Education Committee, 14 Dec 2005
Meeting date: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Official Report
150KB pdf
Petition
Rural Schools (Closure) (PE872)
(Iain Smith): Good morning colleagues and welcome to the 24th meeting of the Education Committee in 2005.
Item 1 is petition PE872, which was referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee on 9 November. I remind members that the committee considered school closures, which are the subject matter of the petition, at our meeting on 26 October, when we had a lengthy exchange with the Minister for Education and Young People on the current guidance. A number of the points that the petition raises were raised by members during that exchange, in particular the issue of presumption against closure, which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked about. We agreed at that meeting that the committee would be kept up to date on progress on the reviews of the guidance, which the minister indicated were under way in discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We agreed that the committee would consider the issue of school closures when the revised guidance came out and that we would continue to consider it on at least an annual basis. We hope that the guidance will be produced before our next annual review.
The petition does not raise any substantial issue that was not discussed on 26 October, so I suggest that we leave it on the table at the moment and consider it in the context of the revised guidance when that is published. We will consider both the revised guidance and the contents of the petition at that stage. Do members have any comments on that?
That is a welcome suggestion. We had an excellent discussion on the guidance with the Minister for Education and Young People. I am conscious that we have to steer a difficult course, because these matters will be decided by local authorities. There is on-going negotiation between local authorities and the Executive on how local authorities should follow the guidance. We have a role, but it is clear that we must not mislead any of the parents who are interested in proceedings. However, my colleague Richard Baker and many other local MSPs have brought to our attention—it has also been highlighted to me—the importance to parents of making their views known to the committee and to the Parliament. If we are keeping the petition open, I would welcome the opportunity to invite parents to give us their views in writing so that we can bear them in mind when we are considering the response from COSLA and the Executive.
I apologise for being slightly late. I echo what Ken Macintosh has said. It is important that we will return to the issue and that we are only parking it for the time being. Yesterday, Dumfries and Galloway Council's education committee revisited school rationalisation, along with a load of other cuts, in order to try to meet its equal pay bills. We may see that issue arising in a number of authorities as they try to come to terms with the cost of single status. It is an important issue for us to return to.
I support the convener's recommendation that the matter be continued. On 26 October, the minister said:
"There are areas of the guidance that we could make firmer. However, if it is taken as it is intended, the guidance sets out clear, quite high, hurdles. … It is important to reflect on that and to ensure that we have included in the guidance all the issues that should be included. I have an open mind about that."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 26 October 2005; c 2699.]
On 7 September, Mr Peacock said in response to Murdo Fraser that there were still concerns regarding the consistency with which the Scottish Executive guidance on the closure of rural schools is being applied and on how the application of the guidance is monitored, particularly in relation to consultation. Mr Peacock said that discussions with COSLA were on-going. For those reasons, I support the convener's recommendation that we continue this matter.
I am glad that the discussion is going the way it is, because I was a bit concerned when I saw the meeting papers. It would be sensible to listen to the views of parents, particularly given that we are in the middle of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill. This committee of all committees should ensure that it hears parents' views—Ken Macintosh suggested that we are given those views in writing. Once we receive the revised guidance—hopefully from COSLA, although the minister has said that if COSLA is not prepared to produce something, he will—it would be helpful to get feedback from the petitioners on it.
I was a bit alarmed by what Elaine Murray said about school closures being the price to be paid for staff cuts; that adds a whole different dimension to the debate. We might want to reflect on that in the finance debate next week. I would be pleased if we said to the petitioners that we would consider the petition as part of our analysis of what the minister comes back to us with. That is a sensible suggestion.
I endorse that—that would be helpful.
Are we agreed that the petition will be considered in the context of the revised guidance from COSLA or the minister?
Members indicated agreement.