Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5175, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons and I ask them perhaps to speak for a little longer than they had originally prepared for.
I call Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move the motion. She should take definitely no less than eight minutes.
It might be a long time since you dealt with stage 3 proceedings, Presiding Officer, but the bill has been a long time coming for many of us.
I record the Government's thanks to all those who have contributed to the bill's development and its journey through Parliament. I start by thanking the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's convener and members for their constructive approach and valuable input at each stage, and the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee for their scrutiny. I also thank the committee clerks, who have assisted my officials as the bill has progressed.
The bill did not begin life only when it was introduced to Parliament earlier this year. It has evolved through the work of many people over the past decade. Cathy Peattie played an important role 10 years ago through her report for the then Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Professor Neil Kay was also involved in that work.
My interest in the issue was shaped by my experience of school closure consultations in Midlothian in 2004—I lodged a motion on a presumption against closure of rural schools in March that year. More recently, Murdo Fraser contributed to the process through his extremely full consultation and proposals for legislation. Sandy Longmuir, the Scottish rural schools network and their colleagues have, of course, also played a key part. I thank them all for their efforts before the introduction of the bill and as it has passed through Parliament.
I thank the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland for their assistance in developing the bill and, specifically, for their assistance in identifying costs for the financial memorandum. My thanks also go to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which provided invaluable assistance to my officials and to the committee. In addition, I thank those who responded to the Government consultation and those who gave written or oral evidence to the committee. I have been extremely gratified by the degree of consensus around the bill and its aims at every stage.
The bill has been a model of good practice for the way in which people with strong interests and equally strong, often polarised, views have been able to put aside their differences and come together to create legislation of which we can all be justifiably proud. Everyone in Parliament takes legislation seriously and rightly so. When we change the statute book, we do so because we believe that we are improving the law for the people of Scotland. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill is no exception. School closures, catchment changes and even changes of site can generate much emotion in local communities, and the bill aims to make that process as open, transparent and fair as possible.
I have always acknowledged that good practice exists in many councils, but we are all aware of examples in which communities have not been properly consulted, which has resulted in much angst for pupils, parents, staff and the wider local community.
In drafting the bill, we sought to increase local participation, to create a genuine dialogue between councils and their communities, and to foster a greater sense of trust between councils and local people. Closure of a school is rarely a popular option, even though it is sometimes the right thing to do, but if people feel that they are given the full facts at the start, that they have the opportunity to make known their views and, most important, that the council will listen to those local views and respond to them, they are much more likely to accept any decision.
The safeguard of the ministerial call-in should give people confidence that if a council does not fully engage in an open and genuine consultation on a school closure proposal, ministers can call in the decision. If there have been serious flaws in the process, or important information has not been taken into account, ministers will be able to refuse consent for closure of the school.
I turn to what was described at stage 2 as the genesis of the bill—the desire to protect rural schools. At the start of the bill process, not everyone agreed on the need to offer specific safeguards to rural schools, even though there was widespread agreement that rural schools play a significant role in sustaining many rural communities. Members expressed the view that urban communities can also be deeply affected by closure. I do not dispute that, so the processes that I have described will put in place a rigorous framework for all consultations, whether they are in rural or urban areas.
I took issue with the argument that the application of the rural factors to all schools would benefit urban schools without having a disbenefit for rural schools. Instead, I made the case that rural communities face harsh realities associated with the loss of local services, which can undermine the future sustainability of those communities. The threat of the loss of a village post office, shop or pub already hangs over many communities, and the threat of losing the village school, which is often the sole community asset or public building, can be the final straw. This Government wanted to send a message to such communities that we intend to protect them, their schools and their long-term viability, so I was extremely glad that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee supported us in sending that message at stage 2. Today, I will be proud of this Parliament if it joins the Government in sending out the message that we value and will protect our rural schools and communities.
Parliament and its committees often engage in consultations, and often make decisions on the basis of the response to those consultations. As the Presiding Officer knows, many people look to the Parliament to demonstrate best practice on involvement, consultation and responsiveness. Indeed, we see our Public Petitions Committee as a highlight and an example to others of how they might conduct their business. I hope that the bill that we are considering today sends out the message that best practice is about being open and transparent and respecting the people whom we consult.
