School Buildings
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1258, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on education.
I am pleased to open this debate on the school building programme. Having taught in a variety of schools in the 1970s and 1980s, I have practical experience of this subject.
As we know, school buildings are hugely important to the learning process. As everyone will agree, they should be windproof and watertight and provide reasonable comfort. Beyond that, the concentration and performance of staff and pupils alike can be affected by factors such as ventilation, lighting, temperature, the design of teaching and learning spaces and the green spaces around the school.
In reports published in 2001 and 2003 on the impact of capital investment in schools, PricewaterhouseCoopers found that new and refurbished buildings had a significant positive effect on staff and pupil motivation and behaviour. More important, the key finding of the 2003 study is that there is a positive and statistically significant association between capital investment and pupil performance. Put simply, better school buildings get better results.
Labour has long recognised that correlation. In the first parliamentary session, we built or substantially refurbished 123 schools and, in the second, we added another 205 schools to the list, giving a total of 328 new or substantially refurbished schools. That was the biggest school building programme ever undertaken in Scotland.
Moreover, our school buildings are getting better: 62 per cent of them have been rated good or satisfactory, compared with 57 per cent two years ago, while over the same period the proportion of school buildings rated bad fell from 8 per cent to 5 per cent.
Of course, we were not complacent. Indeed, how could we be when that seemingly small 5 per cent meant that pupils in 108 primary schools, 15 special schools and 14 secondary schools were learning in buildings that were found not only to have major defects but to be beyond the end of their economic life? There was absolutely no room for complacency. Labour committed to building 250 new or refurbished schools in this session, with 100 completed by 2009.
As we know, the SNP manifesto says:
"We will match the current school building programme brick for brick",
and I would be grateful if the minister would be so kind as to reiterate that promise in the chamber this morning. If that promise is to be kept, some serious progress will need to be made to complete the first 100 schools by 2009.
Alex Salmond has also promised that class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 will be reduced to 18 by 2011. I wonder whether the SNP has any information yet on the capital costs involved in such a move, because it did not the last time that I asked the question. The SNP also rashly promised to match Labour's school building programme without having any idea of how that would be achieved.
If Labour had been fortunate enough to get back into power, how much would its manifesto pledge on schools have cost the taxpayer? Indeed, what resources in the current budget would the member use to redeem that pledge?
We fully costed that commitment when we were in government. We are waiting today to hear exactly what the SNP will do. We have heard nothing—the SNP has not told us about one brass farthing that it will spend on the school building programme. Frankly, that is an outrage.
In Midlothian alone, which is one of the smallest local authority areas in the country, public-private partnership schemes have boosted spending on school buildings by £72 million, but the SNP has casually dismissed such schemes on ideological grounds. Such is the SNP's hypocrisy that SNP members who spent eight years in opposition denigrating PPP schemes and the schools that were built or refurbished through them are now falling over themselves to pose for the cameras in front of new schools that were financed by PPP schemes and which are still being opened. Frankly, it is disgusting. Nor will the crumbs that have been thrown to local authorities from John Swinney's budget table make much of an impact on Scotland's school estate. Councillors grow increasingly frustrated every time that they are told of an additional responsibility that must be funded from their small but much-trumpeted increase in funding, which has already been spent more times than the SNP's elastic penny for Scotland was spent.
Can we be confident that the SNP's Scottish futures trust will see our school estate okay? I doubt it, because the current consultation on the SFT is nothing more than an exercise in buying time for SNP ministers as they try to make their shambles of an infrastructure policy work. Many issues arise about the Scottish futures trust, but I will confine myself to three questions, to which I would like an answer. Will the Minister for Schools and Skills confirm that the Scottish futures trust would give no role whatever to communities, local authorities or health boards in the commissioning, design or management of projects? Can she confirm that, under the SNP's proposals, no new school buildings would belong to local authorities at the end of the 30-year contracts? Will the minister confirm today how many schools will be built using the model?
What does the minister have to say to the parents, pupils and staff at Lasswade high school centre in my constituency, which is in a shocking state? It is not fit for purpose and £35 million is required for a new school. That is part of a requirement for more than £100 million for the Midlothian school estate, despite the substantial investment that has already taken place. Council hands are tied, however, while the SNP dithers. In Portobello, Dumbarton, Viewforth in Kirkcaldy, Portlethen in Aberdeenshire and throughout the country, parents, pupils and teachers want to know when they will get their new schools. They deserve answers. The previous Government put Lasswade high school centre on a list of six schools that had top priority for refurbishment, but the present Government has gone back on that promise.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has evaded the questions long enough. She must make a long-overdue statement to Parliament to set out the Scottish Government's school building programme—she owes it to Scotland's children and their parents to do so. I ask members to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of high-quality school buildings to young people's learning; notes the SNP's commitment to match the previous administration's school building programme "brick for brick"; further notes that the previous administration built 200 schools between 2003 and 2007; condemns the Scottish Executive for its total failure to publish details of its school building programme, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to make a statement to the Parliament detailing the Executive's plans for building the new schools that Scotland's children deserve and that the SNP promised in its 2007 manifesto.
As I think we agreed yesterday, first and foremost, the quality of the teaching profession is what matters in education. However, as Rhona Brankin said, the school estate plays a large part in determining an environment that is conducive to learning and which fosters good discipline and a sense of pride in the community. Just look at the positive responses this week in Dumfries and Galloway and Perth and Kinross as new school buildings have opened or embarked on the first stage of the construction process. An attractive, clean, well-heated and spacious building plus an attractive, eco-friendly and energy-efficient campus can do a huge amount not only to boost the performance of a school, but to instil a sense of pride and common purpose. Therefore, it is only right that the building and maintenance of the school estate is a priority.
