North Ayrshire Council Public-Private Partnership Schools Project
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3810, in the name of Campbell Martin, on North Ayrshire Council's public-private partnership for schools project.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that North Ayrshire Council, through a PPP project, intends to amalgamate St Andrew's Academy in Saltcoats with St Michael's Academy in Kilwinning and to build a "superschool" to be erected on Laighdykes playing fields in Saltcoats, the only playing fields serving the towns of Saltcoats and Ardrossan; is concerned that the council's plans will impact adversely on the educational attainment of pupils and on the provision of open space and sports pitches in Saltcoats and Ardrossan; is further concerned that questions remain over aspects of the bidding and procurement processes adopted by North Ayrshire Council in its PPP for Schools Project, and considers that public private partnerships do not represent best value for local taxpayers and local communities.
I thank those members who have supported the motion and who have decided to stay behind and take part in the debate. I record my thanks to the people of Saltcoats and Ardrossan, who have made clear their opposition to the plans of North Ayrshire Council. I thank in particular the members of the Laighdykes residents group, who have been prepared to stand up and fight for what they believe in and what they think is right, and to face down the arrogance of North Ayrshire Council.
There are many strands to the North Ayrshire Council PPP project. I apologise for not being able to address them all in the limited time available. I know that other colleagues will refer to other aspects, but I wish to refer in particular to the administration and scrutiny of the PPP project. The project is the subject of a continuing inquiry by Strathclyde police, so there are some aspects of the matter that I will not go into in any detail.
As far as the administration and scrutiny of the North Ayrshire PPP are concerned, we need to look back at what has happened since it came into being. The European Union procurement regulations stipulate that there should be a minimum of five "economic operators", as they are called, tendering for public contracts. That requirement is now incorporated in Scots law in the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/1). There is scope in those regulations to have fewer than five bidders, and that is, of course, the case with North Ayrshire Council. In fact, there have only ever been two identified bidders: one was Comprehensive Estate Services and the other was the First Class consortium.
Let us take Comprehensive Estate Services first. North Ayrshire Council publicly announced that Comprehensive Estate Services was a subsidiary of the Singapore-based CPG International. We pointed out to North Ayrshire Council that CPG International is in fact an Italy-based computer printer company, and the council responded by saying that it actually meant CPG Corporation, which is indeed based in Singapore. Unfortunately for North Ayrshire Council, when I wrote to the chief executive of CPG Corporation, he wrote back to say that Comprehensive Estate Services was not a subsidiary of his company, nor were there any cross-shareholdings.
North Ayrshire Council was not deterred and decided to pursue the bid, judging that it was apparently credible. We can see that Comprehensive Estate Services has no experience in the construction industry and no experience of PPP contracts. It had, and still has, no functioning office—although the receptionist at a chartered accountant's in Strathmiglo in Fife will take a message for the company if anybody really wants to push it. At the time of bidding, Comprehensive Estate Services had no accounts submitted with Companies House. It had a credit rating of zero and a company alert that said:
"this company should be treated with a degree of caution".
Nevertheless, North Ayrshire Council told us that the bid was credible. I have with me the pre-qualification questionnaire that was submitted by Comprehensive Estate Services to North Ayrshire Council. Unfortunately, most of it was downloaded from the websites of other companies. The insurance documents, which are a prerequisite, refer to CPG in Singapore, not Comprehensive Estate Services. Most of those documents were out of date anyway. Furthermore, the PQQ was signed the year before Comprehensive Estate Services was incorporated as a company.
Nobody noticed those flaws. The documentation was supposedly scrutinised by North Ayrshire Council, the Scottish Executive's financial partnerships unit and Partnerships UK in London, yet nobody noticed any of the flaws that I have mentioned, and it was decided that North Ayrshire Council could proceed.
