Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4734, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on stage 1 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.
I am delighted to report that, for once, we have considerable flexibility around the time for debate, so I do not need to be ruthless in holding members to their time allocations.
I express my gratitude to Karen Whitefield and the other members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their careful, thorough and constructive scrutiny of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill and for preparing the stage 1 report. I also thank the many groups and individuals who provided evidence to the committee, as well as those who contributed to the earlier Scottish Government consultation. Throughout the consultation and drafting processes, we have worked hard to build a consensus with all those who are interested in school closures, and I am encouraged by the breadth of support for the bill.
I am particularly encouraged by the fact that councils, which will be responsible for applying the new procedures, have been broadly supportive of the bill, as have the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. Many others have also supplied their support, including Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, the Scottish rural schools network, the Moray forum, the teaching unions, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament and Consumer Focus Scotland.
The Government came to power with a clear commitment to create a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools, in recognition of the specific challenges that Scotland's rural communities can face and of the role of many rural schools in providing the focal point for a whole community. A similar position was put forward by the Conservatives and was the subject of a member's bill proposal by Murdo Fraser.
In addition, we are committed to improving the process for all school consultations. The current regulations date back to 1981 and have been amended several times, reflecting a very different era. Today, the public expect a more robust, thorough, fair and open consultation process.
The cabinet secretary is dealing with her manifesto commitments in relation to rural schools. Can she confirm that there was also a clear manifesto commitment to the reduction of class sizes to 18 in primaries 1 to 3?
Yes, I acknowledge that commitment. I am delighted that we now have record lows in class sizes and record lows in pupil teacher ratios. Indeed, on my visits throughout the country, along with Keith Brown and Adam Ingram, I have seen and heard local authorities' commitment to make progress on that concordat commitment, as it is now.
To achieve a legislative presumption, the bill aims to make a decision to close a rural school one of last resort—that is, a decision that can be made only once full consideration has been given to the full facts, including alternatives to closure, the impact of closure on the community and the effect of increased travel on pupils and staff as well as on the environment.
Is the cabinet secretary willing to urge local authorities that are undertaking school closure exercises, such as the City of Edinburgh Council, to follow the proposed new arrangements that are set out in the first 12 sections of the bill? What would happen if HMIE were to suggest that no educational benefit would accrue from a proposed closure, as I believe is the case in Edinburgh?
As the member will understand, the consultation to which he referred is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council. He will note on page 19 of the bill and in schedule 3 the transitional arrangements for consultations that are in progress. Indeed, a number of local authorities have indicated that, as of now, they want to follow the best practice that is identified in the bill. Furthermore, bearing in mind the transitional arrangements and wanting to ensure that their decision making is carried out with due process, some local authorities are saying that they want to cover and embrace the new proposals in the bill.
The bill requires councils to explain in their proposal paper how they undertook their consideration of whether to propose a closure. It will therefore be set out clearly at the start of the consultation period.
In order to improve the consultation process that is required for all changes to schools, we decided to extend the bill to put in place a comprehensive consultation framework that will apply to all schools. By setting out the new requirements in legislation, we have underlined the importance to us as a Government of improving all consultations as well as providing clarity on how they should be carried out.
The main changes to the process are as follows: increasing the minimum statutory consultation period; extending the list of statutory consultees; introducing a transparent mechanism for dealing with allegations of inaccuracy in council proposal papers; setting out a formal role for HMIE in every consultation; and allowing additional time to enable a community to respond to a council's report before the final decision is taken. I recognise that there is good practice, but it is not universal. By way of the bill, we aim to build on existing good practice and create a robust, modern framework that will bring all consultations up to the standard of the best.
In the event that a consultation does not meet the best practice requirements that the cabinet secretary has outlined, will parents have recourse to somebody somewhere?
Indeed, yes. I refer the member to the bill. One proposal is for ministerial call-in: if a consultation process is not carried out properly, parents can refer the decision to ministerial call-in.
As I have just outlined to Margo MacDonald, in order to support such improvement the bill removes the automatic referral of certain council decisions to ministers—I refer to referrals that can be made on the rather arbitrary grounds of occupancy or distance. The responses to the Government consultation showed clear consensus on the need for change, but views were polarised on what should replace referrals. Further consultation with all those with an interest helped us to identify an acceptable way forward: replacing ministerial referrals with a new power for ministers to call in certain decisions.
The bill restricts call-in to closure decisions and only when there appear to be serious flaws in the consultation or decision-making processes. The intention is to enable local decisions to be made by those who are locally accountable and locally elected while providing a balanced and consistent check on the most contentious decisions, which are—as we all know—closures.
The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee deliberated carefully on the evidence that was submitted to it. I thank its members for their helpful and thoughtful stage 1 report. I am pleased that the committee expressed broad support for the aims of the bill and that it recognised the need for decision-making processes to be as widely understood and—importantly—as transparent as possible. That is a key aim of the bill.
Let me turn to the report's conclusions and recommendations. The committee supports our intention to introduce statutory guidance on the contents of the educational benefits statement and has recommended that the guidance is extended to cover the whole proposal paper. I recognise the value of that suggestion. In extending the guidance, we will address the committee recommendation to encourage councils to include other factors when relevant, such as the condition of a building. We will also consider how best to provide guidance to councils on how the cost implications of proposals should be illustrated in a proposal paper in a way that is both proportionate and easily understood.
The committee also suggests that we give further thought to the practical issue of maximising engagement with consultees, and it supports the suggestion that I made in my evidence that we engage with the children's commissioner on consultation with pupils. I am happy to give an undertaking that we will take that forward and reflect it in our guidance.
The committee asks the Government to note concerns in evidence about notification of the consultations, particularly the use of pupil post. I have noted those concerns and will consider how to address that point in guidance. Some wry smiles there—as a mother of three, I have some sympathy with that issue.
Finally, the committee asks the Government to consider extending the time that councils have to notify it of closure decisions. I am willing to do so.
I will respond in my closing remarks to the more contentious points raised in the report and in the course of the debate, but at this point I want to address the fundamental issue of rural schools. I note the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government should give further consideration to extending to all schools the three additional rural factors set out in the bill. There are two important aspects to that: what we propose for rural school closure consultations—and why—and what we propose for all school consultations.
It is important to recognise the different experiences of our rural communities. The closure of a rural school can mean that children have to travel many miles to an alternative school—in particularly remote rural areas, that can often mean travelling to another village. In turn, that can impact adversely on the viability of whole communities, as families with children are drawn to villages with schools.
As I said in my evidence to the committee, at the launch of the bill in Dalwhinnie I was struck by the fact that nearly all of the pupils' parents worked on local estates. The gamekeepers there told me that, without the school, those estates would struggle to recruit. I know that such a situation is replicated throughout many parts of rural Scotland—there are many fragile rural areas in Scotland where the continued existence of the village school is closely intertwined with the continued viability of the local economy.
The Government recognises the importance of preserving and promoting a rural way of life. If the bill's rural provisions were to be extended to all schools, that would be to disregard the fragility of many rural communities and the proportionately greater impact that rural school closures can have on job opportunities, the local economy and the community.
Does the minister accept that those of us who have some concerns about that in no way want to diminish the safeguards in the bill for rural schools? Extending those safeguards, for example to an urban school in an area of deprivation or a semi-rural school where a transport issue needs to be addressed, can be done without affecting the safeguards for rural schools.
It is important to recognise the strength of the improvements on consultation for all schools, including semi-rural schools with transport issues. The definition of rural schools follows the national classification as it currently stands. First, when transport is an issue, there is a case for HMIE to put that in its statement. Secondly, the local authority will need to address it in its proposal paper. There is even a third safeguard for all schools, which is that, if transport is an issue raised in the consultation, the council will have to respond in the consultation report. The fact that the safeguards that apply to rural schools are not extended to urban schools does not diminish the protection for urban schools.
We recognise that decisions on urban schools are just as keenly felt within communities, which is why the bill sets out a clear and robust framework for all school consultations—rural and urban. All statutory consultations on changes to schools will be subject to a rigorous, robust and transparent process set out in law.
The bill aims to ensure that all school consultations are open, transparent and fair; that all those with an interest have the opportunity to contribute to a meaningful consultation; and, most important, that we create a system that commands the trust of pupils, parents and staff.
The bill recognises the need to preserve and support the unique and special nature of rural Scotland by ensuring that no rural school closure can be proposed until full consideration of all possible alternatives, the resulting impact on the community, and the resulting impact of changes to travel has taken place.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in the stage 1 debate on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.
Before commenting on the stage 1 report, I thank those who helped the committee to scrutinise the bill so effectively. In particular, I thank those who gave written and oral evidence to the committee. We considered an impressive range of evidence, including more than 60 written submissions, and we took oral evidence on the bill in the course of five meetings.
I thank the bill team, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and my fellow committee members for their work on preparing our report. As always, the committee is grateful to the clerks for their hard work and commitment, and our thanks go to the Scottish Parliament information centre for its briefings and expertise. Finally, I thank the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Finance Committee for their reports on the bill.
From the outset, let me say that the committee is supportive of the general principles of the bill. Every child has the right to a high-quality education, and there are few things more important than ensuring that every child in every community can go to a good local school. In our consideration of the bill, the needs of children and their families should be at the heart of our policy, and services for children and their families should be at the heart of our communities.
Closing schools is never an easy decision for a local council, and the committee believes that the motivation of the bill is to enshrine best practice and to make the process as transparent and accessible as possible for all those who are affected by changes. The bill will not mean that no school will ever be closed in the future, but it is anticipated that it will ensure that the decision-making process will have been open, transparent and inclusive, guaranteeing that the decision is in the best interests of the children, staff and community affected. In that respect, the committee welcomes the bill, in particular the plans to ensure that the consultation process is made fairer, more open and more inclusive.
I especially welcome the plans to ensure that pupils as well as parents have a role to play in the process. I echo the evidence that was submitted by Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, which the minister highlighted in her speech. I note her commitment to ensure that young people will be part of the consultation process—after all, they will be affected by it.
As everyone here will be aware, article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child gives children the right to be heard and to have their views taken into account. The committee therefore welcomes the cabinet secretary's assurance that she will consult Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People on the best way to involve children and pupils in the process in a meaningful way and one that does not cause them undue distress or concern.
The committee accepts the view that rural schools require special provisions. Schools should be at the centre of community life—that can be as true for urban schools as it is for rural schools—but some rural schools might be the only facility in the community or in the whole area for some considerable distance. Many rural schools make an invaluable contribution to their local area, and every attempt should be made to preserve access to a local school for rural communities.
