Rural Schools
We move on to item 5. I welcome Duncan Hamilton back to the committee.
Unfortunately, Jamie Stone is not able to be with us. Although Jamie's report has been circulated and I am sure we have all read it, we will not take comments on it today because he is not here.
I am quite happy to pick up on points on Cathy Peattie's report, which may overlap with Jamie Stone's report.
The report that I have is written by Ellen Van Scoyoc, whoever she is, intern to Jamie Stone. Is she not available to question?
I think she has gone.
She is not here, Mike. Jamie Stone obviously sought assistance wherever he thought appropriate.
When will we discuss Jamie Stone's report?
We will put it on the agenda for next week. I assume that Jamie Stone will be here next week, as he has not told me otherwise.
We will move on to the report prepared by Cathy Peattie, who is here to answer questions on it.
Cathy will say a few words first.
I did not have a lot of time and as the days went on, more and more e-mails arrived. When we were busy trying to get this e-mail off to Ian Cowan on Friday, even more were coming in and more had arrived by Monday morning. We have received a lot of information. There is a lot of strong feeling on this matter. I hope that the report gives that impression.
Members will recall that when we discussed the petition, I expressed fairly strongly the view that it is not our role to tell councils what to do. It is not my role and it is not the role of this committee. My remit was to consider the consultation process. That is what I have tried to do. I have made recommendations on page 11 of my report. The committee might want to discuss them. I hope members find the information useful.
I think that the council worked through its consultation process. I have copies of it here, if members want to examine it. I spoke to elected members and they clearly felt that they were working in the best interests of local people. However, I think that the consultation process is flawed for several reasons. I have stated that in my report.
It is appropriate to congratulate Cathy Peattie on doing the report so quickly. It was essential that it was done quickly, but I appreciate the difficulties that that will have caused her. We are all grateful for your efforts.
First, we will take questions on the report; we will then take suggestions as to how we should proceed.
I echo your congratulations, convener. Initially, I did not support Cathy Peattie doing this. She has done a remarkable job. I know that this report has been circulated to the schools concerned; one of them e-mailed me last night—the curse of the e-mail is one of the problems in Argyll—to say that it is euphoric about how fair, honest and accurate Cathy has been.
However, I want to ask Cathy a question. The report states that whether there has been prejudicial action against parents and schools will be measured by the extent to which the council reconsiders this matter. Does Cathy Peattie want to expand on that important statement? As we know, there is to be a meeting of the education committee and of the full council tomorrow.
Thank you for that lovely question, Michael.
I always try to help, Cathy.
I know.
It is up to Argyll and Bute Council to make its own decisions, but I hope that it has read this report. I cannot tell the council what to do, but I suggest that it review its consultation process. The report contains the views of parents in Argyll and Bute and the council now has that information. All those people cannot be wrong. The council will say that it must make decisions based on budgets, forecasts and so on. While it is not for me to tell the council how to do its job, I hope that it will take into consideration what people in Argyll and Bute have told me.
I was pleased to find that you refer to prejudice in your report, which contains a lot of information. Can you guide me to where that word can be found in your report?
It is near the end.
It is on page 10.
The report says:
"Whether such inaccuracies and flaws are prejudicial depends upon the extent to which the Council is prepared to reconsider its proposals in the light of valid criticisms".
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but can you confirm that you are saying that, from the evidence that you have taken, there is a risk that ignoring your report would be prejudicial to the parents?
Yes.
Right.
I want to ask about the letter from Councillor Campbell Cameron, who is the chair of Argyll and Bute Council's education committee. I believe that since the production of your report, that letter has been circulated to members and that it attempts to respond to the criticisms that you describe in considerable detail in your report.
Have members seen a copy of that response? It arrived only today.
I had not seen it before the committee meeting.
Colleagues will correct me if, in summarising Councillor Cameron's response, I misrepresent him, but he seems to question Cathy Peattie's interpretation of the Accounts Commission report. He says that it is not the council's policy to assume a need to present occupancy targets and that the council agrees with the Accounts Commission's view that 60 per cent capacity is a realistic figure.
Councillor Campbell also challenges Cathy Peattie's conclusions about the use of incorrect material facts. Given the detail of his response and the fact that Cathy has not had the opportunity to consider the letter, it is probably not appropriate to ask her to respond, but Councillor Campbell is presenting alternative figures for school rolls and so on and is making a case that, over a given period of time, the council's position is defensible.
