School Closures
Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Education Committee, which is starting slightly later than usual. I ask members to ensure that mobile phones are switched off.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of issues arising from recent proposals for school closures. I asked that the issue be put on the agenda because it has been the subject of a number of petitions to the Public Petitions Committee and representations to members, not least to members who represent Midlothian and the Borders. Members have a background report from the Scottish Parliament information centre and some papers on the issue.
In the past, we have tended not to deal with local school closures on the basis that they are matters for the local authority. The present issue is whether the rural school closures in certain parts of the country raise national issues about the guidelines in which the Education Committee might want to take an interest.
Thank you for putting the item on the agenda, convener. The issue is a hot one in Midlothian, the Borders and other areas in Scotland. Because of the additional money that is now available for local authorities to build new schools, many local authorities are considering their school building provision and the condition of their school buildings. I worry that, without adequate guidance on the importance of rural schools, local authorities might consider closing them to develop their school estates.
I am disappointed that nothing has happened following the work of our predecessor committee. After that committee's meeting on 4 July 2000, the matter was referred to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which referred the matter to the Scottish Executive in October 2001. The Scottish Executive did not reply until 12 March 2003, when it said that it would consider the matter in the light of the school estate strategy. There has been a lot of passing the buck, but nothing has been done. Members will be aware of the strong policy on rural development and sustainable rural communities, but there is no lead across whatever from the rural development policy to the education policy.
It is shocking that Scotland's guidance on rural schools is much weaker than the guidance in England and Wales. The committee must consider the issue carefully. I would like to ensure that new guidance is issued, perhaps after consultation. The current guidance, which arose out of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, must be updated. The existing guidance is wholly inappropriate—it does not pass muster or meet the needs of rural schools. I am keen for the Education Committee to try to ensure that up-to-date and adequate guidance is introduced that will, rather belatedly, bring education policy into line with policy on sustainable rural development.
The current position is outlined in Brian Wilson's speech from 1998, a copy of which has been circulated to members. Brian Wilson stated that schools should not close only on financial grounds but that there should be "credible educational justification". There is also a rather contorted statement about "proportionate advantage", which is not clear.
Brian Wilson's statement contains advice, but my understanding is that there is no formal guidance other than the guidance that arose out of the 1980 and 1981 acts, which is wholly inadequate. We ought to determine at an early stage whether my understanding is correct.
I support Rhona Brankin's comments. The issue is of national importance. We have learned from our advisers that the number of countryside schools has decreased from 800 to 600 and that rural schools are most under threat near towns and cities. The trend of closures in Scotland is remarkably fast moving and much faster than the trend south of the border. Brian Wilson said:
"I am now inviting education authorities to apply a test of proportionate advantage".
However, that is nothing like as strong as the commitment that has been given south of the border, where there is a national presumption against school closures.
We need a national presumption against school closure because of the importance of sustainability and supporting fragile rural communities. I see no reason not to put in place such a presumption to support those communities. The difficulty with the doctrine of proportionate advantage is that it raises the question of whose advantage. If it is merely the local authority's advantage to save funds for other schools, that is not good enough. A national presumption against closure should be put in place.
The committee has two matters to consider. The previous committee asked way back in 2000 for COSLA and the Executive to examine the issue so why, four years later, are we still in the same position? The process by which that request has been ignored must be considered. I have my own views about why the issue was ignored, but the committee should examine that.
In October 2001, COSLA asked for a review of the legislation. My concern is that we are seeing legislation, such as the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill, whose necessity is far down the pecking order. Even three years ago, COSLA asked for legislation on the vital subject of rural school closures, as Rhona Brankin and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said.
There has been a sea change in the speed and volume of rural school closures. The agenda has also changed. Previously, school closures tended to relate to lack of numbers and educational concern about very small schools. Now—in Midlothian in particular—popular schools in areas whose population is increasing are being affected.
The telling remark is in the Executive's letter of March 2003, which says that the Executive wants to consider the matter in the light of the school estate strategy. It is clear that the Executive's agenda is financial—it has a large amount of money from public-private partnerships. The debate has changed from an educational debate into one about the management of finances and the school estate. As Rhona Brankin said, one problem is that school closures are not compatible with sustainability on rural issues or the education points that were made in Brian Wilson's speech.
