School Building Programme
The next item of business is a statement from Fiona Hyslop on the school building programme. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her 15-minute statement and therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
Last year we pledged that we would announce the next part of our school building programme to take forward major new capital investment in schools through the Scottish Futures Trust. I can make that announcement today.
It is the right of every pupil to be educated in a good-quality school that is fit for purpose. I can report that this Government is providing funding that has already helped to lift 50,000 pupils out of poor-quality buildings and that council school building programmes are on track to lift another 50,000 out of poor-quality school buildings by 2011. [Applause.]
With our local government partners we are addressing the legacy of underinvestment during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when schools were being replaced at an unsustainably low rate. The previous Administration addressed the situation by supporting the new build or refurbishment of around 320 schools in the first eight years of devolution. The current Administration is providing financial support for 250 new or refurbished schools in the current four-year session. [Applause.]
Today, I can announce our next steps towards improving school buildings. In addition to the capital funding that goes to local authorities to support school buildings, the next phase in our drive to improve Scotland's school buildings will be a new, £1.25 billion national programme to build new schools across Scotland, delivered in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities through the Scottish Futures Trust. [Applause.]
Cabinet secretary, I must interrupt you. I asked that there be no interruptions or interventions. That applies as much to applause as to sedentary interventions. I would be grateful if we could please hear the rest of the statement in relative silence. Thank you.
The new school building programme will be managed and supported by the SFT, with work beginning as early as next year.
In addition to the record funding already set out in the local government settlement, the Scottish Government will provide almost two thirds of the overall funding support, or £800 million, towards this £1.25 billion school building programme. Government funding will initially be provided as direct capital grants, but comparable revenue funding to support off-balance-sheet schemes to the same value will be an option where appropriate.
We said that we would match the previous Administration's school building programme brick for brick and we are doing that—and more.
Under its partnership agreement, the previous Administration promised to renew 100 schools between the end of 2006 and 2009. Not only have we matched those commitments, but we have already exceeded them. Councils have completed well over 150 school rebuilding or refurbishment projects since May 2007. With this Scottish National Party Government supporting £2 billion of capital investment in schools alone, at least 250 new or refurbished schools will be delivered by 2011.
Now we will go even further. Our new £1.25 billion school building programme will support authorities in building around 55 new schools—approximately half of which will be secondaries and half primaries. That will see up to 35,000 pupils benefiting from being educated in brand new, state-of-the-art classrooms.
Let me be clear: this new building programme will be in addition to the capital allocation that will be made to councils as part of the normal annual budgetary process, with those new resources adding to the maintenance of local authorities' share of the overall capital budget. That is what COSLA and the councils have been asking for: additional funding to support the school building programme. That is what we are responding to and delivering.
All told, the investment will also boost economic activity by continuing to support tens of thousands of construction jobs across the country, helping families and communities and contributing to economic recovery.
The school building programme will be taken forward in partnership with COSLA and councils. The concordat already commits the Government and COSLA to doing what is required to enhance learning experiences for children and young people by improving the fabric of schools and nurseries.
In partnership with COSLA, we accepted all the recommendations of Audit Scotland's March 2008 report, "Improving the school estate". We have also worked closely with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and the Scottish Futures Trust, on a new school estate strategy.
On our taking office in 2007, there were around 260,000 pupils in poor classroom accommodation—category C or D schools. By 2011, that figure should be down to around 100,000. I pay tribute to the focus of councils and to their investment decisions that will help to achieve that. With today's announcement, the figure will then drop by another third to around 65,000. When we publish the new school estate strategy jointly with COSLA in September, we will be setting out a long-term ambition to wipe out poor school accommodation altogether.
Since May 2007, this Government has signed off eight local authority public-private partnership/non-profit-distributing projects involving 49 schools and we have substantially increased the overall capital resources available to authorities. Funding the full programme of 30 such projects means that this Government is having to find around £60 million more per annum than was included in the funding baselines inherited from the previous Administration. We honoured those payments to ensure that all the schools in the pipeline went ahead. Such behaviour is the hallmark of the Government. We said that we would match the previous Administration's commitments brick for brick and we have done so.
