Public Petitions
Item 3 on the agenda is consideration of public petitions. We will consider these in the order shown on the committee paper. The first petition, PE171, concerns the proposed closure of Glenrinnes school. Margaret Ewing has joined us this afternoon to say a few words on the petition.
Thank you, convener, for the invitation to address the committee. I shall be brief.
It is with a great deal of poignancy that I speak today, as Faye Buckley—one of the pupils of the school, aged 10—was sadly killed in a road accident yesterday. I am sure that the whole committee will join me in sending condolences and love to her parents and the community as a whole.
The petition asks for a deferment of the decision to close Glenrinnes school and other rural schools. One of the most important spheres of policy that has been devolved to the Parliament is education, but I will not offer any clichés in this short presentation.
Glenrinnes school is not a Victorian building that needs a huge outlay of money for repair and maintenance and it certainly will not use any of the £1.3 billion that was referred to in news broadcasts this morning. The school complies with all electricity, fire and health and safety regulations. It opened in 1958 and has served the community since. It is the only focal point and the sole public facility in the area. Implementation of the proposals to close the school will mean a journey of 16 miles a day to schools at either Mortlach or Glenlivet. Experience in those airts tells me that, each winter, some 20 days of school could be lost. Children would also lose out on the facilities and on the social aspect of their education.
I raised the matter in a short debate on 4 May subsequent to receipt of the petition by the Public Petitions Committee. I know that the parents in the community respect greatly the fact that their voices are being listened to. More than anything, however, we want to ensure that the issues that they have raised in connection with consultation procedures, the report that is expected from Jamie Stone and overall policy decisions by the Executive will mean that no early decision is reached. We are asking that the proposal be put on hold and that we be given time.
Thank you. I am sure that committee members will wish to extend their condolences to the young girl's family and friends and to the community as a whole. It is a very distressing situation. Thank you for your attendance at the committee.
Given the similarity of circumstances, I intend to consider petition PE175 on the proposed closure of Toward Primary School at the same time. I invite George Lyon to speak first.
I would like to speak in support of petition PE175, which challenges the criteria and principles used by Argyll and Bute Council in bringing forward their rural school closure programme. Toward is being used as an example, but six schools are affected by the programme of threatened closures, some for the second time in three years. Those are the schools at Drumlemble, Newton, Bridge of Orchy, Glassary, Ulva and Toward. Drumlemble school has been threatened with closure twice. Newton school on Islay has been threatened with closure twice before and the new threat is causing great distress and concern to many of the parents who successfully fought the battle to keep the school open on the previous two occasions. Neil Kay's petition challenges the criteria and principles that the council uses, not the decision to pick specific schools.
Given that the timetable is tight—the council intends to make a final decision on 6 June—I ask the committee to examine closely the principles that are being applied by Argyll and Bute Council. I understand that the committee is conducting an investigation led by Jamie Stone on closures in another part of Scotland. If the committee is going to examine the proposed closure of Toward school, it must do so soon because of the deadlines that we are up against. If the committee were to ask the council to suspend its decision pending an investigation, many parents would be eternally grateful. I strongly support Neil Kay's petition and ask that the committee considers it carefully.
Duncan Hamilton is also here to speak about the petition.
George Lyon has covered many of the points that must be made, but the petitioners have asked that the petition be viewed as a coherent effort on behalf of all the threatened schools. Neil Kay has asked that the petition be treated as an indicative case by the Parliament.
I am not sure whether the date that George Lyon gave for the decision to be made is correct, but the council is pushing for a date in June. Although it must be tempting for the committee to view the matter as part of a wider issue—I know that Jamie Stone is preparing a report—I urge members to consider it as a priority and to conduct a separate and independent inquiry with an early resolution, not least because the parents and children involved need an early decision. I draw the committee's attention to the fact that the council has said in previous correspondence that it would await the outcome of the decision of the parliamentary committee. That does it great credit, but our response should be to push things to fruition at an early stage.
