Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


PPPs under fire again as parents claim new school will be too small

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 December 2007
CHILDREN will be forced to have lessons in makeshift classrooms because planned new schools are too small, parents claimed yesterday, in the latest blow to public-private partnership (PPP) schemes.
Castle Douglas Primary in Kirkcudbrightshire, which has 13 classrooms, is to be replaced by a building with only 11, despite a growing school roll.

It is one of nine new schools and one major refurbishment in a £200 million contract due to be sig
ned later this week.

The proposals are the latest PPP scheme that has failed to live up to expectations.

The construction under PPP of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary will earn the private company Consort about £1.26 billion from the public purse by the time the deal runs out in 2031, yet staff claim the hospital has been beset with maintenance problems and have complained about high parking charges.

Doctors across the UK have raised concerns over bed shortages, financial problems, poor quality and reduced levels of care as a result of PPP schemes, according to the British Medical Association Scotland.

And the final cost of a new PPP prison at Addiewell in West Lothian has been estimated at £600 million – which the Scottish Government says is 25 times what it would cost to build.

The BMA has previously condemned PFI (rebranded by the Labour administration as PPP) hospitals as "high-cost, low-value" schemes in evidence to Holyrood's finance committee, which is investigating the funding of such capital projects.

The SNP has always opposed the use of PPPs, and Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, has already warned taxpayers face being ripped off by many flagship projects funded through the private sector.

He said: "I believe our people have, frankly, received poor value, if not been ripped off, by many projects."

Alan Brown, chairman of the parent council at Castle Douglas, said the school had a roll of 346, yet the new school, due to open in 2009, will have the capacity for only 310.

He said: "

We know what children are in local playgroups and in the school nursery at the moment, so next year's fairly accurate projection still necessitates us having 13 classrooms. To do that, the council keep saying there's flexibility in the design."

Mr Brown claims Dumfries and Galloway Council is simply describing the library and IT suite as classrooms to solve the problem. And he said it would be necessary for children to be taught in portable cabins in the school grounds in order to free up the resource rooms.

"When it was brought to the school and the community to start with, everyone thought they were getting a school with a library and an IT resource room, and now these are being lost to satisfy the extra classrooms," he said.

"We've always been very concerned that's not sufficient for the number of pupils that are going to be there."

It is understood that parents of children at a school in Kirkcudbright have raised similar concerns.

A council spokesman said their figures differed from the parent council's figures by 13 pupils.

"However, this would not result in the council having to add on an additional classroom, as the general-purpose room is furnished as a classroom and this room has always been identified for use as a flexible area."

PUPILS' LOCKERS PLEA

IN FEBRUARY pupils from Rosshall Academy in Glasgow took complaints surrounding their new PPP school to the Scottish Parliament.

The students claimed they were forced to carry heavy bags which could cause back injuries because their school had been designed with no room for lockers. They argued there was no hope of new lockers for the 1,250 pupils in their school. But they hoped to prevent problems elsewhere.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

14/12/2007 00:57:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Gregorf,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 02:34:56
Can you buy shares in Consort? Truly disgusting
3

Wisnaeme,

14/12/2007 03:54:56
It would be interesting to compare the price of a square foot of these 'sheds for us' with the price of a square foot of 'developed' real estate in an upmarket part of Edinburgh. Would it not?
.
4

A Better Way,

Kingdom of Scotland. 14/12/2007 03:59:30
What were the London Controlled New Labour Party up to when they signed Scotland up to 22 billion quid's worth the debt for the next 30 years. The halfwit Broon has got England, Wales and Northern Ireland signed up for 127 billion quids debt. Now they are building a Prison for 600 million while the SNP Scottish Government is building one in Aberdeen for 60 million. Before you ask the one in Aberdeen is bigger.

There must be some huge Foreign Bank Account for the London New Labour Party somewhere because they do nothing for nothing.
5

,

14/12/2007 07:16:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

14/12/2007 07:24:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

juan kerr and his dead magic hands, now re risen.,

independent Scotland 14/12/2007 07:58:19
VINCENT-W: How much do you pay over the term of your mortgage for borrowing the money(!!!!) Also imagine how much the bank would charge you if they also built and maintained said house on your behalf?

Are you a director of a PFI/PPP - Pals of Nu Laba - Company perchance? As you are the only person wowed! by the "good value" that it evidently is not.

You have irked me so much I have came back from the deid.
8

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 14/12/2007 08:21:21
No. 7:- So you would rather the kids are left in decrepit old schools because they cant afford to build new ones.
9

juan kerr and his dead magic hands, now re risen.,

14/12/2007 08:29:50
#8 they used to build them quite fine before the introduction of managers contractors and middlemen.

