Scottish Futures Trust
The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the Scottish Futures Trust. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his 15-minute statement, there should be no interventions or interruptions.
I announced in May that the Scottish Government intended to set up the Scottish Futures Trust over the course of the summer. I am here today to announce that we are doing what we said we would do. The Scottish Futures Trust is being registered today at Companies House.
I am also delighted to be able to announce that ministers have appointed Sir Angus Grossart as the chair of the Scottish Futures Trust. Sir Angus has vast experience in banking and commerce. He also has a deep knowledge of all things Scottish and has considerable expertise in the public sector. The combination of his lifetime's experience and expertise in the private commercial world and his lifetime's commitment to and enthusiasm for working in Scotland's best interests guarantee that his skills will be deployed to Scotland's benefit. I am very pleased indeed that Sir Angus has agreed to guide the new organisation as it turns our plans into reality and takes forward the proposals set out in the SFT business case, which we published in May.
The Scottish Futures Trust is being established as a company limited by shares and, reflecting the consultation responses, it will be wholly owned by the Scottish ministers in the public interest. Its structure provides the flexibility to bring on board other public sector stakeholders. We have already discussed the operation of the Scottish Futures Trust with our local authority partners and the Government will ensure that there is local authority expertise on the SFT board from its inception. We shall be considering carefully over the next few weeks how to include other stakeholders, and further appointments will be made shortly.
The Scottish Futures Trust will perform a key role in taking forward the Government's programme of infrastructure investment, which is vital in delivering public services and in supporting sustainable economic growth.
To quote from the trust's memorandum of association:
"It will encourage, facilitate, plan, fund, procure and deliver assets, infrastructure and other projects … for the benefit of governmental bodies, local authorities, other bodies … funded through public funds, and non-profit-distributing bodies, in Scotland."
The SFT will act as a focal point for public sector action in infrastructure investment. It will identify common ground and encourage collaboration among public bodies responsible for providing infrastructure. It will recognise and build on good work already done. It will promote and disseminate innovation, good practice, experience and value for money in infrastructure investment. It will identify and promote opportunities for investment in infrastructure and it will be able to borrow and raise finance for that purpose.
When I updated Parliament in May, I made it clear that the SFT had as its central mission the identification and delivery of opportunities for better-value investment in Scotland's vital public services. That remains the case. My aim is to equip the SFT to achieve that central ambition. The appointment of Sir Angus Grossart as chair is a critical step in doing so.
I said that we would learn lessons from previous private finance initiative contracts. It is quite clear that the PFI approach used in the past has not delivered best value for the taxpayer. Excessive profits have been made on investments that were thought to carry significant risk. In the event, those risks did not justify the profits made. The ability to sell on investments once the construction risk has passed and to make very large returns means that windfall gains have been made. That does not deliver overall value for money for taxpayers and users of Scottish infrastructure.
A key role for the SFT will be to help reduce the cost of funding and to deliver more effective investment in planning, procurement and delivery. The business case in May identified the potential to release up to £150 million each year for increased investment in Scotland's infrastructure. After all, over the next 10 years, £35 billion of infrastructure investment—improvements in schools, hospitals, waste disposal and treatment and our transport network—is set out in our infrastructure investment plan. Over the period of the spending review that is £14 billion.
A key task for the SFT, which I have already discussed with Sir Angus Grossart, is getting more from that money. The SFT will be able to do so in several ways: first, by developing the non-profit-distributing model of finance and removing the equity gains that led to the excessive profits to which I have referred; and secondly, by becoming a reference point for all the public sector organisations investing in infrastructure that we know is essential to the future of Scotland.
That central expertise is something that other nations provide and is a significant gap in our present arrangements. By operating as a reference point, the SFT will provide opportunities for swifter project planning and delivery, which in itself will save money by avoiding the high construction inflation costs that result from delays in project development. Better value can also be supported by better deals for services required for major infrastructure projects, such as insurance and financial advice. Key to all that is the focus on collaboration across projects and sectors. The positive discussions that are taking place locally in community planning partnerships need to be matched nationally. One of the benefits of being a small country is that it is easier to make the links that we need in order to make projects more economic and effective.
