School Closures
I ask the Minister for Education and Young People to join us at the table. While he is doing that, let me welcome Margaret Ewing to our meeting. I think that Chris Ballance may also join us later.
Agenda item 2 is on school closures. I point out that, although the issue of school closure guidance falls within the remit of our committee, we have no role in holding local authorities, either individually or collectively, to account for school closure policies in their local areas. Taking a view on individual school closures is the responsibility not of our committee but of the democratically elected local representatives in local authorities. However, the committee has a role in scrutinising and monitoring the Scottish Executive's guidance to local authorities on school closures. That is why I am pleased to welcome to our meeting both Peter Peacock, who is the Minister for Education and Young People, and Colin Reeves, who is the head of the Scottish Executive's schools division.
Convener, as this is my first appearance before the committee since you took up your present position, I congratulate you on your appointment. However, that should not be taken as a note of sycophancy in the hope of soft questioning, as I expect no such thing.
I will try to set out where we are at and I will update the committee on what has happened since we last discussed school closures. I set out my initial position in evidence to the committee some time ago. As the convener said, that was confirmed in guidance that we issued just over a year ago. Subsequently, I wrote to the committee last month to set out some thoughts about where we are at. I have read the Official Report of the committee's meeting on 14 September and I am here today to assist the committee's discussions and to answer questions.
Let me update the committee on what has happened since I wrote my letter of 9 September. First, I have some concerns about the way in which the guidance on school closures is biting on local authorities, especially the guidance on the supply of information to parents and the wider community about the nature of an authority's proposals. In light of those concerns, I met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities education spokesperson a few weeks ago to raise those issues and to seek COSLA's engagement. I am glad to say that I received a positive response, as COSLA is conscious that issues need to be addressed. Subsequently, my officials met COSLA officials to discuss the issues in more depth. COSLA is now setting up a working group to consider the issues in detail and my officials will work closely with COSLA on that.
We need to identify how the guidance is operating, how it has been interpreted by different local authorities and what we can do to get more consistency. We also need to consider what constitutes best practice, given the clear variety in consultation procedures that exists across Scotland. Parents find it odd—particularly now that they are organising themselves across the country—that procedures operate so differently in different areas. There is something to be said for seeking a higher degree of consistency. We also need to try to draw lessons from areas where we know things have worked well and reasonably—and where things have been seen by parents to work well and reasonably—so that we can apply those more widely. To respond to the point that the convener made when the committee last discussed the issue in September, we will do that with a view to having the Executive disseminate best practice as well as formal guidance.
We have also looked afresh at the information that is available to parents in the first instance about the nature of school closures. As there is a dearth of such information at a national level, we are drafting a leaflet-type document for parents that will set out much more clearly what should be expected when a change in school provision is considered at local level. The leaflet will set out clearly which issues must be addressed by the council and which issues must be addressed by the Executive. We have also considered issues such as the information that parents should expect to be supplied with in a consultation document. We want to provide a clear set of rules so that people understand the process that is about to be embarked on. We will consult parents organisations and others on the text of that document before we publish it.
Beyond that, immediately after meeting with you, I will meet representatives of the Scottish rural schools network to hear their concerns and their experience over the weeks and months since we issued our guidance. I expect that to inform my thinking about what else we can do. I hope that it will also inform the thinking behind the exercise that COSLA recently undertook.
Two back benchers from my party, John Home Robertson and Richard Baker, have pressed me strongly about the impact of Audit Scotland's rules—although perhaps calling them "rules" is putting it too strongly. However, when Audit Scotland assesses local authority performance, it considers schools that have an occupancy rate of 60 per cent or less. From my experience and from observing what has happened during the past year, I know that that position is interpreted differently across Scotland and John Home Robertson and Richard Baker have pressed me for a statement on the status of Audit Scotland's guidance.
Circumstances are changing across Scotland. For example, there has been an increase in pre-school provision, a growing demand for, and an increase in, child care provision and a move towards a much more flexible package for child care in early years school provision. All those aspects have had an impact on school occupancy rates; the issue is whether they are within or outwith the scope of Audit Scotland's guidance. I have asked my officials to liaise with Audit Scotland about them, because they bear heavily on the situation. Obviously, Audit Scotland is independent and autonomous; it must have its own rules for such issues and its own internal guidance for its staff when considering them. However, there is scope for further consideration of the matter.