We have gone further. In total, local authority capital funding will amount to £2 billion over the two-year period from 2008 to 2010. In 2008-09, that represents £82 million, which is 9.5 per cent more than in 2007-08, and the 2009-10 figure is £99 million, which is 10.5 per cent higher than that in 2008-09.
I am pleased that schools and communities throughout the country are already benefiting from accelerated capital investment in education of about £75 million. That investment was brought forward as the result of an agreement with COSLA that councils could accelerate capital expenditure from 2010-11 to this year. For example, South Lanarkshire Council has advanced the building of the new Udston primary, which will open a whole year earlier; North Lanarkshire Council has accelerated the construction of three schools and a nursery; and East Renfrewshire Council will commence the replacement of Isobel Mair school early.
Today, we set out the Government's long-term commitment to the school building programme. The new £1.25 billion school building programme will be similar in scale and impact to the Government's other major capital projects—the Forth replacement crossing and the new Southern general hospital in Glasgow. As with those projects, we are making a clear and unambiguous statement about our future intent: our absolute long-term commitment to work with our local government partners in the interests of all those who benefit from good-quality schools—particularly children, young people and communities.
A new secondary school can cost anything from £20 million to more than £40 million. That represents the single biggest capital investment that some councils ever make. I am mindful of the number of primary schools that are needed but, as their cost is roughly a quarter of that of secondary schools, they present rather less of an affordability challenge for councils. The bulk—almost 90 per cent—of our new funding will therefore be focused on supporting the construction costs of new secondary schools. We will provide two thirds of the costs of new secondary schools and authorities will require to fund one third. We will support the primary school element of the programme on a 50:50 basis, so authorities will be able to fund two primaries at the cost of just one.
The new funding will bring the costs to authorities of replacing the secondary schools that most urgently need to be replaced down to more manageable proportions. It will also help them to accelerate further their primary school replacement programmes. I am conscious that the needs of secondary schools that require urgent replacement—from Lasswade high school in the Lothians to Wick high school in the north, Dumbarton academy in the west and others in between—have been raised often in Parliament. After discussions with COSLA and the SFT, I will be in a position to announce in September which authorities will benefit from the first tranche of secondary schools and to announce by the end of the year those that will benefit from the first tranche of primary schools. Councils will of course decide which schools to replace, but our intention is that councils with the most urgent needs—on the basis of the regularly collected national statistics—should benefit first.
We expect the first phase to be funded through direct capital investment, to allow construction to start on the buildings that most require attention as soon as possible. Through the SFT, different funding models—including the non-profit-distributing model—will be an option for later phases. We are asking the Scottish Futures Trust to provide advice on that. We and the SFT will also discuss funding options with COSLA and the authorities.
Excuse me again, cabinet secretary. I have asked for the statement to be heard in relative silence. I hope that that will continue to be the case—I would very much appreciate that.
One key feature of maximising value from the programme will be encouraging the fullest co-operation between all the partners: COSLA, the councils, the SFT and the Scottish Government. Angus Council, East Renfrewshire Council and Midlothian Council are in the vanguard of that, as they have come together to share best practice and to design a common approach to the school building programme with the SFT. That proves how we can deliver more value from the investment. I thank those three local authorities for participating with such commitment in the development of the model that we are taking forward. Their work will underpin the first announcements that we will make in September.
We have made it clear that we have set up the Scottish Futures Trust to maximise value for money from infrastructure investment and to act as a focal point for developing and applying good practice in procuring public infrastructure. The SFT will, therefore, play a central role in co-ordinating, facilitating and managing the new school building programme, working alongside COSLA and councils, whose detailed local knowledge and expertise will be crucial to achieving successful outcomes. We will look to the SFT to develop, recommend and implement approaches that will secure a better school building programme across Scotland and better value for money than could be achieved by each authority working separately. That is precisely what the SFT was set up to do.
