Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 22 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000

Official Report 153KB pdf

---

Petitions

The second item on the agenda is consideration of petitions. We have one on-going petition and three new ones. I ask Brian Monteith to give us an update on the on-going petition, PE9.

I am pleased to give a verbal report on the petition about the development of the Cramond area, particularly the Cramond campus site and the foreshore.

Local representatives, local community bodies, archaeological bodies and various interested parties have submitted a good deal of evidence to me. There is much consensus, not only on the archaeological and historical significance of the site, but on the measures that must be taken to preserve the interest.

There is some divergence in suggested approaches. One extreme is to suggest that the best way in which to preserve everything is to leave it all undisturbed and have no development. The other extreme is to allow some development—where existing development has already taken place—but to deal with it in a considered manner, with inspections and constant monitoring by archaeological experts. From all the evidence that I have received, Historic Scotland seems rightly to have been involved at every stage of the matter.

The most significant of the two developments is the housing development proposed for the Cramond campus site. City of Edinburgh Council has prepared a pre-planning brief, which takes account of the importance of the site and how any development might be done sensitively. I hope to have further discussions with the council on this matter, because concerns have been expressed that the identified preferred bidder has suggested putting the housing development on the undisturbed site, with the current site—the brownfield site, where the Cramond campus is—returning to park status. That might go against the pre-planning brief. I am concerned about that suggestion; my natural cynicism leads me to suspect that, in 10 to 15 years' time, people will say, "As this area has been developed in the past, can we build houses here?"

The one positive aspect is that, if the developers are interested in adjusting planning briefs to that extent, they might also be open to our suggestions about a road to take traffic to the historical site. Cramond residents are naturally concerned that, if the historical site is to be opened up, tourist traffic would go down a very narrow road, which would destroy the amenity of the village. If the development goes ahead, we must find alternative ways of bringing tourists to it.

I am relatively satisfied with most of the procedures that have been followed on the pumping station development, which are well advanced. I am waiting for further details about site plans and reassurances from Historic Scotland. That development has to be done to fit a time scale relating to European directives on water. As far fewer alternatives are available, other than improving the presentation of the development, it is unlikely that much more can be recommended.

I expect to finish my deliberations within the next fortnight, so a report will be available some time in March.

Thank you. Do members have any questions or comments?

I am grateful to Brian Monteith for having done so much work. What is the committee's locus on this matter in the long run? Who makes the decisions? I do not think that Brian can do so. Where is this report leading?

I hope to produce a number of recommendations, as options for this committee to endorse or to reject. We are not the lead committee and do not have funds. However, we can suggest how bodies can advance their case—for example, they could put together joint lottery bids.

I understood from the petition and from talking to people—this has been borne out to some extent by what Brian Monteith has said—that a key issue is the co-ordination of bodies in this matter. Although a number of bodies have expressed interest, no single body or group of bodies is taking responsibility for an overview of the issue. Therefore, the deterioration and lack of development have taken place almost by stealth. I hope that the committee's recommendations will be able to assist bodies to co-ordinate activity to save this unique site.

Mike Russell's point is well made. It seems that some bodies have been complacent. Because they have to be consulted in the procedures, they know that they will always be involved. I cannot say whether it is institutional complacency or the lack of funds that causes them not to take a lead on such an historic site. Certainly Mike Russell is correct to say that, as so many parties are involved, it would have been helpful if one body had taken charge of this historical site. I visited it with the clerk, Gillian Baxendine, and have to say that what is currently there would not bring one tourist to Cramond. The Cramond Inn is more likely to attract people to the area than a number of cobbled sets with a very old sign that does the site no justice.

I congratulate Brian Monteith on the work that he has done so far and look forward to seeing his report in a couple of weeks.

We will move on to the new petitions. The first is from the Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society. Members have the report and a covering note from the clerk giving a number of recommendations. There are responses from Fife Council and Historic Scotland, which were sought by the Public Petitions Committee before it referred the matter to us. I draw the attention of members to the fact that this petition has also been sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its general comments on coastal erosion. If there are no comments, I will suggest that we accept the recommendations of the clerk to seek the view of the petitioners on the responses that have been received and the view of the Executive on its policy of grant aid for such areas.