The Government is already delivering an ambitious programme of capital investment, which is making and will make a big contribution, not only to excellent public services but to our economy's resilience. Earlier this year, we announced the construction in Glasgow of one of Europe's largest hospital projects, at close to £840 million. We will also electrify much of the central Scotland rail network, among other projects.
That is not new.
We have entrusted our local authorities with increased capital resources to expand their infrastructure programmes. That has allowed South Lanarkshire Council to announce £227 million of investment over the next three years in new schools and enabled Fife Council to commit to a £126 million investment programme in six new schools over a longer period. Those investments are a consequence of the Government's budget decisions.
Aberdeen?
With the Scottish Futures Trust, we will be in a position to deliver even more.
I will explain in more detail what the SFT will do and how we expect it to operate. As it will be a company that is owned by ministers, we will set its objectives and direction through a management statement, which we will publish, that is agreed between the Scottish Government and the new company's chair and board. It is important that the SFT operates in a framework that demonstrably supports the public interest. That framework will emphasise the importance of collaborative working throughout the public sector in Scotland.
The SFT's day-to-day operation will clearly and rightly be at arm's length from ministers. Operational decisions must be for the board and the trust's executive management. [Interruption.] That is how the SFT will innovate, collaborate and deliver.
I asked for no interruptions during the statement and I would like that to be the case. There will be plenty of opportunity to question the cabinet secretary at the end.
I want the SFT to work hard and creatively in Scotland's best interests to maximise opportunities from infrastructure investment. I know from our discussions that Sir Angus Grossart completely shares that view.
Sir Angus has emphasised the importance of building in the SFT a strong team that is competent to deliver financing models and collaboration arrangements that work and win confidence. I agree with that 100 per cent, as I am sure every member does. I want the chair and his board colleagues to have the freedom to build such a team that draws together key skills and experience. The arm's length arrangements that I have described will allow them to do so.
I will describe briefly the three crucial features of the SFT's approach. The first is collaboration. The SFT will not work on its own. With collaboration, support and a willingness among partners to identify areas for common endeavour, there is huge potential to improve performance together. That is not collaboration for its own sake, but because it is important to achieving better value and better co-ordination in infrastructure investment.
We have a unique opportunity to work together in Scotland, to find common ground and shared goals and values. That will be reflected in our management statement with the Scottish Futures Trust and in the composition of the board of directors. I want it to be reflected in how the SFT works, and I am sure that it will be reflected in the response from local authorities, health boards and Scottish Government agencies. Sir Angus Grossart is firmly and clearly committed to engaging with partners in infrastructure investment, to seek out common ground and secure support. If there is a Scottish way of doing business, this is it.
The SFT's second feature is continuous improvement. We should never be satisfied with what we have achieved. Scope will always exist to achieve better value, better co-ordination and quicker delivery of vital investment. Achieving better value from an investment will generate money that can be recycled into more infrastructure for Scotland. That will be achieved not in a single step, but by searching and pushing constantly for improved ways of producing and delivering infrastructure schemes.
The third hallmark is innovation. We can continue to improve value for money, design quality, life-cycle sustainability and delivery speed if we are prepared to take new approaches. That is not innovation for its own sake, but because it can offer better value, a more joined-up approach and better infrastructure that is in place more quickly. Innovation will be supported by expertise and will happen without ever losing our focus on the infrastructure results that we need to achieve.
Members are—rightly—interested in what the SFT's work programme will look like. We want the new body to be closely involved in setting its work plan, but I expect the SFT to take over several pieces of work to maintain the momentum of our capital investment programme. Key areas of activity for the SFT will include providing value-for-money guidance for infrastructure projects, in line with the Conservative amendment that the Parliament agreed to on 5 June; further developing the non-profit-distribution model, including consideration of the refinancing arrangements that local authorities in Scotland have used successfully several times over the past two years to bring forward vital local projects; developing proposals in partnership with local authorities for municipal bond issues; and finalising arrangements for the hub initiative.