The agenda has changed without guidance or legislation. Lothians MSPs are conscious that the issue is hot, but it is likely to affect other areas sooner rather than later. It is not small, rural, island schools that are being affected, but semi-rural schools or those that are near centres of population.
We need to find out why on earth nothing has happened in the past four years and the rationale for having a financial rather than an educational debate now. The committee could easily call for a timetable for introducing a new code of guidance or legislation. The issue is outstanding and we have a duty and a responsibility to pursue it.
My colleague Jeremy Purvis, among others, has bitten my ear about the subject. That links with events in Rhona Brankin's constituency.
I, too, am concerned that it has taken four years for nothing to happen. In the intervening period, Dumfries and Galloway Council undertook an extensive consultation on consultants' recommendations for its school estate, which were based on financial matters and not on anybody's local knowledge. As a result, it was difficult for councillors to take decisions, which were eventually based on political considerations, and few schools were closed. The council has ended up with more schools than it can cope with and no resolution of the problem.
I am not saying that a code of guidance would have solved everything for the council, but the fact that no official guidance existed made it difficult for the council to make rational educational decisions for the proposed mergers or closures, instead of decisions that were based on a consultants' report in which parents and communities had no confidence. It is disgraceful that four years have elapsed in which the people who are responsible for the guidance have done nothing.
I am delighted that we are talking about school closures and I am pleased that Rhona Brankin has raised the issue. I agree with everything that has been said. It is crucial to have guidance for local authorities. In the Borders and Midlothian, many rural schools were allowed to run down—particularly those in the Borders, which had budgetary problems that meant that many cuts had to be made in education a couple of years ago.
Schools are being closed because of the state of the buildings and because PPP money is available for building bigger schools and amalgamating schools on one campus. Those are not the right reasons to close schools. A school's closure should be for sound educational reasons. A school should not be closed because of financial considerations or because of the state of buildings that should have been maintained.
School closures are ripping the heart out of communities and, as Rhona Brankin said, that is not compatible with sustainable rural development. It is incumbent on us to ensure that something is done about the matter, because dozens of schools in the Borders and in Midlothian are affected and cases are cropping up elsewhere.
We are beginning to hear the same points being echoed—perhaps that is an indication of the importance of the issue.
Rhona Brankin's comments about the link with rural policy in general were not unimportant, but we are concentrating on the potential for a code of guidance. We need to ascertain what powers exist in that regard under the education legislation; that is probably adequate and perhaps we should not write or take further action at this point. However, perhaps we should invite the minister to the committee and express our views and concerns to him in reasonably strong terms—that might give things a bit of a kick in the pants. Is that an acceptable way forward?
We could ask the clerks to examine some of the research that has been done into rural schools. It has been argued that two-stream schools are better than one-stream schools, but I do not think that I have seen any evidence for that on educational grounds. It would be helpful to know whether there is evidence that justifies that argument.
There is information on that in the responses to some of the written questions that I lodged.
Rhona Brankin has made me aware of the situation in Midlothian, but I am conscious that, unfortunately, we are hearing anecdotal reports of what is happening. I would not mind receiving more information, for example on whether the rate of school closures is accelerating. What is the size of the schools that are closing and how many schools are involved? In the past, schools closed because their rolls were falling. I would like to know whether there has been a fundamental change to that approach and whether schools with increasing rolls are being closed purely for budgetary reasons.
The issue seems to emerge when estates provision is being considered. We heard about the situation in the Argyll and Bute Council area and now we are hearing about the Borders and Midlothian.
The Executive stated that it would consider the matter in the context of the school estate strategy, which is a clear indication that it regards the issue as part of its finance and building programme.
We should not shy away from the fact that local authorities have a duty to ensure that resources are well used. However, there is no confidence in the current system, because people cannot judge to what extent the criteria that are applied are educational, financial or related to falling school rolls.
That is right, but the education issue is important. I attended a school in north-east Scotland that had fewer than 50 pupils; it had two classes of different age groups. The perception then was that such an environment offered as good an education as it was possible to have, because of the small class sizes and everything that went with that.
Do we agree to invite the minister to an early meeting of the committee for an exchange of views on the issue?
Members indicated agreement.