There was only ever one genuine bid for the North Ayrshire Council PPP, so it was no surprise that Comprehensive Estate Services was ruled out. In June 2005, North Ayrshire Council announced that the First Class consortium was to be the preferred bidder. It goes without saying that a major role must have been played by North Ayrshire Council's financial advisers in determining that the First Class consortium bid was a good deal and that it was good value for money. North Ayrshire Council's financial adviser in the PPP project is Ernst & Young.
Also in June 2005, a press release was issued by an organisation called PFI Infrastructure Company plc. No one had ever heard of it before; it is not mentioned in any documents about the PPP project from North Ayrshire Council. That press release said that that company was the preferred bidder for the North Ayrshire Council contract. It also claimed that it was part of the First Class consortium, but nowhere is that mentioned. In fact, the company is based on the Isle of Man and is managed and administered by Quayle Munro Holdings plc, which is part of the First Class consortium.
No contract has been signed between North Ayrshire Council and the preferred bidder. The police investigation might play a part in that; I do not know. A company has, however, been formed to take on the construction once the contract is signed. That company is called PPP (North Ayrshire) Ltd. Its two listed directors are employees of Quayle Munro and it is managed and administered by Quayle Munro. So Quayle Munro is part of the First Class consortium, which is the preferred bidder as announced by North Ayrshire Council. Quayle Munro manages the Isle of Man company PFI Infrastructure Company plc, which claims to be the preferred bidder for North Ayrshire Council's PPP contract. Quayle Munro also provides the directors and management for PPP (North Ayrshire) Ltd, which will take on the contract when the project gets to construction stage. That is an £80 million contract. The financial auditor of Quayle Munro and PFI Infrastructure Company plc is Ernst & Young.
The facts are therefore that on one side is Ernst & Young as the financial adviser to North Ayrshire Council, playing what must be a major part in determining that this is a great deal and gives the best value, and on the other side, Ernst & Young is employed by companies that are making a direct profit from the decisions taken by North Ayrshire Council on which Ernst & Young were employed to advise.
As parliamentarians, we have to ask whether that is appropriate and acceptable. I think that the North Ayrshire Council PPP contract stinks to high heaven. Local democracy is being trampled, the academic needs of local children are being ignored and local communities are being robbed of open space and playing fields. I fear that North Ayrshire Council has exposed a situation that could be replicated across Scotland and, indeed, across the United Kingdom. The Executive can no longer pretend that it cannot see what is happening; it is obvious, and North Ayrshire Council has exposed it.
I ask the minister to take the points that have been raised tonight back to his Executive colleagues and to take the debate as a starting point. We must investigate and fully address the points that have been raised tonight. We owe it to honesty, to democracy, to openness and accountability, but primarily to the people of Saltcoats and Ardrossan.
I congratulate Campbell Martin on securing tonight's debate. I do not intend to add my comments on the financing of the PPP deal, although what he said concerns me a great deal.
I am more familiar with the Laighdykes situation, even though it is not in my region, because I met some of the campaigners during a successful fight to save the old racecourse in Ayr from development. The two cases are similar because the Ayr proposal was for the building of a school on common good land that had been used for generations by the people of Ayr for recreational purposes.
At Laighdykes, as in Ayr, there is an obvious conflict of interest with North Ayrshire Council acting as planning authority, as education authority and as de facto landowner. With the advent of PPPs, such cases where the council is perceived to be riding roughshod over planning safeguards to pursue an internal political or financial agenda are becoming commonplace.
I note that sportscotland provided a briefing for this debate that downplayed the loss of the playing fields at Laighdykes. However, that position is at odds with the view of sportscotland's acting chief executive. Last year in response to a Public Petitions Committee request for information on the nationwide situation with PPPs, he stated:
"Sportscotland is concerned about the amount of development pressure that current PPP proposals are placing on playingfields. The dual influence of the affordability gap & the determination of local authorities to take the opportunity that PPP presents means that they are determined to press ahead with such proposals in most cases".
Does Adam Ingram accept that that has no relationship to the particular circumstances that we are supposed to be debating? They must stand, like others, on their merits.