The hub initiative is the first of two major programmes for development that the Scottish Futures Trust will take forward. The initiative will be a catalyst and focus for better development and delivery of community-based facilities across the public sector in Scotland by supporting the more effective planning, procurement and delivery of infrastructure in support of local services. It will support local authorities, national health service boards and other public sector bodies across Scotland in delivering their community-based premises requirements more effectively. The hub concept not only includes joint planning and provision of physical infrastructure, but embraces wider non-financial benefits of investment including increased joint working for the benefit of service users, scope for flexibility in providing key public services, and lower costs of property ownership through sharing and integrating services where that makes sense.
The second programme for development will provide a focus for ensuring and sustaining quality schools infrastructure for the benefit of all our children. In its report on the school estate, Audit Scotland made it clear that greater rigour, scrutiny and order is required. We accept that view. The establishment of the Scottish Futures Trust is a significant part of our response to that challenge. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will discuss with our local authority partners the focus and direction of the next phase of our school investment programme. In taking forward those tasks, the SFT will follow the key approaches that I emphasised earlier: collaboration, engaging and working closely with our local authority partners and the rest of the public sector; continuous improvement; and innovation. I emphasise that the work of the Scottish Futures Trust will be a wholly inclusive process.
Improving Scotland's infrastructure is vital. It is vital if we are to focus capital spend to support economic activity and to realise this Government's core purpose, which is to promote higher levels of sustainable economic growth. In our infrastructure investment plan, we set out our priorities and the scale of our ambition. The plan envisages investment of £14 billion over the next three years and a total of £35 billion over the course of the next 10 years. That is the largest ever investment in the fabric of Scotland and this Government is determined to secure the best possible deal for the taxpayers of Scotland in that investment. The SFT has a very important contribution to make towards achieving that objective.
As of today, we have the vehicle to build on our achievements to date. In Sir Angus, we have a leader with the skills, energy and expertise to deliver for the people of Scotland. I encourage the Parliament to engage constructively in this work. I look forward to co-operating with the trust and partners across Scotland on this joint endeavour to make Scotland renowned for the quality of its public infrastructure.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in the statement.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of the statement.
I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on convincing Unison to change its position on his much-derided Scottish Futures Trust. I draw the chamber's attention to the submission that the union made to yesterday's meeting of the Finance Committee:
"UNISON had earlier described the SFT proposals as ‘PFI-Lite', but they are increasingly looking like full blown PFI/PPP, with attempts to mask this based on semantic debates over terminology."
So much for the SNP's commitment to end the public-private partnership. Prior to May 2007, the cabinet secretary was delighted to quote the union in defence of his argument against PPP. Is he as keen to quote it today in defence of his SFT proposals?
On 22 May, in response to a parliamentary question, the First Minister asserted that the SNP and the SNP Government were the first to apply the non-profit-distributing model, which had been done in Falkirk. As we all know, the First Minister is not prone to exaggeration. Imagine my surprise therefore to read in the cabinet secretary's responses to parliamentary questions that approval had been given to Argyll and Bute Council back in July 2002 to develop its non-profit-distributing model—a project that reached its financial close in 2005. Who am I to believe—the First Minister, who said that it was the SNP, or the cabinet secretary, who said that it was Labour in Argyll and Bute?
The cabinet secretary makes great play of the establishment of the Scottish Futures Trust. He boasts that the trust will be registered today at Companies House—a task that any competent lawyer in any high street firm could accomplish in an average afternoon. Few will be impressed by such tardy progress. People are interested in what assets the trust will have and how much it will have in its bank account to stimulate investment. We have established that the trust is nothing more than an expensive, poorly managed rebranding of public-private partnership, with a quango on top, and that it is clearly an attempt to hoodwink the Scottish people. Will companies continue to take profits at the same rates to the public purse as before—or, indeed, at higher rates? Will deals still commit public authorities to payments 25 to 30 years into the future? Will Scotland be forced to wait as the SNP dithers and gambles with the future of our schools, hospitals and much-needed infrastructure?
Finally, does the Scottish Futures Trust have the power to reject projects that have already been approved by democratically elected local authorities? If so, is that not another power that has been grabbed to the centre?