In a situation where closure is being considered by a local council, the bill will, we hope, ensure that closure is possible only when the case is a strong one, when it is in the interests of educational provision in the local area and when all local stakeholders have been consulted and involved in the process.
Following its consideration of the bill and of the oral and written evidence, the committee has three main areas in which, we believe, further thought and consideration would be helpful before the commencement of stage 2. The first issue concerns the role of HMIE. Section 8 will require HMIE to consider the educational aspects of every education authority proposal to close a school or to make other relevant changes to the school estate. In evidence, representatives of many local authorities felt that the proposal lacked clarity. Some of them expressed concern about whether HMIE has the required resources and about a perceived potential conflict of interest regarding HMIE's role as both a consultee and an adviser. For example, Clackmannanshire Council stated:
"we remain concerned about the prominence which HMIE is given in the process described in the Bill."
That view was echoed by the Educational Institute of Scotland, which said:
"As the HMIE is an ‘executive agency of the Scottish Ministers' this may lead to at least a perceived conflict of interest if the closure proposal were to be subject to a subsequent call in notice by the ‘Scottish Ministers.'"
The committee welcomes the involvement of HMIE in the consultation process, but we think that the Government must examine those concerns fully before stage 2.
The second of the committee's concerns relates to the three factors that local authorities must consider when making proposals that will affect rural schools—I know that the cabinet secretary is considering the matter fully. The bill will require education authorities to consider:
"(a) any viable alternative to the closure proposal,
(b) the likely effect on the local community in consequence of the proposal (if implemented),
(c) the likely effect caused by any different travelling arrangements that may be required in consequence of the proposal (if implemented)."
The committee accepts that rural schools require special consideration, but those three factors could apply to all schools. During one of the committee's evidence-taking meetings, the Association of Scottish Community Councils told us:
"the three criteria should not be used specifically for rural schools".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 13 May 2009; c 2365.]
The Educational Institute of Scotland expressed concern that local authorities that have rural and non-rural schools
"may be required to treat the closure of two schools within its area in two different ways."
There is no doubt that rural schools face specific challenges, but schools in urban areas often face specific challenges, too. Professor Kay told the committee:
"Many issues that pertain to rural areas impact on urban schools."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 6 May 2009; c 2319.]
Therefore, although the committee accepts that additional factors need to be considered when the closure of a rural school is proposed, we heard evidence that the three additional factors could apply to all schools. The committee asks that the Government keep the matter under active consideration.
I move on to consider the committee's third area of concern. The majority of respondents who provided evidence agreed with the view that the current system of automatic referral to the Scottish ministers is no longer appropriate, as the cabinet secretary said. The committee shares that view, but the new system must be clear and transparent, and the committee is concerned that the Government's proposed ministerial call-in process could create confusion. We are particularly concerned about the Government's definition of a "material consideration". Although the cabinet secretary discussed the matter with the committee during stage 1, further clarification before stage 2 would be helpful.
The vast majority of written and oral evidence that the committee received was supportive of the general principles of the bill. The committee asks that the Scottish Government continue to consider fully the recommendations in our report. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has proactively followed up on many recommendations, and I hope that that constructive working relationship will continue as we progress to stage 2. I am pleased to be able to recommend that the Parliament support the general principles of the bill.
We came back from the recess to the fall-out from the al-Megrahi debacle and the decision to postpone the introduction of the children's hearings bill, and to yesterday's unfortunate meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, at which members were provoked into the unprecedented action of moving to annul a Scottish statutory instrument, so I am almost relieved to have the opportunity to participate in what I think will be a relatively consensual debate.
Oh, no!
I was extending the hand of friendship, Mr Foulkes.
A number of issues with the bill remain, but I hope that with a little movement from the cabinet secretary we will be able to resolve them at stage 2. Like the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I note that the cabinet secretary mentioned a number of concessions that will meet the committee's concerns, for example about pupil post. I welcome the cabinet secretary's approach.
Other issues need to be considered. We need further clarification of what will constitute a "material consideration" that triggers ministerial call-in of a school closure proposal, further explanation of HMIE's role, and confirmation that we will not be introducing a two-tier system in which different criteria are applied to the closure of urban and rural schools. We need reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the Government will not cut funds to rural schools as part of the review of the local government distribution formula, and we need an indication of the Scottish Government's plans for Gaelic-medium education—the issue is not dealt with in the bill but was raised in the consultation process. That is a long list, but I hope that I sounded suitably consensual.
If I do not get through all those points in my opening remarks, it is because members can look forward with anticipation to the prospect of my summing up too for Labour—I am sorry, Presiding Officer: I have made the long afternoon seem even longer.
Proposing the closure of any school is always a difficult decision that is likely to provoke a strong reaction from the people who are affected. The Parliament has wrestled with those difficulties over several years. Some of us remember Cathy Peattie's work as reporter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee almost 10 years back, which resulted in COSLA producing a new code of practice on school closures. Peter Peacock, when Minister for Education and Young People, addressed the problem by producing stronger guidance on how to improve consultation. Most recently, Murdo Fraser proposed a member's bill that would have introduced a presumption against the closure of rural schools. The difficulties that colleagues have wrestled with over that period include resolving the tensions that can exist between local decision making and national accountability, and, for many of us, a desire not to introduce a false division between the needs of pupils in a rural setting and those in an urban one.
Colleagues from all parties are aware that, in rural communities, where small numbers are involved, pupil rolls can increase and decrease dramatically with the movement of only a few families in or out of an area or simply with the transfer of a few pupils from primary to secondary school. That, in turn, can cast an unwanted shadow over the sustainability of a local school. I hope that most of us are sympathetic to the fragility of such geographically isolated communities. It is right to give them the confidence that their schools will not suddenly be lost because of what could be temporary swings in fortune. However, it has emerged clearly from stage 1 that any criteria that are drawn up to protect rural schools can equally be applied to urban schools.
Those of us who represent constituencies in and around Scotland's cities will find it easy to identify with the three criteria that the bill outlines and to which education authorities would have to have special regard before they proceeded to propose a rural closure: whether there is any viable alternative, the likely effect on the community and the likely effect of different travel arrangements to an alternative school. The closure of a village school can be a devastating blow, but many witnesses who gave evidence to the committee highlighted the similar impact that closure can have on urban communities.
This is an important point. The committee convener stated that rural schools require special consideration. Does Ken Macintosh agree with that? If so, what should those special considerations be?
The committee convener made that point but then went on to say that the committee wants the Government to keep the three criteria under active consideration. That was the compromise position that the committee agreed.
The focus must be on the criteria that are needed to help to protect rural schools. The advantage of that is that those criteria will also help to protect urban schools, which means that we will not need to differentiate between them. At the moment, we are in danger of relying on special pleading, but we do not need to: the robust case that can be used to defend rural schools will apply equally to urban schools and be to the benefit of all. In its evidence, the EIS stated that it would be invidious to ask a council to apply two different sets of criteria to the potential closures of a rural and a non-rural school within its boundaries. As we go into stage 2, will the minister clarify whether it would be possible to have the same criteria rather than separate ones? That would protect all schools equally.
There was general agreement, among not only committee members but witnesses, that we must try to ensure that any consultation is comprehensive, accessible and fair. The bill stipulates that consultation must include an educational benefits statement; the committee further agreed that any closure proposal should also be accompanied by a cost benefit analysis.
That latter suggestion is slightly more controversial in that we heard conflicting interpretations of what it might entail. Saving money on an unsustainable school is clearly a factor—if not the crucial one—in many closure decisions, but witnesses to the committee gave widely differing views on what those savings might include.
On the one hand, we heard estimates that millions of pounds might be saved from greater utilisation of spare capacity in schools; on the other hand, we heard the assertion that the extra cost of spare capacity will be close to zero, so there is little money to be saved. To my mind, what is important is that there is openness about any figures on which a decision is based and that it is preferable that ministerial guidance is produced on preparing a cost benefit analysis.
On a related point, it also emerged in evidence from the Scottish rural schools network that the local government distribution formula currently provides additional funding for rural schools with fewer than 79 pupils. It also emerged that that source of supplementary support from rural schools may be under threat from an on-going Scottish Government review. I put a question on that to the minister at committee, but can she make the Government's position any clearer at this stage? As our witnesses argued, it would be ironic indeed for that funding to disappear as ministers supposedly moved to reduce the threat of closure.
One of the most important measures in the bill is the proposal to replace the existing automatic need to secure ministerial consent in certain cases with a broader ministerial power to call in closure decisions. There is certainly broad acceptance for reforming the current system—not only is there general unhappiness with an automatic referral that is based on distance from the school or on occupancy, but many regard it wrongly to be an appeal process. Having said that, there remains some anxiety over the new system, not only over the question whether ministers should be involved in decisions that are best taken locally but over the precise criteria to be applied in deciding whether or not a school closure proposal should be called in.
I believe that the minister recognised in her opening remarks that there is consensus about removing or repealing the old system, but perhaps there is not consensus about the new system. Certainly, several witnesses to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, most notably those representing local authorities, expressed their concern that the grounds—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
To clarify, there was not consensus on the consultation, but quite a polarised response. However, the compromise and new creative solution of ministerial call-in that we have come up with has had consensus approval.
I think that there is still some anxiety about whether ministers should have a call-in at all, but I recognise that that is an improvement on the current process.
As I understand it, the model that we are introducing is based on the planning system. The intention is that a proposal will be called in if a local authority fails to follow the correct process, but the bill also includes the catch-all provision whereby proposals will be called in when the local authority has not taken proper account of a "material consideration". There is no definition of what may constitute a material consideration. Our evidence suggested that the term may be open to interpretation. I am sure that the minister can appreciate the worry that local authorities may have that, despite their following the correct procedures, controversial local decisions could still be second-guessed by ministers. We heard only one example during evidence at stage 1 of what the term "material consideration" may mean. Many of us on the committee would welcome an attempt to clarify or define further that term in the bill.
I will raise a couple of smaller points later in the debate, if I have the opportunity. However, I look forward to hearing members' contributions on what we can jointly do to improve the consultation process on any proposed school closure. I believe that members from all sides wish to ensure that all views are heard and given due weight before irrevocable decisions are taken on a school's future.
I apologise on behalf of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who is absent from the debate because his wife Emma has just given birth to their second child, Lucy Elizabeth. I think that is a very good choice of name. As members will be aware, Murdo Fraser has a strong personal interest in the bill. It was good to hear the cabinet secretary paying tribute to him and giving him credit for taking some of the initiative on this front. I know that he is genuinely sorry to miss the first stage of the bill's parliamentary process.