Beyond that, John Home Robertson and Richard Baker have pressed me on another issue, on which I also received a letter from Councillor Keith of Moray Council, which has been through a difficult exercise recently. They asked me about the gap that appears to exist between the guidance that I issued for formal consultations involving a statutory procedure and the fact that some councils have been using informal, non-statutory procedures to initiate consultations. I indicated in a letter to Councillor Keith earlier this week and to John Home Robertson and Richard Baker in a meeting that I am concerned about that issue.
The way in which Moray Council conducted its recent exercise caused anxiety throughout the local community. The council used an informal procedure, so the guidance did not apply—that was unfortunate, to say the least. I want to tighten up that situation, but to do so sensibly, because there are circumstances in which informal consultation is appropriate. We have not got the guidance right. I do not want the Moray situation to be repeated elsewhere in Scotland, because it gave rise to all sorts of unfortunate connotations. We can probably prevent that from happening again by extending the guidance to cover informal consultations. However, I must think more about the practical aspects of that.
Members will be aware from what I have said that my mind is not closed to making further refinements. However, given the dramatic changes in the numbers of children in our communities, I must do much more thinking and, with respect, so must the committee. Inevitably, the issues to which I referred will be considered and it is inevitable that, over time, some schools will close. It can be entirely proper to make such decisions, but it is important that the rules that govern them are clearer, that parents feel more involved and that the information supply is better and more transparent. As I indicated, we can tackle that in a range of ways. I am happy to take questions from members.
Thank you for that useful opening statement.
Obviously, much progress has been made, minister, and your response to our initial letter and the comments that you have just made are welcome. I have specific questions, particularly about the discussions with COSLA. Is it possible to ensure that parents are involved in any working party that is set up to revise best practice and to address the points that you raised? Timescales are particularly important.
You said that you had a meeting with COSLA's education spokesperson, who is also the director of education at the City of Edinburgh Council. The council has just embarked on an informal consultation that is causing as much disquiet as what is happening elsewhere in the country. Although you have indications that COSLA is responding positively, practice in the here and now may be different. For example, the Gaelic-medium school in Tollcross has problems with falling school rolls. Given your interest in the issue of Gaelic education, I am sure that you would want to be aware of that.
Can we have commitments about parental involvement in the process that COSLA is conducting? Can we also have timescales for the process? You mentioned specifically the problems of informal consultation, which you are right to identify as an area of particular concern. You talk about producing guidance. Are you referring to additional guidance on the formal process? Are you prepared to engage in producing best-practice guidance on informal consultation? I ask that question because informal consultation is happening all over Scotland. Formal consultation makes sense for individual schools that are threatened with closure. The real problems come when, at your request, councils consider wholesale school estates management issues, in the financial and building control area. It is incumbent on you to take responsibility for the fact that, because of the request that you have made, you are kick-starting the process of all-school, all-council reviews, and to produce guidance on that process.
Another issue is the weighting that is given to Audit Scotland's findings. It could be argued that the guidance that was produced last year touches on education and other areas. Would you be prepared to produce indicators of what is meant by the educational case and rural sustainability? We know that in practice councils are ignoring the current guidance. That dismissive attitude reflects badly on you. It is your responsibility to produce something more concrete on which councils can be judged. You are right to say that, if the information is shared up front and there are more robust indicators of what we mean by the educational case, rural sustainability and economic viability, we will avoid the heartache and distress that has been caused to so many parents and communities. I welcome what you have said, but I would like you to address the specific issues that I have raised.
I will try to deal with them in the order in which they were raised. I will make to COSLA the point that Fiona Hyslop has made, but ultimately it is for COSLA to decide whether it involves parents. We are talking about an internal working group.
The issue of timescales was raised. I am anxious to get on with the process, as these are current issues that are very real for people. I have not set myself specific timescales, because some complex issues are involved. However, I am not proposing a delay, as both COSLA and I want to get on with the process.