Schools these days are used increasingly by pupils and teachers and by members of the local community. That is greatly to be encouraged, but it brings added pressures and costs. It is therefore extremely important that we take into account the diverse uses and the multipurpose nature of schools as we debate the appropriate use of resources and finance. We want our schools to be well built, to make efficient use of scarce resources and to provide best value for money. Those issues should be matters of economics and social welfare, not political dogma. The decision on which route to take to satisfy the criteria should be made on a project-by-project basis, as there is no one right way in which to build a school, nor is there always only one appropriate source of finance. So, in our view, quality outcomes demand flexibility in the system.
In that respect, the Conservatives are proud to have devised the private finance initiative. Together with the public-private partnerships that were constructed by the Labour and Liberal Executive, the PFI has met the urgent need for the construction of school and other public buildings, which capital grants from the Government or traditional prudential borrowing by local authorities could not have done. Another substantial benefit of PPP/PFI has been the transfer of the risk of maintaining schools to the contractor, thereby leaving local authorities to concentrate on the vital task of providing education services, rather than being preoccupied with bricks and mortar. Local authorities have become increasingly used to the system and are now far better placed to avoid any mishandled tendering and the consequent unnecessary costs that occurred with some projects in the past.
For some projects, up-front financing from capital or conventional borrowing might be a better option than a PPP or PFI scheme. The SNP has made much of its Scottish futures trust as a preferred finance option. We would not rule out a version of that, if the aim was to increase flexibility in the system so that the much-needed rebuilding or refurbishment of individual schools can take place without the need to wait for a uniform scheme to be put in place to redevelop a whole local authority school estate in one phase. However, it is incumbent on the SNP to come to the Parliament urgently with a full statement to provide the details of its proposal, because the current signals reflect confusion and indecision.
Before the election, the SNP seemed to suggest that the Scottish futures trust would mirror the American-style trusts, in which investors can invest in public infrastructure bonds on a not-for-profit basis. However, following the election, perhaps—just perhaps—as a result of the warnings of economists and legal experts that there could be complications in relation to tax liability and the operation of the policy in relation to the Scotland Act 1998, the proposals seem to have been watered down considerably. Any delay in making such a statement to Parliament would, by definition, mean more uncertainty and confusion, especially for those who want the go-ahead to build new schools.
I am curious to know whether the reason why the member may be inclined to support the Scottish futures trust is that it would involve not public sector ownership but, in effect, private finance.
Not at all. The reason is that we are asking for flexibility. There is not one right way of building a school or of financing that. The more flexibility that we have in the system, the better.
We need to know whether the Government is committed to matching the school building programme brick for brick, as Labour asked, and we need to know what financial arrangements the Government intends to put in place. It is also essential that we have an assurance that the Scottish futures trust would be fully transparent, in that it would attract investment at the market rate and provide the ability to offer separate bonds for separate projects. In the Scottish Conservatives' view, it would be totally unacceptable for the Government to try to meddle in those matters. As Iain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland has argued, it is essential that we have a good mix and that the private sector can play a full part in providing much-needed resources.
As I said, it is vital that the quality of the school estate in Scotland matches the aspirations that we have for our young people. Absolutely no time should be wasted in setting out the detailed plans for developing the estate so that the incentive to deliver high-quality services is firmly put in place. I call on the Government to provide answers this morning to the key questions in the debate.
I move amendment S3M-1258.1, to leave out from "; notes the SNP's commitment" to end and insert:
"and the need for energy efficiency, quality design including the incorporation of sound ecological and sustainable design principles, and value for money for the public purse in building schools; recognises the need for the Scottish Government and local authorities to continue to improve Scotland's school estate; notes the SNP's commitment to match the previous administration's proposed school building programme ‘brick for brick', and calls on the Scottish Government to make a statement to the Parliament detailing its plans for new schools and how these will be funded."
As the Parliament knows, the SNP Government has a manifesto commitment to match the previous Executive's school building programme brick for brick. We are doing that. We have signed off seven school projects, including PPP projects in East Dunbartonshire Council, West Lothian Council, Perth and Kinross Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council and, most recently, West Dunbartonshire Council, as well as projects involving non-profit-distributing organisations in Falkirk Council and Aberdeen City Council.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will not, as I have only four minutes.
Those projects will deliver 45 new and refurbished schools in eight months. We will also support the remaining four projects that are at various stages. PPP schemes are a costly way in which to provide public infrastructure, but we took a pragmatic approach to allow those projects to continue, rather than disadvantage the children, young people and communities whose expectations had been raised.
Will the minister give way?
I ask the member to let me finish this point.
Labour had no plans in train for any further projects. The initial working up of plans takes at least a year in local authorities. Negotiations take at least 18 months, and a school takes 18 months to build. There is no evidence that any of that work was going on under the previous Executive so that the work could have been continued had that Executive been returned to power.
Will the minister give way?
I will give way.
To whom?
Mike Rumbles.
If what the minister said was the case, why is it that in our local authority area of Aberdeenshire, a £200 million bid has been prepared for the next spending round? The work has already been done.
Aberdeenshire Council has been asked to submit any plans that it has. We have not seen them yet.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No thank you—I have only four minutes.
We have provided an extra £40 million of capital funds for the 2007-08 period, to help towards the introduction of measures related to our commitments on class sizes.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you.
Our budgets will deliver record investment in Scotland's future and investment in growing opportunity and prosperity for our nation.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask you to give extra time to the minister so that she can answer questions from individual MSPs who have constituency concerns. She is clearly not telling the truth. We want to challenge—
Order. I ask the member to withdraw that remark.
As far as I am concerned, it appears that she is not telling the truth.
I ask Lord Foulkes to withdraw that remark.
If you ask, I will withdraw it, but I can tell you, in relation—
Thank you. In your point of order you seemed to ask for a rather flexible extension of the minister's time because you wanted her to answer every possible question. Minister, I will give you another two minutes, from now.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I know that every member in the chamber could stand up and ask about particular issues in their areas, but they can raise those issues through parliamentary questions and they will get an answer.