The most interesting point relates to the proportionate advantage. Perhaps that is the issue on which we could focus. Councillor Cameron says that while there is little evidence that the test of proportionate advantage has been applied—as Cathy Peattie said—his view is that there is no official guidance on what that test should be. Can you respond to that point? If he is right, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee might want to take a wider view on that. In other words, if the stated Government policy—that there should be a test of proportionate advantage—is not backed up by criteria, we might want to consider that point further.
The lack of guidance was a theme that ran through all the issues.
I met the Audit Commission after my visit to Argyll and Bute. It is clear that the guidance on capacity is Scotland-wide. The figures of 60 per cent or 80 per cent are not relevant to rural schools, so as far as I could see from the Audit Commission's documents, clear information is not being provided to schools. Bill Magee made the point in his letter to Neil Kay that 60 per cent or 80 per cent is a Scotland-wide aim, but the Audit Commission accepts that its information is out of date—it was produced when Strathclyde Regional Council and the other much bigger local authorities were still in existence. Therefore, perhaps the issues of capacity percentage should be reconsidered.
The guidance that is available for local authorities, including Argyll and Bute, is not as good as it might be. I suggested to the Audit Commission that it reconsider the information it sends out. In a rural area, 60 per cent capacity, or even 40 per cent capacity, is totally unrealistic. That guidance does not help local authorities, nor does it help local people. I have a copy of the slides that the council used and some back-up information from the Audit Commission, should members wish to view them.
People are clear that the information that they received from the council was negative. They were told, "This will happen; that will happen; this will happen." The council did not weigh up the issues and present the pros and cons. They did not say, "This is what we are faced with and this is how we will move forward." That approach was not taken, although it should have been.
I can see where different people were coming from. For example, I stress the fact that there are no guidelines on school closures or on measuring for local authorities. I also met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as members will see from my report. COSLA has agreed to bring local authorities together to produce a code of practice to help councils such as Argyll and Bute Council make decisions.
I have not read the letter from Argyll and Bute Council, but some of the information that it might have been able to use and that might have been helpful does not exist. I thought that I would be able to get the relevant papers and benchmarks off the shelf, so that I could examine what had happened, but that sort of information is not available. Such benchmarks must be developed not only for councils but for parents. Misinformation in such circumstances is not helpful.
I thank Cathy Peattie for her work in producing a good, strong and clear report, which will be welcomed by those who are waiting for it.
To me, the report brings out the sense that the consultation process was less an attempt to explore and discuss the potential for school closures and more an attempt to justify a decision that had been made already—that view was also evident from local representations—so only partial information was presented. Is that a fair summary of Cathy Peattie's report? Does she agree that the incorrect material facts and the slides that relate to the Accounts Commission suggest that there was a concerted attempt to justify the decision rather than to open up the process and to have a fair consultation?
It is important that the committee recognises that the report is not, and should not be, an attempt to tell the council what to do, as that is not the role of any parliamentary committee. However, it is fair to say that the petitioners have gone through exactly the right procedure: they submitted a petition that has been reviewed by two parliamentary committees. It seems from the report that they have been found to be absolutely correct. Therefore, when the committee decides what action to take, I urge members to bear in mind that the council, which we cannot instruct, should be left in no doubt as to the view of this cross-party committee on the process that it followed, or rather did not follow.
The council, quite rightly, told me that 28 days was allowed for consultation, but that the consultation process had taken up to six weeks, so it had allowed enough time. I challenge the fact that it made the decision in the spring, as that is not the best time to start any consultation. The process went downhill from there. I can talk only about what people told me, but the consultees felt that they had been given an ultimatum and that they were being told things about their schools, about budgets and about the audit process that were not necessarily the case. That does not help with finding a way forward.
When school rationalisation is being considered, it is important that everyone gets round the table. Parents, teachers and local elected members should have an opportunity to sit down and look at the issues and decide together how to deal with a school closure. That has not happened.