I certainly do not accept that proposition. I believe that that statement is relevant. A hectare of recreational open space will be lost to the people of Ardrossan and Saltcoats.
The acting chief executive of sportscotland might have added in his letter—but he did not—that the Scottish ministers are unlikely to block any such developments that are referred to them, given their total commitment to PPPs. The sportscotland response concluded that in these circumstances it felt constrained not to object, but to seek concessions or reach compromises. The acting chief executive wanted to refer those concerns to the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament for it to investigate and find a solution.
Far too many green spaces and playing fields are being lost because of the Executive's PPP policies. These issues need to be addressed and not avoided. I hope that the ministers take this opportunity to do so.
As is customary on these occasions, I congratulate Mr Campbell Martin on securing the debate—not least because it enables me, as an elected member from the locality in question, to put on record the facts of the issue as opposed to Mr Campbell Martin's unfounded allegations. It is obviously legitimate—
What I have said tonight can be founded and I can prove it.
I believe that the allegations he has made are the subject of police investigation. I am sure that the police will arbitrate in the matter.
It is legitimate for Campbell Martin, and others, to campaign for or against particular proposals. However, when misrepresentation, innuendo, personal attacks and downright untruths substitute for argument, I believe the line has been crossed beyond which no credibility can be given to Mr Campbell Martin's comments.
Adam Ingram spoke about the loss of 1 hectare of land. I will quote what sportscotland said on the matter.
"The proposals by North Ayrshire Council will not result in the reduction in the number of grass pitches available and will also provide a new full-size, floodlit, synthetic grass pitch and a polymeric, all weather, athletic track, which on completion will be the only all weather athletics track in North Ayrshire. The grass pitches are to be upgraded, which in itself will allow greater use of existing provision …
There will also be new changing accommodation for the pitches and new indoor sports facilities for the school. All of these facilities will remain open to the public and it is sportscotland's view that these proposals will significantly improve the provision of facilities in the three towns area. Whilst not within our remit as a Statutory Consultee, the grass area will remain fully open to the public as ‘open space' and it is our understanding the NPFA made no objection in relation to North Ayrshire Council's proposals.
In addition, as part of the overall proposals North Ayrshire Council are also bringing back into use 3 pitches, with new changing accommodation, in the Ardeer area of Stevenston, which lies approximately 2 miles to the South of Laighdykes. Given this, there is a significant improvement in both the quantity and quality of pitch provision in the three towns area."
That is why sportscotland supported the proposals.
PPP in North Ayrshire is probably one of the best things that ever happened to the area. It gave us the James Watt College building, which Mr Martin opposed and without which the area would be without any further education provision to speak of. I do not believe that there are any of the unanswered questions to which the motion refers. The facilities that North Ayrshire Council proposes will be a marked improvement on those that currently exist and will provide future generations of three towns residents and their children with a markedly improved educational facility that I know will be welcomed by people in my constituency.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Mr Wilson, who is a deputy minister, referred in his speech to "downright untruths", which is a serious allegation. In effect, he called Campbell Martin a liar. I do not think that that is acceptable under the Parliament's standing orders. I ask you to advise Mr Wilson to withdraw the remark.
I advise members to be careful about their language. However, Mr Wilson was trying to remain within the bounds of decency when he made his remark.
Given that Campbell Martin referred to Ernst & Young, I should mention that I am a former employee of that organisation, albeit that I was never involved in PPP schemes either in North Ayrshire or anywhere else.
I will not address the specific local issues that Campbell Martin raised but, as he said at the end of his speech, a wide range of general points arising from PPP schemes apply throughout the country. I would like to talk about those issues this evening.
The motion ends with the bald statement
"that public private partnerships do not represent best value for local taxpayers and local communities."
I do not agree. If the motion had said that they do not necessarily represent best value, I would have been more comfortable with it. It is important that we are not driven down an ideological road.