PFI/PPP was only an excuse for labour to bank roll their term in office. Paying interest payments to new shiney and badly built schools in the hope that the public would not notice till their time in office had ended. By which time we are left nursing a large bill for years to come.

Ufortunately when my kids reach school age they will probably not have a school to go to. Because the budget is taken up paying middlemen their pounds of flesh for glorified and strung together portacabin structures.

So perhaps fime for a few parents now but what about the future.
10

,

14/12/2007 08:42:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

juan kerr and his dead magic hands, now re risen.,

14/12/2007 08:57:11
#10 in the "OLD" days schools were financed outright. They were staffed without the need for middlamn charges and nop money was wasted on interest payments. the only payment being capital. I am glad your kids have a nice new scholl. I hope it is still around in 1 piece in 10 years time. I rather doubt it. Ideaolgy or not, PFI/PPP is an astounding waste of money and basically put, provvy cheque economics.

Buy now, PAY through the teeth much later. But hey, your kids have a nice scholl , so screw me and my opinion!
12

scully,

Colchester 14/12/2007 09:10:03


Education is very important, You must have a very good grounding in Reading and Writing. Because ! anything at all that you want to learn can be found in a book. We have an exellent Library in Colchester, and if they have not got the book you want, they will find it for you.They once borrowed a rare book for me to read. I had to read it in the Library. That s was alright. The book was Martin Luthers first book on how he left Cathlocism and studed Hewbrew. and found the truth of Jesus. I understood everything he was saying.The book was of great benfit to me. As was St Francis of assi and Clare. Beautiful story,s. Children need good comforable learing places., I was educated in a little two room country school in Scotland.In the winter I used to look forward to the coal fire. and our little bottles of milk defreezing around the fire.
13

scully,

Colchester 14/12/2007 09:12:54
To the Scotsman Newspaper. Your Update is Excellent. So quick to get connected now. Thanks.
14

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 09:14:25
Vincent- I have read comments by normal middle of the road economists who sincerely doubt the PFI/ PPP idea, because the simple fact is that the "providers" have to borrow on the open money market, therefore get charged far more for it than if the gvt borrows, due to the simple fact that the gvt has more power and influence. Therefore, from the start, PFI projects are more expensive. Have you actually seen any figures about the real cost of your PPP project?

Any fool, assuming they employ a good project manager, can get a project built on time to budget. But the great secret of the PPP, which you are not addressing, is that it is costs more both up front and in the long term, due to consultants fees, interest on the loan, and the need of the company involved to make as large a profit as possible.

So, if you actually went and saw the figures involved, you would probably change your mind.

15

,

14/12/2007 09:19:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 09:21:32
Vincent, a list of problematic PFI/ PPP projects, with the associated wastes of money, can be found here:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/06/28/our-very-own-enron/
17

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 09:25:24
Hmm, Vincent, you wouldn't mind telling us which local authority it is that has wuch wonderful schools?
18

Aye Aye,

EYEMOUTH 14/12/2007 09:29:05
Of course the PPP idea isn't all bad. But what happens after the initial thirty years? Friends tell me of a new school at Lochgilphead where the "stations" in the science room are too close together so Health and Safety only allow every second one to be used! This is the most expensive way ever to build schools and hospitals but the public are too thick to understand that. Just dazzled by the shiny new buildings and political spin that goes with them.
19

,

14/12/2007 09:30:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

,

14/12/2007 09:32:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

juan kerr and his dead magic hands, now re risen.,

14/12/2007 09:37:49
#15- The costing is based on what guthrie said extortionate I am not routing around to provide your over inflated self with a cost breakdown. But here is one point from your own musings. you say within 48 hours a fault is repaired. Has that anything to do with they get paid on a repairs and manitainance basis , thus it is highly prefferable for them to fix the fault and bill it as soon as possible , not at cost but at cost plus profit.

Thus blowing your demand for a costing clean out of the water! :-)

For the non PFI schools in your area, you need to ask why your local authority feels the need to hand millions over to developers but cannot invest in it's own inhouse teams for repairs to their own stock. Could it be the possibilty of a cirectorship on the PFI board or a kickback as a contractor company?
22

,

14/12/2007 09:46:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 14/12/2007 09:51:21
Vincent - #16 provided a link.

Here is another link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6089122.stm

(Cleaning and maintenance should not cost billions!)

