School Closure Policy
Good morning, colleagues. Now that it is 10 o'clock and we are quorate, I welcome the members who have made it on time to the 15th meeting in 2005 of the Education Committee. We have received no apologies.
The first item on the agenda is consideration of a letter from the Minister for Education and Young People, updating the committee on the current position on school closures. Do members have any comments?
This outstanding issue has been raised in various petitions on school closures that the committee has received. Although the revised guidance that was produced was welcomed at the time, some of us are still concerned that it contains no presumption against closure.
The minister's response is interesting in a number of respects. The overall message appears to be, "Steady as it goes," but he raises concerns about the kind of informal consultations that have been taking place. Moray Council clearly falls into that category. The minister also appears to recognise that certain matters need to be addressed; in fact, he says that the Executive might want to reconsider the issue of consultations.
However, I should point out that much of the additional guidance is predicated on the introduction of school estate management plans, the logical sequence for which is set out in paragraph 12. In dealing with concerns about school closures across Scotland, I have found that problems arise when the Executive's recommended process for managing the school estate is applied to potential closures in rural communities. Although some closures do not happen, many do; over the past year alone, 70 schools have been threatened with closure.
I welcome the Executive's investment in the school estate, but it is running up against this problem. As the minister says, statute is quite clear about the steps that should be followed in the formal consultation process. However, as we saw with the rolling programme of closures in the Borders and with situations elsewhere, problems arise when paragraph 12 of the guidance which, as dictated by the Executive, deals with the school estate management plan, is interpreted locally. We must examine the matter further and urge the minister to address it. I know that people involved in the campaigns against closures have corresponded with the convener and that several petitions that have been presented to the Parliament have not yet reached the committee. That said, we have a duty and responsibility to try to resolve the problem.
One of the interesting points that the minister made was that we have to set out for parents the responsibilities of the council and the responsibilities of the Executive. Often a council blames the Executive, the Executive says that it is up to the council and parents and communities are stuck in the middle. Given our experience with previous petitions and as constituency MSPs visiting different parts of the country, we have a responsibility to cut through that. We should home in on the interpretation of the school estate management planning by different local authorities and examine good and bad practice.
Channelkirk Primary School is up for review this week. The minister said that one of the problems is falling school rolls but, ironically, the authority said that the rising school roll at Channelkirk is causing it difficulties. We have a duty to address the issue, because it is causing a great deal of unnecessary anxiety in communities. We should make it clear that a review of the whole of a council's estate makes sense from a managerial point of view, but, in practical terms, it means that schools face potential closures or reviews every two years. That axe being held over them permanently is what people find most distressing.
Those are the nuts that I take from this. The minister is moving in the right direction, but a bit slowly for my liking. I would rather see a commitment made to some revision. Perhaps we could construct a response from the committee to the minister. He says that he is in discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We can mention our concerns.
This is an emotive and upsetting issue for many parents and young people. I am concerned that we should not offer false hope. I am conscious of the role of the committee and the Executive, which we have discussed before. As the minister said in his letter, the Executive is not there to overrule local decisions. It is wrong of us to even begin to hint to parents that we could do so or to think that we somehow know better than locally elected representatives, who I am sure put in a great deal of time and effort and do not take decisions lightly.
Given that responsibility for the budget, as well as for education, falls on us, we must have an eye on the fact that school rolls are falling; we will expect some schools to close. We cannot expect councils to manage their budgets properly at the same time as keeping all schools open. We should be sensitive.
Our individual and collective concern is clear. I am slightly unsure about what Fiona Hyslop is asking us to do in her proposed letter to the minister. The minister says that he is considering what else he can do. He has addressed the fact that some consultations have not gone as well as he had hoped and that the process has increased, rather than assuaged, alarm. I am not entirely sure what we can add to that, given that we have not investigated the issue in huge detail, although we have had a reporter. Perhaps Fiona Hyslop could spell out what we would be saying in the letter to the minister.
I welcome what the minister says in his letter. He says:
"I am considering what I can do further to address this and to ensure Councils improve in this very important area."
I will ask two questions. First, will the Executive consider updating existing guidance to local authorities on school closures in view of the widespread concern? Secondly, in view of the overwhelming cross-party support for a presumption against closure, does the minister feel able to revisit the matter, given that such a presumption exists in England?