Informal consultation is a complex issue and I must try to strike the right balance. The situation that we saw in Moray, where more than 20 communities felt that the future of their schools was immediately threatened, was incredibly unfortunate and, in my view, unnecessary. The matter could have been handled in an entirely different way. In terms of practical politics, no council has ever successfully shut 20 schools in a rural area at one time—the world is not like that. Very broad consultations that are lacking in specific detail do not help discussion and debate on such issues.
However, there are legitimate ways in which councils can approach communities informally—through school boards or other contacts in schools—to indicate that a school faces a genuine dilemma and ask how it should be tackled. I have seen that done sensitively and sensibly, with the result that practical solutions have been arrived at. I do not want us to apply heavy, rigid guidance to all informal consultations, without making distinctions. Today I am not clear about how we can do that, but I am prepared to look closely at the matter, as there are issues that we need to think about.
I like Fiona Hyslop's suggestion that we should produce best-practice guidance for informal consultations. That is our intention. Equally, I am tempted in one way or another to extend to informal consultations the formal statutory guidance that we issue. We will probably do that. However, that depends on how we define informal consultation. I do not want to rule out the practical, sensible and legitimate informal discussions that take place between parents and local authorities on what are difficult issues, but I want to ensure that we do not have any repeat of the Moray situation, which I thought was unfortunate in the extreme.
On school estates issues, let me say two things. First, it is entirely right and proper that local authorities should sit down to take a systematic look at the nature of the investments that they need to make over a prolonged period to build the school estate that their population requires. By definition, those are long-term investment decisions. If a local authority is to invest £5 million in a primary school or £20 million in a secondary school, it needs to be as clear as possible that it will have the population to sustain that investment over the lifetime of the school building. It is right and proper that councils make those judgments about their long-term estates. As the requirement to make such investment decisions—in part because we are investing much more money in school buildings to catch up with the colossal neglect of the past—has coincidentally combined with falling school rolls, future projections often suggest that a very different pattern of schools will emerge in certain parts of Scotland. It is right and proper that those issues are drawn to the surface.
Secondly, our school estates guidance is clear—I checked it this morning—on the need for authorities to consult on their estates strategy. Equally, an estates strategy in no way supersedes the statutory consultation that is required for individual school closure proposals. We need to ensure that that point in the guidance works more effectively. It is arguable that there will inevitably be a relationship between those two sets of circumstances, but it is right and proper that councils consider such matters. We need to ensure that, at every stage along the road, proper weight is given to the factors that are set out in the guidance. For example, the guidance is robust on the issue of rural development. It states clearly that no school closure should lead the process of rural decline, although it may follow it if everything else has already shifted to a new centre. The guidance also makes it clear that educational arguments are prime. It is important that those issues are considered and considered properly.
I will think a bit further about the suggestion on indicators. However, my immediate instinct is that setting hard indicators, such as particular scores that can be attached to things, could just mean that we end up with a worse situation, in which schools can be closed if some boxes have been ticked or if a certain total has been met. At the end of the day, such decisions are matters for political judgment, which must be made in the light of the facts and circumstances. I hesitate to say that we would require hard indicators, but I am prepared to think about that a bit more.
I want to ask about accountability. With the best will in the world, you could produce wonderful, improved guidance for informal and formal consultations, but if that guidance is ignored—as has happened in some areas during the past year—what enforcement measures do you have?
The appeals process by which a council's decision may be referred is available only if the school is running at more than 80 per cent capacity or if distance is an issue. The City of Edinburgh Council—whose director of education is COSLA's education spokesperson—has deliberately reduced school rolls such that few schools will ever reach the threshold at which a proposal for closure could be referred, so you are right to warn that people may try to bypass or manipulate any formulae or indicators that are put in place. Given the undesirability of such situations, we need to ensure that we have the information up front. I want to know what grounds for referral you think would be desirable in an appeals process, given that we could not have automatic referral of all school closure decisions. However, if we ensure that the process is right up front, things would be more satisfactory.
How can you guarantee that we will not have another Moray elsewhere, given that councils can just ignore the guidance in the way that Moray Council did? The issue is about political accountability and your responsibility to ensure that guidance is followed. What powers do you have to ensure that, if the guidance is ignored, you can tackle the situation by stopping or reversing the closure process? That is what people want to know.
