Education Committee, 27 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Official Report 242KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Children's Services (Special Needs) (PE853)

Item 4 is consideration of the four petitions on which we took oral evidence from petitioners at our previous meeting. The covering report from the clerks includes suggested recommendations.

Petition PE853 is from Ken Venters on behalf of the Carronhill action team. My recommendation is that we keep the petition open at this stage because we are awaiting the—hopefully imminent—issue of the good practice guide on school estate management that is to be published by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Obviously, we will want to consider the petition in the light of the good practice guide and the minister's most recent comments on the matter.

I agree with the recommendation, but I am not sure that we can be completely certain that the good practice guide will cover the specific issues that arise with special needs schools. A particular concern is that children who attend such schools are drawn from wider-than-usual catchment areas. With mainstream schools, it is much easier to assess which parents in a catchment area will be affected by a proposal, so the consultation process can be quite specific. It might be helpful to seek reassurance from COSLA that the good practice guide will address the particular issues that face special needs schools.

I am happy to write to COSLA on that basis. If we need to write to COSLA on any of the other petitions, we can include all the issues in a single letter.

It will be helpful to raise that issue. However, if we are not satisfied that the published good practice guide will cover special needs schools, we should be able to make further recommendations. I hope that we are not tying ourselves down to the guide.

We are not tying ourselves down to anything. By keeping the petition open, we are saying that we are not satisfied that the matter has been dealt with. That is why the recommendation is that we should keep the petition open until we have seen the good practice guide.

The difficulty with discussing a petition on a particular school is that it touches on wider issues. Clearly, the evidence that we received was only about one school. I was not convinced that we had enough information about the extent of the problem and, indeed, whether a problem exists. Every piece of evidence and discussion that we have had in the past has suggested to me that there is not a problem.

When the petition returns to the committee, would it be possible to get some more information from the Scottish Parliament information centre or perhaps COSLA? When we ask COSLA to consider special schools, perhaps we should ask it whether it is aware of any developments, or is that outwith the remit of the petition, which focuses on one school?

It is not necessarily outwith the petition's remit but, at some point before the end of the current parliamentary session, the committee will wish to produce a legacy report for the next parliamentary session's committee. We could say in that paper that, relatively early on in the next session, the committee should undertake post-legislative scrutiny of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the effectiveness of the policy. Obviously, the position of special schools and special units in schools would be a key part of that, so that might be a better approach.

That is a helpful suggestion.

Are members content with the recommendation to keep the petition open, subject to seeking information from COSLA as to whether the issues that affect special schools are included in its good practice guide?

It may be that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education could provide more comprehensive information on that subject than COSLA because, I presume, it has been involved in advising ministers and has also been made aware of particular problems.

I am not sure whether that would be the case or not, to be honest.

Would it be worth asking HMIE whether it could give us any readily available information?

As we are waiting for the good practice guide, there is no harm in doing that.

I have no problem with asking anyone for information. I am just not sure whether HMIE would have anything useful to provide, but we can always ask.

---

Rural Schools (Closure) (PE872)

We move on to petition PE872 from Alexander Longmuir. PE872 is also on school closures but focuses on rural schools. I recommend that we keep the petition open pending COSLA's production of the good practice guide.

I take it that other members have received the helpful letter from Mr Longmuir, in which he raises a couple of issues. There is clearly concern that the date of issue for the good practice guide might slip, so we should push COSLA on when it will be produced. Some people are suspicious that there might be a stalling exercise. I do not think that that is the case, but it would do no harm to ask COSLA when it aims to produce the guide.

From his letter, Mr Longmuir is also concerned that COSLA has not consulted people such as him and groups that he represents. We are hearing only from Mr Longmuir and not from COSLA on that, but it is clear that the carrot of consultation has been held out to such people but has not been followed up. Could we draw that to COSLA's attention? The evidence that we heard from Mr Longmuir last week was helpful and informative, and it would do no harm for COSLA to listen to some of the evidence that he presented.

I am happy to add that to our letter to COSLA.

It might be a bit of a long letter. We should also ask COSLA whether it will address the 60 per cent capacity trigger. The minister's previous letter to the committee was a helpful development and we should ask COSLA for its views on that letter and how it will interpret the cost benefit analysis of the value of small rural schools, as opposed to the analysis that Audit Scotland might apply. It might also be helpful if we asked Audit Scotland and HMIE what changes they anticipate in their activities and in their advice to councils as a result of the minister's letter. We can do that as we await COSLA's guide.

There would be no harm in writing to Audit Scotland and HMIE to ask whether they have any comments on the minister's recent letter.

We should also ask what changes they anticipate making as a result of the letter.