The system in England is different from that in Scotland. It is debatable whether it would be appropriate merely to transpose the English system to Scotland.
I return to Ken Macintosh's point. The minister makes it clear in guidance that he has limited locus in the process of school closures. As Ken said, the committee also has no locus in school closures and it would be wrong to suggest to parents that we could somehow persuade local authorities to take a different view or that we could overrule local authorities. We must be careful not to put out the message that we have or the minister has particular powers. That must be clear.
Responsibility lies with local authorities. That said, I have often wondered about the Education (Publication and Consultation etc) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981/1558), which stipulate a minimum 28-day period of formal consultation. Concern has been expressed to us—it was in the e-mail that I think we all received this morning from the gentleman from the rural schools network—about the informal consultation periods that local authorities often introduce before the 28-day period. If the problem is lack of regulation of how such consultation is conducted, is there merit in extending the period of formal consultation to ensure that the steps that should be taken are taken?
The committee has a locus because the revised guidance that was produced last September was a result of the committee's considering and calling for that guidance. To be fair, the guidance introduced the education case as a key point that must be considered. That is why our experience can be useful in informing the next steps, because the issue is evolving. To be fair, we acknowledge that the minister wants to respond.
We should focus on school estate management planning. Paragraph 12 on page 3 lists the steps in that process. Much of the informal consultation to which Elaine Murray referred and about which people are concerned takes place when those steps occur, but the guidance for them does not marry with the rest of the guidance about what is important to rural communities and educational value. There is a bricks-and-mortar schools agenda, a rural development agenda and educational development. When they come together, problems arise.
At the bottom of his letter, the minister says that he is taking
"steps now to bring the practices of all Councils up to the standards of the best, in relation to consultation and … information".
It would be reasonable for us to request that he find out the best practice, rather than the worst practice, for implementing paragraph 12. If that means revised guidelines later, it would be useful for the committee to do that.
We do not question the fact that local authorities must make the decisions at the end of the day, so we cannot be accused of interfering in that way. However, the Scottish Executive and the minister have a role to play in setting down the guidance by which local authorities can proceed.
Fiona Hyslop talked about school estate management plans. Most confusion is probably felt locally about step 3, which is to consider options. In my experience of consultation exercises not just in the education service, but in health boards and so on, authorities appear too many times to present a preferred option that the public assume is a fait accompli. We need to explore that a little. In my opinion—for what it is worth—in that context the presumption against closure on educational grounds should be explored, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton suggested. Fiona Hyslop is right to highlight the need to home in on the school estate management planning process.
I thank members for their initial comments. I will make one or two comments and suggest a way forward. I acknowledge—several schools in my constituency are threatened with closure—that there are concerns about application of the guidance, rather than about the guidance itself, because the document is quite strong. How effectively the guidance will be implemented is perhaps the question that must be asked. In that respect, I suggest that we ask the minister to update us on his discussions with COSLA and on whether best-practice guidance is being considered in addition to the formal guidance to enable councils to have models of how they should consult.
Fiona Hyslop homed in on paragraph 12, but I want to home in on paragraph 27, which is on identifying and considering the relevant factors when a case is being made for closing a school. On Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point about presumption in favour of closure, a case must be made to close a school—there is a de facto presumption against closure. The phraseology is meaningless and creates a false impression of security and there is no cross-party support in favour of using a meaningless term.
A case must be made, but part of the problem at the moment is that it is not clear what information should be provided in the consultation on the educational case, travel distances and times, future pupil and population projections, community planning and use and rural sustainability and development. What is the basis on which people should make claims? Guidance to local authorities on the information to make available in consultation is vital.
I agree that councils should be made aware that the 28-day period is a minimum period of consultation and not a target period. I would be reluctant to see that period being changed because there will be circumstances in which everybody agrees that a school should close: no pupils might go to it, for example, so why should the process be delayed? A period of 28 days is probably appropriate in those circumstances. A period in the region of the Parliament's standard consultation period is more appropriate when a major change is being made. Perhaps the way forward is to ask the minister in our mop-up session to update us on the discussions with COSLA and to put those points to him.
I take it that we will write to him about our areas of concern.
We will discuss the mop-up meeting when we discuss our future work programme. We can raise various issues with the minister, including what we have just discussed. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.