School Closures
I welcome everyone to the Education Committee meeting, which is now resuming in public. I remind everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are turned off.
We have two items to discuss this afternoon: school closures and the child protection inquiry. The Minister for Education and Young People will be in the hot seat on both matters. We will begin with item 2, on school closures. I welcome the minister, Peter Peacock, and Colin Reeves and Graeme Stuart from the schools division of the Scottish Executive Education Department. I also welcome David Mundell MSP to the committee; he is interested in this item.
Minister, would you like to make some introductory comments?
Yes. I would like to set the context and then I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members have on the matter.
It is useful to have this opportunity to set out the Executive's thinking on school closures. The convener will understand that I am unable to comment on current, specific local issues because some of them may come across my desk in due course, so I could not prejudice that. Subject to that consideration, I am more than happy to pick up any questions that are asked.
School closure proposals are seldom welcomed by local school communities. That is true of rural and urban areas. I know from my own experience the controversy that such proposals generate and I expect that they always will generate controversy. It would be very odd if parents did not fight for their local school if they saw that it was under threat in some way. It would be no testament to the school if parents did not put up some sort of fight for what they believe to be valuable and important. It would be odd if we did not always expect controversy around any school closure.
I speak with a degree of experience. When I was a local councillor in the Highlands I was involved in a number of school closure proposals over the years, including in my own electoral ward. I have also considered the issues as the Minister for Education and Young People and in my time as the deputy minister. The decisions involved are always—I stress always—difficult, not only for the communities, but for the elected members and officials involved. The only reason that I make that point is to emphasise that nobody lightly sets off down the road of closing schools because that raises serious issues that require serious consideration.
As the convener knows, councils have stewardship of education services at the local level. That carries with it many responsibilities, including that of responding to the changing landscape against which education must be provided—a landscape that includes school buildings. Among other duties, local authorities have a statutory duty to secure the
"adequate and efficient provision of school education"
in their areas. That requires authorities to look at the issues from a different perspective from those of parents and local communities. An authority's responsibilities are for the whole of its area, whereas the focus of parents is, quite understandably, on their local school at a particular point in time. An authority's responsibilities extend for a long period, and it requires to take a long view, over generations, covering more than just the current school population. An authority must keep its school provision under review. Buildings age and become unsatisfactory. How education is delivered evolves, which puts different requirements on building space. Population settlements and patterns change. Where once there might have been a young population in a particular community, the age profile might have changed over time, reflecting a more mature group of citizens than in the past. In other areas, an authority might have to provide new buildings, because of new housing developments and a growing population. As we know, that is the case in some parts of Scotland. Young people in those areas will require new space for education.
All those circumstances require that the possibility of change in school provision must be considered in local areas from time to time. When considering that change, an authority needs to take many factors into consideration. That requires clarity about the objectives that the authority is pursuing and their relative importance; about the range of potential options that are open to a council at any given time; about the costs and benefits of any proposals in educational, financial and other terms; about the advantages and disadvantages of each option; and about how the options measure up against the council's overall objectives.
For a number of years, there have been well-established and extensive statutory requirements on local authorities to consult affected parents and school boards and, through that, to draw the wider community into the consultation process. Authorities must have regard to the representations that they receive before they reach any decisions. I expect local authorities to make their case for any school closures, and to make it clearly and openly. The more open, the better for all concerned, as that means that the process is transparent. That is the responsibility of a democratically elected local council: it must listen to communities and account for decisions locally to its electorate.
The outcome of consultation might be decisions that are unpalatable to particular communities. Government—local and national—is ultimately about making choices and deciding priorities, and that is not always an easy task, whether it is at local or national level. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the arrangements that we have in place are dynamic, that they work and that they bring about decisions that have been influenced by the representations that councils receive.
Most recently, to refer to a case that I know has been a preoccupation of the committee, Midlothian Council has considered responses to the consultation that has taken place in its area. It has shifted its position in the light of that consultation and, as a result, new options have either been decided upon or are the subject of further consultation. That is an indication that, painful, time consuming and disruptive as it might be, the system can cope with local views and adapt, adjust and be flexible to those views and to circumstances.
There is plenty of evidence of such approaches being taken or shifts being made up and down the country, following representations made to councils within the statutory framework for consultation. It is all about balancing local views with a council's statutory duties to secure the
"adequate and efficient provision of school education",
while weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of various options, dropping or adjusting proposals or, on occasion, proceeding as originally planned.
