Schools (North-east Fife)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-47, in the name of Mr Ted Brocklebank, on the need for a new secondary school in north-east Fife at the Tay bridgehead.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the longstanding need for a new secondary school at the Tay Bridgehead in north-east Fife; is aware of widespread local community support in the area for such a school; believes that the school is vital to relieve pressure on Madras College, St Andrews, which is the second largest secondary school in Scotland with a pupil roll of 1,850 and on Bell Baxter High School, Cupar, and further notes that the relocation of an additional squadron to RAF Leuchars will increase the pressure on the existing secondary schools and exacerbate the current situation.
Members may or may not be aware that the largest secondary school in Scotland is Holyrood Secondary School in Glasgow. It has more than 2,000 pupils, which, I am sure members will agree, is far too large by modern standards. However, do members have any idea where the five next-largest schools in Scotland—the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth largest—are? Are they in Glasgow, which is a big city, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Dundee? No—they are all in Fife. Two of them—Madras College in St Andrews and Bell Baxter High School in Cupar—are in the rural, north-east corner of the kingdom of Fife. Indeed, Madras College, which has 1,800 pupils, vies with Dunfermline High School for the position of second-biggest secondary school in Scotland.
Members may wonder why Fife, uniquely, has so many overcrowded schools. They might further ask what combination of circumstances has led to such jam-packed schools in rural, north-east Fife. The answer is pretty clear: the Labour-controlled Fife Council is responsible for education matters in the kingdom of Fife, so there is no great mystery about the general lack of investment in education. The county that produced Adam Smith, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and, for that matter, the recently departed previous First Minister, has shown lamentably little zeal in tackling the council's record on education matters. However, the key to the problem in the easterly part of the county is that no member of the Labour party there has held local or national public office in living memory. At Fife Council, which has been a Labour fiefdom for generations, education policy has been decided not by those elected from the north-east part of the county, but by the Labour majority. Some might call that local democracy.
Does the member agree that, as recently as 30 years ago, the Conservatives were the major political party in the county of Fife, and were therefore responsible for education then?
Indeed, but 30 years ago is not in the last two decades, when the major problem has come to the surface.
I had the privilege of being educated at Madras College—I admit that that was neither yesterday nor today. When I was there, there were 600 pupils. Even in those days, we spilled out into prefabricated buildings and sheds all over the school area. As happens today, pupils were bused from the extremities of the kingdom. It still takes more than an hour each way to reach the school from such exotic places as Balmerino and Gauldry. About 58 per cent of the pupils who attend Madras College face similarly lengthy bus journeys to and from St Andrews for their secondary education. Members can imagine the effect that that extension to the school day has on pupils' education, as well as the impact that it has on extra-curricular activities, including sport.
As far back as 1965, an attempt was made to secure a new secondary school near the Tay bridgehead to relieve the pressure on Madras College and Bell Baxter High School. Plans were drawn up and a site was identified, but the initiative was kicked into the political long grass of Glenrothes—the headquarters of Fife Council.
They were in Cupar.
The member is absolutely right; the council's headquarters were not located there then. In fact, they were partly located in Kirkcaldy, but never mind.
Now—nearly four decades later—14 double-decker buses still ply their way along the highways and byways of north-east Fife every day, transporting almost 1,000 pupils to Madras College. The cost to Fife Council is estimated at £750,000 a year. The appalling cost in educational terms and the cost to the academic future of pupils can only be guessed at. There are 7,500 wasted pupil journey hours each week, just for getting to school. Because Madras College is a split-site school, pupils are also bused backwards and forwards between different buildings throughout St Andrews. Those weekly travel costs are estimated to equate to seven teacher salaries, yet the prospects of a new school to relieve the pressure on Madras College seem as far away as ever.
The newly elected Fife Council, which is once again controlled by Labour, is behaving true to form. Supported this time by the Scottish National Party, the council has turned down the latest attempt to secure a commitment on a new school. This time, the excuse is that the council is awaiting a Fife-wide review of all secondary schools. That is Labourspeak for "How can we bury it in the long grass this time?"