I see from the committee papers for this meeting that it was suggested that the committee did not really have a role in telling the education authorities at local level how to go forward. I challenge that view and suggest that there is a precedent, in Westminster and in this Parliament, for telling local bodies the views of committees in such cases. The Health and Community Care Committee has looked at health trusts, in Tayside and in Glasgow, and the Stobhill hospital inquiry set a precedent for a specific case to be taken on by the Parliament. Although I may not be the keenest member round this table to follow examples from Westminster, the Westminster Parliament and the Government south of the border have said that they will intervene more directly in local authority decisions on rural schools. I hope that, bearing in mind those precedents, the committee will take the matter forward.
Before I bring in Nicola Sturgeon, I shall ask Jamie Stone to say a few words about the progress of his inquiry.
I shall certainly do so, and I would also like the opportunity to respond to any questions from members.
Certainly.
The committee decided that rural schools closures was an issue that concerned us and I was designated as the one-man representative of the committee. For the past few months, I have been going out to Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, the Highlands and Moray. Those are the four local authority areas that Gillian Baxendine recommended as being within our budget. We had a problem with Moray Council, which refused—not once, not twice but thrice—to see me. Last week, we discovered that the logjam had been broken. I see no reason why we should not see people from Moray before the end of May, and certainly before 6 June.
The rest of the report is completed. It would be wrong for me to reveal it before committee members have considered it privately. That is an important principle to remember. Once the Morayshire evidence is in place, the report will be done and dusted and can be distributed to members.
We should remind ourselves of exactly what that report is. It is an investigation into the issues that surround rural school closures, the pressures on local authorities and the rules of the former Scottish Office and the current rules of the Scottish Executive. The committee has always been mindful that it wanted to meddle as little as possible in the workings of councils. Nevertheless, there are rules, such as the five-mile rule, which would automatically cause a school closure to be referred, formerly to the Secretary of State for Scotland and now to the relevant Scottish minister.
I will come to the committee with a series of facts, suggestions and thoughts from elected members and officials. It will then be up to the committee to deliberate on the report, to question me on aspects of it and to decide the next move. You may want to hear evidence from council officials and you may want to call Mr Peacock or Mr Galbraith to a meeting to put points to them. Further down the road, you may want to suggest how the present legislation should be tweaked. I am saying this quite openly and clearly now because you must understand what my remit was, where I am now and what we might or might not do next.
I took one issue head on last week and I want to mention it again. Through the good offices of the press, it was suggested to me that word had crept out that there was some sort of deliberate stalling tactic on the Stone report. At first I treated that rumour as a joke, but I now treat it as a rather more serious piece of spin, which I want to refute completely and utterly on the record. As every member of this committee knows, my report is done and dusted, bar Moray. No member has jumped up and down more than I have about the fact that Moray would not see me. Gillian Baxendine and David McLaren will vouch for the fact that I have telephoned endlessly about it.
I find it exceedingly difficult that Moray Council said no repeatedly. I do not think that the local authority realised what it was doing. I am exceedingly glad that the stalemate has been broken. However, anyone who might be inclined to spin to the press that there was some sort of deliberate stalling would be very wrong. I would give it right back to them in direct and ancient Stone form. This is a serious matter and the sooner the report is completed the better.
Thank you.
I would like to speak in support of both petitions. I can see the logic in considering them together, but I do not think that we should take the same action on both. The course of action that Margaret Ewing suggested on the Glenrinnes petition is absolutely right—it should form part of Jamie Stone's inquiry. I think it is significant that the council that is trying to close Glenrinnes school—Moray Council—is the one that is holding up Jamie's inquiry. We should ask Moray Council not to prejudice the Glenrinnes situation by closing the school before the committee reports. We would be asking the council to preserve the status quo until such time as we can properly consider Jamie's report and any further steps that we might take. I support Margaret Ewing's suggestion.
The situation in Argyll and Bute is quite different, as is the petition. Duncan Hamilton was right to point out that the petition does not support one particular school. Toward Primary School is being used as an indicative case, but the petition relates to the package of closures that have been proposed by Argyll and Bute Council. The petition alleges flaws in the consultation process. In particular, it raises doubts about Argyll and Bute Council's reliance on certain national information, such as statistics used by the Accounts Commission and the difference between predictions and projections made by the General Register Office. It is a different kind of petition, which merits a separate, short inquiry; we might take evidence from the Accounts Commission, the GRO and Argyll and Bute Council to reach a view on whether the national information that was used in the consultation process was used properly. That would be the appropriate action.