I believe that those detailed issues are best and rightly dealt with at the local level, working within the broad legislative framework that has been created for consultation. It ensures that those who are likely to be affected by proposals are consulted and get a chance to have their say. The emphasis must always be on a rigorous testing of the proposals for change, weighing up a range of factors on the way and taking into account the local situation and the representations that have been received before decisions are arrived at.
I believe that the Executive can do more to set out its expectations of the process that local authorities should follow and the factors that they need to weigh up. My officials are currently preparing some draft material for me to consider, and I plan to write to local authorities on those issues in September this year.
Thank you, that is useful.
Members have a number of papers, including a letter from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, whose views we also sought, and correspondence from the Executive.
There are not too many rural schools in Glasgow, so I ask my colleagues to lead on questions—although I attended a small local school.
I am happy to hear that the Executive is considering new guidelines for local authorities. Such guidelines would be helpful. I will not talk about specific cases, but a clearer position from the Executive would help local authorities and parents to understand the ground rules.
I am interested in three areas. First, parents argue that although documents such as "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" talk about the importance of sustainable rural communities, there is a lack of read-across from rural development policy to education policy.
Secondly, a lot of statistics are flying around, but do you have information on the number of rural school closures, for example pre and post-devolution?
Thirdly, many local authorities are considering their school estates with a view to further investment. I welcome the Scottish Executive's additional investment in education, but there is a danger that local authorities might consider their estates purely from a best-value point of view. It is important that there should be, again, a read-across into the Auditor General for Scotland's office and the Accounts Commission about the meaning of best value for sustainable rural communities.
Gosh, there was a lot in there. I will try and answer your points in the order in which you raised them.
You observed that local proposals need to be clear. It is clear to me that when local authorities embark on a debate about potential school closures, they know that there will be an impact on the feelings of people in the community—on their sense of place and how their community works—as well as an impact on individual children, to which parents will rightly pay attention. It is colossally important that local authorities are confident of the grounds for their proposals. They should be able to set out with great clarity precisely what it is that they seek to do, the range of options, the long-term considerations and the short-term effects—I could go on. The work that officials are currently drafting is about exemplifying and opening up the range of considerations about which we would expect there to be clarity. I agree that there must be clarity, so that the public can judge the proposals. They might not agree with the proposals—they will seldom agree with them—but councils are often working towards longer-term horizons and people will be able to see what councils intend.
I link that point to your final point on school estate planning. You alluded to the fact that these are times of unprecedented investment in Scottish school education. Some £2,000 million of capital spending will go into schools during the next decade, principally because we inherited a legacy of appalling schools and we need to do something about that. We need to secure better accommodation that can be maintained in the long term. If we are to have an investment strategy on such a scale we must take a long-term view and consider, for example, the population projections for areas. We must factor in the substantial falls in school rolls in parts of Scotland, to which I have alluded in the Parliament. Such falls are not happening everywhere; I know that school rolls are rising significantly in places in Fiona Hyslop's and Rhona Brankin's constituencies, so that must also be factored in. That is why more issues about school closures are surfacing.
You ask whether school closures are just about a drive for cost efficiency. They are not, but cost efficiency is an issue. Empty buildings still require heating and taxes on them still need to be paid. Capital might be spent maintaining buildings that are not fully occupied rather than on the new buildings that are required. All those things need to be taken into account. However, the big change since devolution is that we are investing thousands of millions of pounds in school buildings. The financial pressures are less than they were pre-devolution because of that investment. Rather than considering just whether we have an efficient school estate with schools that are in the right places for the long term, people ought to consider the educational dimension, which is the principal issue. What is the right shape for a school? What facilities does a modern school need? To what extent must school buildings be more adaptable than they were in the past in order to cope with changing population factors? How do we accommodate the modern curriculum? All those factors require to be at the forefront of our thinking because we are making so much more cash available.
A good point was made about rural sustainability and rural development. Partly because of the recent public debate on these matters, I am now more focused than I was on how we make a more effective connection between those issues. The material that I want to send to local authorities will better reflect the need to take into account our wider policies on rural development and sustainability. However, I do not want to mislead the committee or the wider public by suggesting that rural Scotland will be covered in aspic. It would be quite wrong to pretend that nothing will ever change.