In Scottish education, there is a long tradition—which has, I must say, worked extremely well—of people making a genuine attempt to follow any guidance that is issued. We issue guidance on a whole range of things. In fact, for the most part, Scottish education is sustained by guidance rather than statute—for example, in the curriculum. However, I have made it clear that part of the problem is that the guidance is interpreted more widely in certain areas. I have also made it clear that some of the ways in which matters have been conducted and some of the paperwork are not appropriate. However, local authorities are anxious to do better and to get things right.
The situation that occurred in Moray does not ultimately help Moray Council or the population there, nor does it help with what is happening in other council areas. Such situations create a climate in which it becomes almost impossible to take decisions, some of which will be legitimate ones. Local authorities are anxious to move on the issue and to ensure that the process is much more acceptable to everybody. That does not mean that difficult decisions will not have to be made. However, the means of getting there can be improved.
I am confident that, once we apply ourselves to tightening the ratchet on the existing situation, there will be changes. Ultimately, of course, I have the inspectors at my disposal to examine what is going on and I might ask them to consider the process at some point. Powers, which Fiona Hyslop previously opposed, can follow from such consideration.
Much reference has been made to Moray Council's problems, but there have been similar problems all over the world. For example, there was a school estates review in Dumfries and Galloway; there were similar reviews in the Borders; and I believe that there are similar issues in Angus. Therefore, it might be unfair to single out a particular council for criticism.
You referred in your written response to the importance of local schools in rural communities. Coming from where you do, you are obviously as aware of that issue as I am. How much of the discussions within the Executive and COSLA have looked across the board at the issues of rural development and sustainability? One of the Executive's cross-cutting priorities is sustainability. In addition, has there been discussion about alternative uses of schools? I know that security aspects must always be considered and that not all schools are constructed in a way that allows security to be maintained during alternative use.
Are the discussions and consideration of best practice looking beyond matters that are within your remit—for example, pre-school or after-school care—to other matters such as community involvement and the location of other professionals in the new community schools set-up? Will you consider such additional matters? Will you also take a more innovative, holistic look at the role of schools in communities and at what else can be incorporated in that?
On your first point, other councils have indeed been involved in school estates reviews. However, the Moray case is fresh in my mind because it was recent and it was handled in a particular way. It showed me what we ought not to do, as well as reflecting, I hope, what we ought to do. That is why I referred to the Moray case. However, procedures are different throughout Scotland.
You asked about rural sustainability. We specifically wrote into the guidance that that issue must be considered. I have also been clear that a school is an important part of developing a community. School closures should not lead a process of rural decline. In fact, the opposite is true—new schools help to lead rural development. My experience is that one of the big reasons for economic growth in the west Highland area was the opening of new secondary schools there 15 years ago.
Matters involving schools in rural areas tend to be referred to me because of distance criteria rather than occupancy criteria. Internally, my officials deal with such matters by asking the Environment and Rural Affairs Department whether, for example, a council made a reasonable fist in its consultation paper of setting out the sustainable development arguments. We get feedback on that, which feeds into my considerations. I think that that has happened only once so far, because it is a new part of our guidance, but we build rural sustainability into our thinking.
The issue of alternative uses of schools lies behind the point that I made about Audit Scotland's 60 per cent rule, on which the colleagues to whom I referred pressed me. If we take that in a literal, school sense, we get one conclusion: we ought to be thinking about closing a school if occupancy falls below that level. Tonnes of schools in rural Scotland have occupancy rates way below that level but will always have to be there, because the nearest school is too far away to access.
I mentioned child care and early years education. You are absolutely right to think about wider adult education, community schools, the way in which we organise children's services and social work involvement. We are trying to configure differently a range of services. That impacts on the estate that the council as a whole and others manage.
There is potential to consider the issue in imaginative ways, which is exactly why I am getting my officials to question, with Audit Scotland, whether the factors that have been mentioned are being weighed in the balance when we consider the criteria for closure. That is a significant driver.
You envisage that the good practice guidance will highlight areas in which there has been success, such as in the Highlands, which you mentioned.
Absolutely. All sorts of other things are happening in relation to educational management. In an effort to maintain a network of rural schools in the Highlands—such schools are an important part of the fabric of that part of the world—a number of schools have joint heads. That development happened after I left, but it was talked about before that and it means that unit costs can be changed. There are also educational arguments in favour of it. People are experimenting with such things. Good practice can be brought to bear in a range of ways so that people consider all those factors before they decide the outcome of a consultation.