It is clear that an inquiry would have to be done as quickly as possible. I know that Argyll and Bute Council does not want to do anything pre-emptive, but we should co-operate by carrying out the inquiry quickly. Again, to preserve the status quo pending our inquiry, it would be appropriate to ask the council to hold off action until the outcome of the inquiry.
I agree substantially with what Nicola Sturgeon, George Lyon and Duncan Hamilton have said. The case for Glenrinnes Primary School is very strong and it would be quite wrong if the delaying tactics of Moray Council—I know Jamie Stone has suffered from them—meant that the council was able to bulldoze ahead on a matter that might have had a different outcome had it been more co-operative with the inquiry. I look forward to Jamie's report and I am sure that it will be treated seriously by the committee. The petition has a strong case, which I firmly support.
The petition from Neil Kay is a different matter altogether, as I would like to take a few moments to explain. The petition is about the criteria that are applied in Argyll and Bute. I must declare an interest because I have had personal experience of the school closures programme in Argyll and Bute. It is a programme that is held in substantial disrepute by those affected. There is nothing that strikes more fear in a rural community than the closure of their school, particularly—as George Lyon and Duncan Hamilton know—if the community is already under threat, perhaps through the removal of transport services or the potential closure of the village shop or post office. The closure of a rural school serving a rural community is a devastating blow. That is something that must happen from time to time, although as I have said on many occasions, rural schools should be seen to close themselves rather than be closed by diktat or fiat.
If a community is to take part in the process that a council sets up, there must be transparency and accountability, and there must be faith in that process. There is a range of reasons why, by and large, communities in Argyll and Bute have lost faith in the process. They have done so because they have received contradictory information from the council. For example, the council's revenue budget preparation documents for this year says that there should not be a reduction in teacher staffing standards, and points out how dangerous and disruptive that would be for pupils. The result of closures would be such a reduction, but the consultation documents says that there would be no such effect. Such inconsistencies can be found throughout the documents.
At community meetings, the director of education and his officials present information from the Accounts Commission immensely strongly, as if it were set in tablets of stone. Neil Kay, who is an academic with a strong research record, has gone to the sources and discovered—we do not say whether this is right or wrong, but the allegation that he makes is serious—that that information is being misused by the council. He has evidence that the information is not being presented in a way that the Accounts Commission feels is proper.
Similarly, information from the registrar-general is used immensely strongly at meetings, which I have attended, to argue that closure is inevitable because of population projections. It turns out, though, that it is not being used as the registrar-general believes it should be. In many schools, the consultation process is regarded as a foregone conclusion. I am sure that George Lyon will confirm that the consultation process is regarded not as the first step, but as the last step.
This Parliament is about helping people who have problems with processes as much as it is about anything else. The petition does not question the right of Argyll and Bute Council to make decisions on school closures. It does not question the severe financial difficulty of Argyll and Bute Council, which I accept exists. However, the petition is well supported across Argyll and more widely in Scotland. The fear is that the process that is being used puts the council at a tremendous advantage over groups of ordinary parents, who are deeply concerned.
Ultimately, schools will close—I started by saying that and I will finish by doing so—but when they do, parents must feel that they have been involved in a meaningful, transparent and honest process. Neil Kay raises serious concerns. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon: the right way to deal with the petition is to spend a morning of the committee's time talking to the Accounts Commission and Argyll and Bute Council, and perhaps listening to parents who have experience of the process, and then to reach some conclusions about the process. We should recognise the council's right to do whatever it wishes, but we should also recognise that the committee is accountable, open and democratic. If we can do that, I hope that the council will take the concomitant step of not proceeding to closures until we have heard that evidence.
If we find that the evidence is flawed, that is fine. Even if we decide that the evidence is accurate, the council can do what it wants. We owe it to the petitions process of the Parliament and the faith that people put in it to treat the petition seriously and to hold some form of inquiry.