We should not think that PPP schemes are necessarily best value for money. Equally, we should not think that traditional methods of procurement are entirely without merit. We should seek to identify the method of public procurement that is most appropriate to the individual circumstances of each project, whether it involves a school, a hospital or another item.
The value for money test is crucial. It is really about ensuring that the balance of risk and reward between the private and public sector is appropriate. There have been occasions—not just in Scotland, but south of the border, too—when that balance has not been appropriate and the private sector has had the opportunity to have the reward without sharing the degree of risk that would be ideal under a PPP scheme. However, there is a place for PPP.
Some of the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the North Ayrshire scheme sound reasonably similar to concerns that have been expressed about schemes in the South of Scotland region. I wonder whether at the moment PPP schemes are sufficiently flexible to respond to the desires of local parents and councils. I feel that people are often pushed down a particular line and forced to do certain things by the school model that exists under PPP.
As some members may be aware, there is at the moment a great deal of controversy about PPP in the Borders. Parents in Peebles are effectively being told that if they do not accept one site for a new school the money will go to an alternative location in the region, but outside Peebles. That is a real issue in relation to giving parents choice about the type of school that they want their children to attend. We should consider whether the current PPP model is sufficiently flexible.
Adam Ingram mentioned the impact on playing fields. That impact is an important concern. An audit that we all received towards the end of last year raised concerns about the impact on playing fields. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be educated in areas where there were sufficient playing fields—whether or not we made much use of them—might struggle to understand the difficulties that exist in urban areas of Scotland in preserving a sufficient number of playing fields.
We must ensure that, whatever method of procurement is used for schools, playing fields are not needlessly destroyed—particularly not to make way for land usage for other purposes. An obligation to go down whatever route is best for the education of children should be built into the PPP guidelines. Perhaps it is, but if it is, it is certainly not given sufficient emphasis.
My fundamental point is that PPP schemes are not necessarily flawed, but their implementation can be. It is important that we get the guidance right. If the guidance is toughened up and made more flexible, perhaps such schemes can play a better part in the provision of public services in Scotland than they have done to date.
I will leave the debating of the details of the problems in North Ayrshire to the local MSPs; I will make some observations on what makes a good PPP project and what makes a poor PPP project.
I make no apologies for repeating one or two comments that I have previously made in the chamber. There is merit in repeating oneself on PPP developments.
A good PPP development is one where local communities are properly consulted; children are involved in the design of the school, such as at Acharacle in the Highlands; parents and teachers are involved in the discussions and the design; and the local community is fully consulted. A poor PPP project is one where few or none of those things happen.
What concerns me most in general about PPP projects is that in far too many cases there is a loss of community amenity space—common-good land—which is taken over and managed in such a way that the local community is effectively excluded from casual use of the land, in particular for children's play. The substitution of green open space with formal all-weather pitches all too often ends up with the formal pitches coming under the control of the school or the PPP project people and the pitches are made available to people only on application. They must fill in forms and all the rest of it to get a licence to play on them. The pitches cease to be casual space that people can use at any time during the day.
I might return to the design of PPP schools tomorrow in the architecture debate. The Executive has issued quite good guidelines for the design of PPP schools and the incorporation of the best of environmental design—by the way, I remind the minister that research that was done a few years ago showed that schools that were managed and designed to high environmental standards could produce up to a 10 per cent increase in the children's performance in mathematics and English. That is a very important point: the design of the schools produced that improvement in performance. It concerns me that what was not incorporated in volume 3 of the advice for PPP contracts—
Mr Harper, the debate is about PPP in North Ayrshire, but I am not getting that feeling from what you are saying. You should stick to the subject of the motion.
Well, I will conclude my remarks, but I did say when I started that this is what I was going to say, so I could have been challenged then. I said that I would make general remarks on what makes a good, or a poor, PPP.
I will conclude by saying that I hope the general concerns about PPP come to the fore in the discussion about the project to which the motion refers.
I register an interest in the debate as a parent of a child who attends one of the schools involved in North Ayrshire's proposed PPP project. I guess that in doing so I feel particularly attuned to the views of parents in the school in my area—Greenwood academy. I think that I am able to represent the views of those parents.