Okay. Are members content with the recommendation that we keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Buses (Safety Measures) (PE892)

Petition PE892, which is from Ronnie Beaty, urges the Scottish Executive to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 with regard to minimum standards on public transport. All members were moved by the harrowing evidence that we heard from the petitioner about the tragic circumstances that led to the petition. However, we must be cautious, as the committee cannot intrude on what are, in essence, the local authorities' areas of responsibility. As has been pointed out to the petitioner a number of times, some of the points that are raised in the petition are not in the Scottish Parliament's remit.

We might want to include something in the committee's legacy paper to the effect that school transport guidance should continue to be reviewed annually. It might also be worth adding that to our letter to COSLA, which is initiating a study into the guidance that it issues on school transport. I understand that that study is due to be completed by the end of the year and published early next year, so it might be worth asking COSLA to advise us on the progress of that exercise. Beyond that, I am not sure that there is much else that we can do on the petition. My recommendation, therefore, is that we close the petition.

There is something not quite right with the public petitions process. Mr Beaty first presented his petition in October last year; clearly, it is on a subject that is extremely painful, difficult and personal for him. In a sense, I feel that the process that the petition has gone through has held out false hope to the petitioner that the Scottish Parliament could actually sort out the problems, when in fact he should have been advised that his proposals for legislative change ought to be taken to his MP and pursued in the Westminster Parliament, where he would have a greater chance of success. I feel uncomfortable with the fact that the Parliament's petitions process has held out that false hope to somebody, particularly in such tragic circumstances.

I agree with what the convener said, and with what Elaine Murray said. Given that the matters in question are, strictly speaking, the responsibility of the Department for Transport, it would be appropriate if the information that we have on the petition were to be forwarded to that department. That would place the matter entirely under its jurisdiction. It could be argued that we have a duty to inform the Department for Transport, because the petitioner might not have been entirely aware of who had responsibility for dealing with those matters.

Without making any specific recommendation or conclusion, it is only fair that, as a matter of courtesy, we should inform the Department for Transport of what is in the papers for the petition, leaving it to that department's discretion how best to deal with those serious matters. That department may already be dealing with those matters in a different way—I do not know—and it may be reviewing the subject. We are not privy to that information, and it would be sensible and wise to give the department that is responsible for the matter the chance to see the papers and to react as it sees fit.

I agree entirely that we should alert the Public Petitions Committee to our concerns about the process. I do not know whether we should close the petition, but we should certainly take responsibility for bringing the matter to the attention of the Department for Transport.

I feel uncomfortable with the fact that the Parliament has not done something about school transport in the past four years. We have reviewed the matter, but there seems to have been little progress or development. Twelve-year-olds now have to sit on booster seats in cars, but the school transport system still raises concerns. I was not at the previous meeting, but I read the Official Report and I found the petitioner's evidence very moving indeed. We have heard about other cases and concerns, and we keep returning to the issue. Our legislative burden means that the committee cannot give school transport a fair shout, but the issue keeps returning to us. Some matters have not been resolved satisfactorily—we can deal with some, but not with others. I feel strongly that school transport should be mentioned in the legacy paper.

Indeed. We will return to the legacy paper. Given that the Executive and COSLA will tender on the basis of the best practice guide for school transport, which is intended to come into effect in 2007-08, it might be appropriate for the new committee in the next session to pick up on that issue and to examine practice immediately or after the guidance has been in place for a year or two.

I presume that the Executive and COSLA will consult the Department for Transport. Perhaps we can say in our letter to that department that we hope that productive and constructive dialogue will take place on the matter between the department and the Executive.

I agree with Fiona Hyslop and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. It is frightening that our young people are vulnerable on school transport and that we have different practices. I share Fiona Hyslop's concern that although the legislation has been changed to require the use of booster seats and set height requirements when children use seat belts, we still allow children to travel on school buses often without signs or supervision. The petition is good, because it helps to start the process. It is a shame that we can do nothing about many of those matters. We need to get in touch with Westminster and to push the matter forward; we need to make efforts to go further.

Do we know when the COSLA report will be published?

I have suggested that we should check the timetable, but we understand that the guidance is intended to be in place so that local authorities can implement it from the 2007-08 school year. It will have to be issued by spring 2007 to be included in contracting.

We would have to recommend that the committee in the next session should scrutinise the guidance. We need to get out of the static situation with school transport. We are all expressing concerns.

I accept your points, but it is important that we bear it in mind that the petition does not relate to an incident on a bus; the situation was that a child who was coming off a bus was knocked over. The signs issue relates to whether drivers are made sufficiently aware of school buses. Such aspects do not fall within our competence.