In that lengthy proposition, Andy Kerr might have found it in himself to welcome the progress that the Government has made and the contribution that Sir Angus Grossart is prepared to make to developing the infrastructure of Scotland. I should have thought that Mr Kerr, a man who aspires to leadership—the subject, appropriately, of time for reflection today—would have demonstrated some of the attributes about which we heard so much. Perhaps that is why he is not likely to be doing so next week.
I am happy to address the issue that Mr Kerr raised. He will be familiar with the history of NPD and will know of the efforts that Falkirk Council put into developing an NPD proposal when it was led by David Alexander of the SNP. The principal obstacle to the proposal was the Labour Government that used to run this country very badly.
Mr Kerr asked me about the assets of the Scottish Futures Trust. The trust's assets will be anchored in its ability to encourage co-operation and collaboration between public sector bodies to secure greater efficiency and value for money, which I regard as laudable aspirations at this time. Mr Kerr is absolutely right to say that, under the NPD model, repayments will be made over a period of time. That is sensible capital investment. It is not sensible capital investment to sign up—as Mr Kerr did in abundance—to projects that lead to poor value for the taxpayers of Scotland.
The Government has made it abundantly clear, and has evidenced by its actions in approving a range of projects since the election last May, that projects that were previously approved by other public authorities will go ahead. The one project that we did not allow to proceed was the Edinburgh airport rail link. We would have had to be off our heads to agree to that proposition.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for providing me with an advance copy of his statement. The Conservative party welcomes the appointment of Sir Angus Grossart, who brings to his role a wealth of experience in the financial and private sectors. We wish him well.
As we have said before, it is important that the infrastructure that we need is delivered in a way that maximises value for the taxpayer. The jury is still out on whether the SFT will achieve that. In his statement, the cabinet secretary said that members will be interested in what the trust's work programme will look like; so will the public and private sectors in Scotland. When will we see the final SFT work programme? What parliamentary scrutiny of it will there be? When will we see evidence of the £150 million of additional investment that, it is claimed, the SFT is to deliver?
The Government will, of course, be happy to update Parliament on the development of the SFT work programme. I am certain that, through committee scrutiny or parliamentary debate, we can find opportunities to update Parliament. The challenge that we have set the SFT is to take forward a business case that enshrines the ability to leverage more value out of existing investment. That is the core working priority of the SFT and we will report to Parliament on the basis of its achievement.
I am certain that the model that we have designed, with the ability to structure collaborative work between public authorities, gives us the best possible chance to maximise the value to the taxpayer of the public investment. With a £14 billion programme over three years and a £35 billion programme over 10 years, I am certain that the returns will be delivered.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance notice of his statement—with its solitary mention of the word "fund". Those scientists in Switzerland who are trying to create a black hole are wasting their time; the SNP has managed to create one in every council area with delay and uncertainty over the building programme for schools. Can the cabinet secretary explain why he says today that the SFT is a result of work with local councils, whereas yesterday Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council said that they did not have a clue what the Government was planning to put in place?
Today's statement says that the trust will fund infrastructure. Will the cabinet secretary say why it does not say how? The statement says that the trust will build infrastructure. Can the cabinet secretary tell us why the statement does not say when? It says that there will be a new advisory body, but why does it not contain any reference to the central Government centre of procurement expertise, which was recently set up with the same functions, partners and objectives? Why is there no mention in the statement of the new body's payroll costs—as they were established in the business case—which alone come to £14.5 million out of an entire budget of £17.4 million? Why is there yet another quango to replace an existing piece of work? Why does uncertainty remain over level-playing-field support for local authorities?
First, I take the opportunity to welcome Mr Purvis to his new post on the Liberal Democrat front benches. It is the first time that I have had the chance to do that. I look forward to debating and discussing such issues with him in the years to come.
People in various parts of the country will be very surprised by Mr Purvis's remarks about a lack of school buildings. Schools are being built in different parts of the country as we speak. If we had listened to the gloom of Mr Purvis, we would have come into office and stopped every building programme. We have not done that. Every building programme that was commissioned when we came into office is taking its course. The previous Executive was unable to get the M74 started; we have, although I concede to Mr Patrick Harvie that it is not universally popular. Let us stop peddling the myth that there is no building going on in Scotland; there is plenty public sector infrastructure getting built in Scotland.