I cannot comment on Jamie Stone's report at this stage, but we need to look at the wider implications for rural areas and the benefits for rural schools. If schools have to close, there has to be a consultation mechanism to take on board what people are saying. I have always believed that consultation should start with a blank sheet of paper. You should listen to what people have to say then go back to them and say, "This is what we think you said. This is our situation. This is where we are with the information that we have gathered." You should then ask them what they think of what has been produced. Producing the kind of information that has been produced in this case and then consulting is not the best way forward.
Cathy Peattie's recommendations are a sensible way forward for the committee. We all take on board her point that it is not the role of this committee to tell the council how it should proceed on school closures. While it is clear from the report that the council has abided by the rules that are set down and that it has tried to follow the scarce guidance that is available, parents are completely dissatisfied. It has to take that on board. Cathy's recommendations on how we should proceed are clear. Does the committee feel likewise? Are there any other suggestions?
The recommendations are sensible, but there are two issues that we have to keep separate. The first point that Cathy Peattie's report—and, to a lesser extent, Jamie Stone's report—has thrown up is where we go from here on rural schools and the changes to the national procedures that are required. We should hold over that discussion until Jamie Stone is here and we can talk about it in the context of his report.
The second issue is specific to Argyll and Bute. While the committee has to be conscious of the limits of its role and authority and to be seen not to be attempting to railroad a council into a decision—or away from a decision—we have to be conscious of Duncan Hamilton's point that the petitioner has followed our procedures to the letter. We investigated the petition and certain aspects of it were shown to be well founded. We have to take this matter a stage further and make our views clear. We have to decide how we communicate our views to the council and on what terms.
The council will take decisions on this matter tomorrow, so we are not left with much time, but there is no doubt that we should send a message to the council that in our opinion—it is only an opinion—the flaws in the consultation procedure are such that going ahead would be seriously prejudicial to parents in Argyll and Bute. We should make it as clear as we can that that should be taken into account when the council reaches its decision tomorrow.
We may also want to make clear to the council that we sympathise with its predicament, in that the national guidance and the context in which the council is operating are not clear, and that we can understand why some of what has happened has happened—but we cannot escape the conclusion that moving ahead on the basis of a fundamentally flawed consultation would prejudice the parents of the children at those schools.
I agree. The report recognises, rightly, that it is not the role of this committee to tell Argyll and Bute Council which schools to keep open and which to close. In the letter of response that we were provided with at the meeting, there are what Cathy Peattie calls incorrect material facts at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2. I declare an interest because they relate to two school closures that I was involved with. Having said that, the important issue is how we communicate the conclusions of this report to the council. Cathy Peattie's recommendations in section 10 are sound. They should be taken in conjunction with anything that arises from what apparently is to be called the Stone report. Tomorrow—this is a key issue—two days before the end of term, decisions will be made on six schools. All committee members will agree that the petitioners who came to the Parliament have been proved correct on the substantial flaws in the consultation procedure.
Everybody has sympathy with Argyll and Bute Council because there are no guidelines and because of its financial difficulties. The council needs the special islands needs allowance and I am in favour of its getting it, but that does not invalidate the fact that tomorrow, decisions will be made about the future of six schools on the basis of what this committee believes to be a flawed consultation process. The council should be left in no doubt about the committee's view. The clerk must communicate with the council urgently so that a letter is available to the council tomorrow saying, "It is your decision, and we appreciate your difficulties, but our view as a committee, based on the rapporteur's report, is that there are real problems with this consultation process, and it may be that if you make a final decision you will be prejudicing individuals."
Mike Russell made a point that is worth stressing, and which is sympathetic to the council. While I do not think that moving forward on the basis of this consultation process would be justifiable, we have to recognise that the council has a budgetary problem. We should make it absolutely clear to the council that as part of any wider investigation into rural schools, the funding of rural schools will be a priority for us and we will not hesitate to make strong representations to the Executive about the difficult position that councils such as Argyll and Bute find themselves in as a result of the additional costs of keeping rural schools going, if we feel justified in doing so. In fairness to the council, it is important to ensure that it knows that we are not going to give it this report and then run away without supporting it with its other difficulties.
It is important that we do not prejudge where we are going with the Stone report, as Mike referred to it.
Whatever we decide to do on the Stone report, there are recommendations in Cathy Peattie's report that we will want to take forward. I have already suggested that we hold up the discussion until next week, but there is no doubt that we want to proceed.
That is fine. Before we formalise this I am anxious to hear other views.