We have seen an example of what I am talking about in Midlothian during the course of the last week. Although Midlothian Council initially proposed that youngsters be moved from, I think, four rural schools into what those rural populations regarded as a much more urban setting, it is now proposed that a new rural school be created. That will mean that those pupils will not need to go to an urban school. My point is that it is entirely possible to aggregate rural schools to provide better facilities and longer-term sustainability in the face of changing population patterns, but to do that at a rural level. Arguably, amalgamating two rural schools into one rural school can contribute significantly to sustaining rural populations.
All those factors need to be taken into account in considering the long-term strategy, but the need for consistency between our policy approaches can be taken as read. From my point of view, we need to do more work on that issue and I will explicitly address it in the material that I send to local authorities.
On schools data, Parliament officials have provided members with a paper—ED/S2/04/15/3—that contains several sets of statistics for school closures pre and post-devolution. The number of primary school closures was also set out in my answer to a parliamentary question from Christine Grahame at the end of April.
The committee's paper is interesting. I do not seek to make a party-political point—it just happens to be that way—but the rate of school closures was four times higher during the last two years of the previous Conservative Administration than it was during the first two years after Labour came to power in 1997. Since then, the pattern of primary school closures has moved around: 32 closures in 1995-96; 21 in 1996-97; only nine in 1998-99; more in the following year and 13, 14 and then 18 in subsequent years. The figures have moved around, but there has nonetheless been a pattern of school closures. Some of those schools closed because they had no pupils and several school closures were actually amalgamations of schools that meant that one school remained in a rural community that had previously had two or three. Therefore, although figures at that level can be slightly misleading, there is nonetheless a lot of statistical data about the pattern of change that has taken place.
Given that part of our duty is to call the Executive to account, I want to mention that Peter Peacock was Deputy Minister for Children and Education in 2000, when the first concerns about rural school closures were raised with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee of the previous Parliament. Concern was expressed that COSLA had been meant to produce new guidance. COSLA had also asked the Executive to introduce legislation on rural school closures. In a letter to the former Education, Culture and Sport Committee in March 2003—just before the last parliamentary elections—the Executive made it clear that the rural schools guidance and the school estate strategy were tied together. I appreciate that you want to produce new guidance now, but why on earth has it taken four years for the guidance and the initial suggestion of legislation to come to fruition?
Notwithstanding what has happened, the important matter is that I have made it clear that I want to make progress and that we will issue material in September. I do not want to dwell on the past.
We need to know why that delay happened.
It happened for a variety of reasons. COSLA made a good attempt and produced draft guidance that it circulated among its members, but it could not obtain agreement, so it dropped the guidance. At that point, COSLA suggested that we might want to consider legislative change. We subsequently discussed that with COSLA, but the organisation has not said specifically what the legislative change might be. We looked into that, but it did not have mileage that altered the situation. In the intervening period, the minister responsible for education changed three times. The important matter is that, whatever happened in the past, I say that something will be published by September. You can hold me to account on that, as I am sure that you will.
Not just COSLA, but parents, communities and the Parliament have an interest in the consultation. I am interested in what you envisage that the guidelines will cover. We can note the recent numbers of school closures relative to school openings. In just Glasgow, Edinburgh, Midlothian and the Borders, the scale of change in the next year or two will dwarf the figures in our papers. Some closures result from mergers and some relate to catchment areas. That is understandable, but the scale of change will be considerable. The concern is that no strategic overview is being taken of where that will leave us nationally. We must manage population decline, but in large areas, including parts of the Lothians, highly populated schools are being closed. Does that represent good value for money? Is that strategic? Rhona Brankin talked about sustainability. Will the new guidelines cover sustainability to ensure that communities have vibrant schools? That does not apply only to rural areas. Urban areas also require schools to be at the heart of communities for sustainability. It is important for that to go into the guidelines.
I will try to tie up the education guidance that we issue with wider sustainability issues, but I do not want to mislead people into thinking that nothing will ever change. Rural communities are dynamic and things change.
As for managing population decline, it is clear in my mind—and I hope that the guidance will reflect it—that a local authority would be pretty unwise to embark on shutting a school as the first action of change in a vibrant rural community that is strong and has the range of services. That closure might result in other changes. If school closures led the process of fundamental change in rural communities, I would be a bit concerned. However, that is not the pattern.