Under the Government's Scottish Futures Trust, we will work with COSLA and local authorities to ensure that every pound spent delivers as much public benefit as possible in Scotland as a whole. Instead of each local authority having to reinvent the wheel—instead of duplicating design and other costs—the SFT will enable us to deliver more for less. Because it is involved, we will deliver more schools for taxpayers' money.
The Government has already supported local authorities in delivering more than 150 school building projects. By 2011, the figure will stand at 250. Now we are going further. The new school building programme, with the significant input of Government funding that I have announced, will come on stream next year. The first bricks could be laid in more new schools in communities up and down the land. All of that will be over and above the capital investment that will arm councils with the funding that they need to take forward their own school building programmes.
Working with COSLA and local authorities, we can deliver better school accommodation the length and breadth of Scotland and take the next steps towards ensuring that Scotland's children are taught in quality classrooms, providing a 21st century environment in which improved learning and teaching, through the curriculum for excellence, can equip them not just to survive but to thrive in 21st century society.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raised in her statement. We have around 30 minutes for questions, after which we must move to the next item of business. A considerable number of members have indicated that they wish to ask questions.
I was going to thank the cabinet secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement. However, after more than two years of delay and prevarication, we are still waiting to hear about a single specific school that will be initiated by the SNP Government. Such has been the failure of the SNP to match the previous Executive's school building programme brick for brick that it was forced to trail the announcement at St Kentigern's academy in West Lothian. As an Evening News article from 2006 reveals, the refurbishment of that school was commissioned by the previous Labour administration in West Lothian Council, under a Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration in the Parliament.
In the academic world, passing off the work of others as one's own is called plagiarism and merits expulsion. When it comes to claiming school buildings, the SNP engages in parliamentary plagiarism week in, week out, and today is no exception. Today Fiona Hyslop patted herself on the back, claiming the credit for 150 new school building projects, yet last year's Audit Scotland report on the school estate said that councils had already committed to 160 new schools. Far from building new schools, the hapless education secretary appears to have lost 10 in the past year.
What does the cabinet secretary have to say to pupils in my constituency of Midlothian, who could have been preparing to move into a rebuilt Lasswade high and a rebuilt Newbattle high were it not for the SNP's two wasted years of futile attempts to come up with a not-for-profit alternative to PPP? Is she ashamed by her failure to deliver for those pupils? Is the woefully thin statement that she has made today not just further evidence that the cabinet secretary and the Administration have no coherent strategy to deliver the quality school buildings that our young people and teachers deserve?
Finally, if by the time that we reach the 2011 election not a single pupil is sitting in a new school that has been initiated, built and opened by the Government, will the cabinet secretary resign?
I do not think that a £1.25 billion school building programme is "woefully thin". I do not think that a £2 billion investment in school building—under the current Administration—is "woefully thin".
I have in front of me a letter about West Lothian schools from Mary Mulligan that was sent out to voters during the 2007 election campaign. She said:
"The SNP have committed to scrapping plans for the new Armadale Academy and all future investment in West Lothian's school buildings."
I was indeed at St Kentigern's academy this morning, and I saw the refurbishment there—that was not scrapped. I also note the go-ahead by the local council, in January and March 2008, for £59 million of investment in schools in West Lothian. Furthermore, Armadale academy is being built by an SNP council in West Lothian, supported by funding from an SNP Scottish Administration. Dare I say, perhaps the interests of the pupils of Lasswade would be best served if the constituency member approached the local authority to take part in this wonderful opportunity to take forward a £1.25 billion school building programme.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement. It is welcome news that, two years into the SNP Government, we at long last have a plan for new schools. I have to ask: why did it take so long?