How many reviews does Fife Council need? The situation at Madras College has now been under review for four decades. How much longer will it take? The council claims that, in some Fife schools, the rolls are getting shorter, rather than longer. However there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case in north-east Fife. Indeed, everything suggests that more and more people are choosing to make their homes there.
Does the member accept that one reason why some school rolls in north-east Fife are getting longer is that some parents of pupils attending such schools as Buckhaven High School, which has low academic attainment, are choosing to send their children to school in north-east Fife instead? They are thereby reducing the number of teachers at Buckhaven and are ensuring that the system keeps revolving.
Does the member also accept the argument that we need to ensure that the necessary resources are available throughout Fife—including at Buckhaven—to raise the level of academic attainment and to stop as far as possible the exercising of parental choice whereby parents opt for Madras College, Waid Academy and other colleges?
I hope to address that point later in my speech.
The arrival of a new squadron at RAF Leuchars, with upwards of 500 personnel, means that the situation in north-east Fife will only get worse. Even if a decision were taken tomorrow to build a new school, it could still take about five years for that school to get up and running. Meanwhile, youngsters in north-east Fife are sentenced to being bused back and forward in perpetuity, like so many soccer supporters doomed never to get to the game.
The leader of the SNP group on Fife Council claimed that attainment levels at Madras College were still high, despite the cramped conditions. He compared educational standards in that part of the country favourably with those elsewhere in Fife—as did Tricia Marwick. However, that is a classic example of the skewed political thinking that emanates from Fife House. Instead of praise for the teachers and the pupils at Madras College for keeping academic standards high—despite chronic overcrowding—we hear the tired old whine about not investing in the well-off north-east part of the county in case it penalises youngsters in the socialists' heartland of central and west Fife. Such class-ridden dogma has kept north-east Fife a Labour-free zone for more than half a century, but it is also a convenient smokescreen for Fife Council to avoid taking action on the proposed school for the bridgehead. The truth is that youngsters elsewhere in the county are already being penalised by the abysmal failure of Fife Council to embark on a meaningful school-building programme.
The quality of education for Fife's young people can no longer be left to the political whim of the ruling group on Fife Council. That is why the first question that I asked when I came into the Parliament was addressed to the then Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, Nicol Stephen. I asked him to intervene with Fife Council and bring pressure to bear to provide a new school for the north-east part of the county. Doubtless with an eye to his new brief in the coalition, the then minister informed me helpfully that education was a matter for Fife Council. I had realised that, but far from being the solution to the problem, Fife Council is the problem. That is why I believe that the Parliament must act now to ensure that another four decades do not elapse while Madras College's present generation of travelling pupils grow into elderly men and women whose children and grandchildren have become the latest victims of a discriminatory, politically biased local authority.
How should a new school be funded? Costs have been estimated variously between £10 million and £15 million. Frankly, I do not care whether Fife Council chooses to go for a public-private partnership or to fund the building directly. It does not take a mathematician to work out that, in savings on buses alone, the cost of the school might be recovered in as little as 20 years. Surely one of the things that this Parliament was supposed to be about was providing a platform for the disenfranchised who feel that they are being steam-rollered by the normal democratic processes. That is exactly how the parents, teachers and pupils of north-east Fife feel.
It is customary on these occasions to congratulate the member on securing the members' business debate and I shall certainly congratulate Ted Brocklebank. I lodged a motion on the subject in the first parliamentary session, but time ran out before it was possible to have the debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk early in this session about what is an important matter in my constituency.
I certainly do not need Ted Brocklebank to tell me about the need for a new school for north Fife, as I have been campaigning for one for many years. When I was a member of Fife Council—Christine May might remember this—I proposed that the council conduct a comprehensive review of secondary education in north-east Fife, because the three secondary schools there all have accommodation and development pressures. One of those schools is Bell Baxter High School, which is the school that I went to. When the Parliament met in Glasgow, we had a debate on Bell Baxter and the need to complete the project that is being carried out there—I am thankful that that project is now nearly complete. Bell Baxter is a split-site school, with many of the problems that Ted Brocklebank referred to in relation to Madras College. Given that I was a pupil at Bell Baxter, I am well aware of the problems that were caused.