One provision in the bill that I would not underestimate is the requirement on councils to evidence their responses to issues that have been raised. For too long, consultations have for many people been just about sharing information about decisions that they already want to take. If we can do one thing in the bill, we can send out a message that, in the new democracy that is Scotland, the ability for people to engage, participate and have their views heard and listened to is important, whether it be at Parliament, Government or council level.
The bill has its genesis, in part, in people's engagement with members of the Parliament—for example, through a petition. Many people have been touched by the content of the bill—many members have had to deal with school closures in their constituencies. We can take pride in the fact that today we are giving evidence of Parliament's ability to respond to big issues that affect communities, and of individuals' ability to shape legislation. The bill is an example of what the Parliament can achieve if we work together. I hope that all members will support it.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Schools Consultation (Scotland) Bill be passed.
There are few situations in which a school closure is welcomed by the local community. No matter how well intentioned or well drafted the bill is, nothing can compensate for that loss. However, the agreement that we have reached on the bill provides us with the opportunity to change our attitude and approach to these difficult decisions. There is no panacea for the upset and anger that is caused when a school is considered for closure, but we have created the circumstances in which the best practice that is currently followed by some local authorities can be followed by all.
As members know, the bill creates a new consultation procedure. It identifies the special importance of the local school to small and rural communities and introduces a new set of criteria for decisions requiring ministerial consent. My main worry about the new consultation process is that, although debate and discussion on school closure proposals are framed in terms of educational benefit, underpinning every decision is a concern about cost benefit. For example, we know from the evidence that we have taken that high-achieving schools are as likely as—in some cases, more likely than—those that are not serving their pupils well to be identified for closure. It is right that we should promote the educational benefit of a school as the key factor to be taken into account when its future is considered. However, if the motivation or driving force behind a proposal is to save money, that issue must be confronted.
The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee flagged up the importance that we attach to producing an accurate cost benefit analysis to accompany any public consultation. It is clear that in some situations the supposed savings from closing a school are illusory, at best. Costs may simply be shifted from one budget to another—from building maintenance to transport, for example. Although it is difficult for parents and local authorities to reach agreement on the potential savings from closing a school, we do those parents and local authorities a disservice if we ignore the subject or pretend that it is not a crucial factor. I hope that the guidance that will be produced following the passage of the bill will attach similar importance to being up front about costs and budgetary pressures.
Many of the potentially contentious issues that were raised by the bill were addressed either at consultation stage or as the bill moved through committee, but there remain a number of concerns that the minister needs to address through further guidance or, at the very least, by keeping a watchful eye as the act is implemented. The question of ministerial call-in and what constitutes "a material consideration" is one such issue. It is interesting, given the much-vaunted concordat, that an SNP Government has changed the criteria for ministerial intervention in school closures. Whereas previously decisions on proposed school closures were referred to ministers solely on procedural grounds, now they can be called in when the Government believes that a local authority has failed to take proper account of "a material consideration".
I ask the minister to clarify two questions relating to ministerial consent or call-in. First, the minister will be aware of the controversial proposals that are currently under consideration in East Renfrewshire and parts of Glasgow to rezone the catchment area for St Ninian's high school. Because the pupil roll is currently running at more than 80 per cent of the school's capacity, the proposals will automatically be referred to the Scottish Government for ministerial consent, in accordance with the existing law and regulations. Many parents believe that the final decision on St Ninian's will therefore be for the minister. My understanding of the matter, which I believe was confirmed by Government officials attending the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, is that the decision is still the responsibility of the local authority and cannot be retaken by ministers. Rather, ministers will either approve or disapprove the decision. It depends, principally, on whether the local authority has followed the correct procedures in reaching its conclusion. Can the minister confirm whether that is also her understanding of the Scottish Government's current role? Will the passage of the bill into law later today affect the referral process for St Ninian's? In other words, with the local consultation process on St Ninian's under way and due to finish later this month, with a decision expected not long after that, will the process for ministerial consent be conducted under the existing regime, with automatic referral, or under the new one, with ministerial call-in?
That is an important point to raise; indeed, it is important for the bill that we are passing to set out the transitions between the previous system and the new system.
I understand that East Renfrewshire Council will make a decision on its proposal, which is currently being consulted on, on 21 January 2010. Under the current regulations, it will be for the council to determine whether a decision needs to be referred to ministers for consent under the prescribed criteria. I understand that the case is likely to be referred to ministers, as the school in question is currently running at over 80 per cent of its capacity. I repeat: it will be for the local council to determine whether or not that is the case.