As I was saying, our budgets will deliver record investment in Scotland's future, and will deliver investment in growing opportunity and prosperity for our nation. We are committed to improving the learning experience of children and young people by improving the fabric of schools. We have a new and constructive relationship with local government in Scotland—one that gives greater flexibility and responsibility to local authorities to allow them to deliver their local priorities while working with us to deliver our shared and agreed commitments.
You have one more minute.
We have reduced ring fencing of funds, bureaucracy and monitoring. There is an extra £115 million of capital for local authorities in 2008-09, and around £3 billion over three years is being provided to secure investment in local government infrastructure, including schools.
Many local authorities—including North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council—are embarking on modernisation programmes or are in the process of doing so.
Will the minister give way?
The Presiding Officer has said that I am in my final minute.
The minister is just winding up.
All in all, significant work is going on as part of the school building programme. Local authorities are working by themselves and for themselves, using resources provided by this Government.
As everyone knows, we have launched a consultation paper on the Scottish futures trust. We want our schools to contribute to the delivery of this Government's strategic objectives. We want low-carbon and sustainable schools.
The minister should conclude now.
I will. We care that schools should be of high quality, and—Ms Brankin should listen to this—
No.
We care that we should have schools in which pupils and communities have a say. We will continue to work with bodies such as Architecture and Design Scotland—
The minister must conclude.
Amendment S3M-1258.1.1 moved:
"insert at end ‘and further notes that future plans for school buildings will be usefully informed by the imminent publication of Audit Scotland's report on improving the Scottish school estate and the Scottish Government's proposals for the Scottish Futures Trust and the Infrastructure Investment Plan.'"—[Maureen Watt.]
On 26 October 2006, on "Question Time" on the BBC, Nicola Sturgeon was asked this question by Kieran Chambers from Clydebank:
"If I vote your party into power next May will you promise to immediately stop all PPP funding for schools in Scotland?"
Nicola Sturgeon's answer was, "Yes." However, on 27 June 2007, at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I put it to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that it would be
"possible under this Government for councils to put forward new PPP schemes."
Fiona Hyslop replied:
"Yes, but I do not think that it is a big issue."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 27 June 2007; c 40.]
Today, the Minister for Schools and Skills seems not to be supping with the PPP devil but offering it course upon course with alacrity. I am not sure that Scottish National Party back benchers are comfortable with that.
Again we have heard about the £40 million for investment in schools. The minister said that that was for measures on class sizes, but we all now know that the guidance that came with the money was that it should be invested in sports facilities.
The Labour Party should be commended for bringing this topical and focused debate to Parliament. It is apt that we should discuss school buildings this morning. Liberal Democrats have always considered innovative ways of delivering public sector estate improvements. In my local authority area in the Borders, and in Penicuik and Midlothian, three new, state-of-the-art secondary schools and four new primary schools are being built. The primary schools are being built using traditional capital; the secondary schools using PPP.
The process has not been easy. My mailbag has been full of letters about planning issues, design and usage issues, and the ability of the council to design appropriate facilities. There has been great concern about cost overruns and delays to the build programme. Some concern has also been expressed to me about the construction of the PPP school. That highlights the fact that no perfect way exists of building and procuring public buildings in the school estate. In my experience, more concerns are expressed about the traditional route than the PPP route. We have always sought the best approach depending on local circumstances, whether that is traditional capital build, prudential borrowing or PPP. In that regard, our position is very similar to that of the Conservatives.
I remember many question times during the previous session of Parliament at which John Swinney and I repeatedly raised issues concerning the installation of renewables technologies in schools built by PPP. John Swinney's questions related to the Perth and Kinross Council area, and mine related to the Scottish Borders Council area. In the Borders, the council simply made it part of the bidding process contract that biomass fuel had to be used. That was agreed without any controversy. It was a straightforward part of the process. We have learned about such things as PPP has developed.
Today, we have to consider two aspects of the SNP's Scottish futures trust approach. We have to ask whether it represents private investment or not and whether there will be delays.
Consultation on the Scottish futures trust ends on 14 March. However, the Government was not content to wait until it had heard from consultees, so interviews took place on 8 January for external private sector advisers to develop a business case for the futures trust. The Government says that the business case will be ready by the end of March. The delivery group includes private sector advisers, Government officials and Partnerships UK, which is a PPP body. The involvement of Partnerships UK should surprise Linda Fabiani and Michael Matheson, who campaigned against it during the previous session of Parliament. However, the Government is not content with merely involving Partnerships UK; it has actually included it in the delivery group.
Of course private investment will go into the futures trust. The Government has said that it will not have an uncapped commercial rate for return on the investment, whatever that means. Councils do not know.
At a recent meeting between officials from the Scottish Government—or were they from Partnerships UK?—and local government finance directors, the Government confirmed that there would be no level-playing-field support and no revenue support for any capital new build for schools in Scotland. There was a pause around the room. The reality is that there is no new support from the Scottish Government to invest in our school estate. Without revenue support and level-playing-field support, the policies will certainly not be met. Unfortunately, confusion and delay are the hallmarks of the approach. The situation will have to be rectified urgently.
I move amendment S3M-1258.2, to insert at end:
"recognises the publication of the Scottish Government's consultation on the Scottish Futures Trust and its support for the use of private finance, and is concerned that the failure of the SNP government to bring forward an alternative funding mechanism and support is causing confusion and uncertainty and is holding back councils across Scotland who want to improve schools in their areas."
We have already heard this morning that Labour has a good record on building schools. I make no apology for following a similar line to Rhona Brankin. I remind the chamber that, between 1999 and 2007, more than £11 million was invested in the school estate in the South Ayrshire Council area. New schools are under construction in Alloway and Ayr. In the East Ayrshire Council area, a number of schools have undergone major refurbishment. There have also been new builds. One of the ministers responsible for education had the opportunity to open one of those new schools last week.