The cabinet secretary has told us that the first phase of the new works will be funded through direct capital investment. There is absolutely nothing new in that funding method—there is nothing that could not have been announced two years ago. Will the cabinet secretary now apologise to the pupils, parents and teachers of Scotland for two wasted years of inactivity, during which the construction industry has been crying out for work to offset the effects of Labour's recession?
Can the cabinet secretary tell us what the point has been of all the time, effort, expense and hype that has gone into the Scottish Futures Trust? The SFT is contributing not a penny to the first phase of funding the schools. We were promised that the SFT would save the taxpayer a fortune in costs. When will the SFT live up to all the Government's hype and promises?
I remind the member that the current £2 billion-worth of investment is not just achieving a better working and learning environment for our young people, but supporting the construction industry. It is important to reflect that, even according to today's figures for the year to March 2009, employment in the construction industry in Scotland rose by 1.4 per cent. Clearly, the construction industry is under some pressure, particularly in private house building, so not only investment in schools, but the Government's investment of £2 billion to local government over the period from 2008 to 2010 alone is providing support for capital infrastructure. It has been vital to keep that investment going, and that is why I refer to the accelerated investment, with £75 million brought forward to support construction jobs.
The SFT most certainly will provide better value for money. Judging from the references that have been made, some of the provisions that were made by previous Administrations were woeful. Labour is now in a minority of one that thinks that PPP and the private finance initiative deliver best value for money. In fact, we need only consider the fiasco in England to see the reality of PFI. Far from the risk being transferred from the public sector to the private sector, the Treasury is having to bail out PFI schemes to the tune of £2 billion this year alone.
The involvement of the SFT in managing and facilitating the programme, and bringing together different local authorities, will provide better value for money. That will ensure that the lessons are learned across the country. Today, we should be celebrating the opportunity for young people to work in the 21st century schools that they deserve. The Administration has made progress; today, we are announcing our next steps.
The focus is of course on the pupils of Scotland. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the belated admission by the Scottish Government that more needs to be done in renewing our school estate. That is what we argued for in the budget; it is what we argued for last year and we will argue for it this year.
Unfortunately, the classic SNP response to the issue has been confusion and more assertion. Why was there nothing in the statement about the timeframe? Was the cabinet secretary talking about a programme over one or two sessions of the Parliament after 2011? Will she clearly indicate the timeframe that the programme will cover?
Why was there nothing in the statement about how funding will be considered and distributed? The SFT told the Finance Committee yesterday that it had no idea how that would be done. How long must we wait before there is clarity on the matter?
Why did the cabinet secretary say that East Renfrewshire Council is in the vanguard, when, after a freedom of information request to the SFT we learned that in East Renfrewshire the first school will be ready in August 2013 and the last school will be ready in August 2014? That does not exactly mean that the council is in the vanguard.
Why did the Government remove the ring-fenced schools fund that it inherited? The fund stood at nearly £100 million immediately before the election. Why did the Government abolish the fund in 2007 and create uncertainty?
The cabinet secretary said that in its first two years of office the Government has signed off 49 school projects that were commissioned by the previous Government. Why will the programme that she announced support authorities in building only 55 schools?
We must reflect on Audit Scotland's report, "Improving the school estate", which was published in March 2008. We accepted all the recommendations in the report. It was clear that Audit Scotland thought that we must take a long-term, strategic view of school building projects in Scotland.
As I said, the Government is supporting local authorities with £2 billion of capital investment. £1 billion is coming through support from national schemes and an additional £1 billion will come through the capital programme, which is supported by the Government. The £100 million from the schools fund has been put into local Government settlement. On top of that, we had to find another £60 million a year, to make up a shortfall on bills that the previous Administration had not paid.
We have taken our responsibilities seriously. Not only have we marshalled projects that were in the pipeline during the previous Administration, and not only have we ensured that there are sufficient resources to build 250 schools during the current Administration, but we have ensured that we have plans for the future, so that there is a pipeline of school projects, to secure the jobs that Murdo Fraser talked about. We have kept up the momentum. We are still building schools.