Madras College suffers from being on a split site, as the sites are some distance apart in St Andrews. Problems are caused for the management, as they have to split the school into two: a junior school for the first three years and a senior school in the South Street building for senior pupils. That causes difficulties in managing the school's resources—there is duplication of resources and facilities to ensure that both sites have all the science laboratories, for example, that are required. The management also have to ensure that there are sufficient staff for both schools and that staff have sufficient travelling time if they have to teach in one school at one point in the day and in the other school at another point in the day.
Both sites require significant investment; neither is of a satisfactory standard. The South Street school is an old building and all sorts of extensions and bits and pieces have been tacked on to it over many years. The Kilrymont Road school has probably reached the end of its design life and needs significant refurbishment, which would cost several million pounds. It would be logical to consider the school accommodation in St Andrews. Given that Madras College is one of the largest secondary schools in Scotland, Ted Brocklebank rightly asked whether it is the right secondary education environment for the area. The population in north Fife is growing and we clearly have an opportunity to seek an imaginative solution that will benefit pupils not only in St Andrews but in the other parts of north Fife that Madras College serves. We should consider a new secondary school for north Fife.
Ted Brocklebank, again rightly, pointed out the financial costs of busing children from north Fife into St Andrews. There are other costs, too, including environmental ones. There is significant chaos in St Andrews in the evening when the buses come to take children back home. There are also social implications. Many children cannot benefit from all the school's resources. When I was a child at Bell Baxter, I lived 13 miles away and had to be bused there. It took half an hour every day and I could not take advantage of extra-curricular activities. There were problems for people who wanted to take part in competitive sports on Saturdays. We had to find ways of getting to and from the school in order to participate. Many of the kids in the smaller communities that Ted Brocklebank mentioned have long bus journeys and do not have alternative buses to use.
The Liberal Democrat group on Fife Council has tried to bring the issue to a head. When it recently introduced a motion on the subject, the council's response was that it was conducting a review of school estates for the Scottish Executive. That has to be done by the end of December. I have just written to the head of the education department to ask exactly what the council is doing, what the timetable for the review is, what efforts the council is making to consult local schools and communities, when the council will produce proposals and who will be involved in making the decisions. We need answers to those questions. By the end of the year, we must have a commitment from Fife Council to redevelop Madras College and to build a new secondary school in north Fife.
I sincerely congratulate Ted Brocklebank on securing this debate. It is important to note that there have been two parliamentary debates on schools in north-east Fife—one in this session and one in the previous session. Today's debate is being led by Ted Brocklebank and the other—on Bell Baxter—was led by Keith Harding. Despite Iain Smith's late attempt, he has never led a debate on the subject.
The debate gives me the opportunity to set the position of SNP and Labour councillors on Fife Council straight, rather than accepting the distortions that Iain Smith perpetuated in his amendment to Ted Brocklebank's motion. I note that he has now withdrawn that amendment.
The wording of the motion that we are debating is not the original wording. I withdrew my amendment because Ted Brocklebank agreed to amend the wording of his motion for this debate.
Okay.
The debate also gives me the opportunity to highlight the sheer political opportunism of the Liberal Democrat group on Fife Council. At the council's first meeting following the elections, the Liberal Democrats proposed a motion asking Fife Council to agree immediately to build a new school in north Fife. Quite rightly, the SNP and the Labour administration felt that so important a decision could not be made in a motion of three or four lines, but would need a far greater review of the issues.
The school refurbishment bill for the whole of Fife is about £60 million. To attempt to commit Fife Council and its budgets to a new school in Fife overnight was simply a piece of political posturing by the Liberal Democrats. That is why the SNP and the Labour administration opposed the motion.
It has always been my view that we need a new school in north-east Fife, but I believe that educational attainment for all the pupils in Fife is equally important. Ted Brocklebank said that I had never congratulated Madras College and Bell Baxter and their teachers on their attainment levels. That is simply not true. They are doing a wonderful job in appalling conditions. I refer Mr Brocklebank to my comments during the debate on Bell Baxter that we had in Glasgow.