I have problems with the whole discussion. I am also on the Rural Affairs Committee. I accept that there is an issue about rural schools and that they are valuable as centres of local communities. I have great respect for the petitions process and have always believed in open consultation and the participation of parents in decisions. However, I also believe in local democracy and struggle to agree that the committee should consider every school closure, whether it is in a rural or an urban area.
I know that there are strong arguments, but we are not in a position to hear them all. It is not our role to do the job of local authorities. That is not to say that I am not interested or that I do not think that it is an important issue. We will have Jamie Stone's report—he is calling it the Stone report already—and there are discussions to be had. I agree that the Parliament has a role in public petitions, but it is up to councils to make decisions. I am struggling with the idea that MSPs should make decisions on councils' budgets and on how councils should do their business.
It is worth asking whether the process is flawed, which is the allegation in the petition.
There would be an issue if we were to look at the wider process of school closures—
That is the issue in the petition.
Please do not just jump back in, Mike.
We will find ourselves in a position where someone presents a petition because they know the area and, quite rightly, feel passionate about what should happen. I am concerned about that, not because I do not understand the passion or the reasons behind it, but because I do not think that we can make such decisions. We should not be involved in local decision making.
We are not making local decisions. We are asking—
Fiona McLeod is next.
I speak as one of the members whose constituency was involved in the discussions at the Public Petitions Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee about the secure care centre at Stobhill. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee should take that situation, and what those committees did, as an example.
When the Public Petitions Committee received the Stobhill petition, it was concerned on exactly the same grounds as it was with this petition. That concern centred not on the specific issue, but on the fact that the consultation process had been flawed. Greater Glasgow Health Board did the Parliament a great disservice by completely ignoring all that. At least Argyll and Bute Council says that it will listen to what we have to say and await our judgment.
The Health and Community Care Committee did not undertake to look at the substance—the building of the secure care unit—but at the consultation process. Until I heard what Mike Russell had to say, I did not realise how deficient the consultation process had been for the schools in Argyll and Bute. The committee should take that on board. I do not mean that we should take decisions on behalf of local councils, or support communities or councils against one another. If the petition raises concern about the public consultation process that we think should be gone through in all cases, we should appoint someone to look into it.
The Health and Community Care Committee appointed a reporter, who reported within two or three weeks. I am sure that in this case a report could be produced even more quickly. We are not telling a council what to do; we are saying to a petitioner, who has raised concerns about consultation with the public, that the committee is concerned about that too.
I want to put on record the clear difference between Greater Glasgow Health Board and a democratically elected local council. A quango and a local authority are not the same thing. Fiona McLeod asks us to compare what happened in a case that involved an unelected, unaccountable quango with what we should do in a case that involves an elected, accountable local authority. That is a dangerous road to go down, and a dangerous precedent to set.
Councillors are responsible to the people who elect them and will be either elected or rejected at the next election. We do not have that power over quangos. We must be careful about such comparisons.
A number of members want to speak again. I will bring in members who have not yet spoken; the others I will bring in at the end.
I will be brief. A number of principles that concern me lie behind the specific cases in the petitions. It is important that people who want to bring a petition to the Parliament do not have that right snatched away from them. We should show that we listen to petitions and take them very seriously indeed. However, I am also concerned that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee does not become an appeals process for the closure of rural schools.
We have set up an inquiry into the closure of rural schools, on which Jamie Stone will report soon. Can he tell us when that will be? I gather that there are time problems with the two petitions that we are considering today. Jamie may be able to reassure us that his report will be available before we have to proceed any further. I would be much happier if we could make our decision in the light of that report.
We could end up being inundated with hundreds of special cases. I agree with Fiona McLeod that there is a wider issue involved, but I would like to hear the report on all the issues that are involved in the closure of rural schools.
Can Jamie clarify whether his report will be available in time to allow us to consider the petitions in light of its findings?
I think that, God willing, we should be able to report in the first week of June. If Moray Council goes back on its word, I will just have to submit the report without its contribution.
Has a date been set for the meeting?
We asked for the first Monday in June, I think.
I must make it clear that the inquiry that the committee asked Jamie to carry out was into rural schools and their specific needs. After we received the first petition, we asked him to include reference to school closures in a rural context. The report was not just about school closures; it was only later that we agreed to include that subject in the remit. That was why Jamie was asked to visit Moray Council and why we have been waiting for the report.