We always knew that more work had to be done, which is why Labour had a clear plan for school building. That contrasts with the SNP position. The SNP has broken its pledge to match our programme brick for brick. Its programme is more about closing schools than building new ones. I say that with a degree of sorrow, because I would rather not have to make this particular speech.
The SNP has made much of its commitment to a presumption against the closure of small rural schools, but those words—like the pledge to match our programme brick for brick—do not appear to be translating into any action. The SNP-led council in my area proposes to close four small rural schools that serve my constituents. I would rather that those four schools were maintained, improved or rebuilt. That is the kind of creative approach that members around the chamber should take.
The SNP's futures trust is not finalised, as we have heard again this morning. It is not so much a futures trust as another breach of trust by the SNP. I was prepared to examine the proposals and weigh them up, so I recently asked the minister a parliamentary question about how local authorities can gain the funds to make the necessary capital investment—she invited us to submit parliamentary questions and I did exactly that. In her reply, she specifically suggested that the sources could include:
"contributions from developers, capital receipts from the disposal of assets, or extra monies raised through self-financed borrowing."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 January 2008; S3W-7999.]
How many schools does she expect to be funded by contributions from developers and in what circumstances? Has she told the local authorities that she expects them to sell off their assets? Will she tell us which assets those are? Are they the sites that some existing small rural schools sit on, sites that have been earmarked for social housing or open spaces in our communities? Exactly which parts of the family silver are the local authorities to sell off? If she cannot tell me that today, will she at least answer the question that Rhona Brankin asked: how many schools will she and her Government commit to build by 2011 and how many will her Government commit to refurbish by 2011?
If the minister agrees that local democracy is important, will she tell me whether it is correct that the decision on the four threatened rural schools in East Ayrshire will be taken not by the whole council, which would give every councillor the opportunity to represent their constituents, but by the council's SNP cabinet? Will she step in, talk to her colleagues in East Ayrshire and reverse the decision? Will she follow the example of my colleagues in Westminster by making it clear that there is a presumption against closing rural schools and intervening to ensure that not one rural school closure is pushed through before the legislation that she promised on the issue is introduced? If she cannot give those commitments today, the SNP has failed on every challenge that it has been set.
Yesterday, we had a debate on the importance of history in our schools, so I will begin with a short history of our schools—just the recent history, of course.
In the Labour Party manifesto of 1997 there is one line—just one—about school buildings. It reads:
"Public/private partnerships will improve the condition of school buildings."
Let us have a look at how that panned out. In 2003, leading Scottish architects claimed that PPP/PFI had not improved the condition of school buildings as Labour had claimed it would. Sebastian Tombs said that there was too little emphasis on whether the schools that were being provided offered the best learning environment. Bruce Brebner of Anderson Bell and Christie went further, and said:
"The whole thing is driven by money and driven by time ... the process is flawed because the bulk delivery model is a blunt instrument."
Will Christina McKelvie give way on that point?
No thank you.
By February of last year, Malcolm Fraser was saying,
"these schools are catastrophically poor",
the Educational Institute of Scotland was voicing serious reservations about PPP, and the effect on extracurricular activities was devastating.
Will Christina McKelvie give way?
I will not take any interventions, because I will not take lessons from the Labour Party on the matter.
Will Christina McKelvie give way?
Ms Brankin, sit down please.
We know of sports clubs not being able to afford the fees to use PPP/PFI schools. One hockey team from Falkirk travelled to Bathgate to play because that was cheaper than booking into the school that it had always used.
Will Christina McKelvie give way?
The member is not taking interventions.
We can be fairly certain that PPP/PFI has not exactly improved the condition of school buildings. Moreover, in 2002, Audit Scotland found that it was 4 per cent more expensive than traditional procurement and limited councils' future options. It is shameful that any politician would allow that.
Labour keeps claiming that it built a school a week. Apparently, that level of work from the builders was not enough, so Jackie Baillie told us in March last year that she would set out to build a school every five days. Such industry from the member for Dumbarton! However, she was determined to have the weekends off.
Of course, the truth is that 173 schools were built between 1999 and 2007—not made fit for purpose, but built. However, although 173 were built, 177 were closed during the same period, so when Labour was turfed out of office last May, Scotland had fewer schools than when it came into office. That is some record—it is almost criminal. We are four schools down on the deal and Scottish councils are in hock to the tune of 11.25 per cent. Labour has imposed some tuition fee on the children of Scotland. They will pay back the costs of their primary school education for half their working lives.
Labour's record is simple—shoddy government and expediency—and its solution since May has been to pretend that it never happened. With a wave of the new Labour wand, history is rewritten, the demons are airbrushed out of the photograph and new heroes are installed in the pantheon.
It is a blessed relief that there was a change of Government last May. Instead of following Labour's school closure programme, local authorities are now free to determine the most appropriate routes for providing the schools that Scotland's children need. We now have a Government that is dedicated to building a decent future for Scotland, wants to improve Scotland's schools and will not leave pupils paying the debt for the rest of their lives.
We have had a decade of Labour failure. Now it is time to deliver. We have looked at the history. Now we have a chance to look to the future.
The SNP said last year:
"We will match the current school-building programme brick for brick".
It also promised to deliver a maximum class size of 18 in primaries 1 to 3, and on 5 November last year, in reply to a parliamentary question from Richard Baker, Maureen Watt said that ministers
"entirely endorse the views of the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland … that an occupancy level of below 60% should not automatically trigger consideration of a school's closure."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 5 November 2007; S3W-5300.]
How hollow those words sound to parents in Aberdeen this week. Aberdeen City Council's school building programme has yet to start but, when it does, the new schools—such as the replacement for Mile-End primary school in my constituency—will no longer allow for out-of-zone placements but will be built to a specification that assumes that no out-of-zone pupils will attend through the exercise of parental choice. That approach has been taken only since the SNP joined the city council administration in May and it threatens to deny parents and children their statutory rights.