The committee might want to indicate its general support for the preservation of ancient monuments. Again, it seems that one of the problems is that too many bodies are involved, all of which have a small amount of responsibility. Given what we have read in this document and learned from Brian Monteith's inquiry, it appears that we will have to address that issue in future.

We can learn about that issue from Brian Monteith's inquiry. We will take Michael Russell's point on board.

The second new petition is from Mr G P Cooke. It relates to the Celtic 2010 campaign, which appears in your notes as the Celtic 2000 campaign, but members will have noticed that deliberate mistake. Brian Monteith has lodged a motion, S1M-567, on this matter.

I submitted motion S1M-567 before I saw that this matter was on the agenda today. I declare an interest, as I support the ideas of Mr Cooke, who wrote to me several weeks ago. It seems sensible to join with Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on this idea.

I have suggested that the Scottish Football Association hold exploratory discussions about the proposal's feasibility. I leave it to the association to decide whether that is appropriate. However, exploratory discussions at the very least would be worth while. I invite members of the committee to sign the motion.

In principle, we should give the motion our backing and encourage the SFA to enter into discussions with the petitioner. It may be that we can play a more positive role later on. However, for now it is sufficient for us to give enthusiastic support to the project. We can leave it to others to discuss the detail.

I think that the petition should be referred back to us and that we should not kick it over the touch line, so to speak. [Members: "Ooh."] I am sorry, but I could not resist that.

After there have been initial discussions, the petition should be referred back to us—first, to ensure that further discussions take place, and secondly, to ensure that they take place in a meaningful context. As the petitioner is friendly with Sam Galbraith—according to the letter, he is a member of the same Labour party general management committee—the Government will no doubt look sympathetically on the proposal.

I support a Celtic world cup—I stress the pronunciation of Celtic, to avoid any confusion with the views of Mr McAllion as expressed in Parliament. We should ask the SFA to see whether this proposal is feasible. We do not know the ins and outs of it, but we should request that the SFA meet the petitioner and come back to the committee if there is anything else that we can do. Because of Scotland's independence in the football world, there may be some difficulties, but this is a positive proposal.

The precedent of nations co-hosting such tournaments has been set, and we would like to emulate that. I am aware that there is already support for such a bid in the Republic of Ireland. Like the rest of the committee, I think that we should ask the SFA to organise meaningful meetings to discuss how to take this proposal forward, which could only benefit Scotland and Scottish football.

The petition raises a bigger issue, which the committee may want to return to at some stage—what is being done proactively to attract sporting events to Scotland. I know that Rhona Brankin has been working to bring the Ryder cup here. At some stage, the committee may want to look into whether more could be done to ensure that Scotland gets its share of such events.

I am aware that the Scottish Executive is keen to encourage more international events to come to Scotland. The committee may want to consider that issue, although not immediately.

No doubt all members of the committee will join me in wishing England good luck in its bid for the 2006 world cup. In the unfortunate event that that bid is unsuccessful, we would expect the SFA to consider whether a joint bid with England would boost the chances of bringing world cup football to Scotland. As a Scottish football fan, that is my priority, rather than which of our neighbours we collaborate with to achieve it. If the SFA takes that approach, we cannot go far wrong.

Although the SFA was reluctant to consider that suggestion last time, I am sure that Lewis's support will tip the scales. One thing that we should do is make ourselves aware of the time scale for bids, so that any bid is not adversely affected by delay. We could do that separately with the relevant authorities.

That is not a problem. Those members of the committee who wish to sign Brian Monteith's motion can do so at the chamber office.

The third petition that we have to consider this morning is from the Parents and Community Association of Boharm. Do members have any questions or comments?

We should be very supportive of the association's campaign. As a matter of urgency, we should send the petition to the Executive, with the strong recommendation that the points that it makes are taken on board.

However, there is a bigger issue about rural schools, their place in the community and the procedures for their closure. Members will remember that we talked about looking into this matter. This example highlights the fact that the issue is of some urgency. Not only should the committee support the petition, it should schedule a wider investigation into rural schools and the procedure surrounding closure proposals.