I broadly agree with what Nicola Sturgeon and Mike Russell are saying—and with Cathy Peattie's conclusions. If I were in Argyll and Bute Council's shoes tomorrow I would be thinking, "What can we do?" The criticisms that Cathy has made apply to the process, so they apply to all the school closures, but I can imagine that there may be stronger cases for one school over another. I do not know whether the committee expects the council to defer decisions on all the schools or accepts that the council could accept the drift of the report but still feel that some action has to be taken.
I worry about a lot of things in this process. We have heard about a school that came under threat, won its battle, and then, two years later, came back under threat again. When a decision is made on a school, there ought to be a period during which it can be assumed it will not come under threat again.
That is why the consultation process is important. If people have been round the table considering the issues for the area and the community, and if there has been an 11th hour reprieve for a school, the threat should not come back the next spring.
Consultation is not the only thing to consider; the point made about funding is important. If any or all of the schools under discussion are reprieved—as I hope that they are—Argyll and Bute Council, come next April, will find itself with a budgetary problem that may be bigger than before because of decisions taken this year. We have to send strong supportive signals to the council indicating that we recognise the extent to which this is a financial problem.
Point 3.11 of Cathy's report indicates that there may be a "significant number" of further school closures—a phrase that came, I presume, directly from the director of education.
Cathy's report contains many positive things and I congratulate her on the work that has been done. I am a little worried that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee may appear to be guiding, directly or indirectly, Argyll and Bute Council on what its programme should be; I would be interested in Cathy's comments on that. As I read the report, the criticisms are of the system—or the process, as Ian called it—that applies nationally. They are not criticisms of Argyll and Bute Council specifically.
Members may have received a paper from parents at St Vigean's school in Arbroath. Those parents criticise the consultation process that has led to the proposed closure of the school by Angus Council; their comments are similar to those that Cathy has heard from parents and other interested parties in Argyll and Bute.
We should support Cathy's report and its recommendations and we should consider how to approach COSLA and the Executive about the structure and guidelines for consultation on rural schools. I am not sure that Argyll and Bute Council has acted substantially differently from other councils, such as Angus, which are or have been in the same position. We should do no more than adopt a position on the general conclusions in Cathy's report; in other words, we should not adopt a position on what Argyll and Bute Council, Campbell Cameron and that education committee have done and suggest that this situation has been handled worse by the council than similar situations have been handled by other councils. This committee should endorse Cathy's conclusions and maintain its focus on national policy. However, it would be inappropriate for us to be a sort of shadow education committee for Argyll and Bute Council.
My remit was to consider the consultation process and the petitioners' accusation that that process was flawed. I have done that and I believe that the process was indeed flawed. Lewis Macdonald is perfectly correct: I cannot comment on other councils because I have not studied them and I do not know how they have carried out consultation. The information that I received was from local people, parents and teachers in the Argyll and Bute area.
I have tried to consider a national solution so that people do not find themselves in similar positions in future. It is difficult. I have to be honest and say that I am with the parents and teachers in Argyll and Bute on this issue. I cannot tell Argyll and Bute what to do with its budget. However, people have to have a role in making decisions on schools closures. Decisions cannot be made for financial reasons alone. We cannot just cut up the cake and say that one part is for education and that is it.
I accept that point. In saying that the consultation process is flawed, are you saying that this consultation has failed to meet criteria that have already been set down, or are you saying that those criteria are not adequate?
In my opinion, consultation should be about gathering information and—in weighing up the issues in proposed school closures—about exploring the pros and cons. That has not happened. Information that schools and parents have received has not been accurate. People feel strongly that the procedure has not worked. I am not saying that the council does not have a procedure for consultation—it has procedures that go back to the old Strathclyde Regional Council days. People have also had six weeks instead of 28 days for consultation. However, I do not feel that the consultation was carried out in a way that allowed people to feel that they had been listened to.
I reiterate what I said earlier—we must avoid the temptation to be too timid with this. If the petitioners have been proven correct, and if the report states explicitly a range of things that amount to a damning indictment, it would be wrong not to bring that to the attention of the council in a robust way. I hope that the committee will do that.