Last year, SNP education convener Kirsty West and her colleagues launched a review of Aberdeen's school estate. Aberdeen has an average class size of 24 in primaries 1 to 3. That means reducing class sizes by 25 per cent to meet Government targets of a maximum class size of 18. A good reason to review the school estate would be to identify where all the new, smaller classes might be accommodated and what new schools should be built, but that was not the purpose at all. Instead, the review explicitly set out to find ways of reducing the school estate, and the trigger for consideration of a possible school closure was just what Maureen Watt said it should not be:
"an occupancy level of below 60%".
Perhaps SNP ministers should tell SNP councillors in Aberdeen why that is the wrong approach. Perhaps they should tell parents of children at Causewayend school in my constituency about matching Labour's school building programme brick for brick. Instead of doing that, SNP councillors in Aberdeen have drawn up a school closure programme and a hit list of primaries and nurseries across the city.
Causewayend school is top of that list, and yesterday, parents at the school formed a parents council as a first step in their campaign against closure. The chair of that parents council attended Causewayend school as a boy. He still lives on the next street and has one child in primary school and one in nursery at Causewayend. He does not see how smaller class sizes can be achieved by closing schools such as Causewayend, which has served city-centre residents well for the past 132 years.
The SNP's school closure programme in Aberdeen does not stop there. Hilton nursery school, which is bursting at the seams and has been the nursery school of choice for generations of families in a relatively disadvantaged area, is threatened with closure. One of two primary schools that serve the regeneration area of Tillydrone—St Machar school and Donbank school—is threatened with closure, just as plans go forward for hundreds of new affordable homes in the area. Outstanding Catholic primary schools in my constituency, such as St Peter's and St Joseph's, face the threat of rationalisation just a few years down the line. That is the reality that Scotland's schools face under the SNP.
It is simply not acceptable for SNP ministers to say that these are local issues and are therefore not a matter for them. SNP ministers and councillors were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver smaller class sizes and a promise to build and refurbish schools in order to achieve that. When SNP councillors propose school closures and amalgamations, they are breaking those promises. SNP ministers should own up and be big enough to take their share of the blame.
We have heard much this morning about how life would be wonderful under a Labour Administration in Scotland and how only the Labour Party would ensure that a school building programme continued to aid pupils in Scottish schools. However, two Labour MSPs think that a new school has been built every week since 1999, which would add up to 416 schools; one thinks that 200 have been built since 2003; and another thinks that 300 have been built since 1999. In fact, only 110 schools were built in the past four years; 173 were built over the past eight years.
Exactly how many schools can the new SNP Administration take credit for? How many has it commissioned?
I am not going to take that.
As my colleague Christina McKelvie said, over the past eight years 177 schools were closed. Under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, there was a net deficit of four schools.
Much has been made about the "brick for brick" commitment. I have every faith that the SNP Government will work towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment brick for brick, thus providing a school estate strategy to benefit Scottish pupils.
We have Labour, and its poodles the Lib Dems, to thank for eight years of PPP and the Tories to thank for introducing the policy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
Elizabeth Smith said that she was so proud that the Tories had introduced PPP. However, perhaps attitudes to PPP are changing in the Opposition parties. After Kenny MacAskill announced that the new prison for Bishopbriggs was no longer going to be funded via PPP, Wendy Alexander welcomed the decision.
Over the past eight years, some said that PPP was the only game in town and that we could not do anything about it. That struck me as the same as the tired old rhetoric that we are too small, we are not capable enough and we are too thick to develop things for ourselves. It is the same old nonsense that has kept Scotland in the union and set us back years and years.
I am thankful that the Scottish electorate voted out the tired old parties last year and gave the SNP the chance to provide a fresh impetus for Scotland. Furthermore, the electorate gave the SNP the opportunity to show that there are viable alternatives to PPP. The Scottish futures trust is out for consultation. I hope that the Opposition parties will take part in the consultation and that they will welcome the idea.
New schools are usually welcomed, provided that it is perceived that the correct and proper procedures have been followed to allow the public to have their say. I am afraid that the experience of the Lib Dems running Inverclyde Council over the past four years shows the way not to consult the public. Their arrogance and dismissal of the Inverclyde public was supreme, and they paid the ultimate price last May by having their number of councillors reduced from 13 to 4 and losing control of the administration.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Unfortunately, the current minority Labour administration in Inverclyde Council appears to be following in the same vein. I say to Ms Jamieson and Mr Macdonald that they should just ask the parents who send their children to Clune Park primary school in Port Glasgow, which is threatened with closure.
The unholy alliance of the current Labour-Tory coalition in East Dunbartonshire Council has signed off proposals for its £501 million PPP programme. New schools are fine and well, but making future generations of pupils in effect pay for the privilege of going to school is appalling. It smacks of privatisation of children's education.
I do not think that the SNP Government need take any lessons from Labour and the Lib Dems, given their record over the past eight years. That is why I urge members to reject Labour's ill-informed motion.
I welcome any and every opportunity to debate education and, in particular, building new schools for our young people. Labour has a proud record on the issue. Since 1999, we have delivered 328 new or refurbished schools. As they say in the Irn-Bru advert, that is phenomenal.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am not even past my first minute. If the member waits around, I will take an intervention later.
We also committed to build a further 250 new schools, at least 100 of which were to be completed by 2009.
I have to confess that I was delighted when Alex Salmond promised to match Labour's school-building programme "brick for brick"—the investment in our schools, which was so desperately needed, was to be guaranteed. It is therefore a matter of great regret that the plans for Dumbarton academy, which previously were in West Dunbartonshire Council's regeneration plans, have now been scrapped. How will the SNP match Labour's school building programme brick for brick?