I have to say that I feel a little bit uncomfortable speaking in a members' business debate on a motion on an issue about which there is, I understand, an outstanding police investigation. I am not sure how to deal with that. I understand that there have been persistent accusations in the national and local press, some of which have been reported to the police. I am aware that the police are investigating the matter and that a report to the procurator fiscal is imminent.
I genuinely hope that should the report to the procurator fiscal prove what explorations of previous accusations have found—that there is no case to answer—we can move on. I think that that is what parents—certainly those in my area—want to do. I hope that I can get an assurance from Campbell Martin tonight that that is what he is willing to do should the report conclude that there is no case to answer. Obviously, we are speculating on that at this point and I feel a little bit uncomfortable about that, so I will turn to the project itself.
The project will create four new schools that will provide state-of-the-art educational facilities for almost 4,000 pupils in North Ayrshire. As a result, there will be wider curricular choice and the latest, hi-tech facilities for science, language learning, sport and the performing arts. There will also be the renewed enthusiasm, motivation and energy that the new teaching and learning environment will bring. We have only to think about our move from the Mound into this building to realise how important and motivating a new environment can be. Many of the speeches in this chamber when we first moved here were about raising our game and doing things better. I expect that the new schools will have that effect on pupils and teachers in North Ayrshire.
I have asked ministers in parliamentary questions in the chamber whether Greenwood academy would conform to eco-school standards and have been encouraged by the responses, because I have been advised that it will. That means not only that will it be energy efficient in terms of heating, lighting and insulation, but that it will complement the safer routes to schools initiative by setting up bicycle racks, storage space and so on to encourage more young people to take exercise and cycle to school.
I appreciate Robin Harper's points about a bottom-up approach and consulting people. As a parent of a child who attends Greenwood academy, I received a letter about the PPP project and was given information about the potential design and asked to express my views on it. I hope that that will take care of one or two of the points that Robin raised.
Allan Wilson dealt with the points about open space and sports provision. I think that all the new schools will bring sports provision into the 21st century. I understand that, as well as athletics tracks and sports pitches, there will be extensive indoor facilities, including dance studios and fitness suites, which will bring physical education into the 21st century.
When a £10 million private finance initiative educational investment was proposed in my constituency, many people in the chamber opposed it. It now provides the highest quality education for more than 2,000 students in my area, and it provides jobs at James Watt College in North Ayrshire.
I welcome the proposals as they stand. They will bring undeniable benefits—not to today's generation, but to future generations of North Ayrshire's young people.
As other members have done, I congratulate Campbell Martin on securing this extremely important debate. He covered some of the concerns over the North Ayrshire schools PPP project very well. It is not just that there was only one bidder, although that is all too common in PPP projects throughout the country; when there should be many bidders creating competition that drives down prices, often there is only one.
The Laighdykes action group and others have expressed many concerns about the project. As I said, Campbell Martin dealt with many of them. Despite what Allan Wilson said, many people in the community are concerned about the project and residents in the area will be paying for it for years and years, even for decades. As we all know, that is the nature of PFI/PPP projects.
To echo a point that was made by another member, it is not unusual for councils to take decisions on projects of which they will be the beneficiaries. Across the country, concerns are expressed when planning permission is granted for projects from which the local council will benefit. I have received many communications, not just from the Saltcoats and Ardrossan area about this particular project, but from all over the west of Scotland about that kind of process.
Despite what some others have said, there will be a loss of playing fields. There will be a loss of 1 hectare of open land and a loss of facilities. Like Irene Oldfather, I welcome replacements and improvements for sporting facilities such as all-weather pitches and track, which are great, but the history of PFI/PPP projects shows that the problem is not only the loss of open land—to which Robin Harper referred—but the loss of access. Often, fees are introduced and regularly raised and become a barrier to access to the facilities. Not only are fees raised, but the amount of time that is allowed for access is reduced.