Any letter that we write to the council should mention the special islands needs allowance. It would be wrong simply to berate the council and to put additional burdens on it without saying that that allowance should be paid. It would be useful if the committee were to say that it was willing to work in concert with Argyll and Bute Council to push that agenda forward. The situation in Argyll and Bute, which does not receive the allowance, is unique, as I am sure Cathy will agree. It would reassure the council to know that it could try to access the special islands needs allowance by working with this committee. That would be a way of avoiding this situation happening year on year.
We are in danger of creating a false distinction between this committee commenting on specific schools and this committee commenting on the process. It is impossible to say that the process is fatally flawed without automatically saying that the result of that process is not at least potentially fatally flawed. By concentrating simply on the future, there is a danger that we ignore the real threat, in the here and now, that is the result of a process that we have agreed is not adequate.
I suggest that we should formalise this discussion and focus on what seem to be areas of clear agreement. The only slight area of disagreement seems to be over what Lewis was saying about the way in which we should deal with the local authority. I am happy to endorse the view that we are not here as a shadow education authority. However, when individuals complain, when we take the time and trouble to appoint a rapporteur, and when Cathy does the work extremely well and comprehensively, we are entitled to draw the attention of the petitioners and of those petitioned against, so to speak, to the conclusions that we reach.
To formalise the discussion, we should first welcome the report, note its recommendations, and defer the consideration of the recommendations in section 10 to a future meeting, when we can discuss them with the Stone report. Secondly, we should note that tomorrow the council will make a decision on this issue. The clerk should write to the council urgently—tonight—to draw its attention to the fact that we have accepted this report. The letter should say that, although the committee recognises the council's difficulties, we accept the possibility of prejudice against the complainants and ask the council to consider that as part of its discussion tomorrow. That would not be an admonition of any sort, but merely a request to consider the point. Thirdly, it is important in our conversations with individuals—and I know that Councillor Cameron and the petitioner are here—that we make it clear that that possibility of prejudice is an important and material fact.
I would go along with that. The only thing that I would add is a more express invitation to the council to work with the committee to ensure that Argyll and Bute obtains special islands needs allowance, which is crucial and cannot be separated from the broader issue.
Duncan Hamilton mentioned that. I will bring Cathy Peattie back in to comment on that specific aspect.
I have commented on it in the report. Clearly, special islands needs allowance is an issue in Argyll and Bute, which does not meet the criteria, although other areas do. That seems a bit strange, especially if you look at the map, which shows the number of islands that the area covers. There is a case for the allowance.
Mike, are you happy to add that?
I am quite happy to do that.
Mike, your second point was about the need to recognise the inadequacies of the process. I preferred Duncan Hamilton's wording, which mentioned not only the inadequacies of the process, but the possibility that the result would be flawed.
I am entirely happy with that. I always defer to my former assistant.
My only concern with Mike's suggestion is the use of the word "prejudice" or "prejudicial". Could we have guidance on the legal result of our using that word in the covering advice to the council?
Can we quote directly from the report? That would get us out of any difficulty in using the word as our own. The letter should quote paragraph 9.3 of the recommendations, which states:
"Whether such inaccuracies and flaws are prejudicial depends upon the extent to which the Council is prepared to reconsider its proposals in the light of valid criticisms that have been made."
I am sure the clerks' excellent drafting skills could make something of that.
Are there any comments on that addition to the wording?
What was the suggestion about adding special island needs?
The suggestions was that we add that as a fourth item that may need consideration in future.
I am happy with that if Cathy Peattie is; I thought that I might be out of order to add it.
It is in her report.
That is fine. I am certainly in favour of Argyll and Bute getting the special islands needs allowance.
The issue is raised in the report.
All I am suggesting is that we acknowledge it as an issue that has a bearing on rural schools.
Are members happy with that? Are we clear about what we have agreed?
Perhaps you could summarise, convener.
We have agreed unanimous support for the report. We have agreed to recognise that the process was inadequate and that that may lead to the result that the council comes to being flawed. We have agreed to ask the local authority to recognise the report and the points raised in it and we have agreed to consider in future the possibility of additional support through the island and rural authorities.
We have also agreed to adopt section 10 of the report, but not to discuss it in detail until a future meeting. The second final point is extremely important in getting a clearly understood national policy.
That is the way forward. I am grateful.
We move to item 6, which is on the school infrastructure inquiry. We will take this item in private.
Meeting continued in private until 17:11.