The school is, perhaps more than any other institution, often the defining characteristic of a community. Quite apart from delivering the crucial element that is education, it binds together families and people of different age groups, and is usually the focus for a wide variety of community activities. In rural areas, that focus is even more pronounced and is, indeed, often the difference between there being and there not being a community. We are therefore very pleased by the Scottish Government's recognition in section 12 of the specific concern about closure of rural schools, not least because of the much wider implications for sustainability of their local areas and the fact that—as was put very strongly to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee by the Scottish rural schools network—in the case of several rural school closures, the combination of increased travel costs, increased overheads at the receiving school and the possible loss of revenue from grant can result in additional costs, rather than savings.
It is also good to see that the Scottish Government recognises the different categories of rurality. That recognition is vital to ensuring that schools are treated on their individual merits rather than as universal structures, which can sometimes ignore local circumstances. Those definitions will be important when we debate the principles of the bill as they relate to all schools.
The second principle—tightening the regulations that govern the consultation process—is also important. It is a matter of concern that there has not always been a consistent and equitable approach across our 32 local authorities.
The Conservatives will support the new power that will be introduced to allow ministers to call in any closure decision after it has been made, should they think that it does not comply with the new requirements of the bill, or if a local authority fails to take account of all the relevant information. Accurate information is essential in the process. We have seen too many situations in which inaccurate and misleading information has been presented as justification for a school closure. The legal requirement to challenge any inaccuracies is therefore crucial.
In general terms, we fully support the principles of the bill. However, in case the Scottish Government thinks that it is in for too easy a ride, I suggest that clarification is needed in some areas. First, the educational benefits statement, which is essential to any decision, needs to be balanced with a more holistic approach so that we can give confidence to communities that the economic and social aspects have been correctly identified and properly weighted in the equation. I think that we all agree on that, but the cabinet secretary knows that opinion was divided among those who provided evidence on who is competent to comment on each of those aspects. Unless an attempt is made to clarify fully which factors will be contained in the educational benefits statement, I foresee a little difficulty.
I still think that there is a little concern about the role of HMIE, which is a hugely important stakeholder. The bill team rightly identified that the educational benefits statement should necessarily include a wide range of factors, such as the after-school facilities that are on offer to children, the links with the local community, and the school's ethos. Indeed, HMIE's role is paramount—probably in the minds of most parents, too. I ask the Scottish Government to reflect again on whether HMIE's new role is possible, given the available existing resources. I understand from the cabinet secretary's full reply in committee on 3 June this year that the main difference between the role of HMIE as proposed in section 8 of the bill and the current situation is that it will be involved in every proposal from the beginning, even if the case is not called in by ministers. That could mean quite a lot of extra work for it, especially if the educational benefits statement continues to include more and more factors. Members would like an assurance that HMIE has the resources to cope with that change, both in respect of the number of available staff and relevant experience.
There is a question of whether the financial settlement's terms might be revised in the future—Ken Macintosh referred to that. Currently, local authorities receive a revenue grant for the percentage of pupils who are educated in rural schools with fewer than 70 pupils, which means that if those small schools close, the local authorities will lose that financial entitlement. Obviously, that will mean a loss of revenue. There has been some discussion about possible future changes to those financial arrangements, but that might be just rumour. It would therefore be helpful if the Scottish Government clarified its position. As Ken Macintosh said, it would be unforgivable if, at the very time when huge progress has been made on protecting our schools, the Scottish Government unwittingly created a financial incentive to close them down.
I reiterate the Scottish Conservatives' strong support for the bill. As I said in my opening remarks, my colleague Murdo Fraser has campaigned long and hard with many other people for such legislation. We believe passionately that it is needed. It is good that the Scottish Government has taken up the cause on the same basis.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the opportunity to speak about the bill.
The issue is important. As members may be aware, the City of Edinburgh Council is consulting on some school closures in the city, including the closure of Drumbrae primary school in my constituency, so I am under no illusion about the importance of the issue. About two weeks ago, there was a knock on the door of my constituency office in Drumbrae. A young girl came in carrying a handwritten letter, which read:
"Dear Mrs Smith,
Please don't close my school. I promise to save up all of my pocket money every week for the rest of my life and give it to the Council if it means they can pay to keep my school open."
That, more than anything, shows us the importance of schools to the pupils who not only get an education from them, but who form their first memories and first friendships in them. Schools are of fundamental importance to their pupils. I know that many colleagues will have faced possible closures in their constituencies. It is always a controversial and emotive situation, given the importance of schools to the fabric of our communities.
We know that councils across Scotland face difficulties because of tight education budgets and the need to ensure best value for every penny that they spend in education. Parental choice and changing demographics will always mean that some schools face underoccupation, which leads to higher costs per child in those schools. However, the evidence on savings is far from clear. Ken Macintosh mentioned the differences in the evidence that we took on cost benefit analyses. That is certainly an issue to which more attention must be paid.
It would be unrealistic to say that no school in Scotland should ever face closure, but we can say that no school should ever face closure without a detailed explanation being provided by the authority of the benefits of closure to the education of local children. No school should ever face closure without consideration being given to the impacts not only on the children who would be directly affected, but on those in the receiving schools in surrounding areas, on the local community, on others who use the school and on the wider authority area. No school should ever face closure without the views of its pupils, their parents and the parents of its prospective pupils being heard.
The SNP's original promise to enshrine in law a presumption against the closure of rural schools would potentially have taken decisions on schools out of the hands of the local councillors who were elected to make them. Parents need reassurances that proposed school closures are not foregone conclusions, that robust consultations will be carried out, and that councils really will listen and consider the impacts and alternatives—many of which are proposed by local people—before they make a final decision.
The Liberal Democrats' main concern about the bill, which I have already articulated in committee and which others have mentioned earlier in the debate, is the inclusion of special provisions for consultations on the closure of rural schools. The bill requires local authorities to have special regard to three factors: viable alternatives, the effect on the community of a closure and the impact of having to make travel arrangements to alternative schools. We fully appreciate the fragility of certain rural communities, and we do not disagree that rural communities are more strongly affected by the closure of a school that might serve many functions and make a significant contribution to the life of an area. However, we believe that community impact and travel considerations, in particular, could apply equally to non-rural schools. Ensuring that that was the case would not challenge the needs of rural communities. I have experience of proposals to close two of what I would describe—even if the description is not technically accurate—as semi-rural schools, on the edge of my constituency, where there are rural roads and which is on the edge of a large city. Transport issues were crucial in determining whether those schools should be closed. A case can be made for the appropriateness of such issues being taken into account. I have a concern that councils that are told that rural schools should be given special consideration might believe—wrongly, given what the cabinet secretary has said—that transport alternatives and community impacts can be ignored when closure proposals in non-rural areas are considered.
That is an important part of the debate. Even under the current system, the transport issues that are associated with school closures are subject to scrutiny. As minister, I have had to consider cases in which one of the transport issues has been to do with underpasses in large towns. With any school closure, such issues will always be considered as part of HMIE's educational benefits statement. The difference with rural communities is that we are talking about safety not over a distance of only 1 or 2 miles, but over large distances. That is where the environmental factor comes in, given that a rural school closure would result in pupils having to travel long distances.
I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but I think that there is a potential lack of clarity in the way in which those three criteria are set out, which makes it look as if the policy focuses mainly on rural schools. That takes into account what the cabinet secretary has just said. Concerns about the matter have been raised by the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Association of Scottish Community Councils, and the Scottish rural schools network acknowledged that school closures in urban areas could have community impacts.
The bill aims to ensure that the existing best practice and consultation that we know takes place across the country are standardised in local authorities throughout Scotland. I welcome that.
I also welcome the cabinet secretary's comments about transition arrangements. Within days of the announcement that the City of Edinburgh Council was considering a school closure, I contacted the council's education convener to urge her to ensure that the council's consultation was undertaken in line with the new legislation. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible approach, and I am pleased to say that I have received certain assurances in that regard. I will, of course, continue to pursue the issue. I am heartened to hear from the cabinet secretary that many councils are doing that in the run-up to the introduction of the legislation.
We support the bill because we believe that it will make for more robust consultations, with proposal papers to be sent to HMIE, public meetings, consultations that take place within term time, detailed reports of the responses to the consultations and opportunities for people to mount challenges in situations in which they have been given wrong information, which can sometimes be absolutely crucial in the making of these decisions. The inclusion of an educational benefits statement is particularly vital, as we regularly hear concerns that school closures are seen as cost-cutting exercises and are being implemented because of the value of the land that the schools occupy rather than because education is the absolutely key priority. It is important that the educational benefits statement gives clear reasons, based on educational concerns, for why a closure is being proposed. It is essential that decisions are taken on the basis of robust evidence. The bill's provisions that involve the ability to query and challenge situations in which wrong information has been given are welcome.
The Liberal Democrats proposed a greater role for HMIE in this process, and we welcome that element. Currently, HMIE is invited to comment only on proposals requiring ministerial consent, but I understand that that is not done on a statutory basis. I believe that a greatly enhanced role for HMIE in the consultation processes will help to reassure people that the educational impacts of the proposals are the key consideration. We welcome the fact that HMIE's comments will also be included in the final report on the consultation, which will be published, sent to all respondents to the consultation and put to the councillors who are to make the decision.
In passing, I note that many years can go by between inspections of a school by HMIE. In cases in which it has been many years since there has been an HMIE report on a school that faces closure, the provisions in this part of the bill will give people greater assurances than has been the case in the past.
We welcome the power of ministerial call-in in the legislation, which will replace the automatic referral system that is currently in place. As others have said, we need more information about what is meant by "material considerations", but I think that the safeguards are in place that will make that a valuable part of the legislation.
We will support the general principles of the bill today.
I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate as we consider the general principles of the bill. However, as I am a Glasgow MSP, members would expect me to focus on the elements that will directly affect my constituents.
Glasgow has just gone through a sweeping and brutal series of school closures—eleven primary schools and nine nursery schools were axed. I know at first hand how, when a local authority gets it badly wrong in relation to school closures, the pain is felt by the whole community, particularly the children and parents who are affected. Such open wounds will take a long time to heal in my city, and I suspect that many parents and their families will never forgive Glasgow City Council.
I believe that when a local authority is planning a fundamental alteration to the school estate, such as was planned in Glasgow, it is not good enough for proposals to appear as a bolt from the blue. Once a council has put forward a strategy for closing and merging a raft of schools, I suspect that that council's views become entrenched and that the ruling council group becomes defensive with regard to any criticism of such proposals. That might be the case irrespective of the council and the party that is in control.