I want to put on record the information that I have. The new school will take up less ground than the building that it will replace, and the number of sports pitches in the area will increase rather than decrease. The field will continue to be open freely to the public on an informal basis. That information has been placed on record.
Sportscotland says that 1 hectare will be lost; it accepts that fact, despite what the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning read from his letter, although I am sure that he read accurately. Sportscotland's view is on the record. There will be a loss. Irene Oldfather also misses the point that I was making: the loss is not just of land, but of free or low-cost access for community groups. Prices will go through the roof. We are not talking just about a loss of overall area.
Parliament tries to promote an ethos of fitness among young people and it tries to highlight problems with obesity. Irene Oldfather talked about campaigns to encourage people to cycle or walk to school, but surely the superschool idea goes against such campaigns. Because of the distances that are involved, many more children will be driven to school by car and many more children will take the bus than is the case at present. We will see more congestion and pollution, and fewer children walking to school. What is the point of a walk to school campaign when some projects are leading us in the opposite direction? All we are doing is making things worse rather than better.
I have received many letters and e-mails on this subject from people in the Saltcoats and Ardrossan area. It is right that Campbell Martin has pursued it—very effectively—in the area. I congratulate him on bringing the debate to Parliament.
In principle, the Scottish Executive has a strong commitment to protecting green space, but PPP schools projects represent one of the biggest threats to Scotland's green space and open space. It is an irony that the hundreds of thousands of young people who use that green space and open space every day for play will lose big sections of it so that they can get new schools or have their existing schools modernised. Play is the subject of tomorrow night's members' business debate; everyone agrees that play is important, but the approach to encouraging it is not joined up.
Thirty councils and 268 schools are involved in PPP projects that will result in the loss of 320 acres of space. I do not know what an acre is, but 320 acres is the equivalent of 180 full-size football pitches. That is the consequence of using PPPs to fund refurbishment and new schools in Scotland. The Executive is presiding over an approach that is absolute madness. If it delays intervention any longer, it will be too late to stop what is happening.
The consultation process on the loss of space is a farce; it is not effective in protecting open space. The Holmhills Wood community park action group commissioned its own research.
Will the member give way?
No—I have only four minutes.
The Holmhills Wood community park action group report found that
"in some local authorities Councillors and senior Council officials are prepared to flout planning guidance, hide information and mislead the public in order to get PPP projects approved."
That will come as no surprise to some members.
In their initial bids for PPP schemes, the construction companies do not mention housing development or the sell-off of land, which they intend to use to make their proposals more profitable. Such practice takes place when there are two, three, four or five bidders, never mind when there is only one bidder, as is the case in North Ayrshire. Once a company wins a contract, it submits a variant bid that includes the sell-off of land and the development of luxury homes.
Leaving aside the loss of land at Laighdykes—which is a huge issue for the local community—the proposal is madness and it is no wonder that the community is up in arms about it. Educational attainment at St Andrew's academy is higher than it is at the school next door. The new school, which will be called St Matthew's, will be on the site of the playing fields. There will be a school next door. Together, those schools will have a roll of 3,000 pupils. Stewart Maxwell is right—the council is talking about 20 buses coming in every morning. The site of St Andrew's academy will become a car park and dropping-off point. It is lunacy to propose such a concentration of young people separated by a very small playing field.
I had read about the case in the paper, but I have been shocked by what Campbell Martin has told us. It is breathtaking to hear what is happening in local government. I await with interest the outcome of the report to the procurator fiscal. Here we go again—once more, a Labour council has got into bed with private companies. There is more than a whiff of corruption about events so far. We are talking about the selling off of public land to luxury-home developers who will make bumper profits for their shareholders. As usual, young people and local communities will pay the price—they will lose their Laighdykes playing fields—and then the council will complain about young people hanging about the streets and will impose dispersal orders. You could not make it up; what has gone on sounds like a script from "Yes, Minister".