I endorse my colleagues' comments. I emphasise what we can do rather than what we cannot do. The committee was engaged personally by the circumstances of the individual case, which were moving, but it is clear that school transport issues concern us. The continued growth in traffic is a concern for all parents. Safety on the way to school is a concern of the Executive, as is school transport.

Our response should be framed in terms of what we can do in the Scottish Parliament, through the Executive and through advice to COSLA and to Westminster, rather than what we cannot do. That does not stop us doing everything that we have agreed. We should write to our Westminster colleagues and forward to them the petition and our discussion of it. We should also write to let the minister know that the committee has a continuing concern about school transport, including all its safety aspects.

The Executive produces guidance. An issue that we could explore when the subject returns to the committee agenda is how that guidance is implemented and whether the Executive wishes to improve or strengthen its guidance. I agree that we should write to COSLA again, to emphasise that the subject concerns the committee, not least because of the particularly tragic circumstances to which the petition relates.

Are members content to seek clarification from the Executive and COSLA about the timetable for producing the best practice guide; to consider suggesting in our legacy paper that the committee in the next session should review that guidance and general school transport issues; and to forward various documents to the Department for Transport and to ask it to take account of them, because most of the matters are reserved to Westminster?

Finally, we will express concern to the Public Petitions Committee about the fact that a petition dealing with matters that are not within the powers of the Parliament has been allowed to run for quite so long. Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Will the petitioner be informed by the clerk?

Yes.

---

School Buildings Strategy (PE957)

Petition PE957, which is from Phyllis French, relates to the strategy "Building Our Future: Scotland's School Estate" and the siting of buildings on flood plains. Having considered the evidence that was given last week, I recommend that the committee should close the petition, as it relates primarily to planning issues rather than to matters that fall within the committee's remit. I am concerned that the petition, which relates to planning matters, was referred to us by the Communities Committee. The Public Petitions Committee is looking into the cross-referral of petitions from one committee to another; in this case, that should not have happened because it has led the petitioner to believe that the Education Committee can do something about a matter that is outwith its remit.

We have with us a guest, Alex Neil MSP, whom I welcome to the Education Committee. I understand that you wish to comment on the petition.

The petition was referred simultaneously to the Communities Committee, because it related largely to a planning matter.

The Communities Committee referred the petition to us.

I thought that the Public Petitions Committee had referred it to both committees; that was certainly my recommendation.

What happened with the Uddingston grammar school planning application revealed a contradiction in the application of the guidelines at local level between the needs of education policy and planning policy. I am sorry that I was unable to attend last week's meeting of the committee, but in the evidence that she gave at that meeting Phyllis French outlined articulately the problems that arose during consideration of the planning application. Because of those problems, the process will be subject to referral to the ombudsman. Due regard was not paid to "Building Our Future: Scotland's School Estate" at the design stage, the proposal stage or the planning stage.

There needs to be more joined-up government in this area. The aspirations in "Building Our Future: Scotland's School Estate" and planning guidelines need to be complementary as they affect the school estate. I accept that this is primarily a planning issue, but I suggest that it would be helpful if the committee were to draw the attention of both the Minister for Communities, in his role as planning minister, and the Minister for Education and Young People to the need to ensure that planning law and guidance and guidance on the implementation of "Building Our Future: Scotland's School Estate" are properly co-ordinated and complementary. The two departments need to talk to each other to ensure that their policy is consistent and that the local implementation of policy is followed through, with the assistance of COSLA. There is a need for joined-up government. That did not happen in the case of Uddingston grammar school, which has highlighted the existence of a gap and, sometimes, a contradiction between the school building requirements that the Education Department has set and what planning authorities regard as important. It would be extremely helpful if the committee were to highlight the issue.

Thank you for your comments. I understand your reasons for making them, but I still believe that this is not really a matter for the Education Committee. We can refer the relevant extract from the Official Report to ministers, who will then see your comments on the matter.

Ms French was very articulate, and it is clear that she is unhappy with the decisions that were taken locally. However, no evidence was presented that indicated that the strategy clashes with planning guidelines. I feel strongly that this petition, even more than the previous one, should not have been referred to the committee. I am sure that Ms French did a lot of work in preparing to give evidence to the committee, but we have no role whatever in the matter, which is about planning only. No evidence was presented to us that the matter had anything to do with the school estate at the strategic level. I am disappointed for Ms French that we have to address the matter in that way.

I agree.

My understanding from last week's evidence is that the issue is purely a planning matter, as Ken Macintosh said. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not object to the plans and the planning officials recommended acceptance of them, but that was not because education officials put pressure on the planning officials or anything of that nature. The issue is a planning one about how the local authority dealt with an application to build on a flood plain—the project did not need to be a school, it could have been housing or other buildings.