On timeframes, it is proposed that councils that have the most urgent needs will be dealt with first. We expect the first primary school to be open by 2011 and the first secondary school to be open by 2013.
An unprecedented number of members want to ask questions, so I ask for brevity in questions and responses. There should be one question per member.
We have heard doom-laden comments from the Opposition, but I thank the cabinet secretary for her good-news statement and for her commitment to investing in our children's future.
The cabinet secretary said that councils that have the most urgent needs will benefit from the first tranche and that those councils will be announced in September. How will the decision be made? What criteria will be used for inclusion in the first and later tranches? May I hope that parents and pupils in East Renfrewshire will benefit from that welcome announcement?
I think that there were three questions; I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could give one reply.
We will include in the programme authorities that have been identified by the national assessment as being in most need. In particular, the categories—members will be familiar with the categories of schools—will help to direct our answers.
Local authorities that have been in the vanguard of considering how the SFT can add value might want to ensure that they are included in the programme. It is important to remember that the SFT is already supporting a number of local authority school building programmes.
We have been waiting for the SFT for two years, but the cabinet secretary seemed unable to name a single school; she merely told us to wait until September.
The cabinet secretary said that an additional 55 schools will potentially be built under SFT. Will any of those schools be built before the next election? It might help if she focuses her attention on East Renfrewshire Council, which she claimed is in the vanguard. Will the pupils of Barrhead and Eastwood high schools and their parents get new schools and, if so, will the schools be built before the next election?
We respect local government. It will be for councils themselves to determine which schools will be in the programme, but we will decide which local authorities will be in the first tranche. With respect, I say to Ken Macintosh that pupils and parents do not care about the timescales for elections; they want new schools to be built. [Interruption.]
Order.
The investment that we are providing to local government is already producing new schools. I mentioned Isobel Mair school in East Renfrewshire; the building for that has been brought forward from 2010-11 because we have managed to accelerate capital.
We do not micromanage local government, so local authorities will determine which schools go forward for the programme. We have provided the funding for that programme to progress. Perhaps, instead of focusing his attention on the Government, Ken Macintosh could approach East Renfrewshire Council to find out its timescale for deciding what schools, if any, it wants to propose to take part in the £1.25 billion school building programme.
It is refreshing to have a Government that takes the time to get the right solution rather than rushing into a massive mistake. That brings me to PFI. Bad design, poor building and poor value for money have been the hallmarks of PFI and PPP. How will the Scottish Government ensure that Scotland's future schools are well designed, well built and environmentally sustainable?
Christina McKelvie raises an important point about the design of schools. We will work with Architecture and Design Scotland, the Carbon Trust and others to ensure not only that the designs are appropriate for modern-day learning in a 21st century environment but that they are energy efficient, which is essential to ensure that they contribute to the climate change challenges that lie ahead.
It is appropriate and important to involve the pupils themselves in the design to ensure that we get quality results. I have visited and, indeed, opened a number of schools that have been started since this Administration came to power. The architecture that could be delivered by listening to the pupils and teachers in those schools delivers results. I expect the SFT to draw on that talent, experience and expertise.
I call Andy Kerr, to be followed by Elizabeth Smith. [Interruption.]
My apologies, Presiding Officer. I thought that you called Elizabeth Smith. [Interruption.] I tell members to calm down.
Order.
I would hate to go shopping with Fiona Hyslop—she may feel the same about me. She hails the SNP offer of two schools for the price of one as an achievement, but under Labour it was four schools for the price of one. Is she confident that our local authorities can afford to live with the dismal offer that she is making them? Will she confirm that, contrary to what she and, for that matter, the Deputy First Minister have said—and contrary to the views of Mr Swinney and Sir Angus Grossart—the SNP Government will use PPP to fund the schools?
The initial funding will be by direct capital. We will examine other not-for-profit processes in future to get value out of the system, but direct capital investment is the quickest way to ensure that we get the investment that we need.