Thank you—that clarifies matters.
I have raised the subject of Gaelic-medium education throughout the passage of the bill. I will mention it one last time. I am genuinely disappointed that the Scottish Government did not take advantage of this legislative opportunity to make good on its manifesto promise. To remind colleagues, that promise was to
"guarantee in law the right to a Gaelic medium education … where reasonable demand exists".
Dozens of the people who responded to the Government's consultation on the bill suggested that we address that matter here and now. It is difficult to think of a better legislative vehicle for expressing parental demand than a bill that deals with school consultations.
The cabinet secretary has suggested that the manifesto promise still holds good, but I am anxious that, despite my repeated questioning, neither she nor her colleague, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, who has responsibility for Gaelic, has been able to say precisely how or when a suitable bill will be introduced. I do not wish to be accused of flogging the dead horse that is the SNP manifesto—I am ever the optimist—but, given the importance of Gaelic-medium education to the survival of the language, I would very much welcome any reassurance, and details to back up that reassurance, from the cabinet secretary.
As the cabinet secretary did in her opening speech, I thank everyone involved in bringing the bill to Parliament. However, as I also have to wind up the debate for the Labour Party, I will keep these thanks until the end.
I am delighted to support the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 and, if I am not being too presumptuous, to welcome its passing later this afternoon.
There is an old saying that success has many parents, and the bill certainly falls into that category. At the last Scottish elections, the Conservatives had a manifesto commitment to bring in a legal protection for rural schools. In pursuance of that, I lodged a proposal for a member's bill on the subject earlier in the session. The Scottish Government had a similar view, which meant that my proposed member's bill was knocked out. We are pleased to support the bill that is before us in its place.
I pay tribute to the non-Executive bills unit for all its work with me in connection with my bill proposal. In relation to the bill that is before us, I record my personal thanks to the bill team, whom I found to be extremely helpful. They were always prepared to engage in discussions throughout the process.
I attended a number of meetings of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee during the passage of the bill, and I thank the convener and other members of the committee, as well as the committee clerks, for their forbearance in allowing me to attend the evidence sessions and to put questions to witnesses.
Finally, but perhaps most important, I thank the cabinet secretary for the consensual and co-operative manner in which she has handled the bill. She knows that it is rare for her work to be praised in the Parliament by Opposition education spokesmen, but on this occasion at least I put on record our appreciation for her approach to the bill and the manner in which she has pursued it. Who knows how long it will be before I say those words again?
The genesis of the bill was in the excellent work of the Scottish rural schools network. I am sure that few members have not encountered that highly energetic organisation, which is ably led by Sandy Longmuir. He and his colleagues have lobbied extensively on the issue for years and have built up a huge reservoir of knowledge about the finances and sustainability of rural schools from their many years of experience of fighting rural school closures throughout Scotland. I know that there are directors of education throughout the country who tremble at the knees when Sandy Longmuir's name is mentioned. It is instructive to note that among the parents who pursue the issue in their spare time there seems to be a greater degree of knowledge of the finances of education than there is among directors of finance in some of our local authorities. There is a lesson for COSLA in that regard.
It was the proposed closure of Arbirlot primary school, near Arbroath, that led Sandy Longmuir and his colleagues to take an interest in the process. It was fortunate that Arbirlot school was saved, but too many rural schools in Scotland have closed in recent years.
The arguments against rural school closure were rehearsed in evidence to the committee and during the stage 1 debate—I am sorry that I missed that debate, but I was otherwise engaged in ensuring that there would be a next generation of Scotland's schoolchildren. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments, but there is clear evidence that children who are educated in small rural schools often have better educational and social outcomes than do children who are educated in much larger schools. Such advantages are more marked among people who come from less-privileged backgrounds. Much of that evidence goes against received wisdom, which wrongly suggests that children who attend very small schools lack the social interaction skills that are required in later life.
As we have heard, the debate about rural schools is not just about educational attainment. Rural schools are often at the heart of the community. In rural Scotland in recent years we have witnessed the closure of shops, filling stations, post offices, pubs and churches. In many rural communities the school is the only remaining public building and is often the focus of community life, because its buildings are used out of school hours for a variety of community purposes. If the school closes, the heart of the community goes with it. Families with small children are reluctant to move to the area and families who are already there are tempted to move out. The community slowly dies. I have seen that happen too often, which is why I have such a strong belief in maintaining rural schools.