In practice, school closures tend to follow what has happened in other settings. By the time that an authority gets round to considering the school, the chances are that the post office, the local shop and a range of services such as the church and the village hall have gone. All those changes have taken place in rural Scotland in the past century and a half. Schools tend to follow rather than lead that pattern. I will suggest that the information that we send to local authorities about the issues that they should consider should take account of such matters, so that school closures do not lead managed decline. However, there would be a case for schools to follow patterns of earlier decline.
You asked whether a national strategy for managing the school estate exists. It does, in the sense that we tell local authorities to think seriously about the long-term planning of their estate. That is a consequence of the extra investment that we are making. We need that investment to be well targeted and to ensure that it provides sustainable schools in future. In that context, there is a national view. However, it would clearly be quite wrong of me, sitting in Edinburgh, to take a national view of very local situations in places such as Midlothian and the Borders. It is much better for those matters to be decided at local level, where people have local representation and an understanding of how their communities work. I can never expect to have such an understanding of every part of Scotland. I am very much in favour of action being taken at local level, but within a national framework.
The further information to local authorities that we will issue in September will seek to provide clear parameters and to indicate what considerations should be taken into account. You asked what those considerations might be. In the past I have referred to the test of proportionate advantage that Brian Wilson talked about. The speech in which he did that—which the committee has seen—indicates some of the factors. I will not suggest that there is a single balance sheet and that everything goes on one side or the other. There is a range of factors that must be considered and weighed up. Those include the statutory requirement to provide "adequate and efficient" education into the future. There are two tests that local authorities need to consider—adequacy and efficiency of provision. They must also think clearly about the educational advantage or disadvantage of the young people concerned. Would there be advantage in adjusting a school's organisation if that provided the opportunity for more social interaction and brought together small groups of children, which would not otherwise happen? How does that strengthen our ability to deliver the curriculum, especially in smaller secondary schools? What stimulation might be achieved by having a slightly aggregated school, rather than very small schools? How effective is group working in classes in schools of a certain size? When thinking about what the educational advantages or disadvantages might be, we must consider all those factors.
Equally, we must address issues such as distance—which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has raised—and travel time. Are we asking people to travel a reasonable distance to alternative provision, or is the travel time unreasonable? The younger schoolchildren are, the more difficult the issue becomes. We must take a sensitive view of that.
We must also ask about the current community use of the school facility, beyond its use as a school. Is it actively used by the whole community for a range of activities? What would be the impact on those wider activities of closing the building? Will the rural school whose closure is proposed be replaced by an urban school? In a wider rural community, does that provide the right kind of choice for parents? Is the school whose closure is proposed being amalgamated with another rural school, so that it can have a more sustainable future? What is the impact of a school closure on the wider sustainable rural community, economic development policies for the area and future housing growth?
A whole pile of issues must be included in the equation. We need to ask about not only the revenue savings of closing a school, but the revenue costs of providing additional transport. What are the capital savings and costs involved? After considering all those factors, we must reach a balanced, sensitive local judgment on the basis not just of the factors, but of the view that is taken of them by the population that is being consulted. Decisions are best taken at local level to ensure such sensitivity. We need to open up a range of issues and to make it clear that we want them to be considered fully.
Brian Wilson's very strong speech of 1998 is reflected in the tone of your comments, but not in practice or in people's experience. You seem to be suggesting that there should be a presumption against the closure of rural schools. No one is saying that no rural school should close—there can be many arguments for closing a school. However, is your starting point a presumption against the closure of rural schools, followed by consideration of all the other factors to which you have referred?
Two points arise from what you say. I forgot to address your first question about the number of proposed closures. There is a big difference between the potential numbers that appear early in a consultation process and what happens at the end of the day. I cite the recent example of Dumfries and Galloway, which includes Elaine Murray's constituency. As I recall, initially around 30 schools were considered for change, amalgamation and potential closure, but the number has ended up as four. Although one might start out with a set of propositions, open them up to the population and explain why one is thinking about certain things, the outcomes could be very different. One cannot discount the fact that, although populations in Scotland are principally in decline, they are on the move. Local authorities have to take account of that.