I heard Andy Kerr say sorry. I am not sure whether that was the first time that I have heard him say that or whether it will be the last time that I hear it, but he might want to say sorry to the taxpayers for Hairmyres PFI hospital. Evidence to the Finance Committee revealed that an investment of only £8.4 million by financiers is projected to provide a return of £145 million. We do not have to look far to see the flaws of the PFI model. Perhaps the taxpayers of Scotland would prefer not to go shopping with Mr Kerr any more but to look to this Government to implement responsible and prudent financial arrangements for school building programmes.
The cabinet secretary stated that she will be in a position in September to announce which authorities will be in the first tranche of investment and that that decision will be based on the most urgent need as defined by regularly collected national statistics. What statistical measurements will be used to make that important decision?
Elizabeth Smith raises an important point. I talked about the category C or D schools about which we have concerns. There have been concerns about the surveys and pieces of research that have been undertaken to establish those categories. Indeed, local authorities have re-examined many of them over the past two years.
I do not particularly want to name any schools because I do not want to prejudge what the councils themselves will determine once we have determined which authorities have the secondary and primary schools that are most in need. However, there is currently only one category D secondary school in Scotland—Lasswade high school centre. I have visited that school, so I realise the need that exists there. I hope that Midlothian Council will have the opportunity to make an application in that case, but I do not want to prejudge a matter that is for the council.
I hope that I have given the member some idea of how we will ensure that the schools that are most in need and that have an impact on the greatest number of children—some 35,000 in total—can benefit from the programme.
I welcome the ministerial statement, which comes after two years of real frustration. In government, the Liberal Democrats acknowledged the important impact of the school building programme on education and the construction industry, so we obviously welcome any movement from the Government now. However, if the investment from the Government is to be £800 million, where will the other £450 million come from? Has COSLA been involved in discussions about that £450 million? Will the money be ring fenced? Finally, my colleague Jeremy Purvis tried and failed to get an answer to this, so I will try again: what timeframe will apply to the £1.25 billion that we have heard about today?
The funding will start from 2010-11 and continue to 2017-18. The first schools to be built will be primary schools in 2011, and secondary schools will be built in 2013. That is on top of the 250 schools that will be built by 2011.
Yes, we have been in discussion with COSLA. I point out that, funnily enough, the £800 million that we propose to invest in the schools building programme equates to the £800 million in cuts that the Lib Dems proposed for the Scottish budget. Therefore, perhaps local authorities will have less difficulty in finding the £450 million to support the programme, given that they are finding £1 billion in the current local government settlement.
Margaret Smith might want to reflect on the situation over the piece: 320 schools were built in the first eight years of the previous Administration; 250 schools will be built over the first four years of this Administration and, going forward, an additional number of schools will be built to replace the worst school buildings that need the most attention. That is the provision that we are making through our £1.25 billion school building programme.
I welcome today's statement, which provides further evidence that the SNP Government is delivering for people across Scotland. What impact will today's announcement have on the Government's aim of reducing class sizes throughout Scotland?
Quite clearly, capital investment for local authorities is already supporting such capital projects. As I said when asked earlier about the schools fund, the local government settlement includes provision to ensure that the £2 billion of capital infrastructure for 2008 to 2010 helps to support any capital investment that is required to support class size reduction. That money will certainly support local authorities. In planning for the primary estate, which accounts for 50 per cent of the schools affected, schools will be designed with a view to ensuring that the classrooms can facilitate smaller class sizes, particularly in the early years.
I call Patricia Ferguson, to be followed by Bob Doris.
In her statement, the cabinet secretary talked about a reduction in the number of pupils who are educated in category C or D schools by 2011. Normally, we would all welcome that, but my constituency will contribute to that falling number next week, when 467 pupils move out of category C and D schools and—for the first time since 1997—into other schools in the area rather than into new schools. Some of those existing schools are, frankly, in not much better condition. What will the cabinet secretary's announcement today do for the pupils of St Agnes's, St Gregory's, Wyndford and Our Lady of the Assumption primaries in my constituency, all of which are to close next week?