In Glasgow, many parents read about the closure proposals in the newspapers before they got a letter from the council. That is not acceptable. The anger about that, and the feeling that secret schemes were being cooked up in back rooms for months, while everyone else was none the wiser, meant that the proposals did not go down well. That is no way to treat parents or children.
I welcome the strong steps in the bill to improve the consultation process. However, I suggest that when a local authority is considering rationalisation of its school estate in such a significant way, guidelines should provide for a pre-consultation exercise to be undertaken. I am open to suggestions on the nature of such an exercise and how it would be conducted, but it should be undertaken before any details emerge and views become entrenched.
Does Mr Doris believe, given the nature of his remarks, that rural and urban school closures should be treated identically, or does he think that different criteria should apply?
Given that the SNP's manifesto commitment—which I suspect members are only too keen to see us fulfil—specifically mentioned rural schools, it is only right that we also examine that particular issue.
From the Glasgow experience, it is clear that communities feel that they are taken for a ride and that councils are merely going through the motions. Communities can respect decisions with which they disagree, but only if they feel that they have themselves been respected. I ask the minister to consider whether, as part of the bill, the Government would be open to making provisions for pre-consultation guidelines.
Another aspect of the bill concerns the involvement of HMIE, which I strongly endorse. I note that HMIE will not be expected to attend consultation meetings, but it is important that it attend at least some. I am open minded about whether that means that it should attend meetings at a fixed amount of schools within any school closure programme, or whether it should have more of a roving role to evaluate the effectiveness of such meetings. It is clear from the Glasgow experience that such meetings were poorly run and organised, and did not allow parents a genuine opportunity to express their views or to feel that they had been listened to.
I will give an example. If a parent raises fears about possible territorialism issues that might arise if their child's school should close, they would expect to be listened to, as opposed to being told on the night that there are well-established criteria to eliminate such problems. That should also be the case for matters such as safe walking routes to school or child care facilities—parents were told not to worry about such matters, and their questions were answered, on the very same evening as the public consultation meeting. Parents were not looking for slick presentations at consultation meetings from council officials with pre-rehearsed answers to justify all aspects of closure; they simply wanted to feel that they were being listened to. In Glasgow, 96 per cent of 8,000 respondents to the consultation among parents and communities objected to closure plans because they felt that they had been completely ignored.
There is clearly a need for some form of quality control within that aspect of any consultation process. It has to be monitored somehow, which may be a role for HMIE. If there is no independent assessment of the quality of consultations, many parents will feel that local authorities are not listening to them or conducting the process openly and transparently. I urge that consideration be given to how we monitor the quality of such consultation meetings, and to whether HMIE could be the body to do that job, although I am open to suggestions on other bodies.
There is much to be welcomed in the bill; I specifically welcome the extension of the list of consultees and I am delighted that teaching staff may now be allowed to have their say during a consultation. In Glasgow, I have heard some stories about quiet words being had with staff to remind them that the council is their employer and that it would be best if they said nothing. The teaching union Educational Institute of Scotland was rather muted about the Glasgow proposals, and I know that individual teachers would have liked the protection and the right to speak their minds in public.
I welcome the educational benefits statement that will be part of the process for councils, although some guidance may be needed on it. It should be retitled as something along the lines of educational analysis statement, as to call it an educational benefits statement could be a self-fulfilling prophecy and lead to an automatic assumption that the altered provision will be of benefit, which is not necessarily the case.
Councils need to move to a culture in which they will alter or throw out their initial proposals because their consultation exercise has worked and they are responsible. A willingness to do so is a sign of strength in councils.
The member made an interesting argument about calling it an educational analysis statement as opposed to an educational benefits statement. That cuts to the heart of the issue: there must be a proactive and positive statement of educational benefit. If the statement was just an educational analysis, all that it would provide would be pros and cons. We want to make councils work harder to demonstrate what the benefits would be. My counterargument is that, if we rolled back to having simply an educational analysis statement, that would pull back the position of parents who were trying to protect their schools.
Mr Doris, you should keep an eye on the time.
Of course. I thank the cabinet secretary for her helpful clarification.
I conclude by saying that I am delighted with the core change to allow call-in by the Scottish Government, as opposed to referral. If the bill becomes law, when a council does not comply with the requirements that are imposed on it, and does not take account of material considerations that are relevant to the decision, ministerial call-in will be an option. That is the real strength of the bill. Previously, such matters were dealt with by referral. In the future every parent, teacher, pupil and politician who disagrees with a school closure will be able to go to the Scottish Government and ask it to call in and review the decision.
Having considered the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recognises it as a valuable bill that will improve the way in which school closure proposals, which always present challenges, are managed. It was encouraging to hear the broadly supportive evidence from stakeholders, which is reflected in the committee's stage 1 report. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning for showing willingness to respond to the concerns that arose.
Other members in this afternoon's debate have examples of school closures in their constituencies and regions, and have been engaged with the passions that such closures generate, but the committee has not raked over the coals of previous decisions. Instead, we have sought to ensure that we deliver a transparent and robust system that instils confidence in the process. If we have a process in which there are clear expectations on all the parties involved, we can ensure that the difficult process of proposing and conducting the closure of a school is carried out fairly. The committee is pleased to recognise that many local authorities have good practice in this respect, but the bill will enshrine that good practice in legislation.
As the convener outlined, the committee identified three areas of concern: the role of HMIE, the three additional factors that will apply to rural schools, and the need for clarity about the ministerial call-in process, particularly in relation to the definition of "material consideration". Additionally, members will have received representations from Consumer Focus Scotland, which has reservations about the time limits for consultation on school changes. That issue was raised during our evidence taking and different views were expressed on the appropriateness of the time limits. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will indicate the Government's views on that in her closing statement.
The closure of a school can be a polarising experience and the evidence that the committee received strayed into debates about the merits of small rural schools, and disagreements about the costs associated with closure, but the evidence from all witnesses was strongly in favour of case-by-case consideration. That approach was supported by people on all sides of the debate. The framework that the bill proposes should provide support for that approach.
The suggested requirement for an educational benefits statement as part of the proposal paper at the start of the consultation process was widely supported, although there was a desire from witnesses for consistency among local authorities. That generated some debate about how prescriptive the bill should be. The committee welcomed an indication from the cabinet secretary that statutory guidance is being positively considered and it welcomed the listening approach that the Government has taken to the issue. The committee also proposed that consideration be given to extending any guidance to cover the entire proposal paper: I welcome the cabinet secretary's earlier comments on that.
There is also merit in encouraging local authorities to include as part of the proposal paper a cost benefit analysis that looks at factors such as the condition of the buildings and additional transport costs. Again, I welcome the cabinet secretary's earlier comments on that. When witnesses highlighted past examples of decision making in school closure cases, it became clear that trying to establish fair, transparent and hopefully agreed costs could be fraught, and that it would be good practice for a council to commit to a cost benefit analysis.
We would welcome more clarity from the cabinet secretary on the basis for a call-in. For example, at stage 1, I asked witnesses about how inaccuracies would be corrected. Some argued that placing a duty on the local authority to investigate inaccuracies would make the system more robust and self-policing. However, if any disagreements arise and if parents and communities challenge information in the proposal paper, the local authority will remain the adjudicator with regard to information. Any remaining dispute over information will be recorded and the local authority will be required to make public its reasons for any decision that it makes on allegations of inaccuracy. In many cases, the inaccuracy will be a typographical error or a fact, such as the journey time to school, that can be easily established.
That said, certain information, such as projected demographic changes and roll projections, in which it is more difficult to distinguish between opinion and fact, might remain disputed. This is a challenging area for parents and communities, who need the support and skills to access evidence and to be confident in presenting their case.
Indeed, in evidence, the Scottish Rural Schools Network stated:
"In one case … a financial justification was given for the closure of a school, but in the spreadsheet analysis the totals at the bottom were all wrong. It took us the best part of a year to get the council to admit that it had totalled up the columns incorrectly."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 13 May 2009; c 2349.]
Of course, the timescales in the bill are nowhere near a year, and I hope that the measures will effectively address communities' ability to challenge information and local authorities' ability to deal with such disputes.
Claire Baker has highlighted a very important element of improving the system. Under the proposed process, any questioning of information will have to be addressed in the council's consultation report, which means that people will not have to wait a year to get final agreement. I know the particular case that she referred to; in fact, it informed the best practice that we are putting into legislation, and the council concerned realised that it should have paid more attention to the matter at an earlier stage. Perhaps that might have happened under the proposed extended dispute resolution processes.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her intervention. I am just about to mention the other safeguards in the legislation.
When asked whether the corrections procedure in the bill was enough, the SRSN said:
"If there were not a referral or a call-in process to provide the option of subsequent challenge, it certainly would not be enough."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 13 May 2009; c 2351.]
There is therefore a recognition that, after the initial challenge, the option of a referral or call-in exists. However, it is for that very reason that we need to be clear about how the call-in process will operate. Moreover, we need more clarity about what constitutes a "material consideration" to assist in cases in which information remains disputed.
Good progress has been made on the bill at stage 1, and I welcome the commitment that was made by the committee and the Government to look positively at the issues that need to be addressed at stage 2.
It has not been long since Scottish schools came back from their summer holidays, and now we, too, are back from our summer recess. No doubt many schoolchildren are writing up their reports and essays on what they did during their holidays. In Parliament, however, we have the opportunity to look at what we hope to achieve in the coming parliamentary year.
I am glad that among the various important topics that Parliament is discussing this week we have this chance to debate the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. We might disagree on some of the other business that is before us, but I hope that we can reach a consensus on the importance of consulting communities on decisions about the future of schools.
As far as the bill is concerned, a constructive spirit has certainly been evident in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, of which I am a member. I, too, thank the wide range of organisations and individuals who gave evidence to the committee as we began our deliberations. In particular, the Scottish rural schools network's submissions were very helpful, and I congratulate the group on its efforts over many years to bring a grass-roots perspective to the debate on the future of our rural schools.
The bill sets out procedures that urban and rural local authorities should follow in considering the possible closure of schools in their areas. Bob Doris has already told us about the devastating impact of the poorly handled consultation and brutal closure programme that has affected so many of his constituents in Glasgow. However, as a representative of the largely rural South of Scotland region, I want to highlight the impact that the bill will have on rural schools.
I should declare an interest, in that I am a product of a rural school system. My primary school, in Collace in Perthshire, was a very small school with a maximum roll of no more than 30 in the time that I was there. I am glad that the school is still there, playing an important role in the community. The community role of schools, both urban and rural, is often the most important role, but it is perhaps often the most overlooked aspect when a closure programme is implemented.