I am not attracted to a presumption against closure, nor am I attracted to a presumption in favour. If one starts with a presumption against closure, what does that actually mean? Does it mean that one will never consider a closure proposal? It does not mean that—even Fiona Hyslop has said that. Does it mean that, although there is a presumption against closure, we will consider such proposals? Does it mean that we will never close a school? It does not mean that either.
The situation in England is different from the one in Wales and therefore it has different guidance, which guides a committee that is not part of the local authority. That guidance refers to a presumption against the closure of rural schools, but in almost the next sentence it states that that does not mean that rural schools should not close. The guidance goes on to state that there should be a good case for closure and that is what I am saying—one has to ensure that there is a clear case for closure.
It is not wise to presume against or in favour of something, but it is wise to make clear the circumstances that need to be weighed in the balance and then allow decisions to be taken at local level in the light of propositions and consultation. That means that there is a test or high hurdle and people need to consider those matters seriously, because they are very serious matters. The best way to proceed is to illuminate to people what the factors are, to make it clear to parents that those factors are being weighed up and then to expect councillors to be accountable for decisions that are taken locally.
For the avoidance of doubt, is the high hurdle to which you referred reflected in the status of the information that will go to councils? What will that information be? Will it be contained in an advice note, a speech such as Brian Wilson's, guidance with some statutory effect or in primary or subordinate legislation?
I am still considering the matter. I am not proposing legislative change; the legislative framework provides an adequate basis on which to proceed. It is a question of how one works within that framework. I am relaxed about the nature of the information. My intentions will be very clear and I am happy to return to speak to the committee to advise you what the status of that information will be.
I will not go to the effort of providing such important information in the expectation that local authorities will ignore it. I will judge any cases that are referred to me against the criteria that I will set out. If a local authority has not made a good case against those criteria or has not at least sought to argue the case with those criteria in mind, that would weigh heavily on my mind when I came to consider individual proposals. That approach will extend across the system, but I need to take further advice on the status of the information.
When Brian Wilson made his statement on 21 March 1998, he set out his test of proportionate advantage, which asked the question:
"Do the educational and financial gains deriving from a closure stand up to scrutiny and do they outweigh the negative effects—on that rural community and the children and their families—which that closure will have?"
Does the minister accept that, in practice, the test of proportionate advantage does not protect rural schools as strongly as the national presumption against closure of rural schools that applies in England? The Prime Minister supports the presumption against closure, which has meant that far fewer rural schools are closed in England than in Scotland. When the minister revises the guidance, if he makes a decision in principle against having such a presumption, will he at the very least introduce much stronger guidance to protect small, fragile, rural communities that are under threat of having the heart ripped out of them unless he takes a stronger stance?
I hope that I have made it clear that I do not seek to invent a presumption against closure—that would be the wrong route to take. I seek to make clear the range of tests that a local authority should apply to itself and the factors that it should weigh up in balancing the arguments before it comes to a decision. I believe that that is a better way of proceeding. If that means that the test is tough, that is because there has to be a clear case for proceeding with closure. Does that mean that no school will ever close? No, it does not mean that; it means that some schools will close. Indeed, you were a minister with responsibility for education, Lord James, and I have cited some of the figures over which the Conservatives presided. You did not go for a presumption against closure, and nor will I. I am going to make it clear that there is a range of factors that must be considered. Rural sustainability is one of those factors.
You talk about the heart being ripped out of rural communities. I understand that point, but must say that it is an emotive one. To counter it, I point out that I have seen many examples of situations in which small, sustainable and modern rural schools with good facilities have been built and have helped to sustain rural communities. The community that any one of those schools serves is obviously wider than those that were served by the schools that it replaced, but nonetheless such a school can be strong. We need to recognise the fact that the patterns of population of our rural communities constantly change. Will there be a pattern of strong rural schools in Scotland in the future? Yes. I firmly believe that that is a necessary part of our national life and that the methods that I am describing will help to ensure that that happens.
Is the minister aware that the Scottish Office report of 1996, "Managing Change in Small Primary Schools", recommended that consideration be given to establishing a national small schools network to encourage developments, overcome feelings of isolation and gain economies of scale from available resources? Will he read that document before he issues guidance in case any thoughts in it prove to be of benefit to him?
The minister's figures tell us that the proportion of pupils who enter higher education is higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas. Is that not an indication that small rural schools are serving Scotland well?