I was interested to hear the comments of committee members on the scope of our remit. When I was drawing up the report on the Roman remains at Cramond, it was never my intention—or the intention of the committee, I suspect—that we should tell the local authority what to do with any planning application. However, I believed that it was certainly possible for us to consider whether the consultation had been appropriate, whether there were lessons to be learned and whether opportunities and methods had arisen that might open up the Roman remains.
In that respect, I see some similarities with this inquiry. The committee should be able to consider pursuing a course of action so long as that does not prevent a local authority from making decisions that it has a right to make. The committee can consider the procedures—on consultation, for example—and weigh up alternatives. As I suspect that petitions on rural schools will become commonplace, irrespective of what Jamie Stone writes, we should at least be concerned about the consultation process. I hope that, in that respect, we can become involved before decisions are taken.
Jamie has drafted the report and it is about to be published, subject to his meeting with Moray Council. Does that mean that the situation in Argyll and Bute has been taken into account, or has that happened quite separately? If it has happened separately and is not covered by the report, that seems a further argument for our taking some action.
I wonder whether we can find a middle way. I agree with Cathy Peattie that we should not be telling local authorities what to do. However, it is clear from our discussion that we disapprove of any decision that is made on the basis of flawed consultation. Mike Russell or Nicola Sturgeon—I cannot remember which—suggested that Argyll and Bute Council would listen to the committee, so we should be able to take the position that no school should be closed on the basis of flawed consultation. We do not need to tell the council what to do; if it is willing to listen to us, it will not close the school. It would conduct the consultation again—
On its flawed terms.
But it knows that we are all looking now. It is clear from our discussion that we believe that people should have a right to be consulted on decisions that will affect them. If we believe that the process has been flawed, we should say so and make clear our disapproval. However, we should not tell councils what to do.
I will give everybody who has indicated a desire to speak an opportunity to do so, but I would like to try and wind things up.
We are closer to middle ground than it would appear. Nobody is suggesting that we should usurp the role of local authorities or seek to overrule their decisions. To date, this committee has not agreed to get involved in any proposed closure. No one is suggesting that it should. Jamie Stone's inquiry is under way. All Margaret Ewing is doing is asking this committee to ask Moray Council to hold off making a decision until we have seen the outcome of that inquiry. The decision is the council's, but something in Jamie's report might have a bearing on its decision. We are not suggesting that the committee should get involved in the specifics, but we think that the status quo should be maintained pending Jamie's report.
The Argyll and Bute case is different. Again there is no suggestion that we get involved in discussion of the merits or demerits of any particular school closure. Like Cathy Peattie, I think that that would be inappropriate. However, it has been suggested that the consultation process is flawed and that it relies on information that has been—at best—misinterpreted. I do not know whether that is the case. I have read both sides and I cannot tell who is right. Because it has been alleged that information of national importance has been misinterpreted and misapplied, there is a case for our examining the process. After we have done that, the decision on the matter will still be for Argyll and Bute Council, which might or might not take on board the findings of this committee.
I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that we take the place of local authorities. However, the action called for by both petitions is appropriate for this committee and would see us strike a balance between dealing with petitions and respecting the rights of local authorities.
Petition PE175 does not ask this committee to take the council's place and make a decision; it asks the committee to examine the consultation process. Unlike Moray Council, Argyll and Bute Council is willing to co-operate. I ask that this committee send a strong message to the parents who are fighting the school closures and—either as part of its current investigation or as part of a new one—allow Jamie Stone to discuss the matter with the council and examine the process that has been entered into as there is a clear feeling that the council has not followed the process correctly.
There is a deadline of 6 June. It might be possible for the committee to ask for that deadline to be put back. The fundamental point is that this committee must investigate the situation in Argyll and Bute. Six schools are up for closure. This is a major issue.
Somebody referred to the five-mile rule. Does that affect any of the schools?
Three of the schools will be affected by the five-mile rule and will go back for appeal.
Is Toward affected by the five-mile rule?
No.
You mentioned a date in early June. I have a letter in front of me from Argyll and Bute Council which says that it hopes to return to the issue at the beginning of June. I think that you mentioned a date, but I did not hear what it was.