Rural schools are centres of education, and it is often very good education that produces well-rounded and high-achieving children. The schools prepare our young children for the future, while helping them to learn about and maintain respect for the environment and the communities of which they are part. The schools form part of the community, as meeting and function places and as social hubs for the areas that they serve. Therefore, when a rural community's school is threatened with closure, the concern is not just about the loss of an educational facility and the hassle and disruption of moving children to an alternative establishment; there is a real concern about the loss of a community hub, and the coffee mornings, after-school clubs, social events and meeting places that rural schools provide. Not just the teachers and pupils and their parents or guardians but the whole local population and the local economy are affected.
The issue is not a new one for the Parliament—we have discussed it many times—but the bill gives us the opportunity to do something to help protect schools and the communities that they serve. The bill will provide protection for schools by demanding that local authorities show the educational benefits of proposed changes and by ensuring that authorities go through a much more rigorous process than currently happens in some areas. That process will include the local community scrutinising the basis of decisions, which I hope will mean that if, at the end of the process, a school, sadly, has to close, the trauma and difficulties will be lessened as a result of the process of consultation and scrutiny.
One key aspect of the consultation proposals is the introduction of an adequate amount of time for consultation with the whole community, even those who do not have a child at the school. The consultation will have to take place over at least six weeks of term time, so it will not be possible to sneak it through during a holiday period, when people might be away or their attention might be elsewhere. That will help to mitigate the effect of whispers and rumours, which in themselves can be disruptive and unsettling for the community.
I have direct experience of that in the South of Scotland region. Last winter, word started spreading among schools in the upper ward area of Clydesdale that South Lanarkshire Council was considering closing or merging a number of small primary schools. I raised the issue in Parliament and held several special surgeries to listen to the concerns of parents, so that I could pass them on to the local authority. Because the council raised the issue only informally with some parent councils, many local people felt that they were not getting the full story about what the local authority had in mind. The council has now announced that it plans to undertake a full formal statutory consultation on options for Coulter and Lamington primary schools. As Malcolm Chisholm and others have said, I hope that, in doing so, the council will adhere to the best practice that is outlined in the bill, even if it is not yet law.
As the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee convener did, I welcome the proposal in the bill to ensure that children who would be affected by a closure are involved in the consultation process. I raised that issue in the committee. Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People is keen to raise awareness about the importance of consulting children in an age-appropriate manner. As the commissioner has pointed out, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child enshrines a child's right to be heard in all decisions that affect their life. The convention also includes a right to education and states that the child's best interests must be a primary consideration in decisions that affect them. I am glad that the cabinet secretary has given that evidence a sympathetic response in the bill.
We are at an early stage in the legislative process so, no doubt, further refinements will be made to the bill before it becomes law. However, given the debates that we have had and the evidence that we have heard in the committee, and given the broad welcome for the principles of the bill from across the chamber, I believe that we can reach a consensus decision at the end of the process. If we get the legislation right, in future, when children come back from their summer holidays, perhaps fewer of them will do so in a new or merged school, and more will be able to write about how their local school continues to benefit their education and the wider community that it serves.
I, too, am pleased to contribute to what I consider to be an important debate. I mean no disrespect to the important matter that we considered this morning, but the present issue will have a much more direct effect on all our constituents.
I say to the cabinet secretary that although she said in her introduction that the bill has widespread support—that applies to its general principles—as the debate has gone on, we have heard more and more reservations about some aspects of the bill, some of which I share.
It is crucial that the presumption against closure—albeit it is implicit in the bill—applies not only to rural schools, as others have said, but to urban schools. Whereas rural schools have problems of remoteness, some urban schools have problems of deprivation that need to be taken into account. Not enough consideration has been given to the problems of children from poor backgrounds when they go to school and the importance to them of good teaching and small class sizes.
As several others have said, the criteria against which ministers would call in closure proposals and decide to overrule councils need to be clarified. I hope that there will be clarification not only on the mechanism of consultation but on its substance.
As Bob Doris used the example of Glasgow, I illustrate my concerns with the current proposals to close four primary schools in Edinburgh. I hope that the cabinet secretary will note that, sadly, they are all in less advantaged areas: Burdiehouse, Fort, Royston and Drumbrae. I am sorry that Margaret Smith has left the chamber, because I wanted to hear more from her on what she thinks about a Liberal-SNP council proposing to close Drumbrae primary school. I have grave reservations about it, as have local pupils and teachers.
Recently, I attended a briefing with Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, the education convener of the SNP-Liberal Democrat City of Edinburgh Council. We pointed out to her that the SNP—and I think that the Liberals also supported this—made a manifesto promise to reduce class sizes to 18 for primaries 1 to 3. The cabinet secretary agreed with that earlier. The most recent statistics for Edinburgh show that there are only 480 pupils in primary 1 classes of 18 or fewer pupils; 2,804 primary 1 pupils are in the 18 to 25 category; and 398 pupils are in classes of more than 25. Edinburgh is way behind some other authorities, such as Midlothian and East Ayrshire, to take two random examples, in achieving the target for reducing class sizes in primary schools.
What is necessary to enable us to reduce class sizes? There are two key factors. One is the requirement for more classrooms—that is inevitable. If we have the same number of pupils but reduce class sizes, we need more rooms in which to educate them. We also need more teachers. That is why the Edinburgh proposals are particularly worrying. If City of Edinburgh Council goes ahead with the closure of those four schools, including Drumbrae—I am glad to see that Margaret Smith is now present—it will mean more pressure on the receiving schools round about. If we consider what has already been said by the parents of pupils at those schools, it will mean that classrooms that have been transformed into music, physical education and general purpose rooms will have to be used as classrooms. That will diminish the educational experience not just for those pupils who come in from the closed schools but for those who are already in the receiving schools.
There seems to have been no consideration of the impact of the curriculum for excellence. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that in her reply and explain how it will be taken into account.
I find it strange that Edinburgh has changed its arguments according to how the legislation appears to be changing. Originally, it said:
"smaller class sizes are a priority and can be achieved despite school closures".
I do not know how, but that is what the council said. Now it is saying:
"larger class sizes are more beneficial for children as they will receive ‘team teaching' and be entitled to more money per capita".
We have to look carefully at the double-dealing and double-talk that seem to be coming out of the Edinburgh consultation.
We have heard talk about best value and business cases. I must say that I am very sceptical about business cases in relation to schools. Kids are individual human beings who need to be nurtured, so to talk about a business case for a school closure seems very strange indeed.
Marilyne MacLaren said that she had the support of the EIS for some of her proposals, but that is not what the EIS told me. The EIS put to me the powerful argument that when a closure is announced, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Margaret Smith will know that that is happening in relation to Drumbrae primary—parents are saying that if the school is going to close, they will not put their kids there; they will get them into the schools round about straight away. The insidiousness of such proposed closures has to be taken into account.
Is it not appalling and, indeed, criminal that we are closing schools and making class sizes larger when we have so many unemployed teachers? We have 550 trained secondary and primary teachers who are unemployed. Then there are the teachers who have just done their probationary year and who are excited and looking forward to teaching—there are no jobs for them. When we spoke to Marilyne MacLaren, of the nearly 100 probationer teachers in Edinburgh, only 10 had been offered teaching jobs, even though they are desperate to teach and there are kids who are desperate to learn. That is the appalling situation in SNP-controlled Scotland at the moment. That is exactly what is happening in our schools.
What will the council in Edinburgh—and councils in other areas—do if the parents and teachers are against closure? Bob Doris made the very good point that the councillors whom he came up against seemed to be entrenched and defensive. That is what I found with Marilyne MacLaren. I think that the City of Edinburgh Council has made up its mind that all four primary schools are going to close. What will the council do if there is strong opposition and there are powerful arguments against the closures from parents and teachers? I hope that we can get a commitment that the council will abandon the proposals. What will the Government and the minister do if the council ignores those parents and teachers? I hope that that will be a basis for calling in the proposals.
My good friend and colleague the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee rightly said that closure should take place only if there is a positive educational argument for it. What is being pushed through in Edinburgh is not being done on the basis of improving education; it is to do with saving money. It is an inevitable consequence of the concordat and the council tax freeze. I can understand why there is widespread disquiet about the Edinburgh proposals. I hope that Margaret Smith and all the other MSPs who represent Edinburgh and the Lothians will strongly support me—
I hear what George Foulkes is saying. I am not here to speak on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council. We are in a consultation period and I have asked a series of questions to which I have still not received answers. In the same way that George Foulkes is calling on the council to listen, each and every one of us has to look at the facts that are presented. If an educational case can be made for the closure of a school, we have to be big enough—that includes George Foulkes—to say, on occasion, that perhaps the case has been made for closure. I am not saying that a case has or has not been made, but it works both ways.
Nobody has ever accused me of not being big enough one way or another, as Margaret Smith knows. If there was a strong educational argument for closure and if the teachers and parents accepted it, I would go along with it.
We had a meeting that lasted more than an hour. Malcolm Chisholm, Margo MacDonald and I listened very carefully to the proposals. If there was a strong educational argument for closure and the teachers and parents accepted it, we would support it. Equally, however, I hope that if there is strong opposition to the proposals, they will be abandoned by Margaret Smith's and Fiona Hyslop's colleagues who are in control at the City of Edinburgh Council.
Stage 1 has been an interesting journey, and I look forward to an in-depth examination of the bill at stage 2. I echo Fiona Hyslop and my colleagues in thanking the clerks, SPICe and all the witnesses who provided oral and written evidence to bring the report to a conclusion.
The cabinet secretary has laid out some of the background. The bill was a manifesto commitment of the SNP in 2007, and it is another promise that we are keeping. Murdo Fraser also edged his way into the issue with his member's bill proposal earlier in this session of Parliament. I congratulate him on the new addition to his family. I say to Murdo that, as always, I welcome his support for SNP policy.
I welcome the bill in great measure. It is a welcome development that will give parents and communities some say in how the schools in their area are organised. Like Karen Whitefield, I particularly welcome the involvement of children in the consultation. Many of the rights that are enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—in articles 12, 28 and 3, as we have heard—are met fully in the bill. The incorporation of the convention into as much of Scots procedure as possible is very important to me, and I am proud of the fact that those rights are in the bill.
I am sure that Sandy Longmuir will not allow any of us to rest until we have amended the law so that there is some degree of presumption against the closure of rural schools. The special place that rural schools occupy in their communities must be recognised. Aileen Campbell did that very well in her speech. Schools in urban areas contribute to their local communities, too, but in rural settings the contribution is more important simply because fewer facilities are available in those communities.