We have some extremely good small rural schools that serve Scotland well. However, on my travels over the years I have met many people who have told me that a small rural school with a poor teacher can produce utterly disastrous results. Thankfully, there are very few of those.
There is no panacea. Everything in the small rural school garden is not always rosy. Do those schools perform less well than others, however? No, they do not. They perform extremely well and make a big contribution.
I would be happy to read the document that you mention. I am aware of it and can say that one of the things that came out of the thinking behind it—for which I pay tribute to my predecessors—is that there are now networks of smaller schools that share management resources, head teachers and so on. That model is currently being piloted in parts of the Highlands and has been piloted in other parts of Scotland in the past.
Although cost is not the dominant factor in this situation, it is a factor that must be taken into account. One of the ways of mitigating the costs of maintaining small schools—there is no doubt that the unit costs are higher—is to implement joint-management arrangements of the sort that I mentioned. That opens up opportunities for rural schools to share facilities, conduct joint music classes, organise joint football teams and so on. Local authorities ought to be exploring all the options and possibilities that are available.
Some of what you are saying is heartening. However, I am concerned about the fact that local authorities do not seem to be examining the criteria that we are talking about today. In many cases, the national framework seems to be working against rural schools, in the sense that the new building projects are PPPs. That means that people cannot get the funds to refurbish schools in rural communities but they can get funding to join up with other small schools to make a bigger school. I would like the minister to comment on that.
Has any research been done to compare the results that are being delivered by the newly created superschools with the results that were delivered by smaller schools? I am talking specifically about secondary schools, but I also have in mind the impact that moving into larger settings can have on children from small primary schools.
The statistics that Lord James gave are very interesting. I do not think that we do enough research in Scotland and I would like to know whether the minister has any plans to look into these issues.
Rosemary Byrne touches on an area that has always interested me—the relative scale of schools and the results that their pupils attain. When I was Deputy Minister for Children and Education, one of the first things I did was to speak to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education on this issue, to find out whether there was evidence that smaller schools produced better results than bigger schools. I felt, intuitively, that smaller schools would produce better results. However, there is no evidence at all that they do. The pattern is mixed. In the secondary sector, some of our bigger secondary schools have by far the best results, but some of our very small secondary schools also have very good results. Good performance is not connected to scale; it is connected to other factors such as leadership, organisation and the skill of the teachers. At the time, I was slightly surprised by the evidence, but that was what I was told and it still holds true today. You will find excellent large schools and you will find excellent small schools. We cannot conclude that one is better than the other.
Rosemary Byrne also asked about PPP. We are financing schools via PPP and more cash is now available because we use that route. However, the principles and the decision making remain the same. PPP does not, of itself, drive any changes; it is the availability of new investment from whatever source that drives changes. Some local authorities are financing some schools using PPPs but, at the same time, they are using new freedoms in prudential borrowing and relaxed capital expenditure rules to finance other schools. Consideration of changes to the pattern of schools is not affected by that. The key issue is not the way in which the money is raised; the key issue is that there is more investment generally.
Is it not the case that the building companies that take on PPP projects are not keen to take on smaller projects and that local authorities are therefore forced to pool resources? That concern has been raised across the country—particularly in the Borders.
I do not think that that is fair criticism. In the Highlands, there is a brand-new PPP secondary school in Ardnamurchan. It is the first time that the area has had a secondary school. Previously, kids went to Lochaber High School and stayed in hostels, but a decision was taken to have a small school in Ardnamurchan. In the first round of PPP in the Highlands, a new school was also built in Drumnadrochit and a couple of new primary schools were built in very rural settings.
We have to remember that much bigger forces than PPP are at work. It is a fact that the population is declining very rapidly in certain parts of Scotland. That has an impact on the viability of individual schools. In the Borders, the school population has declined to such an extent that the local authority recently took the view that some schools were no longer educationally viable. That view had nothing to do with finance. The prime consideration was educational viability.
Many schools in the Borders—
I am sorry, Rosemary. I want to take other contributions because we need to give everyone a chance.
I will just finish on this point. Many schools in the Borders are on the list of proposed closures because of the state of the buildings, not because of the size of the rolls. We have to consider what happened in the past that led to the present state of the buildings.