Jamie Stone is currently preparing a report on rural schools. We are involved in the issue, although I recognise that we could carry out a wider investigation.

I note that the previous administration in Moray resisted school closures. That is hard to do, but it must be done as a matter of principle, to ensure that rural communities are not disadvantaged. The petitioners make some excellent points, particularly about the effect that closure would have on the community and on current developments in the area. We should be conscious of the fact that this is not an isolated case. There are plans to close at least four rural schools—possibly as many as eight—in Argyll in the next few months. Several closures are threatened in the north-east, as Lewis Macdonald will know, and further closures have been proposed in other areas.

I encourage members to promote the importance of Jamie Stone's report as quickly as possible and to give him any additional help that they can. The committee must consider the matter and decide whether to hold the full inquiry that has been mentioned. In the meantime, we must make it clear to local authorities that school closures should take place for economic reasons, not for educational ones. That was the position set out by no less a person than Brian Wilson when he was in charge of education at the Scottish Office two years ago. That principle is being eroded to the great detriment of rural education and rural communities.

I had the privilege of being the Labour parliamentary candidate in Moray two years ago and was closely involved in contemporary events. It was the previous SNP administration that brought forward the initial proposals for the closure of rural schools in Moray. That administration was persuaded by the strength of the arguments and the political circumstances of the time to change its mind. Its decision was widely welcomed by the villages that were affected.

It is important that the person investigating rural schools should take on board the appropriate criteria for proceeding with such closures. It is easy for those of us with urban constituencies to see the maintenance of all rural schools as a good thing. However, the reality for education authorities in areas such as Moray is that the demands on their budget must be balanced just as in urban education authorities.

We should pass the petition on to the minister and ask him to consider carefully the points that it makes. We should look to Jamie Stone to take on board the wider points and to include them in his report.

Because of changes in pre-school education, closing any establishment in a remote area must be considered very carefully. There might be extra demands relating to travel and the extension of the availability of pre-school education. Although Moray Council will know its overall circumstances better than will others, we should consider the matter as a whole and refer it to the Scottish ministers.

I agree with your suggestion, convener. I have received many letters about this school and several others in the Moray area. This school in particular seems to present a weak case for closure. It is important that the committee lends its weight to the petition.

I am not yet convinced. We appear to have heard only one side of the argument. It would be remiss of the committee to take a position based on one set of evidence. We need to know both sides of the argument.

Take my word for it.

Brian, you should know me better than that—I would not take your word for anything.

We should remit the matter to the minister and ask for him to report back on the decision. We can move on from there.

Everyone has had an opportunity to raise concerns. I suggest that we agree to the recommendation to pass the petition on to the minister as a matter of urgency and ask for comments. We would then feed those comments into Jamie Stone's on-going investigation of rural schooling. Are there alternative suggestions?

I am happy with that, but I would like to add to it. This is not an isolated case; other cases throughout Scotland are causing great concern. The committee should, therefore, write to all directors of education to inform them that we are undertaking the first stage of an inquiry into the issues surrounding rural schools. We should encourage directors to desist from closing any schools until that inquiry is over. It is not compulsory for us to write to them, but it would let the directors know that we are interested in and concerned about such matters.

Convener, when you said that the committee could take a view, did you mean that we could take a view in the sense of offering our support for the case that has been made by the petitioners, or that we could take a view—

On what I have just suggested—that we should write to the minister and then give all the information to Jamie so that he can incorporate it in his report.

So would we take a view on the closure of Boharm Primary School when that report comes back from Jamie?

Yes.

I am concerned about the time scale. Would it be possible for the committee to take a view on Boharm as soon as we have heard from the minister?

I could ask for the minister's reply to come back to the committee in the first instance, so that members could take whatever view they wanted at that stage.

I would be perfectly happy with that.