I find unacceptable the suggestion that money should be spent in north Fife alone, to the detriment of the rest of Fife. It is unacceptable that we have low levels of attainment in Buckhaven and elsewhere. We need to stop pupils in such areas going to the north-east Fife schools because their parents believe that they will get a better education there. We must ensure that resources are spread evenly.
Ted Brocklebank made a great case for proportional representation in local government. He mentioned that there has never been a Labour councillor in north-east Fife and that the Labour party has never had any political representation in that area. For a long time, the Conservatives provided that representation and now the Liberal Democrats are there. If we had PR in local government, north-east Fife would have some Labour councillors.
I suggest that the quality of the representation by the Conservatives and the Liberals for generations in north-east Fife has contributed to the lack of consideration of the needs of north-east Fife. If the Liberal Democrats had been a bit more proactive recently, they might have been able to convince the Labour administration and others in north-east Fife that we needed a school.
Many issues need to be considered. I welcome the review that Fife Council is carrying out. It is important that that review is conducted fairly and that the council looks at the whole of Fife and at the places where the population is increasing. A case has already been made for a new school in north-east Fife, but there are similar cases elsewhere in Fife. We must look passionately, compassionately and dispassionately at all areas of Fife. We need to ensure that, regardless of where our children live in Fife, they have access to the best schools and the best education. That requires money. We all have a job to convince the Executive to open the purse-strings a bit more.
I have three points to make. First, Mr Brocklebank would have had much more credibility if he had addressed the chamber in his proper capacity as a list MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife and had presented his arguments on the basis of a clearly laid out and quantified exposition of the comparative reasons why north-east Fife's position is more worthy of immediate action than that of the remainder of Fife. For example, if he had described to us the condition of the school estate across Fife, the number of pupils at each school, the population projections for each catchment area and the impact on the quality of learning and teaching that the condition, layout and structure of the school or its size of roll was having, or if he had cited any current evidence on the optimum size of roll for ensuring maximum breadth of curriculum with minimum class sizes, his arguments would have had some credibility.
Instead, we got what I would describe as the Violet Elizabeth Bott approach to achieving one's objectives—he screamed and screamed and screamed until he was sick. I suggest that he was behaving much more like someone who had their eye on the main chance in a first-past-the-post electoral contest in St Andrews than like someone who was concerned to fulfil their proper role as a list MSP with responsibility for an electoral region. I hope that the Tory voters in the rest of Fife are not waiting for Ted Brocklebank to take up their cause, because they will need to keep waiting.
Secondly, the matter is for the local authority. It is not the Parliament's job to tell Fife Council in which locations its resources should be spent. It is for the Parliament to ensure that any such decision by Fife Council is made on the basis of sound evidence and that that decision assists the council in achieving the educational objectives that the Parliament has set down.
Finally, there is a need to take action about the split site of Madras College. I agree with Tricia Marwick and Ted Brocklebank that the teachers and pupils there do a magnificent and superb job. That has been recognised on numerous occasions by Fife Council and by elected representatives of all political persuasions. Fife Council, of which I was leader until April of this year, has had discussions with the school board and the senior staff of Madras College, so that it could hear what the specific issues are. I know that those issues are being taken into account in the current review of the school estate.
However, there is also a need for investment in other schools in Fife, such as Buckhaven High School, Glenwood High School and Auchmuty High School, which is in my constituency. I am sure that other members will refer to other schools and make similar arguments about the need to find money for schools in their constituencies.
Leaving aside whether I am qualified to speak as a list MSP for something in the Mid Scotland and Fife area, I think that it is a bit rich for Christine May to lecture me about the wonderful record of Fife Council. As she admits, until some months ago she was leader of the Labour group on Fife Council. Over the past year, Fife Council achieved probably the worst reputation for efficiency—if not the worst record—of any council in Scotland. Furthermore, Christine May holds her seat as a direct result of the resignation of her predecessor Henry McLeish. He is no longer a member of this body because of the various things to which I have referred that are connected with Fife Council's lack of efficiency.
I am not sure about that, but the people still elected me in a proper and well-fought contest.
Fife Council has taken advantage of the increased capital resources that were made available under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comprehensive spending review and from the previous Executive. The council has also taken advantage of the opportunities afforded by PPP moneys to make unprecedented investment in Fife's school estate. As a result of the school estate review, the council will look to increase investment in future years.