My involvement in the debate is principally a matter of courtesy. Protesters contacted me about the proposals for the Ardrossan/Saltcoats site during a campaign against a similar development in South Ayrshire. As Adam Ingram said, it was suggested that a PPP project would take away valuable playing space. With that project, I felt that there was a lack of definition. I am not against all such projects—I can see advantages in them, because we need new schools—but with that project there was no guarantee that space or access for sporting activity would be retained. Such a guarantee is again lacking in relation to North Ayrshire Council's project.
I congratulate Campbell Martin. All the work that he has done was evident in the information that he presented in his speech. The question whether there is a foundation to what he says will have to be left to the police and the procurator fiscal to determine. In saying that, I take nothing away from his efforts.
Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, made a suggestion in his speech that perplexed me slightly. He said that PPPs are effectively the best thing since sliced bread. I can think back to the time when the Labour Party condemned us Conservatives for having the audacity to suggest PPP schemes of any kind. I am delighted that a Labour minister such as Allan Wilson has been converted and that he now sees the Conservative way ahead.
Does Phil Gallie accept that the PPP projects that the Labour Administration introduced post 1997 bear no relationship whatever to their PFI counterparts, not least because the assets revert to public ownership?
No, I do not accept that. For example, I recollect that the PFI hospital at Stonehaven will revert to public ownership in due course. I will return to the issue in North Ayrshire; I do not want to get bogged down in the PPP/PFI issue.
As a former councillor in North Ayrshire, I recognise the importance of the Laighdykes playing fields to the people of Ardrossan and Saltcoats. The land is effectively the only available public playing space and it is widely used. My fear is that the lack of definition in the PPP will mean that all the land will be lost. I accept that a couple of football pitches will be provided down at Ardeer, but Ardeer is 2 miles away from the proposed new school.
We talk about children and obesity. In that regard, we want kids to have open access to playing fields. We want to encourage that. My fear is that, in respect of this project, children will not get the access that they need.
I congratulate Campbell Martin on securing the debate on North Ayrshire Council's schools PPP. However, we have to distinguish between two types of issue that have been raised in the debate: the generalised attack that was made on PPP from some predictable quarters and the genuine points that were raised about individual PPPs, either in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats area or elsewhere.
There is nothing new about issues to do with land use arising in this regard, as the same issues arose in previous public procurement practice. Where does anyone imagine that the sites for new schools were found in the past? The practice of using land in this way is not new and is entirely in line with previous practice.
A number of genuine issues were raised in the debate, such as the use of sports land and open land, the involvement of parents and children—Robin Harper touched on that issue—and the flexibility or otherwise of PPPs. Other debates will have to be held on those issues.
I found it extremely depressing that such a negative, girning motion on such a positive subject is before the chamber today. We are in the middle of a huge programme to improve Scotland's school buildings through a combination of public-private partnerships and other procurement methods. In one way or another, the Executive is providing financial support to all Scotland's authorities so that they can move forward with their priorities—decided locally—for making schools fit for the 21st century.
Will the minister give way?
I will move on a bit, if I may.
In North Ayrshire, the capital value of the schools programme, of which the new Saltcoats school is a part, is something of the order of £107 million. Whether the school is procured under PPP or another arrangement, it is for the local authority to specify its requirements, to take account of the wider public interests and, indeed, to be accountable to its electors. In proposing changes of this kind, councils such as North Ayrshire have to take account of a range of issues, including the nature of existing buildings and future roll projections. Many of these decisions are difficult, given that they are taking place against a background of declining school rolls.
In this instance, the council also wants to secure the long-term future of Roman Catholic education for the whole of North Ayrshire within the best possible educational environment. Again, the decision is one for the council to take.
The minister talks about securing the best possible environment for Roman Catholic education. However, in the situation that we are discussing, there will be only one Roman Catholic secondary school in North Ayrshire, which means that children will have to travel long distances every day to access a school. Furthermore, we are sacrificing good schools that have widely recognised attainment levels.