Perhaps the member could inform the Parliament that 10 Labour members on West Dunbartonshire Council voted for the measure to which she refers and that there are only nine SNP members on that council.
The SNP-controlled schools project board was the first on which the SNP casting vote was used, to remove Dumbarton academy from the programme. In the final council meeting—this is a matter of fact—the motion was moved by the SNP leader. The SNP group threatened that if the motion was not passed, investment would be cancelled in not just Dumbarton academy but Vale of Leven academy, Clydebank high school, St Andrew's high school, St Columba's high school and St Eunan's primary school. That was about playing politics with young people's education, which is a disgrace.
Just how will the SNP match Labour's school building programme brick for brick? Dumbarton academy was to be completed in 2009. Where have all the bricks for Dumbarton academy gone? How will the SNP guarantee that it is built by 2009? Dumbarton academy is one of Scotland's oldest schools; it was founded 500 years ago. Former pupils include Sir Jackie Stewart—although I gather that he was not too pleased with his time there—the novelist AJ Cronin and Professor John Brown, the astronomer royal for Scotland. The current school building is old and dilapidated and millions of pounds of investment is needed just to keep it wind and watertight. It is clearly not fit for purpose. More worryingly, the school does not have the facilities to meet the modern curriculum requirements for 21st century secondary schools in Scotland. As a consequence, learning opportunities for pupils are restricted—they have less choice and less opportunity.
Rhona Brankin and Elizabeth Smith are quite right: school buildings do make a difference to educational attainment. What about the huge disappointment for pupils, teachers and parents caused by no new investment for Dumbarton academy when, just up the road, there is a welcome new building for Vale of Leven academy and, in neighbouring Helensburgh, a new Hermitage academy is to be opened in February 2008? I say to Christina McKelvie that yes, those schools were built under PPP. She might want to reflect on her less generous comments about PPP, given that her own minister signed off 45 schools to be built under PPP.
The minister helpfully confirmed that the SNP will continue to match Labour's school building programme brick for brick, but phase 1 was for 100 schools by 2009, yet the minister appears to have indicated that only 45 schools have been approved. Given that, by her own admission, it will take a while for any new projects to happen, could this be another broken promise?
I am happy to be corrected, but will the minister build 100 new schools by 2009? Where have the bricks for Dumbarton academy gone? Will the SNP intervene in West Dunbartonshire Council, as it did in Edinburgh, to ensure that the children and young people of Dumbarton are not disadvantaged? Will she today make an unequivocal commitment to a new Dumbarton academy by spring 2009?
Is this debate not interesting? The Labour Opposition had eight years to deliver what it claims to have delivered—if it can agree on how much has been done. Along with its partners the Lib Dems, it suggests that everything was white before but it is all black now. However, given the waste in the system that Labour created—£2.1 billion more was spent on PPP—is it not time to draw breath and consider whether that form of procurement is the best way in which to proceed?
Does the member agree with the ministers who have signed off PPP projects and indicated that PPP will continue to be part of the mix? Does he agree that that is the right way forward?
Is it not obvious to Cathy Jamieson that the disruption that would be caused if the PPP projects that had been proposed were immediately cut would be undesirable? What would the Labour Party say if all those schools had been shut? The member should not be so silly. We know that continuity is part of the issue—it is not a case of white and black.
The problem has deep roots. This morning, the BBC news website ran a story that said:
"More than half the accommodation and facilities at primary schools visited by inspectors in the Inverness area were deemed to be of poor quality.
Of 22 primaries inspected, 14 were considered by HM Inspectorate of Education to be weak and one unsatisfactory."
I remind members that there are 44 schools in that part of the Highlands.
Such figures can be replicated in many places, as we have heard. The system that was in place needs to be changed so that we can get better buildings with more eco-friendly designs and so on. A pause for breath is required.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to take another intervention. I have taken one already; Rhona Brankin clearly did not agree with my answer, so I doubt that she would agree with my answer to the question that she wants to ask me.
We are now in a position to think about the kind of schools that we build. We can see, in the way in which people are building eco-friendly houses and office buildings, that we could build schools that could last a good deal longer than the 30-year lifespan of the PPP projects. Thanks to Architecture and Design Scotland, we have an opportunity to review how the procurement process has affected design. It takes time to digest the situation; the Government is doing that, and we have every expectation that we will gain from that.
Architecture and Design Scotland said:
"The procurement methods employed do not always ensure real engagement between the client and the design team, or that high aspirations for design quality are maintained through to delivery."
It also said:
"it must be recognised that the constraints imposed by PPP/PFI processes (which predominated in the projects reviewed) have, in many cases, stifled debate and creativity."
If one thing is needed in relation to the schools that we are going to build to replace the ones in Inverness and everywhere else, it is the creativity that has not been present under the previous scheme. Our amendment proposes a funding system that will enable us to ensure that that creativity is present and to save some of the money that would otherwise be spent. Unfortunately, we have inherited certain commitments. As any responsible Government would do, we have said that we will meet those commitments. However, we must think carefully about the delivery of the next tranche of schools, because they have to be better designed and more pupil friendly. We have time to do that now, which is why the SNP amendment makes sense.
In opening the debate, Rhona Brankin criticised SNP ministers for posing outside new schools that were commissioned by the previous coalition Executive. That was fair criticism. However, like other members, she talked about Labour's school building programme. Unless I am suffering from amnesia, that school building programme was the responsibility of a coalition Government. I give the Labour Party credit for that joint approach and I assume that the Labour Party gives the Liberal Democrats credit, too.