I am quite sure that that investment will include new provision in north-east Fife, but whether that will be in Tayport—which seems to be the suggested location—or elsewhere remains to be determined. Whether the first investment will be in north-east Fife or elsewhere also remains to be determined, but it will be determined fairly, not on the basis of criteria that are drawn up solely to advantage one political party's area over that of another.
The decision will also need to take account of the attainment needs across Fife and of the needs for proper accommodation for children across Fife. Moreover, the affordability of any such proposals for Fife's council tax payers will need to be considered—I recall that many council tax payers in the St Andrews area wrote to me to complain about this year's relatively modest increase.
I say to Mr Brocklebank that, although there are many ways of achieving one's objectives, screaming and screaming and screaming until one is sick is not one of them.
I do not wish to patronise the new member, who patronises us with advice about how to obtain results through debate in the chamber, but there is absolutely no coincidence that we have seen movement on the matter of Bell Baxter High School only after the issue was highlighted—to the severe embarrassment of the Executive partners—by Keith Harding when he was a Conservative.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I give way to Iain Smith.
First, there was absolutely no embarrassment on behalf of the partners in the Executive. The reason why I did not lodge a motion for members' business was that I was a minister at the time and was not, therefore, allowed to lodge members' business motions on such an issue, but that is by the way.
The result on Bell Baxter High School was achieved by the community in north-east Fife, by the school board, by councillors and by MSPs and MPs in north-east Fife campaigning bloody hard for it. It was nothing to do with Keith Harding's debate.
When Keith Harding had his debate, he outlined a number of complaints that had been put to him to the effect that the member for North East Fife was not taking the issue as seriously as was the Conservative list member.
It is true that Iain Smith was a minister for a very short time, but when we had that debate, I recall that Iain Smith spoke in it.
Iain Smith indicated agreement.
He could not lodge a motion, but somehow he was allowed to speak on the issue as a constituency MSP. That seems to be a bit strange to me.
I should move on. I went to Portobello High School which, at the time, was in "The Guinness Book of Records" for being the largest school not in Scotland but in the UK; 2,500 pupils attended a school that was designed for only 1,200 pupils. I remember that well, because I remember the conditions in which we used to work, the job that teachers had, and the contribution that that made to difficulties with discipline. It made the task much harder.
Will the member give way?
No, it is about time that I made some points. I am sure that Scott Barrie will speak later.
I also recall that at that time—1974—new regional councils were created, which had responsibility for delivering education. I might be wrong, but I do not remember any years since the former Fife Regional Council was created and given responsibility for education when it was Conservative controlled. The problem to do with Madras College has grown and grown: I has got worse, and that happened under the control of the—
Conservative Government.
Iain Smith said, "Conservative Government" as if that is the problem—[Interruption.] Sorry, it was Scott Barrie. What is the difference? Their parties are the same, anyway.
I recall the similar example of Balfron High School in Stirling. Time and again, the Conservatives offered money for a new school to be built, but Labour-controlled former Central Regional Council continually refused. Then what happened? Michael Forsyth eventually lost the seat, which became a Labour seat and—lo and behold—Stirling Council, which by then was in charge of education, thought that it should apply for private finance initiative funding and build a new school. Many of the very same members who had served on the then Central Regional Council, and who had opposed a new school, suddenly thought that such a school was necessary, and even did a volte face by using PFI to build it.
I have no doubt that by kicking and screaming, by pointing out the iniquity and by showing who is at fault, there is every possibility that this debate will start a process by which people in Fife Council take a serious look at themselves and say, "We must correct this wrong." There is nothing like the threat of losing an election to motivate politicians to act. The fact that Ted Brocklebank has raised the matter so that it has seen the light of day—even though we in this Parliament cannot act—will make people sit up. For that reason, I welcome the fact that he secured this debate.