Mr Purvis asked about the central Government centre of procurement expertise. It is doing a very good job in a variety of areas, but it is not focused on the type of strategic construction projects that are implicit in the announcement that I have made today.
On the costs of the Scottish Futures Trust, I do not think that the Government could have been more explicit about including them in the business case, which was published by the Government and debated in Parliament some months ago. The money that we intend to spend on maximising efficiency in the public sector procurement programme will be justified by the achievements that we can deliver in doing so—and I would have thought that that objective was shared across the parliamentary chamber.
We come to open questions. A large number of members want to ask questions, so if questions and answers can be kept short we will get there in the end.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement, which represents another step towards delivering more cost-effective investment of taxpayers' money and brings to an end the obscene profits that were made under PFI.
Will the cabinet secretary say more about the financial powers that could be available to the Scottish Futures Trust and about how the SFT will be able to assist in finding finance for public infrastructure projects?
As I said in my statement, the Scottish Futures Trust will be able to procure finance at a more efficient rate, because of the aggregation of projects. I also set out the opportunity that exists to create and structure a local authority bond for issue. Those are a couple of the attributes that the SFT will have at its disposal. The SFT will also be able to work closely and carefully with other public authorities, to maximise the ability to raise revenue to invest in capital infrastructure. That is the task on which the SFT is focused.
The cabinet secretary confirmed in his answer to my colleague Andy Kerr's question that the SFT is a new quango that has no money in its bank account. However, despite his bluster to Mr Purvis, he failed to make it clear when the new body will commission its first school.
On behalf of all the pupils who started at Barrhead High School and Eastwood High School and the thousands of other pupils who started secondary school in summer 2007, who fully expect the Scottish National Party to fulfil its promise to match Labour's programme brick for brick, I ask the cabinet secretary whether there is the remotest possibility that an SFT school will be commissioned and built before some of those pupils leave school in 2011.
The incoming Government has, with absolute clarity, matched the commitments of the previous Administration brick for brick. That is what we said we would do and that is precisely what the capital programme is delivering in Scotland.
Mr Macintosh made a material point, which I have discussed with the leadership of East Renfrewshire Council, as I am sure he knows full well. A couple of weeks ago I had a productive discussion with his colleague, the leader of the council, about the development of the proposal. East Renfrewshire Council has indicated that it wants to co-operate fully with the Government in developing the initiative. I welcome the opportunity to confirm to the Parliament that that co-operation will take place and that the SFT will engage clearly with the work of East Renfrewshire Council.
Will the cabinet secretary give more detail on who will own the facilities that are built under the SFT? Will he also assure members that there will be no repeat of the shameful situation whereby communities have been priced out of using facilities in PPP/PFI schools because of the commercial rates that are charged?
The public body that commissions infrastructure development will retain ownership of the asset that is created.
Throughout my statement I made it clear that a central ethos of the SFT must be to act in the public interest. For many years Mr Matheson has consistently raised issues about the importance of ensuring that communities have access to new and developed facilities in their areas. That will be made possible by the way in which projects are procured, which will guarantee that maximum community access can be delivered.
If the cabinet secretary's statement represents the future for Scotland's capital investment programme, we are on shaky ground. At the meeting of the Finance Committee yesterday, Lynn Brown of Glasgow City Council expressed concern that there are no proposals on what funding will be available to Scottish local authorities under the SFT, whereas PPP support was set at 80 per cent of the capital cost of a project. Can the cabinet secretary clarify what financial support will be available to local authorities using the Scottish Futures Trust?
That is a material point in the discussions that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will have with our local authority partners and it will be among the central detail in designing the next stage of our schools development programme. That work will go on, and I look forward to the participation of all local authorities in the discussion.
Will the Scottish Futures Trust be involved in the commissioning and construction of the new Forth bridge?
As Mr Brown knows, the Government will be coming to Parliament before the turn of the year to explain our approach to the procurement and funding of the Forth replacement crossing. Details will be given to Parliament at that time.