Like the convener and Ken Macintosh, I feel that, as with the previous petition, it was a waste of the petitioner's time for her to come here. We need to consider seriously the way in which the petitions system operates. We should not waste individuals' time and effort, or raise their hopes, when we cannot do anything about their petitions.

I am not sure that I agree entirely with Ken Macintosh and Elaine Murray, although I understand where they are coming from. One of the big pushes that would have come when the council determined its position on the proposals would relate to the state of the school estate. Elaine Murray shakes her head but, in my experience, that is a major argument that is put to local communities when such projects are suggested. In essence, councils say that, although there may be a downside for public amenity, the educational imperative overrides that. There is a relationship between planning and education policies. Alex Neil is right to identify that gaps can arise and that we need education and planning policies to operate in parallel rather than for them to clash with or override each other. The petitioner raised a case in which one policy appeared to override the other.

At last week's meeting, I raised my concerns about the role of statutory consultees, who often feel that they are under pressure to go with Executive policy in such cases, particularly with private finance initiative schemes. There is an educational aspect, so we should take a view on the petition.

I agree strongly that the matter is primarily a planning issue, rather than one for us. However, if we sent it back to the Communities Committee, we could make the point that it is not in the public interest for education to be disrupted severely, for example by flooding, and that that should be considered where such events are a likelihood.

I did not hear the petitioner last week but, to be fair to her, I do not think that we should be passing the parcel with the petition. I can think of a live example from my constituency in which the imperative to build a new school through a public-private partnership has led to questions about safety, because the nearest available space is on former mine workings.

The school estate strategy triggers such issues, although it does not necessarily resolve them because they are planning matters. If we think that a planning issue arises, we should ask the Communities Committee to take on the responsibility and to address the issue. The relationship between the policies needs to be clarified. Given the extensive new build that is happening at present, we should ask the Communities Committee, as part of its work, to ensure that, when planning authorities consider where new schools are to be built, issues of safety and security are given parity with the issue of the lack of available ground to build schools. Many proposed new schools are in towns where, because of the sheer size of such buildings, there is no obvious place for them to go. We should get the Communities Committee to take on its responsibilities and deal with the petition.

As the covering note indicates, the Communities Committee referred the petition to us for consideration of the education issues, saying that it would deal with the relevant planning issues in its consideration of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. My recommendation, on which I will ask the committee to vote in due course, is that as the petition does not raise any significant educational issues we should close our consideration of it. Indeed, I am not convinced that it should have been referred to us in the first place.

Our dilemma is that any issue that involves a school building must have an educational aspect. After all, the building is the child's learning environment and we should have some input into matters that raise questions about its safety.

Although I agree that the Communities Committee should look again at the petition, I feel that we, too, have a role in examining not only the specific issue that is raised in this petition, but the broader aspects of the school estate such as the environment in which schools are built and, for that matter, the kind of school buildings that are constructed. We need healthy schools and a healthy school environment. I realise that the issue might not necessarily be relevant to our discussion of the petition, but I certainly believe that the state of school buildings falls within the Education Committee's remit.

As a result, I think that we should follow the recommendation in paragraph 10 of the covering note to the petition. I agree that, in referring the petition back to the Communities Committee, we reinforce the importance of the planning elements. However, as paragraph 10 makes clear, we should also recommend that the Education Committee examine school estate renewal issues at some point in the future. As I have said, we have a role in that respect.

It is certainly part of our remit to hold ministers to account with regard to education provision and the school estate strategy. However, the petition under discussion does not raise any significant educational issues. My recommendation is that the committee take no further action on the petition and that we close our consideration of it. We will return to the question whether our legacy paper should highlight the school estate strategy as an issue that a future committee should examine.

Can the safety issue be dealt with in the legacy paper?

Frankly, the safety issue is a planning matter for the planning committee of the relevant local authority and for the Scottish Executive, which considers local authority planning applications. It is not up to the committee to consider individual planning applications or the situation in individual schools. If it so wishes, the committee can consider the wider issues that Rosemary Byrne has highlighted for inclusion in its legacy paper. That discussion will take place next February or March.

The question is, that petition PE957 be closed. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)

Abstentions

Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 0, Abstentions 3. The committee has therefore agreed to close the petition.

In addition, we should draw to the attention of the Public Petitions Committee our concern that the matter was referred to us by the Communities Committee.

Will you write to the minister with a copy of the Official Report of the meeting?

We will do so. In any case, I am sure that ministers read it with bated breath every weekend.