Elizabeth Smith highlighted the fact that the Scottish futures trust was causing confusion, indecision and inaction. I could not have put it better myself. Maureen Watt responded by saying that the Government was building more schools. However, those schools were commissioned by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration. Indeed, Maureen Watt indicated that, when the SNP came to power, there were no plans for another round of the school building programme. However, she knows as well as I do—because we both represent constituents in Aberdeenshire—that that is not the case. Aberdeenshire Council has drawn up a £200 million new school building programme, at the behest of the previous Administration. In my constituency, the previous coalition Government approved funding for a new academy in Portlethen and new primaries in Lairhillock and Hill of Banchory, which everyone welcomed. We are in desperate need of new academies in Laurencekirk, Alford and Banchory, and of primaries in Portlethen and elsewhere.
Does the member accept that we have given £3 billion to local authorities precisely so that they can go ahead and build those schools?
I am sorry, but the amount of money that has come in is not sufficient for a new school building programme. The minister must know that.
We cannot afford to wait for the SNP Government to get its act together. The suspicion is that the issue is being kicked into the long grass; indeed, the consultation went out on the Parliament's very last sitting day before Christmas—how unlike the SNP not to blow its own trumpet.
There is a huge amount of confusion over the Government's Scottish futures trust. It seems that, rather than have a straightforward PPP process, with the school assets eventually being transferred to our local authorities, the so-called Scottish futures trust will result in the schools—if they are ever built—never returning to our local authorities.
The debate shows that, although the SNP has not blocked any of the schools that were commissioned by the coalition Government—I give the SNP credit for that decision, but not for the schools, which are the responsibility of the previous Administration—it does not want to continue the PPP process into another phase of the school building programme. Rather, the SNP wants its own scheme. The SNP is desperate to invent a new scheme. It cannot go back to the traditional way of investing in school buildings, because it does not have the necessary money in its budget, and it does not like the PPP approach, because that was the approach of the previous Administration and it is ideologically opposed to it.
The result of the SNP's desperation is confusion, indecision and delay. The schools throughout Scotland that need to be replaced are not being replaced, and there is no plan in place for that to happen. The children in those schools deserve a Government that takes action. However, today, we hear good words from the Government but see no action. The SNP Administration must get a grip, for our kids' sakes. We need action. Our children deserve decent buildings in which to learn.
I apologise for the absence of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who is, apparently, stuck on the Forth road bridge as a result of this morning's accident.
I congratulate Labour on securing the debate. As Jeremy Purvis said, it should serve to focus our minds on an extremely important issue that goes to the heart of our communities, as Dr Macdonald eloquently said. Whether schools will be built is something that matters to people.
This morning, the SNP and Labour have traded insults about the numbers of schools that have or have not been built. However, we want to know how many schools will be built in the future. The SNP has not come to the chamber with the details of its plans. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable in terms of its manifesto commitments, or from the point of view of the business community and contractors who might want to build the new schools. Further, as Mike Rumbles just said, it is certainly not acceptable in terms of the education of our young people.
As Cathy Jamieson and Mike Rumbles said, we have not had the details of any of the Government's proposals. Worryingly, we have had confusion over the nature of the Scottish futures trust. As several members have said, the least that we expected was that we would get the principles that would allow us to engage in the debate. However, that has not happened. As I said in my opening remarks, the situation before the election seems to be very different from the situation after the election. The Government owes it to Scotland to tell the Parliament what it plans to do.
Does Elizabeth Smith share my concern about the SNP Government's suggestion that there was no forward plan by Labour and the Liberal Democrats for the building of more schools this year, next year and so on? The coalition Administration built schools year after year. In Edinburgh we had wave 1 and wave 2, so it is inconceivable that we would not have moved to wave 3, in which Portobello high school and Boroughmuir high school would have been replaced. It really is—
Mr Foulkes, this is a rather long intervention.
Yes, it is.
It is not just mischievous but downright untruthful of the SNP to keep repeating its suggestion that there was no forward plan.
You are a bit mischievous yourself.
I share George Foulkes's concern, because we owe it to people to tell them which schools will be built, when they will be built and how the build will be financed. That is the crux of the debate, but I am not sure that we have heard many answers from the Government.
Jackie Baillie made a relevant point about the changing nature of the curriculum. It is true that schools have to change to reflect the changing curriculum and their communities. Far more people are involved in schools these days, and communities take part in school activities in a way that did not happen in the past. That must be reflected in the building programme and in the financing.
The issue is crucial if we are to deliver better education in Scotland. We owe it to our people and, above all, to our children. It is time that the Government came forward with plans that we can debate in detail.
It shows how out of touch with Scottish public opinion the former coalition partners remain that they have chosen today's debate to attack the SNP's progressive and prudent approach to renewing the school estate.
As for the attacks on school closures, members should know that Labour's school estate strategy called for rationalisation of the school estate. The Government will take no hypocritical lectures from Labour and the likes of Cathy Jamieson, who when she was Minister for Education and Young People axed every school that was referred to her for a decision.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not. Please sit down.
I remind members that the PFI/PPP approach of the previous Administration was deeply unpopular with taxpayers, not least because people realised that this generation and the next would pay through their noses to honour PPP contracts.
Will the minister give way?
Sit down, please.
PPP contracts have produced poorer quality schools than could have been achieved by alternative forms of procurement. Members need not take my word for that; they need only refer to the excellent briefing that was produced for the debate by Architecture and Design Scotland.
The blame for those poor outcomes, such as restricted community access, must lie firmly at the doorstep of the previous Administration. Local authorities were forced to play PPP as the only game in town if they wanted significant investment in new and refurbished schools.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not think that the minister is taking an intervention.
By contrast, the SNP has higher ambitions for the school estate and for Scottish education. There will be no third wave of PPP school projects. We have taken the pragmatic decision to allow existing projects to proceed, because to have done otherwise would have been unfair on communities whose expectations of new schools have been raised to a high pitch—not to mention the costly consequences of cancellation.
Will the minister visit schools in my constituency that were built under PPP, to see the excellent quality of those schools and the teaching and learning that go on in them? Will he get to the point and say how many schools the Government will build?