I was informed by the local SNP councillor, Robert MacIntyre, that the decision would be taken on 6 June, but I do not know whether that is right. That is second-hand information I received from a local councillor.
I believe that the end of June is the time that has been highlighted, so there is scope for the inquiry there.
I do not think that the compromise position outlined by Ian Jenkins is the way forward. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but if a process is flawed, simply running the same consultation through the same flawed process will not instil confidence in the people of Argyll and Bute. That is essentially what this argument is about. There is no confidence in the procedure that we have been through, so I would ask that we resist that.
I am interested in the idea of this being part of the wider inquiry. However, I return to Brian Monteith's point. The report has already been delayed. If it is written, it should be published and the committee should get on with that aspect of its work. That is why a separate inquiry for Argyll would be the way forward. We should bear in mind that the focus of the Argyll petition is different from that of the report. Trying to skew the report would not help the committee in either of its inquiries.
Stobhill has been mentioned. I have never claimed that health boards and local authorities are entirely similar in terms of the public services they offer or the processes that people go through. It is important to note that the process that the Health and Community Care Committee went through to come to a decision on Stobhill has since been of great use to that committee in its work. When there have been other examples of poor consultation, we have chosen not to go ahead with another inquiry on the ground that we have already done one.
This committee has not been through the process the Argyll petition asks for. If you do it purely as a one-off, it can be an indicative marker for future inquiries, which would save the committee some time. It is a different inquiry; I humbly suggest that you publish the report and get on with a separate inquiry, of which Argyll can take cognisance.
On Glenrinnes, I am sure that Jamie can raise that if he meets Moray Council. I am not minded to say that we should write in support of stopping the closure. We have had considerable debate on this issue previously. The committee took a decision not to write to local authorities asking them to postpone closures until Jamie's report was published. That decision was made democratically by this committee and I am sure that we would want to stand by it. Jamie can speak to the council about the issue when he is there.
I have severe difficulty with every school closure that will take place in the lifetime of the Parliament and on which the Parliament is petitioned. John McAllion, in his deliberations, said that it is for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to decide whether a closure should go ahead; however, it is not for this committee to decide whether a closure goes ahead.
Take that up with John McAllion.
I did members the courtesy of not shouting at them when they were speaking; I would be grateful if they would extend the same courtesy to others. This happens consistently. If people in the committee want to bully others by shouting over them, that is fine. We can go down that road. We can all play that game. I am entitled to my view just as anyone else is entitled to theirs.
I am not minded to support the Glenrinnes petition, for the reasons I have outlined. There is a way forward on the consultation process in relation to Argyll and Bute, rather than on the closure of individual schools. Perhaps, in the first instance, we would wish to write to the council, outlining our concerns. You can tut away, Duncan, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. You are a visitor to this committee and I would be grateful if you would show the committee the courtesy it deserves.
Frankly, I do not need a lecture from you.
Frankly, you are not behaving very well.
I suggest, as I am entitled to, that, in the first instance, we write to the council as a matter of urgency, outlining our concerns about the points that are before us, because we do not know whether those points are right, wrong or somewhere in between. As soon as the committee receives a response, we will decide whether we wish to proceed further on this matter. The council may or may not answer our concerns, but we should write to it first, as a matter of urgency, and proceed on the basis of the response that we receive.
We have a proposal on the table. I am willing to allow Nicola Sturgeon to comment and, if we cannot agree, we will have to put the matter to a vote.
I do not want the discussion to descend into an acrimonious exchange, but Karen Gillon is deliberately misrepresenting what people are saying. I repeat that we are not suggesting anything other than that the decision on Glenrinnes is for Moray Council to make. As Duncan Hamilton said, a report might help us when we get the inevitable petitions about school closures. Nothing that we do will prevent those petitions being sent. In fairness to the parents of Glenrinnes, we should not prejudice their situation before the report is published.