I have two questions, although the minister has already answered in part the first one. How can local authorities best be supported in conducting consultations that are genuinely open and objective and which attract the confidence and respect of the community?
The issue in that regard is drawing out what works best and ensuring that the flow of information is seen to be legitimate. There is an absolutely classic pattern of behaviour whenever a closure arises. We can anticipate what parents are going to ask, because we have seen that pattern throughout Scotland over many years. One of the things that parents will question immediately is the validity of the statistics in a consultation paper. There will always be new housing developments about to appear in a community that might change the statistics. I have seen recent consultation papers that do nothing other than assert a particular position; they do not explain the rationale or say where the data come from. Parents, quite rightly, ask questions about that.
We have to improve our performance and be clearer from the outset what factors have to be considered so that people have a good, reasonable, fair idea of the propositions that are being put to them and the data that sustain them. We have a bit more to do in improving that and ensuring that we have best practice guidance about what constitutes a good consultation paper, not just in the eyes of councils but in the eyes of parents, and about what provides a reasonable basis on which to consult parents. We can improve that significantly.
Will that be covered in future guidance?
My intention is to try to draw that out through the best practice work with COSLA, but I do not rule out our going further than the formal guidance.
The minister has already answered my second question by inference, but I ask him to clarify his position with regard to a national presumption against school closures in view of the widespread support for such a policy. Is it his position that the presumption that exists in other parts of Britain, particularly south of the border, should not apply in Scotland?
As you are aware, there are many differences in policy north and south of the border. That is why we have devolution. I have made it clear that I think that circumstances are different for each school in Scotland. We must consider each case on its merits and we should set out our stall to do so. I have looked closely at the English guidance and I regard our guidance to be significantly tougher. We are much more explicit about the hurdles that we put in the way of local authorities, which they have to be able to clear to sustain an argument to close a school. Those hurdles are much clearer in our guidance than they are in the guidance south of the border. We have set out a firm position.
The English guidance says that there should be a presumption against closure, but it then says that that does not mean that rural schools should not close. I do not want to send out false signals that somehow, if we have a presumption against closures, closures are off the agenda in Scotland—they are not. There are legitimate issues to be considered, but I am anxious to ensure that the way in which we go about considering cases on their individual merits is much more coherent, in the ways that I have described.
Is the minister prepared to consider the possibility of future guidance that might discourage the closure of rural schools, which has been happening frequently?
There are areas of the guidance that we could make firmer. However, if it is taken as it is intended, the guidance sets out clear, quite high, hurdles. We must consider issues such as rural sustainability, transport for kids and the educational benefits. We must also weigh up the costs—not only cost savings, but additional costs that would arise from transport. What is the impact on kids of transporting them long distances? What is the impact on communities of those kids being schooled elsewhere? All those considerations and many more are covered in the guidance.
It is important to reflect on that and to ensure that we have included in the guidance all the issues that should be included. I have an open mind about that. The right way to proceed is to set high hurdles and that is what we have tried to do. The issue is the extent to which our criteria have been seen as hurdles that have to be cleared to justify the closure of a school. Closing a school is a big decision, which has a major impact on individuals. People feel passionately about the issue and they have a right to know the case for closure, to see that the case has been well argued and well reasoned—and to challenge it if it has not—and to see that a decision has been taken transparently, against the criteria of those high hurdles.
I welcome your comments to Elaine Murray about integrated community schools. It has been suggested that 0-to-12 education and adult education could be integrated in rural schools—and those in towns—that are threatened with closure and that such schools could be used for other purposes. Is the minister committed to considering those ideas seriously? We could identify areas in which they might already be happening or where they could happen in the future. When we consider spare capacity in our schools, are we taking into account the possibility of reducing class sizes? We have a golden opportunity to do that.
I am concerned about the state of some of the schools that have been threatened with closure—I am talking mainly about the Borders. It is clear that many school buildings there had become run down due to lack of finance. In spite of the fact that the buildings did not appear to be in a state that would ensure that young people could have a good education, those schools were getting good Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reports and were part of the fabric of the community. I worry that there is a driving force to make public-private partnerships the only road, and that to go down that road we need to close one or two schools to create one larger new school. Bigger schools are not always best.