Donald McGougan from the City of Edinburgh Council expressed concern at the Finance Committee yesterday that Edinburgh cannot make any inroads into its investment plan because there is no central Government support for the new programme. Will the cabinet secretary say how many new schools projects have been commissioned by the Government since it came to power? Why does the Scottish Government need to spend £17 million to set up a new quango that will realise savings? Why is it unable to act without setting up that quango?
Let me first address Margaret Smith's point about capital investment in Edinburgh. She must remember that the City of Edinburgh Council has made capital decisions on how it wants to spend its money. It has decided to invest in a comprehensive tram system—of which she has been an enthusiastic supporter—using capital that could have been invested in schools. The money cannot be spent twice.
The capital resources that are available to local authorities have increased significantly as a consequence of the funding settlement that has been delivered by the Government in the strategic spending review: there was an increase of 13 per cent in capital expenditure to local authorities in one year. The Government has been prepared to put financial support the way of local authorities to encourage them to support public investment.
As for savings, the Government is determined to ensure that by aggregating projects and drawing together all the interests in a variety of public bodies, we maximise the opportunity to secure more affordable investment resources than has been the case under PFI. That is the direction that we have set for the SFT. I look forward to seeing the results of that initiative for the benefit of public infrastructure in Scotland.
I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to two of the downsides of the Lib-Lab PFI: the imposition of car parking charges for sick people in, and visitors to, PFI hospitals; and excessive charges for, and restrictions to, out-of-hours use of PFI schools. Will he give us an undertaking that, under the new form of funding, such charges will no longer be permissible?
Mr Neil makes a fair point. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing made an announcement recently on car parking charges at hospitals, but a limitation in what she could announce was the fact that several car parks are owned as part of PFI contracts. As a consequence, it is enormously expensive to extract the public sector from those charges.
Those are material issues and, as I said to Michael Matheson, it will be part of the Scottish Futures Trust's job to guarantee that the investments are in the public interest and follow the ethos that lies at the heart of the development.
It would help if the cabinet secretary were to admit that the SFT is PFI/PPP. He mentioned the hub, which is a PPP joint-venture arrangement that will allow the unbundling of primary care services into saleable commodities and give private companies market opportunities in the national health service. In other words, it is privatisation. Will the cabinet secretary admit that the hub will open up primary care services to the market? Why is the SNP Government promoting that when it has previously said that it is against the creeping privatisation of the NHS?
I am happy to tell Elaine Smith that we have absolutely no intention of opening up health care to the market through the hub development. We are interested in creating facilities that allow joint working at local level and improvement of public services for members of the public. That is at the core of a reasonable aspiration: to ensure that members of the public are able to access quality public services locally and in a joined-up fashion. I would have thought that Elaine Smith could welcome that in her comments to Parliament.
As the cabinet secretary said, Labour-led East Renfrewshire Council offered to pilot the use of SFT funding for capital projects. Has the cabinet secretary had any discussions with other local authorities about piloting such projects?
I have certainly had discussions with other local authorities about the implementation of the Scottish Futures Trust. I look forward to continuing those discussions in order to enlist local authority interest. My statement has made clear the Government's enthusiasm for bringing together a range of public bodies to contribute to the formulation of the Scottish Futures Trust's work plan and programme. I look forward to local authorities' willing co-operation in that process.
Will the minister cut through the verbiage and answer one simple question? The new school building programme in Edinburgh has been on hold for 18 months not—as he claims—because of the trams, but because of the wait for the SNP Government's alternative to PPP. I understand that he and his colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, have had discussions with councillors in the SNP-Liberal Democrat administration in Edinburgh. Will he tell Parliament whether the Scottish Futures Trust will fund the new Portobello, James Gillespie's and Boroughmuir high schools and will he predict when the first brick will be laid on the now long-overdue Portobello high school?
It is more than a bit rich of George Foulkes to ask me to "cut through the verbiage" with all that we have to put up with from him. I confirm to him that the Government is currently financially supporting the construction of eight new schools within the city of Edinburgh. We are more than happy to discuss with the City of Edinburgh Council the development of further schools infrastructure as part of the Scottish Futures Trust. I had such discussions over the summer and look forward to more taking place.