I remind the member that closure decisions are for local authorities. If she is astounded that any council would move pupils out of one category to conditions that are worse than those in the previous school, she should perhaps reflect on whether that shows the priority—or lack of priority—that Glasgow City Council places on its education budget.
Why is it that in neighbouring authority areas such as North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire we have large-scale investment in schools that is funded and supported by this Government, not—as Andy Kerr claims—through PPP? Given that that is the case, why does Glasgow City Council say that it has only £5 million available for school building projects? At the end of the day, politics is about priorities. This SNP Government is supporting schools and school education. If the member wants to pursue the lack of priority that Labour-run Glasgow City Council attaches to education, she is in the wrong chamber.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt the flow, and I apologise to Mr Doris for doing so, but I would not have done so had I not had to. The cabinet secretary accused me of suggesting that the children who are moving out of schools in my constituency are moving into schools that are in worse condition than the ones that they are leaving. That is not what I said. I said that, in some cases, the condition of the schools that they are moving into is not much better than that of the schools that they were in. For the parents and pupils involved, that is a very relevant difference.
That is not really a point of order. You have clarified the point that you believe you made, which is now on the record.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm, so that there is absolutely no doubt, that the money that has been announced today is new money and is in addition to future local government settlements? I would like to encourage the Labour council in Glasgow to invest money in the school estate by making a bid to the SFT instead of withdrawing education from communities, as it has been doing—scandalously—recently?
I can confirm that the money that I have announced will be additional to the local government settlement. It is important to repeat that this Government has set out three major capital infrastructure projects, which represent a strategic investment in our future: the Forth replacement crossing, the Glasgow Southern general hospital and the school estate programme. In doing so, it has provided a vision and a strategy, which the Audit Scotland report that was published in March last year called for. Local authorities across the country might want to reflect maturely not only on the use of money that has already been provided but on the proposals and promises that have been made about taking funding forward.
I believe that the cabinet secretary will acknowledge that the previous Administration provided approximately £5 billion for 328 schools and promised an additional 250 schools by 2011. Will she therefore accept that what she has announced today—55 schools, only £800 million and no real end date—falls far short of what is required? Will she also accept that a mere mention of Dumbarton academy is no substitute for an announcement? Will Dumbarton academy be in phase 1? If not, when will we get a new school—in 2017 or 2018? Is it the case that almost two whole cohorts of young people will be consigned to school buildings that continue to fail them?
My understanding is that West Dunbartonshire Council has recently had meetings with local parents about where the new Dumbarton academy will be sited. I also understand that the council has had initial discussions with the SFT. I am not in a position to make decisions for the council, but I have every confidence that it will make the right decisions for pupils in its area.
If the member wants to trade numbers on delivery in the school estate, I can tell her that the rates of progress show that 0.76 schools a week were delivered in the first eight years of devolution, whereas 1.2 schools a week have been delivered during the present four years of devolution. [Interruption.]
Order.
Can Opposition members not acknowledge that it is about time that we stopped trading statistics on school buildings on a ping-pong basis, year in, year out? We must start to treat the improvement of our school estate as a major infrastructure project for this country. As stewards of this Parliament's funding, we have a responsibility to ensure that we make not just decisions for this year or the year after but strategic decisions. I have made a major infrastructure announcement, and I hope that members will treat it as such.
Given what has been said about comparable revenue funding, will the cabinet secretary confirm that, in the first phase, the schools that are not funded by direct grant will be off balance sheet?
I can confirm that our initial proposals are for direct capital funding, but over the piece we will be able to take forward other methods of funding, including the non-profit-distributing method in particular. Issues such as what is off balance sheet can be developed as we move forward.
The member will be aware that the advice and guidance from the Treasury on how major infrastructure programmes could be dealt with, given the change to international financial reporting standards accounting by the end of March, came through only on 28 April, which is very late indeed. However, there is no delay in any proposal, which is why we can confirm that we will support the first tranche of schools using a direct capital funding method.