I have been in that situation. It is undoubtedly true that, if a school is 150 years old, has outlived its useful life and is crumbling around you, a decision will have to be made whether to invest in that school or to replace it—although I should say that many of our 150-year-old schools are in a better condition than some of our 1960s and 1970s schools. Because of the pattern of schools in rural Scotland, which was largely laid down in the 1860s, it may be that schools are located within three miles of each other, and they may not be in a great condition. In such situations, do we offer parents the option of sending their children three or four miles away to a brand new school that we are going to invest in? That could lead to proposals similar to the ones that Rosemary Byrne touched on. It is entirely legitimate for a local authority to tell people that it has to make a big investment and to offer those people the chance to be part of that new investment—which would still be in a rural community but which would offer much better services. However, we should remember that the lists that we see at the outset of a set of proposals seldom survive intact to the end, so we should not judge everything by what is first proposed.
The first part of my question probably requires just a yes or no answer. In March 1998, Brian Wilson indicated that he was considering amending the criteria under which closure proposals were referred—at that time, they would have been referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but nowadays, such proposals would be referred to you. When you talk about new criteria, are you referring to the new criteria for local authorities to use in assessing whether schools should be closed, or is there a possibility that the criteria under which closure proposals are referred will change?
That is not in my mind at all.
You may be aware that we have had a response from Ross Finnie, to whom we wrote in connection with the rural development issues. He suggests that, in addition to formal public consultation, the community planning approach should be used when considering possible school closures. How can you ensure that that approach is taken? You referred to the Dumfries and Galloway experience. In Dumfries and Galloway, the council commissioned a consultants' report, which was drawn up purely on the basis of how far away schools were from one other and how old the buildings were. There was barely any reference to a community planning approach or to the needs of the community. That is probably one of the reasons why the whole process was so protracted. However, in the long term, the process was unsuccessful in terms of changing the school estate. Do you have any idea how local authorities can be more strongly pressured into using a community planning approach from the beginning of the exercise, rather than simply taking a consultant-led approach?
There are two distinct parts to that question. We have clear statutory obligations in relation to school closure proposals. Local authorities are obliged under statute to publish their proposals and to go out to consultation and so on. I am not seeking to change that process. Whatever happens in community planning, local authorities would still be required to maintain and operate those statutory procedures. The question is what local authorities do prior to that. How do they arrive at conclusions about how to manage their school estate? How do those conclusions interact with other interests in the community and so on? To be perfectly honest, I have not thought deeply about how we would approach that. Those are exactly the kind of questions that I want to draw out of the advice that I will get from officials. The Executive has legislated for community planning and we are clear that we want to use it as a process at the local level to try better to plan the delivery of all public services.
Part of the thinking about modern schools is about integrated community schools, which offer not only a school service, but an integrated package of services around the needs of children and, potentially, wider family groups. It is in that context that we must establish some reference to the community planning process, which precedes the process that we are discussing but nonetheless is something that we would want to consider. You ask how we would compel local authorities to consider the community planning process. I would have thought that in the information that we send out we would want to set out for them good practice in community planning and what the expectations are. Local authorities are under a statutory duty in relation to community planning; in fact, they are the lead authorities for that work. I would have thought that local authorities would connect the issues pretty adequately at the local level. What we need to do more of is illustrate what we mean by involving community planning partners in thinking in that way, ensuring that that thinking takes account of the wider community interests that exist in any particular area.
I have been most interested in what you have had to say. It will be important to clarify the status of the guidance that you produce. You must understand that parents and communities often feel trapped between the Scottish Executive and the local authority in that, while it is indicated in one forum that the proposals are being driven by Executive policies, if the issue is raised in Parliament the Executive's response would generally be that these are local decisions. Do you therefore accept the need to clarify in the guidance who is doing what, where the specific policies come from and who is accountable for the ultimate decisions?
Perhaps I should have picked up that issue in relation to something that I think that Elaine Murray asked about. I am clear that part of the information that we issue is as much for parents as it is for local authorities. In fact, we have been thinking about how we can make it very clear—much clearer than at present—where particular responsibilities lie and what the relationships are between the different roles that must be performed. That the documentation that is ultimately produced should help to clarify such matters is very much in my mind.