Another link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1694795,00.html

"It is therefore possible for each scheme to compare the cost of capital to the hospital before and after PFI. In the case of Barts and the London, the capital cost in 2005 was £8.62m a year. This is the amount the trust must pay the Treasury, which is then paid to the health department and recycled within the NHS system. But under PFI, the cost of capital at the Barts and the London will rise more than eightfold to £67m. The money flows out of the NHS and into the pockets of shareholders and their bankers in the private-sector consortium Skanska Innisfree."
24

juan kerr and his dead magic hands, now re risen.,

14/12/2007 10:00:28
#22 - Previously the head would have had a properly built school only once the "build" fault was fixed and then the building signed of as suitable for use.

What you point too about council worken is in effect a poorly run council. Not the need for outsourcing of millions of pounds. Proper management and not middlemen companies.

As soon as a ball goes through a plasterboard wall the contractors will start creaming themselves!
25

,

14/12/2007 10:29:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Wisnaeme,

14/12/2007 10:38:16
Vincent-W, on the outside looking in.

I have spent years studying the paperwork and finances of PFI /PPP. From involvement in the Bridge to Skye affair through to schools, hospitals and 'sheds for us'.

...and that paperwork was not always available or obtained through censored official channels, just in case they break the commercial confidentiality laws, you'll understand.
...and if you think I'm a wee bit skeptical and cynical of the cause and affect these PFI / PPP's have and increasing will have on the public purse by diverting public funds from point of use public services in the future.
Perhaps I am aware, more so than many by my experiences of some of the political chicanery,not to mention other aspects of PFI/PPP.
Guthrie. You are quite correct in your assessment of PFI/PPP. I may even have supplied some of the material George Monbiot and others published on this subject,allegedly.*

*George Monbiot, Captive State and other publications.

So Vincent, I would take the trouble to become informed about the costs involved in those shiny new sheds and of the rather difficult to obtain small print in the contracts.
.
27

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 11:19:06
Vincent, unfortunately for yourself, the page I linked to listed such poorly performing council workers as:

"Last week, after spending £14million on lawyers, consultants, architects and miscellaneous money-wasting schemes, the National Health Service ditched its plans for a massive hospital in west London."

"On the same day, we discovered that the PFI computer system which is meant to keep a record of MoT test results for cars in the UK has been delayed by another year. It was supposed to have been ready in May 2002."

"On June 14th, a leaked government report revealed that so many corners have been cut in the construction of a £47m privately financed mental health unit in Leeds that it might have to be pulled down and rebuilt."

I am afraid that your reply betrays a definite partisanship.
Now, if you had merely said you didn't have time to peruse internet links because you were busy at work, I'd have let you off. But making offhand comments that reveal you have not read what is linked to demonstrates that you have no argument to make.
28

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 14/12/2007 11:23:59
Not only is PFI generally significantly more expensive, but the risk factor is still borne by the public. One of the theories behind PFI is that the private sector bears the risks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1269640,00.html

"By exposing the general lack of evaluation, the report undermines the government's basic claim that investors' profits are justified because the private sector assumes risks for project failure or default. There is no evidence that this claim is true. On the contrary, the report highlights cases where the private sector passes risks and costs back to the public purse when PFI deals run into trouble. For example, when computer company ICL underestimated software costs in a £184m PFI deal with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the government agreed to put in extra money and guarantee shareholders' profits.

The lack of evidence behind government policy is crucial, because PFI is so much more expensive than traditional public finance. In the London Underground PFI, for example, private finance has added £450m to the investment bill faced by farepayers and council taxpayers. If the private sector ultimately does not accept the duties for which it is being paid, there is no justification for paying these costs and public services are being cut unnecessarily."

Basically when there is trouble the government is bailing them out. But when there is excessive profit, then nothing is repaid.

"there has only been one inquiry into the profits earned by private financiers. That inquiry found shareholder profits 61% higher than agreed in the PFI contract, an increase that bore no relation to the level of investor risk."

PFI is therefore irrational.

Brown has gone mad on it because the 'cost of it doesn't appear on Mr Brown's books'. You can have high public borrowing without it officially appearing.
29

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 11:28:14
Of course, I forgot to add that this does not mean that many councils are not incompetent in all sorts of entertaining ways. However, if your council is not even managing its schools properly, how can you judge it capable of negotiating and running a multi-decade highly complex commercial contract with a large corporation?
30

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 12:15:14
Thats the point, Peter- the cost of the deals is so high that councils have to cut corners to be able to afford them.

Wisnaeme- given the anonymity of the internet, assuming you are for real- nice one, now can you direct me to any online information to do with PFI and PPP? The continued lack of media attention astounds me, but hopefully we'll get some answers about Edinburgh soon.
31

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 12:19:04
Thats the point, Peter- the cost of the deals is so high that councils have to cut corners to be able to afford them. Local people have to try and get hold of the real costings so as to see how they are being ripped off.