The bill will not stop the closure of all rural schools in Scotland. There will be occasions on which closure is justified. However, it will put in place safeguards that will ensure that the voices of parents and other people in the community are properly heard, so that, in the future, closures will not happen on some of the spurious grounds that have been used in the past.
This is a good day for Scottish education and for rural Scotland. The Parliament will legislate to introduce a protection for rural schools that will benefit pupils and parents in Scotland's countryside and strengthen our rural communities. I am proud to have played a part in making that happen. Today demonstrates the strength of the Scottish Parliament in allowing different parties to work together in pursuit of a common goal. I pay tribute again to the work of the Scottish rural schools network, without whose vigorous lobbying I am sure that none of that would have happened.
Murdo Fraser was right to say that there are many people to thank and that the bill has many parents—that is one of the few times that he has not espoused the centrality of the nuclear family. I thank the people who gave evidence to the committee, in particular Sandy Longmuir and his colleagues from the Scottish rural schools network. Today is a victory for them. I also thank the people who provided interesting and thought-provoking evidence on the importance of small schools, particularly rural schools. The Parliament and communities throughout Scotland will make use of that engaging evidence, not just in the context of the bill but in the months and years to come. In addition, I thank the committee clerk, as well as the cabinet secretary and her civil servants. I appreciate the way in which the cabinet secretary took forward the legislation.
Like many colleagues, I have experienced the concerns that parents, parent councils and communities experience when faced with a possible school closure. Such proposals are always controversial and emotive, because schools are not just about our children's education; they are about our children's friendships and daily lives and the lives and facilities of communities. Across Scotland, local authorities of various complexions have wrestled and are wrestling with the issue. There are a number of reasons why a council might decide to shut a school. Often, financial considerations are high on the agenda, in the face of tough budget settlements in a recession and reductions in pupil numbers that come with falls in population. We have also found that parental choice can lead to schools finding themselves in the closure danger zone because people have voted with their feet and taken their children to other schools.
However, although I am happy to acknowledge the real constraints upon local authorities, I am also keen that the parents, pupils and others in the wider community who are affected by school closures or other significant changes are consulted properly and effectively and that their concerns are listened to. The cabinet secretary is absolutely right to say that, if councils fully engage with people and truly listen to concerns before making a decision, the decision is more likely to be accepted by the community.
Given the range of reasons why a school might face closure, it would be unrealistic to say that no school in Scotland should ever face closure. What we can say, however, is that no school should ever face closure without a detailed explanation from the authority of the benefits of closure to the education of local children; no school should ever face closure without consideration of the impacts on not only those children who are directly affected but those in the surrounding schools, the local community and the wider authority area; and no school should ever face closure without the views of its pupils, parents and prospective parents being heard.
From the evidence that the committee received, it is clear that while some councils are demonstrating the sort of best practice that the bill embodies, others are not. That is why I welcome the bill and why I lodged a series of probing amendments at stages 2 and 3 in an attempt to make a good bill better.
Although every school has a particular place at the heart of its community, that is particularly true of rural schools. We support the bill's provisions that will ensure that, in situations involving rural schools, regard should be taken of the transport implications, the community impact and the alternative provision for pupils. Where I differ from the cabinet secretary is in my belief that those considerations should be taken into account in every school closure, whether the school is rural or urban. Suggesting that that should be the case does not diminish the importance of those issues to rural schools. That view was shared by a number of local authorities, including Glasgow and Aberdeenshire, as well as by the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Association of Scottish Community Councils and the Scottish rural schools network. Unfortunately, it was not particularly shared by my colleagues on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. We are reassured, however, that taking into account those extra factors will result in more robust procedures being in place prior to any rural school being closed in the future, which is to be welcomed.
As I outlined earlier, it is essential that councils answer questions from parents, parent councils and the wider community in good time so that the answers can be taken into account in the responses that those individuals and organisations submit to the consultations. I believe that that will lead to more effective contributions being made. I also believe that, in some cases, communities might make suggestions that lead to schools being saved and arrangements being improved.
I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary's response to my amendments today and at stage 2. Although local authorities are obliged by the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 to give information to parents and parent councils when it is reasonably requested from them, we know that that does not always happen. The commitment to ensuring that that is covered in the statutory guidance on the legislation and that education authorities know that question from consultees such as pupils, community councils and staff should be answered timeously is a welcome addition to the bill and should improve matters on the ground. I hope that, as a result of my endeavours and the support that has been given by colleagues, information will be readily available and, crucially, that answers will be given early enough in the process to ensure that people's contributions are truly informed.