Karen Gillon proposed writing to Argyll and Bute Council, but we already have the council's response to the points made in the petition. There is an impasse: Neil Kay's petition says one thing about all the statistics, and the council says another. The only way in which we can come down on one side or the other is to speak to the Accounts Commission and to the General Register Office for Scotland. Why do we not just get on and do that? It would take up about a morning of this committee's time. This matter is not about specific schools; it is about a process and about the information on which that process relies. My proposal is perfectly in order.
That is a clear counter-proposal to—
Yes, Mike, I am aware of that. I will have to bring the discussion to a close. We will move to a vote, if members will give me a moment. I think that it would be appropriate for us to deal with the two schools separately, given the comments that have been made and the different solutions that have been proposed.
Nicola, I believe that Karen Gillon said that she was responding to comments made in the Official Report of the Public Petitions Committee, rather than misrepresenting what was being said. I do not think that we need to fall out over this issue. If we leave the door open, that will ensure that we continue to receive endless petitions from schools threatened by closure, which would not do our relationships with local authorities any good, and, under statute, local authorities are able to make these decisions. However, I take on board the points that have been made.
Let us turn to petition PE171, which deals with the proposed closure of Glenrinnes. We will move to a vote, because I do not think that, at this stage, we can add anything to the debate.
With respect, convener, I wish to make one comment. We should remember where we are. The report was, rightly or wrongly, the start of a process. With the best will in the world, other events will follow, but they will take time. I am entirely in the hands of the committee. I have no problem about going to Argyll and Bute, if members want me to. I have no problem about a separate report, if members wish me—or another member—to write one.
However, the committee will have to address hard questions. Mike Russell summed up the situation, but he did not square the circle. We will have to address the issue of what the council does and what the Executive does. While we may not care to consider those issues, we may have to. I do not want MSPs, the public or the press to see my report, or any other report, as some kind of air-raid shelter into which a council can run.
Under current legislation, the education committees of the councils involved will have to take a decision sooner or later, followed by full council decisions, and then the relevant minister will have to decide. Changing the legislation is a completely different issue and will take a long time. I hope that my report is a good report and that members will like it, but let us not kid ourselves about the report—it is only the first step down a long road.
Let me sum up the situation: it is best if councils were to make the decisions. Mike Russell will recall that, three years ago, the Highland Council tore itself apart. Andy Anderson, an SNP councillor, is on record as saying to the press that there would be no more closures in the Highlands.
I remind members of the committee that, when we have discussed Jamie Stone's report, I have said on a number of occasions that it may not be the end of the matter. It might be that this committee would want to take it further at that stage. Nobody is saying that Jamie Stone will have the responsibility of deciding exactly what happens with it.
Can I clarify that we are now taking the petitions separately? When you described the proposal that we heard as a counter-proposal—I was not sure if it was from Mike Russell or Nicola Sturgeon—they were talking about both. Will we split the vote?
Yes, I will split them both.
The first petition is PE171, which is about the proposed closure of Glenriness primary school. Karen Gillon's proposal was that we note this report. Is there a counter-proposal to that?
The counter-proposal is that we refer it to Jamie Stone's inquiry, with the firm but polite request that Moray Council will not take action until Jamie's inquiry has been considered by the committee.
Are there any further amendments?
That we refer it to Jamie Stone's report, but I do not think that we should make any recommendation to the council as to whether it should close the school.
The first proposal is that we note petition PE171 and that it be referred to Jamie's report. The first amendment is that we refer the petition to Jamie's report and ask Moray Council to delay until that has been produced. The difference is the delay.
On a point of order. I want my situation to be clarified. If I am writing an impartial report, with no preconceptions, where do I stand in this vote? If I vote for Mike Russell's proposal, am I open to the accusation that I am an anti-closure man writing the report? Can we ask the clerk?
I think that the best thing at this stage would be for Jamie Stone to abstain.
We are not taking a decision on the merits of this.
If this is to be seen to be an impartial report, I do not want to go in with any baggage either way before I meet a local authority.
We are not making recommendations one way or the other in either the proposal or the amendment. It is a decision for you. If you feel happier to abstain, I am sure that we will understand.
There will be a division on the amendment put down by Mike Russell.
For
Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
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 Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Abstentions
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment disagreed to.
There will now be a division on Karen Gillon's proposal.
Which proposal is that?
That we refer this to Jamie Stone's report.