I worry that lack of finance has created those problems; schools that are in a poor state should be refurbished and returned to being part of the community. What guidance is being given to local authorities when they go down that road?
I have said quite a lot about alternative uses of schools; there are some good examples in Scotland of local authorities that are considering how schools are configured and what other services exist there. We will try to draw out those good practice points and share them more widely, so that others can benefit.
Reducing class sizes is one of the factors that lie behind the 60 per cent rule. A 60 per cent rule might give you a total number of pupils, but configuring those pupils in a school will give rise to different styles of occupancy. Given that our policy of reducing class sizes in primary and secondary schools will have implications for the use of space, we have talked to Audit Scotland about the 60 per cent rule.
On the state of schools, I do not share your philosophical opposition to PPP, but I assure you that, long before the concept was thought of, schools in Scotland were being closed in exactly the same circumstances. Schools have suffered from terrible neglect and lack of maintenance for many years. Indeed, I know of situations in which a particular school had to be replaced but, because other schools were in the immediate proximity, it was only legitimate to ask parents whether they wanted their kids to go to the new school or to continue to occupy a substandard building.
As a result, the matter is being driven not by the method of financing but partly, as I said to Fiona Hyslop, by the scale of our investment. Over the next decade, we will spend a colossal £2.5 billion on schools. As they will have to last for the next 30, 40 and more years, we must be clear that they are being built for existing populations. It is only right and proper for councils to make such major, long-term strategic decisions.
That said, we have issued rules on the factors that must be considered in any estate management policy. Consultation with the population forms part of that policy, because it draws to the surface the nature of such major strategic decisions and their likely impact on parents. Over and above that guidance, a legally defined statutory consultation must be carried out on any proposal for school closure. The rules are clear in that respect.
If a school in a rural area has been run down because of a lack of investment in the local authority prior to the introduction of PPP, the authority will find it difficult to refurbish that school, even if the community wants it to be kept open. Is PPP the only game in town? What are the other options for refurbishing schools that have been badly run down because of a lack of investment?
PPP is not the only game in town. It might well be a big game that is taking over major new building programmes, but it is not always appropriate for refurbishment. As a result, we have—I think—tripled the school fund that we provide to councils for normal capital spending and that is being used not only for major refurbishment programmes but for some new builds. As we have also abolished the old rules under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 that controlled capital spending by councils, councils have far more freedom to decide their own levels of capital investment. Moreover, we have introduced the prudential borrowing regime. We do not control these matters anymore. Although PPP is a significant element of what we are doing, it is by no means the only element.
Time is moving on and we have business in the chamber this afternoon. I will take only a few more brief questions on this matter.
In his opening remarks, the minister referred to people's fears and concerns at the beginning of a process of change. I have experienced that process in two or three different environments, first as a teacher when the adapting to change agenda was followed in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the old Strathclyde region and the city of Glasgow and later as a council leader in the unitary authority when we had to face the reality of the condition of the school estate.
Three compelling issues must be addressed. First, although I realise that we cannot please everyone, I feel that we need to get the consultation process as right as possible. Secondly, we need to offer people some positive alternatives. For example, with the adapting to change agenda, school closures were driven, in essence, by a local authority's financial requirements rather than by the educational agenda and the quality of the school estate. I am not nostalgic for the days of the old planned maintenance programme that local authorities ran before some of them engaged in PPP projects. After all, I remember switching on lights in the morning and feeling the current batter through the rest of the classroom. Mind you, that was always a useful device for controlling some recalcitrant pupils. One of the benefits of PPP—if it is handled properly—is the existence of a planned maintenance programme that keeps the school up to a standard that, sadly, many local authorities were unable to reach.
Thirdly, it is important that people know whether there is a presumption in the guidance against closure or any arguments in that regard. That issue has cost implications for wider services that the local authority provides, in relation to its education budget and to other services. If the local taxpayer wants there to be a presumption against closure, they need to be aware of those implications. That is a legitimate political issue, which is better handled by local authorities than by a minister sitting in St Andrew's House.