I had not intended to speak in the debate, and I am not sure that it is a wise move to do so. However, I was provoked as usual by Mrs Marwick, lost as she was in her labyrinth of party-political point scoring, which became her trademark in the last session of Parliament. We can always rely on her to lose the issue at hand, and to concentrate merely on trying to score party-political points. It did not win her Central Fife and she would win back a lot of respect around the chamber if she learned that lesson. It rebounded on her, and she would do better if she concentrated on the issues.
What rich fare indeed we had from Mr Monteith, given that Mr Harding actually blames Mr Monteith for getting him shoved down the Tory list to an unelected position. Now Mr Monteith is singing Mr Harding's praises. I wish that he had done so when Keith Harding was still here, instead of sabotaging him and stabbing him in the back. Now Mr Brocklebank has taken his place.
Let me return to the main point that we are debating, because I could easily get lost in Tory in-fighting, endless and eternal as it is. Mr Brocklebank should watch his back; Mr Monteith is behind him, so he will never know what will happen to him next. Keith Harding's trademark was that he did not do what the Tories are doing now. I praise Keith, because he was a good colleague and we worked together, albeit that we were in different parties. Mr Brocklebank would be wise to follow Keith Harding's modus operandi.
Keith Harding was concerned about issues rather than about party-political point scoring—Christine May might agree that that was one of the reasons why we made progress on Bell Baxter High School. The campaign on Bell Baxter was an all-party, non-party-political campaign to end the split-site school and the use of those dreadful portakabins, some of which were almost as old as I am, but in much worse condition. They were hot and humid in summer and freezing in winter—an absolute nightmare.
Our achievements at Bell Baxter resulted from a non-party-political campaign that crossed all parties, but today we have had a very patchy debate. I am sorry that, in his first members' business debate, Mr Brocklebank set such an unfortunate tone. I hope that he will learn and become more statesmanlike. He looks statesmanlike with all that white hair, so perhaps in future he will live up to his appearance and concentrate on the issue that is being debated.
I agree that it is not desirable for students to be bused in to Madras College in the way in which the member described—not least because of after-school activities, to which Christine May referred. It is tremendously important that all pupils be able to participate after school in activities such as music and drama, which should be part of the school's community life. They might not be related directly to pupils' subjects and exams but—as Charles Clarke has shown down south—we are, perhaps, too regulated. Perhaps we concentrate too much on targets and outcomes rather than on the broad nature of education. It is important that schools be seen as communities, but that is very difficult if children have to be bused long distances.
I support strongly what my colleague Iain Smith said. I do not understand the point that was made about an election—I thought that we had just had one and that Iain Smith won it with an increased percentage share of the vote. However, never mind about that—let us all work together and be as successful in getting a new school in north Fife as we were on the issue of Bell Baxter High School.
Some of the arguments that Mr Brocklebank deployed were absolutely valid and I agree with them. I hate being called a list member, but I take the point that Christine May made—we have a regional, strategic responsibility. The Executive must face the huge backlog in school building maintenance, which did not start suddenly in May 1997. I will not go beyond that, because I am trying to be non-party political. However, there is a problem with providing new schools.
I confess that I am not a great devotee of PPP/PFI, but if we have to use it, let us do so. SNP members preach against it in the chamber, but build wonderful council buildings for themselves using PPP/PFI. Let us use it constructively and in the interests of pupils and teachers. The pupils and teachers at Madras, at Bell Baxter and throughout Fife do a damned good job in difficult circumstances. Ultimately, it is the quality of the teaching rather than class sizes or the size of the school that counts. We must support teachers and get together to ensure that they have the best possible accommodation.
I speak in this debate not as someone who has a direct constituency interest in North East Fife—I certainly do not want to intrude on the petty squabbling that appears to be taking place between two of the parties that claim to represent the area—but as someone who is proud to have been educated in Fife and who has spent almost his entire adult life in Fife.
The primary school that I attended had a roll of approximately 550. The high school that I attended had a roll that exceeded the current roll of Madras College, so we should not be too hide-bound by that issue.
I want to pick up points that some other members made—although not necessarily Mr Brocklebank. Most people accept that we must do something not just about the situation in North East Fife, but about the situation in other parts of Fife that face exactly the same problem—not least my constituency of Dunfermline West. Some schools in Dunfermline—in particular, Dunfermline High School—are grossly over capacity.