Consultation right across communities that are affected by changes to schooling in their areas is appropriate and right, and I congratulate the cabinet secretary on ensuring that such consultation will take place. She is being brave in putting ministerial action at the front and centre, requiring the minister to be aware of changes to school provision and to be responsible for calling in any closure decision that falls outwith the provisions of the bill. That is brave, but it is the right thing to do. Too often, in the past, ministers have washed their hands of any responsibility for school closures and have referred to the guidance for referral instead of taking any proactive role. I appreciate that much of the consultation process that is outlined in the bill formalises what is already best practice, but it is of benefit to have that practice formalised in legislation. That gives education authorities a measure against which to stand and it gives communities the option of calling a foul when they think that they see one.
Additionally, the educational benefits statements that are proposed in the bill will ensure that education authorities will have to publish their thinking on how the changes to the school estate will affect education. I am sure that education authorities already undertake such analysis in each case. Surely, no councillor would vote to rationalise the school estate without having that information to hand. Nevertheless, it is better all round if we have those details out in the open, so that everyone can see them and debate their merits—the teachers whose employment is affected, the children whose education is affected, the parents who are trying to do their best for their children and the communities whose future might be affected by the proposals.
The idea of producing cost benefit analyses, which some witnesses suggested, was interesting, and the committee urged the Government to press education authorities to include them in their proposal papers for school estate changes. However, having had time to consider the issue over the summer recess, I now question whether there would be any great advantage in producing such analyses, because they appear to be exercises in bureaucracy that would not inform the debate to any great extent. I believe that the educational benefits statement will contribute more to the process than will a cost-counting exercise.
I appreciate where the witnesses were coming from—particularly Professor Kay—but I suggest that a cost benefit analysis might be of more academic benefit than of help in forming opinions. I am sure that such a wealth of information would be of interest, but it would not be of practical value. I cannot see how the adding up of a balance sheet should be the deciding factor in considering the school estate. Access to education and education provision should be centred on the benefits that it brings to the child, not the investment that the education authority is required to make. Perhaps we should not seek to add a burden for so little benefit.
Likewise, I disagree gently with my committee colleagues on the additional measures for rural schools. Rural schools have special needs that non-rural schools do not have. On that subject, however, I am persuaded by some—although not all—of the evidence that was submitted by Western Isles Council, which pointed out that the presumption against beginning a consultation before considering the three additional factors could mean that pupils would have to stay in a school that was unsuited to their educational needs.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary can address those issues, and I look forward to her reassurances. In general, I endorse the view of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that the bill should proceed to stage 2.
On 11 October 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning wrote to the education conveners of all 32 local authorities to reissue guidance on school closures and to advise them of the Government's intention to legislate. Obviously, earlier this year, the Labour-run Glasgow City Council thought it best to get in quick and administer its brutal cuts before it found itself in the position of having to listen to and consider the views of those who would be most affected by its decisions. Rumours now abound that there may be more school closures to come in Glasgow. I hope that the same mistakes are not repeated and that communities are consulted genuinely and listened to.
Politicians make policy, as we are doing today, and we do so based on our various experiences. In my speech, I will address various parts of the bill and share the recent experience of my constituents in Glasgow. In doing so, I hope to highlight exactly why the bill is so important.
In the guidance to which I referred, Fiona Hyslop stated that the issues that are raised through consultation must be
"taken seriously, explored and also answered."
That is reflected in the bill that we are considering. The bill would have come in very handy in the recent consultation in Glasgow. Many of the parents' questions were never answered or, if they were, the reply was not serious or systematic. On a wide variety of parent and community concerns such as asbestos exposure, the safety of walking routes and the integration of children into rival schools, the council response was to give a one-size-fits-all, cut-and-paste answer.
The bill spells out the broad range of stakeholders who must be included in a consultation. I, too, welcome in particular the involvement of teachers and staff in our schools and nurseries. When the Glasgow campaign kicked off, I heard time and time again from head teachers and staff who were being pressurised by their bosses to remain silent. They were told that they were ambassadors for Glasgow City Council and that they could neither participate in campaigns to save their schools nor respond to the consultation. Indeed, they could not even discuss the matter with local MSPs. Not only is giving school staff the right to be consulted morally correct, it will make for better-informed decisions.
The bill provides for community stakeholders such as local community councils to be included in consultations. It also makes special mention of the importance of rural school buildings as community facilities. I appreciate the importance of rural school buildings, but the same case can be made for school buildings in urban areas, particularly in deprived areas where the school is often the hub of the community.
Will the member take an intervention?
This is my first intervention, Mr Foulkes. You will have to be gentle with me.
I am always gentle, particularly with Anne McLaughlin. We sit next to each other on the Audit Committee.
The member makes an eloquent case. Will she come through to Edinburgh to give a little lecture on just the point that she has made to the SNP members who are in joint control of the city? The paradox of the situation that she describes is that, whereas in Glasgow the school population is falling, in Edinburgh it is rising.
I extend an invitation to George Foulkes to come to Glasgow and speak to Steven Purcell and his colleagues. As George Foulkes is aware, I can speak in detail only of the situation in Glasgow. It is the situation that I know about.
I will give an example that shows the importance of school buildings to urban communities and why section 12 should be extended to include urban schools. In Govanhill, which is one of the most diverse, populated and deprived areas in Scotland, there is a beautiful Victorian building that until a couple of months ago housed Victoria primary school, but it is now threatened with demolition.
Govanhill is home to many vibrant community projects, including the Govanhill Youth Project, whose workers interact with young people on the street corners and in the parks where they congregate. Recently, when I walked the streets with project workers, they told me that, if the project is to bring together the diverse groups of young people in the area, it needs a facility of its own. Could not the Victoria primary school building be spared and its unused space loaned or leased to this worthy project? If the community has to lose a school, could it not at least retain the building?
The bill sets out clear guidelines for access to consultation proposal papers. For example, it states that education authorities must provide the information to anyone who
"may reasonably require that information in another form".
I suggest that the bill could be strengthened to ensure that councils must actively look for those who reasonably require the papers in another format. If someone does not know that there is a consultation going on, they will not request papers in any format. In several areas of Glasgow, parents who cannot speak or read English were effectively denied access to knowledge of the proposed closures because although the initial letter to parents offered translators at public meetings, as I have said previously in Parliament on a few occasions, those letters were only in English.
More than 100 languages are spoken in Glasgow schools—that should be taken into account when people are being informed of changes that will dramatically affect their lives. I appreciate that letters cannot be sent out to all parents in more than 100 languages, but in Glasgow we have a pretty good idea of where there are groups of people for whom English is their second language. Would it really have been that difficult to include bilingual letters in communities such as Govanhill and Pollokshields, where there are concentrations of Slovak, Urdu and Punjabi speakers? It is not that difficult—I have done it myself.
The bill calls for inaccuracies in consultation documents to be promptly corrected and for corrections to be broadly communicated. In Glasgow, occupancy rates, enrolment figures, catchment areas, travel routes and other basic facts and figures were repeatedly bungled in consultation documents. However, the burden was put on parents, many of whom had no campaigning experience, to fight with the council to get the errors corrected. Even when the errors were acknowledged and apologised for, corrected documents were not sent out to parents. The overall result was distrust in the consultation process, the schools and the council—distrust that could take years to repair. For many, that distrust will be aimed not only at Glasgow City Council but at the political process as a whole and politicians in general. No member wants that, which is why we must enthusiastically support the bill.
One of the parents to whom I referred earlier is Lynn Scott, who campaigned tirelessly to save Barmulloch primary. Lynn told me that she felt that the parents' concerns were ignored. They were certainly not considered, and they were barely acknowledged. However, she and her fellow campaigners have now been not just acknowledged but given the recognition that they deserve. Lynn has just learned that she is a finalist for the prestigious Sheila McKechnie Foundation consumer action award for 2009, which receives entries from the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. The award will be judged by the likes of Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent for The Guardian, and is sponsored by the well-respected consumer rights organisation, Which?
I am sure that many members will join me in wishing Lynn Scott well at the awards ceremony next month. However, the one big thing that we can all do to help Lynn and parents like her, and their children and communities, is to move the bill forward and strengthen it in ways that will empower campaigners to stand up for their right to an effective consultation.
I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I would like to make a point that I hope the minister will be able to address at the end. My point is a bit long to make as an intervention.
As expressed today by members, the bill's aims are laudable and I am sure that most members will support it. I am interested in the detail on consultation, and in particular on transport. An example from my constituency will set that in context.
In Coatbridge, two high schools were closed. There were good reasons for that, including problems with the fabric of the schools, the fact that new schools were to be built, and falling school rolls. However, among the concerns of parents was that a denominational school was being closed and replaced by the non-denominational Coatbridge high school. Children from that area whose parents wanted them to go to a denominational school had to travel about 2 miles to do so—previously that had not been the case. Conversely, a non-denominational school was closed and replaced by a denominational one.
Unfortunately, the local authority's transport policy—although more generous than the national policy—stayed the same, so the children were unable to get transport to, for example, the new denominational school. The route to the school, which involved crossing a busy road, was quite unsafe. That caused some concern and took away part of the glow of the new buildings. More than that, it made some parents feel that they now had to send their children to a non-denominational school when they would have preferred them to have denominational education—the Catholic education that was on offer before. The same was true the other way round: some parents were sending their children to the nearest, Catholic school rather than having them travel across the town.
I wrote to the local council about the matter, asking whether, instead of lines simply being drawn on maps, needs could not be taken more into account in urban settings. I refer here to some of the issues that my colleague George Foulkes raised. Could such issues be considered at stage 2—if they are not already included under the bill—or are they outwith the terms of the bill? If parents agree to a school closure for a good reason but have deep concerns about matters such as travel, perhaps that could come under a consultation, or even a call-in.
I would be happy to respond to any correspondence from the member regarding the case that she is talking about, although it is clearly an issue for the local council. I am not sure whether she is aware that I used the example of transport earlier in the debate. According to the proposed measures in the bill, if there are concerns about transportation for urban schools, they can be addressed in three separate steps. One involves HMIE and the question of educational benefit. Clearly, that aspect must be demonstrated in the inspectorate's report. There is also the role of the council in the proposal paper to consider. Furthermore, the council must directly respond, in the consultation report that it will have to produce under the bill, to the concerns of parents about transportation. I can give the member some reassurance that the proposals in the bill would address such issues directly for urban schools.
I thank the cabinet secretary for intervening with that point, which gives me some reassurance. I will put some of the details to her in writing for further consideration.
Thank you for letting me participate in the debate, Presiding Officer. I am sure that the bill will become a good piece of legislation, and I look forward to seeing it after stage 2.