How do we encourage the good practice that some local authorities have developed after starting off with bad experiences? In 1996 and 1997, Glasgow had a pretty awful programme of trying to close primary schools. We walked into a meeting with 23 schools to be closed and left the meeting with only one and a half closing and 21 others fighting about why it should have been their school rather than anyone else's. Two years later, there was a big change programme and we now have a situation in Glasgow that involves pretty radical changes but, in neighbourhoods such as Easterhouse and other parts of the east end, people see the positive aspects of that.
How can you create a framework that will allow that to happen? How can you use your role as a minister constructively in that regard? In the Scottish Office days, people who had your responsibilities interfered negatively in the role of local decision makers.
On your latter point, it is important to keep a clear distinction between the role of ministers and the role of local authorities. Parliament has decided that the legal position is that local authorities are responsible for their schools and their school estate. That is the right decision. Some parents who are sitting behind me might not agree with that at this moment in time. However—I say this with the greatest of respect to my colleagues sitting to my right—if the decisions were being made by mandarins sitting in St Andrew's House, I think that there would be even less sensitivity to local circumstances than there is in the current situation.
Local people have a far better feel for the particular circumstances, judgments, aspirations for economic or sustainable growth, specific concerns in urban or rural Scotland and so on. That is why the decisions are best made locally. The role of Government is to ensure, as best we can, that the practices that apply to how those decisions are made at that level are seen to be consistent and fair and to encourage the openness and transparency that ought to exist.
If someone wants to close a school, they have to make a bloody good case for doing so—excuse my language—and they should be seen to make that case. If they have the conviction that that is the right decision for their community, they must stand up and make that argument in their community fairly and clearly so that people can see and hear it. People might not ultimately agree with the decision, but at least they will understand its nature. A lot of complex issues are involved in such a decision.
We have further to go in relation to drawing out the kind of good practice to which you referred. Glasgow is about to have to make some extremely difficult decisions about its primary school estate. In my experience, although parents initially oppose a decision to close a school—for reasons that I understand—if one was to ask them, after the event, to go back to the previous position, they would not want to, because they prefer what they have now. That is the situation in Glasgow in relation to the new secondary schools, despite the fact that the decisions were tough to make at the time.
You talked about the real costs of decisions. It is true to say that consequences arise from not making decisions as well as from making decisions. However, that ought to be part of the mature debate that people have with their local populations. People should understand the long-term consequences of not facing up to some decisions as well as those of facing up to some decisions; that is part of the process. We need to do more in that regard.
You recently introduced the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill, which gives parent bodies the opportunity to call in HMIE if they are unhappy. As you know, the First Minister was reasonably sympathetic to my suggestion that those bodies might be able to call in the inspectorate to examine the education authority as well. If a local authority had patently ignored your ministerial guidance, might that new legislation strengthen the hand of parents in relation to bringing the authority to account?
There is that potential. We are thinking through your suggestion carefully. We are quite attracted to the suggestion that, in certain circumstances, where parents are dissatisfied with the local authority performance, they could refer the matter to HMIE. The challenge would lie in the practical mechanisms for doing that. We have to consider what thresholds would have to be crossed before such a measure became legitimate and it would have to be used sparingly, rather than frequently.
My fear about applying the measure to school closures—although I will consider that suggestion—is that it would become the first weapon, rather than the last. I would not like us to be calling in inspectors all the time because there was opposition to a proposal. There is a big difference between that situation and a situation in which a local authority is, in Elaine Murray's words, patently failing to meet its obligations under the guidance. I will need to think about that a lot more before I come to a conclusion.
We are making progress; this is a useful session. Will the Executive publish the research about what is meant by good educational experience in small schools? There seems to be confusion in relation to the educational value of small rural schools and different interpretations by different directors of education. I have heard concerns that two streams are better than one and that there is a detrimental impact on some of the social aspects of education without such a balance. We know that academic research has been done on that and it might be helpful, as part of best practice, for the Executive to identify and circulate the views of those who have conducted it.
I am happy to consider that, although I rather think that all the research has been published anyway. Parents will have different views about the value of a school. For a start, it depends on the definition of a small school; people would have in mind all sorts of thresholds. We will always have lots of small schools that provide a splendid education. We will also have middle-sized and big schools that provide a splendid education. There are no factors attached to one group of schools that make them better than others; different factors are attached to all schools.