I noted the cabinet secretary's answer to Gavin Brown's question, but does he understand the concern that would be caused if a relatively untried and untested model were used on a project of the scale of the additional Forth bridge? That project is so huge and so expensive that he was unable to confirm or deny to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee yesterday whether it will be the most expensive bridge in all human history.
Mr Harvie will have the opportunity to take part in the discussion about the funding and procurement models for the Forth replacement crossing when that information is brought to Parliament in due course. I simply encourage him to engage constructively in the discussions that we are having about the Scottish Futures Trust to maximise the impact that the significant amount of infrastructure investment that we are undertaking will have on the Scottish economy and the fabric of Scottish society.
The Scottish Futures Trust's memorandum of association states that it will fund, procure and deliver assets. I will give the cabinet secretary another opportunity to clarify the issue: will he advise how much funding will be available through the SFT as opposed to existing funding streams? When will it start to provide funding for public infrastructure? Will it be before May 2011?
The issue is straightforward. In the core of my statement, I said that the SFT will operate collaboratively and bring together different public bodies to aggregate investment and maximise its impact on Scotland's infrastructure. Members must understand that there is an opportunity for us to leverage maximum value from the public purse by investing effectively and efficiently in Scotland's infrastructure. That is at the heart of the SFT and that is the model that the Government will take forward.
The cabinet secretary placed some emphasis on the excessive profits from risk that were enjoyed under the previous models. Has he had any discussions with Sir Angus Grossart about what pressures he will bring to bear on the market to convince it to accept a lower premium for risk, particularly when dealing with complex civil engineering projects such as a new Forth crossing?
Risk lies at the heart of many of the judgments that were made on PFI contracts. I have explained to Mr McCabe in the Finance Committee that, in a variety of cases, the unjustifiable pricing in contracts of identical risk has resulted in delivery of profits that the Government judges to be excessive.
Our initiative is about maximising the value that we can achieve through ensuring that we adopt a more consistent approach to risk management and to minimising the effect of risk in the formulation of contracts. That is the route that we will take to reduce the cost to the public purse of infrastructure investment and to deliver the better value that Sir Angus Grossart has agreed to help us deliver.
It is important that ministers are accurate when they make statements to Parliament. In his statement, the minister said that his Government had
"enabled Fife Council to commit to a £126 million investment programme in six new schools over a longer period."
Can he confirm what those six new schools are, where and when they will be built, and how they will be financed? It is clear from the information that I have received from Fife Council that that money is not available or has not been identified.
That information is contained in the capital programme of Fife Council. I would have thought that, as a Fife member, Mr Smith would be well acquainted with that document.
How many schools in my region—the Highlands and Islands—does the cabinet secretary expect to be financed through the Scottish Futures Trust this year and in the coming two financial years? After today's announcement, which charges the SFT with procuring and delivering assets, should parents in my area and throughout Scotland now lobby their local councillors or Sir Angus Grossart about new schools?
What is important is that local authorities—the organisations that will have assessed the infrastructure requirements of particular areas—are in a position to participate constructively in the SFT, to make their propositions for infrastructure investment and to work with the trust to identify the resources to support that capital investment. That is the model that we advance as part of the SFT. Highland Council is already involved in the construction of a number of schools. That has been supported by the Government and through other capital programmes, and I look forward to the advancement of discussions to ensure that further activity can be undertaken in the Highlands.
I can take a very quick question from Des McNulty.
In his statement, the minister identified two key tasks for the Scottish Futures Trust: to develop the non-profit-distributing model of finance and to act as "a reference point" for strategic capital projects. How are we expected to hold "a reference point" to account?
I probably dealt with that issue in my answer to Derek Brownlee. The Government will be extremely happy to ensure that Parliament has adequate opportunity to scrutinise the SFT's work and to question ministers, in order to ensure that the wishes of Parliament are heard clearly. The Government will, of course, facilitate that in every way it can.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In response to my question, the minister claimed that the approved capital programme for Fife included funding for six new schools in Fife. I have a copy of the capital plan for Fife that covers the period until 2010-11, but it contains no mention of funding for any new schools. There is an aspiration in Fife for six new schools, but no funding has been identified to build them. The minister misled Parliament—
Order. Will the member sit down, please? The member knows full well that that is not a point of order for the chair.