Wisnaeme- given the anonymity of the internet, assuming you are for real- nice one, now can you direct me to any online information to do with PFI and PPP? The continued lack of media attention astounds me, but hopefully we'll get some answers about Edinburgh soon.
32

,

14/12/2007 13:50:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 14:09:59
Vincent, part of the problem is that the implementation, ie the design and building of the school can be hassle free and successful. Unless you are trying a really fantastic modern design of school, it isn't that hard to pour concrete, build walls and fit pipes etc, and you would ensure you got a reputable company in to do that with appropriate penalty clauses if they put the wrong foundations in, for example.

However what goes on with the PFI/ PPP is more complex and hidden. It is a method of funding it whilst keeping it off the gvt borrowing record. I think that normally the council would borrow from the gvt, or the gvt would borrow and give to the council, and then build the school. The building and land would stay owned by the council, who would then have to repair it as necessary, pay for cleaners etc.

What happens now is that the council pays some outside company to do all that for it, and often, the outside company owns the building anyway. So, this company wants a return on it's "investment", and charges accordingly. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, this means that the private option is often more expensive. However, the gvt would not let councils or the NHS use other options, and instead included all sorts of fiddles to make the PFI option cheaper and the council gvt paid option more expensive.

If you read Private Eye you will find plenty of examples.
ANother url:
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/pfi_efficiency%3F


Even trying to be even handed, ( I admit, I am not and cannot be totally objective) the promoters of PFI/ PPP have not and cannot make a proper case for it being noticeably better than traditional means of procurement.

I refer you for an example to this audit commission report. If the Audit commission has trouble working out if PFI is worth doing, pity the rest of us:

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/AC-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=D7701D4F-C130-4BA6-B10D-6D0644BDAA98&prodType=AC-REPORT&SectionID=sect7#su
34

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 14:16:35
Another problem, which has probably lessened over the years, is that the early projects involved councils and suchlike with no commercial experience, so they found themselves locked into unsuitable and expensive projects. I'm sure you would agree that it is a pretty expensive way of learning on the job.
The most infamous example is the Skye Bridge, which had it been built using public money, very likely with an EU grant, would have cost us well under 30 million. Instead it has cost over 90 million pounds in tolls, grants and the eventual buyout. The gvt of the time was so desperate for a PFI project that they pushed it through, even although it was not the best way.

There is still a word limit it seems, so the url in my post above was truncated. It is here:

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/AC-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=D7701D4F-C130-4BA6-B10D-6D0644BDAA98&prodType=AC-REPORT&SectionID=sect7#subsect23
35

,

14/12/2007 14:36:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 14:48:18
Vincent, if the councils are the same in 25 years time as they are now, I shall regard myself as having failed. (but i'm still looking for the proper political lever)

What you describe is, to me, an obvious result of lack of proper investment by councils. Why else skimp on maintenance, and build a new one cheaply and badly? With this issue, PPP is irrelevant.
37

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 14/12/2007 15:09:30
Now PPS/PFI's are something there should be public enquiry into.
38

Eve,

Scotland 14/12/2007 15:56:49
"The students claimed they were forced to carry heavy bags which could cause back injuries because their school had been designed with no room for lockers."

Oh my how Amercian like are our youths these days. My school never had lockers, not even in the Gym changing rooms.

How many books are they getting these weans to carry around with them, when I was at school it was never any more than 3. It use to be that most of the text books never or very rarely left the classrom because their wasn't enough. May be schools are better off now. Or may be jotters have become bigger.

Talking about heavey bags, I use to carry one about when I was at Uni BUT oddly I never realy thought of it being heavy untill someone else tryed to lift it.

I've never had back pain up intill this week, though its more to do with bending down wroungly than lifting heavy wieghts.
39

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 14/12/2007 16:54:28
-- PPP works fine if the council manage it.

To the extent that my local new-build high school of £20M now costs £60M. For an acceptable but very mediocre building that, however, will sit well with the new Tesco store.

Whereas in 1970 my father who was the director of education could build new schools as were necessary from the annual budget.

When local councils, and also private builders, could also build houses as they were needed.

This paper-built economy is in terminal collapse.

Any hedge funds anyone?

40

Andrew Allan,

14/12/2007 18:06:12
#39.,Eve.

If school bags are over 10lbs, then they go over a safe limit for back injuries starting in children.
41

Auckland Arab2,

14/12/2007 22:19:28
Sorry, but what happened to the "Salmond mired in sleaze" article? Has it been removed as it was defamatory and completely fabricated tosh?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should school history lessons focus more on Scottish history?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.