We are committed to building the 100 schools between 2007 and 2009 that Labour members mentioned. Those schools will be in place. By 2011, I am confident that we will have reached the number that you—sorry, Presiding Officer—the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto.
Our brick-for-brick commitment is being realised in full and we are going further. Over the next three years, some £3 billion is being provided to secure investment in infrastructure at local government level, which includes schools. That represents a 15 per cent increase in each year of the settlement, compared with this year's figures. In addition, local authorities can use the prudential borrowing schemes to access private finance at a much cheaper cost than PPP, which has credit-card rates of interest. There will also be the Scottish futures trust to look forward to. Our clear intention is to provide a series of affordable options for local authorities that seek to improve schools in their areas. I am confident that PPP will wither on the vine, as unlamented as it was unloved.
I am also confident that when private gain is removed as a motivating factor in design and delivery, the emphasis in school building will shift to the quality and sustainability of facilities. The contribution that schools can make to our climate change strategy will move centre stage, where the issue belongs.
The top concern of voters during the election campaign was the high cost of, and mortgaging of our children's future through, PPP projects. That is why we await the publication of the Audit Scotland report on the school estate, so that we can consider the lessons that can be learned from what has gone before and how they should influence where we go next. That is what the voters expect of the Government. We are committed to improving the learning experience of children and young people by improving the fabric of schools. We look forward to bringing detailed plans to the Parliament in due course. I pledge that our plans will represent a clean break from the failures of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.
When is a promise not a promise? When it is made by the SNP in the run-up to a general election. The SNP said that it would match Labour's school building programme brick for brick. That was a nice turn of phrase, which created an illusion of something solid and tangible. I am sure that there was no doubt in voters' minds that the SNP's commitment was one of substance.
Oh dear. No sooner had the new brass name-plates been put up on SNP offices up and down the country than the words began to ring hollow. The SNP said, "Brick for brick just means that we will finish off the projects that are already under contract or are too far down the line to cancel. You thought you were going to get a new school? We don't know how you got that impression. Was it something we said?"
The phrase "brick for brick" recalls another nice-sounding promise: the promise to repay student debt. Nicola Sturgeon said, using carefully chosen words:
"We will effectively stand in the shoes of Scottish students … and take on the burden of their debt."
Fine words indeed from the SNP, but now that the party is in government we find that it did not mean them. There has been another misunderstanding. The promises to repay student debt and match Labour's school building programme brick for brick have been broken.
The SNP says that we should wait, because the new Scottish futures trust will make good on its promises. We have waited patiently. We waited for the spending review, but there was nothing in it. We waited for the budget, but there was nothing in it. Now we are waiting for the Scottish futures trust.
The minister's front-bench colleague Kenny MacAskill has given the game away. While he was talking about the promised new Portobello high school in Edinburgh, he told parents not to wait for the third round of PPP or for funding from the Scottish futures trust but to find the money from the city's capital resources. Here is a simple question for ministers: can they promise me that any of the current roll at Portobello high school will enjoy the new building? Can they deliver their promise in six years? It appears that they cannot.
Ministers have refused to answer several questions. Rhona Brankin posed three questions about the new Scottish futures trust, which were echoed by Liz Smith. I will repeat just one question. How many schools will be built under the new model? Such questions are not too much to ask of the Executive, but they are not being answered. Why? Jeremy Purvis gave us the answer when he highlighted the confusion and delay that are at the heart of the Government. In opposition, the SNP ruled out PPP/PFI, but now, it appears—in Mr Purvis's words—to be supping with the devil.
What did we hear from the minister? Maureen Watt tried to take the credit for projects that are in the pipeline. She suggested that traditional local authority capital funding routes would be enough to meet the demand for new buildings. That was not our promise and that is not matching us. Members throughout the Opposition parties highlighted the hypocrisy of the SNP's position—not so much a futures trust as a breach of trust, as Cathy Jamieson pointedly put it. From Ayrshire to Aberdeen, as Lewis Macdonald added, we have heard the stark reality of the SNP's policies in practice—it is not building new schools, but closing schools.
What is galling about the SNP's brick-for-brick promise is that it is framed in terms of Labour's commitment. It is not a stand-alone proposal that was drawn up by free thinkers. The SNP does not have its own target, but it has framed one that acknowledges the strength of Labour—and Lib Dem—achievements in investing in our schools and it has tried to piggyback on our success.
The SNP's one argument has been to question how many schools we built, yet it tries to trade on our record of building those schools. The promise suggests, "Anything you can do, we can do better." I suppose that we should be flattered, yet the SNP is not only taking Labour as its benchmark, but cynically trying to trade on our reputation for delivering social justice and decent public services, although all the evidence on the SNP points to the contrary.
By their decisions shall ye know them. In the SNP's budget, the priority is not new schools and social justice, but reductions in business rates and in council tax for the better-off. That is supported not by the progressive parties in the Parliament but—you guessed it—by the Tories.
Will the member confirm that Labour closed more schools than it built?
Not only is the SNP not matching Labour's record on new-build schools and refurbished schools, but it is not even close to matching that record.
Mr Macintosh, it would help if you spoke into your microphone. You should know that.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer.
I have asked the SNP several times how many new schools it has commissioned. For how many schools can it take credit? The answer appears to be none. The SNP promised to match us brick for brick. We promised 250 new schools; the SNP has delivered none. What does that mean for pupils and parents around Scotland? It means disappointment for all families. I stood on an election promise of a brand-new Barrhead high school and a brand-new Eastwood high school. I will not stand on my pride if the SNP delivers on its promise to match me brick for brick but, with the SNP's broken promises on police numbers, on support for first-time home buyers, on class sizes, on student debt and now on school building, the SNP's manifesto is coming apart, brick for brick.
As the debate has finished early, I suspend the meeting for a minute.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—