This has been a useful and well-informed debate. I have learned quite a lot from the speeches that have been made so far, particularly those by members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Of all the possible areas of discussion around education in the public domain, the issue of school closures probably exercises parents, communities and pupils the most. We need look no further than the recent controversies that have been referred to by previous speakers to realise how emotive a subject it almost always is.
Schools play a big part in our communities. It has been said before, but it is worth reiterating. Schools are part of our communities, both rural and urban. Often, they are the hub for much wider social activity and interaction than simply—I question whether "simply" is the right word—teaching our young people in the course of a normal school day. Schools often host Cinderella services such as community adult education and other community services such as the scouts, the cubs, the brownies, the Boys Brigade, support groups and so on. It is only right that the closing or potential closing of such vital local amenities should be a matter for local public consultation and debate.
I am glad to see that we have had contributions from Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to consultation with pupils. Here in the chamber and in the wider public debate, we are great at talking about children and young people, but we are not necessarily quite so good at talking to them. The commissioner's input was very welcome.
Local authorities, rural or urban, should take the decisions, rather than having us take them centrally. They should decide what is practical, appropriate and of most benefit to pupils and communities. Furthermore, such decisions should be taken after real, meaningful consultation with local communities. Part of the problem is the scepticism—I hesitate to use the word "cynicism"—about our process of public consultation.
From my experience of participating in and being an observer of public consultations, on a raft of issues from hospital closures to school closures, I can say that the hallmark of a consultation is often that the institution pays lip service to the process. Often, full-time officials, who work for public bodies and have access to huge amounts of time and resource, argue the case against part-time campaigners from community groups who are badly informed, however effective they might be. Anything in the bill that can create a more level playing field in the process will be welcome.
Will the member give way?
I certainly will, but I am worried.
Does the member agree that access to information is crucial for people who are fighting a school closure proposal? As he said, on one hand the council has access to information, whereas on the other hand people in the community have only the information that is in the proposal document.
That is a relief. One is always cautious about allowing a member of one's own party to intervene.
In all seriousness, Margaret Smith made a valid point. All too often, the information that institutions provide is constructed in a way that reinforces the institutions' arguments. That is not unnatural, but it places the people who oppose proposals at a distinct disadvantage.
On a related point, parents very often quite rightly approach the school's headmaster for information, which places the headmaster in an invidious position. The person is an employee of the local authority and must consider where their loyalties lie. They might have opinions that they cannot express and indeed are prevented from expressing timeously to the people who are campaigning to keep the school open. We need to find a mechanism—I do not know whether that could be the guidance, which will be tightened up—to ensure that people do not feel that they are mere observers in a consultation process that pays lip service to them.
The bill applies to all schools but makes special provision on rural school closure proposals. My impression is that bits were added as an afterthought, to ensure that the bill was not simply about rural schools. In the consultation document I see no text or graphs that refer to urban schools, although phrases such as "educational benefit", "rural communities" and "fairness" appear at the bottom of each page. If the criteria are correctly structured and applied across the board, a decision should be fair, regardless of whether a school is in an urban or a rural area.
Of course, the bill has its origins in the SNP's proposal for a presumption against the closure of rural schools. To some extent, that promise, like many others, has been abandoned, and much of the bill is about trying to draw back from a policy that was undeliverable. The approach in the bill might be a little more palatable, but it does not get the SNP off the hook; the SNP has failed to deliver on its promise on rural schools. There was a commitment on the issue in my party's manifesto, and we are pleased that the Government has listened to our calls and moved away from enshrining in legislation a presumption against closure, in a prime example of a Government climbing down from an unrealistic, populist election pledge.
As the bill progresses, we need the Government to give it teeth to show concerned parents and communities that the process can be trusted, that their opinions are valued and that closure in any circumstance is not a foregone conclusion.
I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to take part in the debate in place of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who—I am sure—will just now be happily getting to know his new little daughter and bonding with her. As he lives in a rural area, I hope that the Parliament will acknowledge his personal efforts to ensure the viability of rural schools by putting his principles appropriately into practice.
The bill is important and timely. I welcome the SNP Government's acknowledgement that our manifesto commitment to rural schools, which was initiated by Murdo Fraser, merited inclusion in its Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.
Proposals for school closure always evoke strong feelings within communities, be they urban or rural. In recent years, we have seen many campaigns in cities such as Aberdeen and Glasgow, as well as rural areas such as Aberdeenshire and Moray, where changes have been proposed to the schools estate. Of course, increasingly cash-strapped councils have to rationalise their estate and it is clear that, if the families of a once-young community have dispersed to the periphery of a city, not all city centre schools might be educationally or financially viable. There may also be circumstances in which a rural school must be closed if the interests of pupils or a community merit it. However, before that happens, there must be genuine, open and honest consultation with the people concerned so that decisions are reached reasonably, rationally and—one hopes—with community co-operation. That is why the proposed legislation is important.
I can understand the argument, which the EIS and others have advanced, that the same criteria should apply to all urban and rural schools. The ramifications of that argument are worthy of further consideration as the committee recommends but, as it stands, I very much agree with the bill's proposals that special consideration should be given to changes that would affect rural schools because such establishments are often the hub of their communities. They are often in areas that no longer have churches, post offices or local shops and, without them, no community activities could take place. In such areas, the closure of the school is tantamount to killing off the community. It is right to regard the closure of a rural school as a measure of last resort, as the cabinet secretary stated in her opening speech.
As an aside, I point out gently to George Foulkes and others who seem to forget that deprivation is not confined to urban areas. There are significant pockets of rural Scotland in which communities are just as needy.
I first became involved with a campaign to save a group of rural schools in central Aberdeenshire when I was a parliamentary candidate before 2003. The director of education at the time genuinely believed that pupils would receive a better education in a large modern school than they were getting in three smaller, old-fashioned, community-based buildings. His proposals incensed local parents and pupils, and a tremendous battle ensued to save the schools on the basis that they were excellent, popular establishments; that they were the hubs of their communities; and that travelling on narrow, rural roads to a new school building would not be in the best interests of pupil safety or wellbeing, particularly in the winter. The battle was won and the schools stayed open, although it was recognised that one of the buildings was really not fit for purpose.
Only two years later, to the dismay of the communities, another proposal was made to close not three but four of the schools in the area and replace them with a large new building. The reasons for proposed closure were advanced and discussed at a very lively and extremely well-attended public meeting. One of the schools was deemed unfit because it had no disabled access. Imagine the expression on the council officials' faces when they were informed that the school currently had a pupil in a wheelchair and that, only recently, appropriate facilities and access arrangements had been put in place to accommodate that pupil. The meeting collapsed. The closure proposal was later withdrawn and a promise made to build a new school to replace the one that needed upgrading. I am not at all sure that that satisfactory result would have been achieved without extremely vigilant and highly committed parents who were willing to leave no stone unturned in their efforts to save their schools and who researched the consultation proposals thoroughly before the public meeting.
I have since visited one of the schools as part of the Parliament's education outreach programme and met a happy, confident, very well-informed group of young people. They were welcoming and clearly supportive of one another. They have a dining room, where they receive excellent, healthy meals, and a garden that was made and is maintained by the pupils. They interact with all ages in the community at their regular coffee mornings and social events. When the time comes to move on to secondary school, they find the transition easy and straightforward, by and large. Such an education fully justifies the retention of small rural schools, many of which have the same ethos as the one that I have described.
I am delighted that those schools in Aberdeenshire were saved from closure, at least for the foreseeable future. However, the closure proposals contained significantly inaccurate and outdated information. I have no doubt that members will be aware of similar examples in other parts of the country. I note the concerns about the involvement of HMIE in the consultation process, particularly about the resources needed to comply with the bill's proposals, but I hope that what is proposed in the bill will help to prevent the sort of problem that I have described from happening in the future; it could save many parents and pupils who are faced with the prospect of losing not just adequate but excellent small local schools from a great deal of anguish.
From my reading of the stage 1 report and from listening to the debate, it is clear to me that there is cross-party agreement on the general principles. However, as highlighted by Liz Smith in her speech and by several other members, there are concerns about a number of areas, which need to be dealt with in the next stages of the parliamentary process. By and large, though, the bill should result in a better-understood, thorough, robust and meaningful consultation process that should benefit communities across Scotland when changes are proposed for the school estate. As Liz Smith indicated, we are happy to support the bill at stage 1.
Before I sum up, I want to mention briefly two issues that emerged at the committee stage but which have not received much attention during the debate. The committee heard concerns at stage 1 about some of the timescales that are outlined in the bill. I note that Consumer Focus Scotland has today repeated its call for the six-week consultation period that is laid down in the bill to be extended to the more generally accepted period of 12 weeks. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with that position. However, no one wants the threat of closure to hang over any school. On that basis, members of the committee from all sides endorsed what is a fairly tight timetable for consultation and decision making.
On a separate point, the proposal in the bill that councils should have only one day to notify ministers of a closure seems a little impractical. The lack of a time limit to be imposed on any ministerial decision following a call-in looks anomalous by comparison. In evidence, Government officials suggested that any decision facing the minister would be, by definition, complex. However, it seems odd to have one set of rules for pupils, parents and councillors, and another for the Scottish Government. I would welcome any comments that the minister may care to make on the Government's approach to that matter at stage 2. I believe that she may have referred to that in her opening speech, but I did not quite catch what she said.
Although Gaelic did not feature in the policy intent behind the bill, it was remarkable that a large number of respondents to the initial consultation commented that the bill might provide an appropriate vehicle for designating schools as Gaelic-medium schools. As we all know, there is a strong desire in the Gaelic community to move to the next stage in Gaelic-medium education so that pupils are not just in Gaelic units attached to schools but are totally immersed in an all-Gaelic environment. A majority of parents expressed support for such a measure through the consultation. I am disappointed that we did not take advantage of the opportunity to amend the bill in that regard. I ask the minister a question that I put to her during stage 1 and which I hope she has had the opportunity to discuss with the minister who is responsible for Gaelic. What has happened to the Government's commitment to guarantee in law the right of parents to access Gaelic-medium education for their children where reasonable demand exists? If such a provision is not in the bill, how do ministers expect to deliver on that election promise?
I return to this afternoon's speeches. A number of members, including Karen Whitefield—the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee—Elizabeth Smith and others, raised the concern over HMIE's role. Under the new consultation procedures, HMIE will be expected to play a key role in providing independent and impartial advice early on in a consultation. However, later in the process, if a decision is called in, HMIE will act as an adviser to the minister. I suspect that local authorities' initial fears that the bill will somehow allow HMIE to replace or overrule the decisions of locally accountable members have been somewhat allayed. Like other members, I would welcome further clarification from the cabinet secretary on that potential conflict of interest or the conflicting roles of HMIE. Is it an impartial consultee or a ministerial adviser? How can we ensure that its independence remains uncompromised?