That sounds fine, but I do not support Mike Russell's proposed addition. For this committee to issue a statement against any closures of rural schools would be to take away from education authorities the power of discretion that is appropriately theirs. If Jamie Stone, who is acting on our behalf, feels that it would be appropriate to contact directors of education to lay down the terms of his report, we should consider that. There is, however, no point in contacting them when we do not have Jamie's report. I support the convener's original proposal, as clarified by Brian, but without Mike's suggested addition.

I do not think that there is any need to get into a tizz about this. Nobody is suggesting that this committee has, or should have, the power to instruct local authorities to do anything. However, at some point that is as yet undecided, we will be undertaking an inquiry into rural schools, and I think that it would be a courtesy to write to directors of education to advise them of that. They are already well aware of the controversies that surround any proposed rural school closure. Our letter should suggest that it would probably be in their interest to suspend—where possible—any decision to close a rural school, pending the results of that inquiry. That would not be an instruction. It would be an example of different tiers of government working constructively together.

I can already see tomorrow's papers, and I can see the spin that would be put on this. Nicola, let us be honest—we know why this is happening and we know what is being done. Local authorities are the appropriate bodies to make decisions. If we send out a letter saying that we urge local authorities to err on the side of caution and not to close rural schools, we all know what tomorrow's papers will say—that the committee is beginning the process of trying to take away from local authorities their powers regarding school closures. I agree that we can write to directors of education to tell them that we are undertaking this inquiry and what its remit is, but to add, "Oh and by the way, you shouldn't be closing any schools in the interim" would be a significant move away from our current views of local authorities.

I do not think that what I have said is as groundbreaking as Karen suggests. When we decided to conduct an inquiry into special educational needs, concern was expressed that the Riddell report had already been published and that the Executive's time scale would not dovetail with our inquiry, so we wrote to the Scottish Executive. As a result of that approach and, I am sure, other factors, parts of the implementation of the Riddell report have been delayed for a year, so that our inquiry dovetails with the Scottish Executive's time scale and we do not have two branches of Government working in conflict.

This is a similar situation. If want to demonstrate to the Scottish people that the Scottish Parliament and the committee structure of the Parliament have something to add to existing structures, it would be a good advert if different elements worked in tandem. By agreeing to hold this inquiry, we have decided that the committee has a remit in the matter. It is common sense to write to directors to alert them to the fact that the inquiry is taking place and to point out that it would probably be in everybody's interest if they allowed enough time for the inquiry to proceed.

Can we formalise our position? I propose that we pass the petition as a matter of urgency to the relevant minister; that we ask that the minister's response be returned to the committee; that that response also be referred to Jamie Stone, who will include it in his report; that Jamie Stone will report to the committee as soon as possible on his stage of the inquiry into rural schools; that we inform directors of education that there is an on-going initial inquiry and that we intend to hold a broader inquiry later this year or at the beginning of next year. I do not think that we should tell directors of education to hold things up at this stage, as that is not the committee's view. Is there any opposition to that?

The suggestion was not that we tell directors of education to do anything—we have no powers to do that. If this is a drafting issue, members could see the letter before it is sent to ensure that the wording is right. [Interruption.]

I am glad that Lewis is so entertained by the committee—I am sure that he will have hours of fun in future.

The letter should say that the committee will have a particular interest in school closures in that period. We will receive petitions from Boharm and elsewhere on the matter.

There will be interest in school closures and we will receive letters on the subject, but I do not want to tell directors of education at this stage that they should hold up their decisions. They take decisions for informed reasons and, given that we have not been informed of the reasons, we should not take a view on this issue. We will give them information but we will not make recommendations to them. I have formalised my proposal so, if there is opposition to what I have said, members should propose an alternative.

I am happy with what you have formalised, but for the avoidance of doubt will you confirm that we will discuss the minister's response?

Yes.

I want the letter to include the information that we think that closures during the period would come under particular scrutiny.

There will be a division on Michael Russell's amendment to my proposal.

For

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP)

Against

Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)

The result of the division is as follows: For 2, Against 6.

Amendment disagreed to.

I am happy for members to see the letter before it is sent to directors of education.

I want it on record that the vote that has just taken place does not signify that the committee is in favour of the closure of rural schools. If, when they leave this meeting, members want to put a different spin on what has been decided, that is up to them.