The critical question is the sustainability of education for the children involved; that applies to rural school closures in particular, but also to urban school closures. Sometimes we have a secondary school with one pupil and there are lots of primary schools with one pupil, because there is no alternative; we make the education for those kids as good as it can be. Equally, points about numbers have to be taken into account, whether they relate to penny numbers or the number that can make up a football team or a choir or allow children to play musical instruments in a small group or to interact socially. There are different views on the thresholds, but we sustain lots of schools in Scotland with very small populations. Their characteristics are different, but they are not necessarily better than other schools. We are quite happy to make available whatever research we have.
To the directors of education, too.
I welcome the minister's comments, particularly his acceptance that there have been problems in specific areas. Parents in the Scottish Borders Council area accuse the council of not involving parents genuinely, of producing inadequate information and of appearing to have made up its mind in advance. I speak on their behalf. We realise that you do not have the power of statute behind you, but you do have position and influence and can bring to bear pressure. Will you reassure parents that you will do everything you can to ensure that the consultations that are going on in the Borders are not a sham?
I am not familiar with the detail of the circumstances, although I happened to be in the Borders on Monday and the council's education portfolio holder gave me a copy of the council's policy on school closures, which I have started to read but have not completed reading. I will have a better feel for the situation once I have done that.
Chris Ballance, and parents, should be clear that I want to see open, transparent, honest, straightforward consultation, in which all the facts are laid out before people. If a council wants to close a school, it should be prepared to sustain its arguments in public in an arena in which there are parents who are naturally, and properly, quizzical about its position. I am in no doubt about the need for the council to do that. I cannot comment today on whether Scottish Borders Council meets those aspirations. However, Mr Ballance knows from evidence that I have given today that I am closely considering the issue. I want to ensure that our practices improve and I believe that they can improve. I am all in favour of openness and transparency; there is nothing to be lost by it and everything to be gained.
I thank the convener for allowing me to be present as a visitor to the committee. I found the discussion on school closures fascinating and helpful. I agree with the minister when he says that the procedures that were observed at Moray Council were incredible and unfortunate in the extreme. However, the lasting legacy is that the communities are much more alert and there is a strong community spirit. In any further round of consultation, the council may not find a revolution, but it may find that people are much better informed and much more united.
The minister spoke of Moray Council's interpretation of the present guidelines being the worst template of consultation. Are you collating information from all the councils, through or in conjunction with COSLA, on the various procedures that were observed in each area in which those matters have to be addressed? Will the size of councils be taken into account? Frank McAveety rightly spoke about what has happened in Glasgow, but there is a huge difference between Glasgow and Moray—and other rural communities—given their size and population base. Will it be made clear in the consultation process that any discussion that takes place about school closures will go before the full council of elected members before any document is printed? Will the minister ensure that the HMIE reports, many of which gave an excellent account of schools in rural Moray, are part of essential information, along with the other statistical information he referred to about costs—both plus and minus—in any proposals?
Moray Council was outwith the procedures because our procedures do not apply to informal consultation—that is one of the things that I want to put a stop to. On collecting data, we are in the process of collecting every consultation paper over the past year, whether or not it has been referred to me. We are considering closely the procedures that are being followed, because we are seeking to distinguish what is happening in different parts of Scotland. We want to learn lessons from that and to draw out the best practice that we think can exist. No doubt it will become apparent from that exercise whether differences arise because of the size of a council. We will try to analyse the data partly in that way.
Mrs Ewing made a point about putting things before the full council. I had not thought about that, but my immediate reaction is that councils determine their internal procedures and the extent to which they delegate matters to their committees. They decide the extent to which the full council makes decisions or whether, by exception, decisions are referred to the full council. The member makes an interesting point and I shall reflect further on whether something could be said about best practice in relation to that. I would have thought that it is without question that the issue would end up at the full council; perhaps it is best that it starts there, too. The HMIE reports should be part of the information flow and part of the consultation.
I thank the minister for a useful session on the guidance on school closures. The committee will wish to be kept up to date on progress on any reviews of the guidance and the minister's discussions with COSLA. I am sure that the committee will want to consider this issue at least annually. We will consider the guidance if it is produced before then.