Many members, including Christina McKelvie and my colleague George Foulkes have mentioned the rural-urban divide. George Foulkes helpfully reminded us that although rural schools have problems as a result of remoteness, urban schools can have acute problems of deprivation.
The cabinet secretary's opening speech left me with some concerns. Words about the idea of a presumption against closure have not been included in the bill; indeed, it is notable that the word "rural" does not appear in the bill's title. The cabinet secretary has gone some way towards addressing that issue, but I worry that she wants to have it both ways. She recognises the needs and demands of urban communities, but she still wishes to make a special case for rural schools. The dilemma that we face is that either we identify and agree on the three special criteria in the bill because their application will particularly help those who live in rural communities, or we identify criteria that will allow rural schools to be treated differently from urban schools. If we do the latter, it is clear that it is not hugely important what the criteria are. If, as I hope, we do the former, there is nothing to be afraid of in ensuring that all closure decisions or proposals in all areas have regard to the factors of the existence of any viable alternative to the proposal, the impact on the community and the likely effect of different travel arrangements. Surely it is the fact that those criteria have particular relevance in a rural setting that offers reassurance, rather than any attempt to single out one set of schools for special treatment. I urge the cabinet secretary to consider that matter once more.
I, too, congratulate Murdo and Emma Fraser on the birth of their daughter. Mr Fraser sat in on every meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on the bill, and his contribution to the measures that we are discussing is widely appreciated.
I thank and commend the work of Sandy Longmuir of the Scottish rural schools network—I think that he is still in the gallery. His campaigning over many years has done much to inform and enlighten members about the particular concerns that small rural schools face. In particular, I thank him for managing to steer a way through the often partisan nature of our discussions and helping us to reach near-consensus on the way forward.
That parents, pupils and local communities should have close emotional ties to schools is no bad thing, and the strength of local feeling is not to be dismissed. I like the example that Margaret Smith gave involving a young constituent. That gave a taste of the emotions that run high when a school is threatened with closure.
It is interesting that some of the most passionate speeches were made by members who have expressed their concerns about closure decisions in their constituencies. None of those members represents a rural constituency—they represent Scotland's two largest cities. The strong evidence that was presented during the evidence-taking stage of the bill to demonstrate not only that all schools, including rural schools, are valued but that small and rural schools provide a very good education was interesting.
I do not want to overstate the case, as I know that some small schools can be claustrophobic, but I do not buy the argument that pupils are somehow missing out because there are not enough pupils in their particular year to sustain a football or shinty team. The Scottish rural schools network has pointed out that the
"graduates of primary schools with remote rural status consistently perform above all other area classifications at S4 examinations, university entrance and employment. Remote rural primary schools average just 50 pupils."
Mr Foulkes will be interested to hear that the network also said:
"The advantage shown is more marked in pupils who come from less financially privileged backgrounds."
Even HMIE told the committee:
"We believe that the proportion of small schools that are high-performing is slightly better than the national average".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 27 May 2009; c 2433.]
Perhaps that is not the most dramatic of endorsements, but it is confirmation that small and rural schools are not the poor relations of all-singing, all-dancing large urban primaries and secondaries. Rather, they offer a positive choice and provide an excellent learning environment for our children.
It is clear that there are still areas in which the committee and the cabinet secretary need to engage with all those who are directly affected. Closing any school will never be anything other than difficult. However, I am confident that we can build on the work that has been done over several years to address the clear public concern that exists and improve the process that we follow.
I am happy to support the motion.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate the principles of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. I thank all those members who have spoken in what has been a thoughtful and largely constructive debate, which has built on the general consensus that already existed around the bill.
The debate has been informed and shaped not just by what we have heard today, but by the work that has been done by many people over the past 10 years. I am glad that Cathy Peattie is in the chamber. Her report of almost 10 years ago for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee not only helped to clarify the agenda at the time but has informed us as we have progressed. Professor Neil Kay was involved in the case that she investigated.
Murdo Fraser has played an important role. We must ensure that he is sent a copy of the Official Report. Lucy Elizabeth will probably be one of the best toasted babies in Scotland today. Reference has also been made to the work of Sandy Longmuir and his colleagues in the rural schools network. I hope that the experience of developing the bill shows that, despite coming from very different and sometimes polarised positions, people can work together to come up with a constructive solution and make progress.
I have certainly been informed by my experience of Midlothian school closures five years ago, which turned my mind to the need to ensure that we had a better process. I hope that we are seeing the results of a debate that has been informed by many people over many years.
Does the member warmly welcome the creation of a brand new rural school at Middleton in Midlothian?
I am delighted to welcome any new school, 250 of which will be built and funded during the lifetime of this Government, and I am delighted to welcome that school in particular.
Hugh O'Donnell made an important point. The bill probably touches more of our constituencies and more of our constituents' interests than many other pieces of legislation that we consider in the Parliament. Today's debate has been informed by the experiences of many members—including Aileen Campbell, George Foulkes, Anne McLaughlin, Bob Doris and Elaine Smith—in dealing with issues related to school closures that have affected their constituents. School closures are rarely, if ever, happy experiences for people. Members' passion shows the bill's importance.
Members have indicated their clear support for the principles of the bill, and I welcome that. I recognise that there are a few points of detail that have attracted different views, and I look forward to discussing the detail at stage 2. We will, of course, be willing to consider constructive amendments and, as I signalled earlier, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's report suggests that we are largely of the same view on much of the bill. Looking forward to stage 2, it might be helpful if I were to clarify our thinking on the main issues that were raised in the stage 1 report.
The report asked the Government to consider extending the time that authorities have to notify ministers of a closure decision. The fact that the bill allows councils one day to do so reflects the reality that such decisions tend to become public knowledge almost immediately after they are taken. However, as I indicated in my opening speech, now that I have studied the stage 1 report, I am considering lodging an amendment on that point.
The committee raised a concern about a lack of clarity as regards the role of HMIE, which I would like to address. Currently, HMIE is only asked for a report on the 16 or so cases that are referred to ministers each year, which are not limited to closures but can include changes to the location of schools or their catchment areas. Under the bill, HMIE would be required to produce a written assessment of the educational aspects of all school consultation proposals, which would be based on the inspector's professional assessment of the council's proposal paper, including the educational benefits statement and the issues that were raised during the consultation, either at the public meeting or in written responses. The HMIE report would form part of the council's consideration of the proposal when it made its decision. HMIE has confirmed that it has the resources and experience to do that, which should mitigate the need for me as minister to receive further advice during any call-in, as I will already have received an initial report from HMIE.
The second issue that was raised in the committee's conclusions relates to the three additional factors that the bill requires councils to consider prior to consulting on the closure of a rural school. I have already signalled that I think that there is a strong rationale for setting out specific safeguards for rural schools, the loss of which can have a disproportionately significant and adverse effect on the whole community. Alongside that is the need to establish a robust and comprehensive consultation framework for all school consultations, whether in urban or rural areas, and that is clearly set out in the bill.
The report expresses concern about the lack of clarity around the grounds for ministerial call-in and asks the Government to give the matter further consideration. As I said in my evidence, a decision to call in a case would focus on the process that the council had followed and whether it had taken proper account of a material consideration. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about what might constitute a material consideration, but as I made clear to the committee, I want to avoid constraining the grounds on which a case can be called in by providing a tick-box list.
I note the committee's practical and helpful suggestion that what constitutes a material consideration could be clarified in guidance. I hope that the committee will deal with that matter at stage 2, and I am happy to explore the idea of including the issue in guidance.
We intend to produce guidance on the educational benefits statement, the proposal paper's content, the methods of consultation with children and young people—in which regard we will engage with the children's commissioner in particular—notification practices, the timing of public meetings and the call-in criteria for a material consideration.
Bob Doris raised an important point about councils having entrenched views. The point of the bill is to ensure that we have dialogue and responsiveness in consultations. He also raised the issue of pre-consultation guidance. However, Aileen Campbell mentioned the issue of rumours spreading when there is no proper consultation and a lack of information. The danger of a pre-consultation is that it would take place in a context in which there would not necessarily be robust information, which means that the danger of rumours spreading might be exacerbated.
Ken Macintosh raised Consumer Focus Scotland's suggestion that we should have a 12-week timescale. We have already moved from 28 days to six weeks, which is a 50 per cent increase, on top of the period for the preparation of the consultation report. I accept the committee's advice that we should make sure that we consider such proposals. In its stage 1 report, the committee said:
"The Committee believes, on balance, that the proposed six-week consultation period proposed in the Bill is sufficiently long, given the further periods for consideration built in to the overall process."
There is an issue about prolonging the experience of school closure, which has also been raised.
Elizabeth Smith and Claire Baker raised the important issue of accurate information. Those points were particularly well made. In relation to the proposal paper, it is vital that we ensure that, in any dispute that comes back to the issue of consultation being about a dialogue and responsiveness, any inaccuracies will be addressed as part of the process, as opposed to becoming what was described earlier as a year-long sore.
Ken Macintosh and Elizabeth Smith also referred to financial arrangements. They might appreciate that I cannot second-guess any review of grant-aided expenditure. However, I emphasise that this Government has repeatedly shown that we are a Government for all of Scotland, and we have repeatedly delivered support for rural Scotland. Indeed, when we give special attention to rural Scotland, we are criticised for discriminating in favour of rural Scotland. It is an important point, however, and, as I said in evidence to the committee, I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is aware of those concerns.
This debate has been about agreement to the principles of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, and has been ably informed by people's experiences. As I said to Malcolm Chisholm, the consultations that are currently under way can be informed by the transition arrangements that are set out in schedule 3 to the bill, which are designed to ensure that people and councils understand where they stand in relation to on-going consultations.
I thank those who have contributed to the debate today and I also thank the committee for its careful, thorough and constructive consideration of the bill at stage 1.
The Scottish Government is committed to improving the standard of all school consultations—urban and rural—in partnership with local government. Additionally, we are committed to protecting our fragile rural and remote communities. Schools are often at the heart of such communities and, if closed, cannot easily be replaced by other public buildings. I emphasise again the economic value of jobs in rural communities and the importance of many schools in ensuring that there is support for the children of people who work in those jobs.
I believe that our proposals will lead to coherent, fair and transparent consultations that will command the trust and confidence of the public. As MSPs, we all know the heartache that can be part and parcel of any school closure consultation. If we can bring to Parliament a bill that will relieve that pressure and pain and ensure that we have a robust, accessible and comprehensive system, I think that we will be serving our constituents well.
I ask members to support the motion and agree to the general principles of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.