was that the public-private partnership deals were to improve the condition of Scotland's schools.
That was our impression, too.
When the Minister for Education and Young People made the initial announcement, she gave initial approval to 15 different local authorities to carry out PPPs to the tune of more than £1 billion throughout Scotland. That initial approval must now be worked into detailed proposals. Is Aberdeenshire Council at the stage of working on a detailed proposal to put to the Scottish Executive for final approval, or is the proposal already a done deal that the council has voted for?
Aberdeenshire Council is currently going through the process of formally consulting the local communities. At the moment, that consultation process is not complete, as several households within the area have not received the consultation documentation, but the council is going through the formal consultation process and the finalised proposal has yet to go to the Scottish Executive. However, we fear that the numbers that will be presented will be misleading to the Scottish Executive and that there is no reason why they will not be misleading in a future bid.
I am not saying that it is common in Scotland, but in theory, all 15 local authorities could present the Scottish Executive with inaccurate information in support of PPP bids. The Scottish Executive would come to decisions that were based on inaccurate information that would affect a large number of schools and communities in Scotland. I can understand why you are calling for an audit.
That is why we want to have a review of the procedure that is already in place and, if possible, to review the current bids.
I assume that the fine granite-built schools to which you refer are on prime land. Is gaining large sums of money by selling off those schools a motivating factor for the council?
Yes. However, at Old Rayne and Rayne North, the land will revert to the former owner, who is the local laird. It will fall from community use, so the council will not gain from it in that way, but it will gain consolidation in an area in Logie Durno. That is our case example. The council is going to build the 200-person school on the playing field at Logie Durno, so the only place left to play will be on the rubble of what used to be Logie Durno school, which is not a big area.
Did the ancestors of the local laird build the school?
Yes.
So the land reverts to his family.
There have been allegations that the council wants to build more housing at Logie Durno, but in order to do that, it must install sewage works. Access to that is the reason for the prime site at Logie Durno and the PPP build. I have no proof of that—those are merely the allegations that are being made in the community, that the bid is being used as a shoehorn to allow further building.
I want to come to the defence of Aberdeenshire Council. It has been painted in a negative light, partly undeservedly. The petitioners refer to one element of a much larger bid. Other parts of the bid in my constituency have been welcomed with open arms. We are getting new schools at Kintore and at Rothienorman, both of which are long awaited and badly needed and of which the local community is entirely supportive. Those proposals have been offered for consultation and I have received assurances that, if the community opposes it and wishes it not to go ahead, any element of the bid can be taken out without destroying the entire bid. The positive elements of the bid have not come out clearly in the discussion.
It must be stressed that the committee cannot interfere in decisions that affect individual schools.
In my initial remarks I said that there are aspects of the PPP process that must be examined critically. This group of parents has taken a responsible attitude—they are fighting their corner for their cause, but they are saying that there are general issues that must be considered and I endorse that.
We move to the consideration of the petition. The petitioners are free to stay and listen to the committee's discussion. Thank you for your information; it will help not only Aberdeenshire, but other areas where there is resistance to PPPs, of which I am aware.
I agree with all those recommendations. However, the committee might consider an additional request from me that we write also to the Accounts Commission for Scotland, asking for its views on the point in the committee paper that talks about failing
I think that that would be okay.
I am happy to go along with the recommendations, but I would like clarification of one point. I suspect that, with respect to this specific project, Aberdeenshire Council is looking to the future and trying to improve its revenue situation overall. I would like clarification from the Scottish Executive about whether the intention was to include the improvement of revenue circumstances in the public-private partnership deal that was offered to the local authorities.
I am not clear about what you are asking.
Aberdeenshire Council is taking the opportunity to change three schools into one, thereby probably making some kind of overall revenue saving in the longer term. I am asking whether that was the purpose of the public-private partnership money that the Scottish Executive offered.
From my experience in Dundee, I know that a condition of being awarded the public-private partnership funding was that Dundee City Council had to make a 20 per cent saving in its education budget. The council was told that, if it did not find that saving, the PPP would not go ahead. Such a project is paid for by the closure of other schools. We could ask for that to be confirmed by the Executive.
As I said, my understanding is that the PPP money was offered specifically to deal with problems with the fabric of Scottish schools. It seems that we might have deviated here, in that we are talking about three schools that appear to be in good condition and have no such problems.
The position is clear to me. However, if you want, we can ask the Executive to confirm the fact that the only way in which it can pay for the PPP—which is a very expensive way of providing schools—is by councils making savings.
I do not disagree with that.
The savings have to come from closing school buildings. Sometimes, that may mean—as it does in Aberdeenshire—that good school buildings are closed to pay for a PPP that must be funded by borrowing from the private sector.
Overall, that might be an effect. However, we are talking about three specific schools that are being closed despite there being no problems with the buildings. They are being closed simply to improve the council's revenue situation, which probably bounces out onto other communities in Aberdeenshire. I have no argument with that. However, I feel that that is deviating from the original purpose of the PPP money, and I would like some clarification.
Okay. We will ask the Scottish Executive to clarify why it is prepared to accept the closure of three schools of good fabric to build a single new PPP school in the area.
Can we ask the Executive whether the Accounts Commission can report on land sales by education authorities, stating what happens to the land and property and what accrues or does not accrue to a council through those sell-offs, especially in rural areas? We have heard today of a case that might not be unique, in which the land and property will revert to the laird of the parish, whose family originally created the school. It is, no doubt, legal and right that they should return to the laird, but we should be aware that, through PPP deals, we might be restoring land to the lairds and wiping out public facilities other than schools. The councils will have no chance to build something else on that land.
We are already writing to the Accounts Commission to ask for views on the points that are raised in the petition. We could also ask for comment on the land sales and disposal of the land.
We thought that we were selling off the public family silver, but now we realise that we are throwing it back to the lairds. That might be happening elsewhere in rural areas.
We could be going forward to the past. Is that course of action agreed?
I thank the witnesses for attending.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (PE525)
There is one more new petition, PE525, to consider. The petitioner had hoped to attend the meeting in support of the petition, but is unable to attend. However, he has submitted a copy of the presentation that he would have made, and copies are attached to members' papers for the meeting.
I agree with the recommendation.
Is that agreed, then?
Next
Current Petitions