What we must consider—and what Tricia Marwick was right about in her exposition of what Fife councillors have decided—is that the debate is for Fife Council to have in the council chamber and should be part of the school estate review. The debate is not about whether Tay bridgehead requires a new school more than any other part of Fife, but about the state of the school estate in Fife and where we need new schools. If we have schools that are under capacity, we need to debate doing something about catchment areas. I take on board Tricia Marwick's point that parental choice has added to the existing problem.
Fife has had a tradition of split school sites in several places. Kirkcaldy High School was on two sites and Cowdenbeath had two schools on two sites. We had junior high schools until the late 1980s at Auchterderran and Ballingry before the new Lochgelly High School was built. The issue was tackled by Fife Regional Council over the years, but the two Conservative members who spoke did not acknowledge that.
We must consider other solutions. I appreciate that parents and pupils who live in the bridgehead would rather have a school that was more local than Madras College is, but we should not forget that attending Madras College brings great prestige. If people were concerned only about the distance that pupils must travel, pupils from the Tay bridgehead would travel 2 miles across the Tay bridge into Dundee, which has much excess capacity. Dundee City Council has undertaken a great rationalisation process, which included the closure of two high schools, and the council might yet revisit whether it has too many high schools. If a new school were required only because of distance, a solution would be available to people should they choose to take it.
I will paraphrase Brian Monteith, because I omitted to write down what he said. He suggested that there was nothing like the prospect of losing an election to galvanise people. I ask him which political party lost a council ward in St Andrews at the local council elections. Could it have been the Conservatives that lost a ward to the Liberal Democrats? Brian Monteith's claims were overstated, as usual.
Those of us who have the privilege of representing Fife, whether as constituency members or regional list members, must work together to achieve what is best for all the young people of Fife and not just those in one geographical region that one political party wants to use to indulge in petty political point scoring.
I call Euan Robson to sum up for the Executive.
It is indeed for the Executive.
As is traditional, I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on securing the debate. I do not know whether he has just made his maiden speech. If he did, I congratulate him on it; if he did not, I congratulate him on securing the debate. He will have heard the strictures of constituency members about the role of regional members and I am sure that he will learn to live with those. The name Violet Elizabeth Brocklebank has a ring to it, so he should beware.
I acknowledge the long-standing interest that my colleague Iain Smith, the constituency MSP for North East Fife, has taken in the issue and other education issues in the area. In the previous parliamentary session, he spoke regularly on the matter, but he does not hold the record for bending my ear on the subject. My old friend Councillor Eleanor Gunstone did that before the Parliament was established. She also told me never to refer to "Gauldry" but to "the Gauldry". Perhaps that is another small point to arise from the debate.
I listened with great interest to all that was said. I appreciate the genuine concerns about the issue from all quarters. Despite the fact that Tricia Marwick has left the chamber, I include her in that remark.
I appreciate the particular concern about the buildings at Madras College; the Executive is clear about those concerns. However, members will understand that responsibility for the detailed decisions on school buildings lies with Fife Council, as it does for other councils in other areas. Mr Brocklebank mentioned the reply that he had received from my predecessor, Nicol Stephen. Had I been in that position at the time, Mr Brocklebank would have received the same reply from me.
Although it is perfectly acceptable to debate the issues in the Parliament, I emphasise the fact that we are talking about decisions that are not for the Executive or the Parliament to take. It would be quite wrong for ministers to intervene in the situation in north-east Fife in the way that has been suggested. It would be wrong because it is the local authority that is subject to the statutory duty for the provision of adequate and efficient school education in its area. The local authority also has the best knowledge of the local factors that are involved. I have always been a strong supporter of local democracy; I believe that such decisions should be taken at the level that is closest to the citizen, which is of course at the local council level.
As Iain Smith said, Fife Council has considered the issue recently—Christine May also referred to that. Although I acknowledge that a degree of public support exists for new schools, Fife Council appears to have concluded that it would be premature to give commitments at this stage to building a new school in the Tay bridgehead area in advance of completion of the school estate management plan.