I acknowledge that there are dilemmas in that regard, but such dilemmas arise throughout the country in a variety of situations. Local decisions must be made with regard to best value for money and the availability of facilities to local people.
Campbell Martin's motion makes three points. First, it refers in condemnatory fashion to the new school as the proposed "superschool". I hope that the school will be a super school in the best sense. Throughout Scotland, the Executive has provided the means and the additional teachers and facilities for many superb schools. In Saltcoats, the Executive, North Ayrshire Council and parents, staff and young people want a new, modern, dynamic school that will be ambitious and excellent and that will provide modern facilities and a broad curriculum and subject choice. Irene Oldfather commented on local provision in that regard. Let us be done with the relentlessly negative attitudes of Campbell Martin and, for once, take pride in what we are doing in Scottish education and in the great generation of young people who are coming through our schools.
Will the minister give way?
I have already taken an intervention.
Secondly, Campbell Martin's motion castigates the alleged loss of open space and sports pitches. Allan Wilson quoted from a letter from sportscotland, which made the situation clear. It is unusual for sportscotland to go out of its way to distance itself from a motion in a parliamentary debate. It is clear that there was a separate process to consider the planning and land use aspects of the school development proposal and that primary responsibility for the protection of such amenities lies with local authorities. The Executive's role is to provide the legislative framework and guidance and advice to local authorities on how to fulfil that commitment. That is why we have national planning policy guideline 11, which is currently being reviewed and modernised.
As members know, sportscotland is a statutory consultee on proposals for development on playing fields and performs that role with rigour. If sportscotland objects to a development, the case must be referred to the Scottish ministers for consideration. Sportscotland did not object to the proposals that we are debating. The National Playing Fields Association did not object, either. Indeed, sportscotland supports the proposals, because it thinks that they will deliver significant improvements in the provision of sports facilities for school and community use, as indeed they will.
Sportscotland points out that, far from detracting from open space and sports provision, the development will lead to no reduction in grass pitches. Indeed, grass pitches will be upgraded and a new full-size, floodlit, synthetic grass pitch will be created—perhaps that accounts for the change of use of one hectare out of 15 hectares of open space. There will also be new indoor sports facilities and three pitches will be brought back into use in Ardeer, only 2 miles away. I cannot judge the quality of the local provision being made, but perhaps members will draw their own conclusions.
How many of the pitches that the minister mentioned will be fenced off from the public and in how many will the public be charged for use?
As I said, that is a matter for the council, which is accountable to the local electorate. That is why a debate of this nature in the Parliament raises difficulties.
The third point that Campbell Martin's motion makes, on which he spent most of his speech, relates to the alleged questions over the bidding and procurement processes for the project. I am aware that the member has made a number of allegations in various quarters—without too much success up to now. North Ayrshire Council is the procuring body for the schools PPP project and as such has a responsibility to ensure that the correct procurement procedures have been followed. It is not for the Executive to comment on the matter at this stage, but I can say that Campbell Martin wrote to my colleague Tom McCabe about the PPP aspect of the matter and was offered a meeting. I understand that he did not take up that offer. Members may draw their own conclusions from that.
It might be helpful to make some final observations on the process. In PPP projects, councils have the assistance of guidance from the Scottish Executive on the process and of review by Partnerships UK at four separate points of the procedure, to ensure that things are properly done and represent value for money. Partnerships UK is charged by the Government with providing impartial, expert advice on PPP proposals. In the case that we are debating, Partnerships UK advised that the bid that North Ayrshire Council had accepted was affordable and would offer value for money. One basis for that decision was a check that was made against the public sector comparator.
The Parliament is not necessarily an appropriate forum for a debate in which allegations are raised that are apparently the subject of police scrutiny—or at least have been reported to the police—and which we cannot comment on or debate. The issues are not primarily for Parliament or the Executive, but the debate has nevertheless brought clarity to some aspects of the matter, although perhaps not in the way that Campbell Martin suggested or intended.
Meeting closed at 18:00.