This is the substantive proposal.
I am sorry. This is not my way of voting. This is the way that the Parliament has asked us to take the votes.
For
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Abstentions
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I think that we are completely lost on this one. Suffice it to say that we will refer it to Jamie Stone's report.
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to.
We will note petition PE171 and it will be referred to Jamie Stone's report.
I will ask Gillian Baxendine to explain the procedure for the votes. I know that it does not always make sense, but it is the Parliament's procedure, not mine.
Gillian Baxendine (Clerk Team Leader):
The procedure for voting on a motion is the same as in the Parliament. Members vote first on an amendment; if the amendment is disagreed to, members will then vote on the main motion.
The second proposal is for PE175, on the proposed closure of Toward Primary School.
Having listened to the debate, I suggest that we undertake a very short report, which Cathy Peattie will present to the committee within a month.
My counter-proposal is that we set up a very short committee inquiry that will take evidence from the council, the Accounts Commission and the GRO.
Are there any further amendments?
What will Cathy's report involve?
I will not know until I have done it.
The report will take on board the points that have been made.
Are reports and inquiries not the same thing?
The difference is—
A separate inquiry will probably take us only one meeting, which makes more sense and is quicker than appointing a reporter.
I just want to explain the difference between having an inquiry and appointing a reporter. The difference is that the committee as a whole would undertake an inquiry, whereas one committee member—in this case, Cathy—would investigate the issue and then report back to us. Perhaps committee members should remember our agenda for the next few weeks when they come to vote.
We will now vote on Nicola Sturgeon's amendment that the committee hold a short inquiry.
For
Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Abstentions
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 2.
Amendment disagreed to.
We will now vote on Karen Gillon's substantive motion, that Cathy Peattie reports back to the committee in one month.
For
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The result is as follows: For 10, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to.
Would it be possible to register concern—
I think that we have had the opportunity to register our concern, Ian.
The next petition is PE153, which calls for the Parliament to introduce legislation to require local authorities to provide access to Gaelic as a second language where reasonable demand exists. Do members have any questions?
As I understand that the Executive will lodge an amendment at stage 3 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill that will deal with the issue of Gaelic, we should refer the petitioners to that.
As I am aware that our time is moving on, I just want to say that we have had a chance to talk about Gaelic education in committee and in the chamber, and will do so again. However, I am quite happy with Karen Gillon's recommendation.
The recommendation is that we note the petition and make it known to the Executive before it lodges its amendment at stage 3 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE164, which calls for the introduction of state-financed kindergartens. Do members have any questions or comments?
Sibylle Alexander is an enthusiastic advocate of kindergarten education, particularly of the Steiner model. She raises interesting points, which are worthy of our further consideration. I hope that the committee will take on the job of examining the structure of pre-school education in the longer term. At the moment, our timetable is so full that we may not be able to do that immediately; however, it is worth doing in the longer term.
In the meantime, we should examine pre-school education. As a parent who is a strong supporter of the pre-school playgroup movement, I know that there are many agencies involved in pre-school provision. We need to consider such provision in its entirety, rather than identify one model or another.
I agree.
Yes. When we are developing our future work programme, we should look into the whole structure of pre-school education, and that should not be three or four years down the line.
We are all quite keen to look into the issues that this petition raises, but we will simply note it at this stage. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE184 from the Federation of Child Poverty Action Groups in Scotland, and concerns the extension of free school meals to people on the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit. Are there any questions or comments?
I agree with the clerk's recommendation to note the petition, seek the comments of the other committees and return to it to decide whether to take further action. The issue that it raises is valid and substantive.
Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee want to consult further with the Health and Community Care Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
The final petition is PE160, on health and safety training. Are there any questions or comments? There are none. We should take this issue seriously, but Cathy Jamieson has lodged a motion and is currently conducting some cross-party work on it. At this stage, the committee should simply note this petition. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The issue has also been brought to my attention by a constituent.
Item 4 on the agenda deals with Mike Tyson and the national football stadium. I have lodged a motion for debate, for which reason I shall vacate the chair and allow Karen Gillon, as the deputy convener, to take over.
We will adjourn for a couple of minutes to sort ourselves out.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—