We should be clear. We are now providing substantial additional resources to local authorities and, in return, we are asking them to be clear about their long-term planning strategies. However, particular decisions in communities about the pattern of their schools are for local authorities to take and we do not seek to force things to happen or to interfere in any particular way in the processes that they adopt. Such judgments are best made at the local level by local authorities to suit the patterns, aspirations and attributes of their communities.
I want to follow up on an answer that I think that you gave to Rosemary Byrne. In a scenario in which parents are offered a new school to replace two schools that are in what might be perceived to be bad repair, do you think that they should be entitled to say that they do not wish to go down that route and that they would prefer to proceed with the arrangements that are in place, although that school might not be the school of the future or—
Parents are entitled to argue exactly what they want to argue in the process. I have made it clear that, in my experience, I have seen only one group of communities willingly sign up to a school closure because they reckoned that the alternative was better. That seldom happens. As I have said, it would be odd if parents did not fight for what they thought was a good local school. Parents must exercise their own judgments about what they say.
That said, at the end of the day, local authorities must reach decisions on such matters, and they have wider responsibilities not only to the group of parents in question but to the whole, wider community over a prolonged period. They must ensure that there is adequate provision for the community into the future and that involves tough decision making. I am under no illusions about that and nor should anyone else be. We cannot avoid such decision making—it has been necessary in education for more than the last half of the previous century and will continue to be necessary for some time to come as our populations move and change. However, parents can argue what they want to argue and local authorities will and should have regard to what parents say before decisions are reached.
You alluded to the fact that a number of local authorities—such as Dumfries and Galloway Council in particular—have moved from taking the entire school estate into a PPP package to taking part of it into such a package. In the longer term, how do you envisage that a PPP-type funding arrangement will be possible in relation to a network of rural schools that are not included in the larger packages? Does the fact that they are out now, as far as PPP being a source of funding is concerned, mean that they will be out for all time to come?
I cannot say that they will be out for all time. Equally, I cannot say that there will be a further tranche of PPPs. You will be aware that we are in the midst of internal spending review discussions for the next expenditure period. One issue among the many that will be weighed up as part of the review is how we should continue our investment strategy for schools. PPP projects have generated huge new investment in Scottish schools and lots of good things are happening throughout Scotland. Beyond that, other investment programmes are being released, through prudential borrowing regimes and relaxing capital rules, and more capital funding is being brought into local authorities. Therefore, aside from PPPs, further clear routes are open for school investments.
How we will sustain the next generation of school investments has yet to be decided, but it is clear that we must continue the momentum. A significant part of our school estate is now being updated by PPPs. Around a third of our estate was always very good and a third of our estate is not quite so good, but is not yet grossly inadequate. We must plan for that generation of investments into the future and consideration of how we should do so is part of the Executive's long-term thinking.
I am conscious of the time, but I think that Rhona Brankin has one more point to make.
Minister, you talked about the fact that when large schools are compared with smaller schools, there are no clear patterns of differences in attainment levels. However, you would accept that evidence from your own statistics office shows that attainment in rural schools is higher than it is in urban schools. You would also accept that it is often more expensive to provide services in rural areas. Therefore, when local authorities have to consider issues in the round, it should be accepted that it costs more per head to educate children in a rural area than it does in an urban area.
On your first point, it would be wrong of me to suggest that any one study at any given time conclusively proves that one form of Scottish education is always better than another. You are right that there are statistics—you and I have discussed them—that demonstrate exactly what you said. However, there are also other ways of looking at the situation. I can compare very good big secondary schools with very good small secondary schools. I can also compare very good big primary schools with very good small primary schools. From my point of view, we have a rich tapestry or network of very good schools in Scotland. Rural schools produce excellent results in that context.
On your point about things being more expensive in rural areas, the unit costs of service delivery are much more expensive in such areas, but that is precisely why we give more grant aid for that. By doing so, we reflect the fact that education is more expensive in rural Scotland and that the patterns of spending there are significantly higher per head than the average for the rest of Scotland. There are also higher spending patterns—for different reasons—in some of our urban deprived communities, so we give more revenue for that. In addition, in terms of capital expenditure, the capital spend per head in rural Scotland is significantly higher than it is in urban Scotland. Therefore, those extra costs are accounted for in our distribution of grants.
Thank you. That concludes our consideration of the issue for today. We will put the issue on the agenda of a future meeting—probably the one on 9 June—to consider the implications of the minister's evidence.