Will the cabinet secretary tell me when the parents and children of Edinburgh schools will get the new secondary schools that they desperately need? Can she not see that the cuts in financial support that the cabinet secretary has announced today will be met with bitter disappointment in Boroughmuir and James Gillespie's high schools? What is wrong with reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education that tell us which schools need action now? How can she justify waiting until 2013? I hope that her rate of progress on new schools in the past two years does not include schools that were commissioned by the previous—Labour—Administration.
I am delighted that City of Edinburgh Council is taking forward its proposals for Portobello school. If the member describes £1.25 billion as cuts, she and I must live in parallel universes. If we are talking about priorities for Edinburgh, perhaps Sarah Boyack and other members might reflect on the fact that the £500 million spent on tram works would have built those schools. Politics is about choices, and we are putting our commitment to education first.
The £800 million over the next nine years is enough to build only two-and-a-half academies a year. Aberdeenshire Council alone needs to rebuild six academies. How many of those six academies does the minister believe will be built using the fund if it is enough to build only two-and-a-half academies a year throughout Scotland for the next nine years?
It is important that we reflect on how we are managing to reduce in particular the number of secondary pupils in poor accommodation—I know that the member has an interest in that in his constituency. Fifty new schools, half of which will be secondaries, is a major improvement. The member will know the experience of Aberdeenshire Council—perhaps there have been long years of neglect. Many local authorities have refurbished all their secondaries. I visited St Kentigern's academy, which will be part of West Lothian's completion of all its secondaries. Some of the responsibility lies with the progress—or lack of it—by Aberdeenshire Council in recent years. Again, that comes down to political choices.
We are providing the opportunity. A number of schools in Aberdeenshire need support, and I anticipate—although I cannot predict—that some of those schools will be part of the first tranche.
Today's statement is welcome but it has been met with great disappointment. When Labour and the Lib Dems were in power, we delivered one school a week. In the timeframe that the minister has announced today, it looks like eight a year, although Mike Rumbles might be right and it might be worse than that.
My constituents have seen new school building in their communities come to a halt. Garrowhill primary school in my constituency is in desperate need of replacement. Will the cabinet secretary tell me whether the Scottish Futures Trust will work as a model for the replacement of Garrowhill primary? When can parents at the school reasonably expect a new school to be built?
I invite Glasgow City Council to engage with the Government, COSLA and the SFT to identify whether any of the council's proposals are going forward. I repeat that the previous Administration delivered 0.76 schools a week; under this Administration, it is 1.2 schools a week.
Perhaps Margaret Curran is not aware that we are in a recession. Public finances from the Westminster Government look extremely worrying for all concerned. In the days when Margaret Curran was a minister, the allocation under devolution far exceeded anything that we have now or might anticipate in future. The fact that the Government is prepared to put on the table investment for the future in those difficult circumstances shows the importance that we give to education. In such tight financial circumstances, I would have thought that members of all parties would welcome today's announcement.
The Scottish Government established a joint working group with COSLA to formulate a schools estate strategy. That group has not yet published its findings. Would it not have made more sense for the cabinet secretary to wait until the publication of the strategy, or is the point of today's statement more about getting the cabinet secretary off the hook and covering up the bad publicity over the Government's discredited Scottish Futures Trust than about working seriously with local government to deliver new schools in Scotland?
I said that the schools estate strategy would be published in September; at the moment, it is nearing its final draft. It is not unreasonable for local government partners to want to identify the financial support that we are prepared to provide for taking the strategy forward. Had the member read the Audit Scotland report, she would know that that is exactly what the report recommended—and we have accepted all 19 of its recommendations.
Perhaps the member can accept that today's announcement of £1.25 billion for the school building programme is good news for Scotland.
That concludes the statement and questions on the school building programme. I apologise to the members whom I was unable to call. Four members were still waiting to ask questions.