I listened carefully to what Christine May had to say and I associate the Executive with her comments on the achievements of the staff and students at Madras College. Some years ago I taught—albeit not for a long time—at a split-site school. I understand some of the difficulties that are involved in such schools. I was interested to hear Scott Barrie's references to the history of split-site schools in Fife.
I noted what Christine May said about the likelihood—I think that that was the word that she used—of a new school in north-east Fife. We look forward to hearing how Fife Council's plan progresses in that respect. The preparation of the school estate management plan flows from the school estate strategy, which the Executive developed in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
As members who were present in the first session of the Parliament will recall, the strategy was launched in February of this year. The strategy is important because investment in school buildings requires careful planning and forethought. The strategy makes it clear that there can be no single blueprint. The right solution for each school must reflect the particular needs and aspirations of that school's pupils, staff, parents and communities. As members know, all councils have to submit plans to the Scottish Executive by the end of this year. The plans will be valuable management tools for local authorities, which are the custodians of the significant asset that the school building stock represents in each area.
The plans will draw together information that will allow authorities to plan, monitor and evaluate progress in improving the school estate. They will allow authorities to develop a school estate that meets our aspirations, responds to evolving needs and is effectively managed and maintained over the long term. However, I note the point that members have made about maintenance. I am sure that Fife Council's plan will address that issue.
The availability of resources plays a part in the detailed decisions that local authorities take on their capital programmes. The role of the Executive is to ensure that councils have a reasonable level of resources to deal with the priorities that they wish to address. We have greatly increased those resources by various means. Between 2000-01 and 2003-04, Fife Council had an increase of 39 per cent in its capital allocation, with the allocation for 2003-04 standing at £18.9 million. From 2004-05, we are moving to alternative arrangements to give councils even greater flexibility in their capital spending.
It is worth recording that, between 1997-98 and 2001-02, an extra £115 million was made available specifically for school buildings under the new deal for schools capital grants. That was boosted by a further £38.7 million over the two years 2001-02 and 2002-03 by the school buildings improvement fund. In March this year, we announced the new schools fund for work on school buildings, which will see capital grant over the next three years of £180.1 million. Incidentally, Fife's share of that is almost £10 million.
On top of all that additional spending power, we have provided for significant capital investment in schools throughout Scotland through PPPs. We announced £1.2 billion last June and a further £750 million in March this year. That, in turn, is on top of the £530 million spent on schools under the previous round of PPP.
As members in the chamber will probably know better than I do, Fife was successful in that early round and two new secondary schools and a new primary school will be ready for occupation after the summer holidays to replace previous unsatisfactory accommodation. Fife is now taking forward the preparatory work on its second PPP following our announcement last June. In accordance with the principle of local democracy that I mentioned, it is for Fife to decide which schools are the priority for the second PPP.
Fife will now be considering its longer-term strategy through the estate management process that I described. That should take account of the school estate as it is at present as well as the population trends and future projections of school rolls. I am confident that all those factors, along with local community issues, will figure in the council's careful deliberations in planning school provision that meets local needs in relation to education as well as to just the location of buildings.
The school estate review strategy requires the council to take account of matters such as the sufficiency, condition and suitability of schools. The child is at the centre of education and the school is at the heart of the community. Taking all those matters into account, is the minister willing to visit north-east Fife and the schools in St Andrews to decide whether they meet those key objectives?
I thank the member for his invitation. I am prepared to visit schools in Fife in general. There are several new and interesting developments in Fife and, if the local authority were so minded, I would be grateful to witness the changes and new investment that have been made. If that includes north-east Fife, I would be only too delighted.
Education remains one of the Executive's top priorities. Young people need to be in school buildings that reflect and support excellent standards of teaching and learning. School has a big impact on a child's development and we want it to be a modern, safe and secure environment where children are happy and where they can learn and grow. Excellent school buildings with the most modern equipment are the most visible sign of the high standards of education that we must have in the future.
I am well aware of the contrast between the environment in new schools and the environment in schools that need to be replaced or refurbished. With the additional resources that we are making available, we are helping authorities to close that gap. That is part of our overall objective to deliver better education opportunities for all our children and I am sure that this debate will have contributed to that process in Fife.
Meeting closed at 17:58.