There are a number of welcome provisions in the bill that I have no doubt will make consultations more effective. I am sure that we all welcome the educational benefits statements, although it is clear that their exact content will need to be fleshed out in guidance to councils. Those statements will be useful additions that will sit alongside proposal papers.
Given that it was a provision in our 2007 manifesto, we also welcome the role for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education in considering the educational aspects of closure proposals within the period of the consultation. That is better than the present arrangements, under which the inspectorate might be called in by the minister at a later date. The new measure will be particularly helpful when it has been some time since the school has had an inspection. I believe that HMIE's involvement will increase parents' confidence in the system.
The bill will replace the existing system of ministerial call-in. There was a range of views on that, but we are content with the provision that gives ministers the power to call in a proposal when there have been failures in the consultation and decision-making process. However, we still believe that the Government will have to make it quite clear to councils what is meant by failing
"to take … account of a material consideration relevant to its decision".
We welcome, too, the extension of the time limit on consultations, particularly the three-week period following the publication of the final consultation report. That seems to us to give parents, councillors and others a reasonable period in which to consider the report, and it will allow people to make representations to elected representatives prior to their making their decision.
As someone who has recent experience of a proposed school closure in my constituency, I know that school closures are never easy for local authorities, pupils, parents or the communities involved. However, the bill represents a real improvement in how matters will be considered in the future. I hope that the cross-party support for the bill—and, I hope, its passing today—will send a clear message to Scotland's school communities that we are determined to improve consultations on school closures. Let it also send a clear message to each and every education authority that the best practice that has been followed by some must now be delivered by all.
We move to the open debate.
The passing of the bill will mark a major milestone in the development of Scottish education. It will be a welcome step for many communities that have been or will be affected by proposed changes to their local school estate and other changes to the schooling in their areas. The bill will not introduce a raft of new measures, but it will enshrine the best practices of our education authorities.
Introducing a legislative presumption against rural school closures was a 2007 Scottish National Party manifesto commitment. That has evolved through consultation and exploration of the issue into a generalised strengthening of consultation procedures across both rural and urban schools. The bill introduces provisions that are stronger than a simple presumption against the closure of rural schools—the consideration that is given to rural schools will have to be much wider than that which is given to urban schools in recognition of the very particular role that schools and school buildings play in rural communities. That is a victory for the Scottish rural schools network more than anyone else, and I congratulate it on getting there, although I am sure that the bill does not mean that its troubles are over, and that it will continue to campaign for the interests of rural schools and to remind politicians from all parties and across the country of the importance of rural schools. We should all heed that memento mori.
When the bill becomes an act—I realise that I am presuming a vote in favour; I always like to look at the positive, as I am a glass-half-full girl—
That is why you are in the SNP.
Watch it!
The act will change the emphasis of consultations. An education authority that proposes a closure will be required to show the educational benefits of its proposals and how the changed landscape will satisfy the educational needs of those whom the authority serves. The changes that the bill will bring about include expanding the list of people and organisations that are to be consulted when a school closure is proposed to include pupils, staff, staff unions, community councils and Bòrd na Gàidhlig, where Gaelic-medium education is affected. Also particularly welcome is the extension of the consultation timescale to at least six weeks, which will include at least 30 term-time days. The bill will also require education authorities to publish an educational benefits statement that sets out, as the basis of their case, specifically how the changes will improve education overall. The bill will also require HMIE to consider the educational aspects of every school closure proposal and all other relevant proposals.
The bill will introduce a requirement on education authorities to take account of allegations of inaccuracies. We debated that openly in committee. Education authorities will have to respond by correcting matters or taking appropriate proportionate action when needed. The bill will also require education authorities to publish a consultation report at the end of the consultation period and will prevent education authorities taking their final decision until three weeks after the consultation report has been published.
A crucial safeguard is to be established: the process of automatic referral to ministers is to be replaced with a call-in facility, similar to the one in the planning process. The call-in process will reassure those who are affected by a school closure proposal that a safeguard exists in the rare circumstances where it appears that the statutory duties in the bill have not been properly fulfilled. The educational aspects will also require to be demonstrated to HMIE, which I presume will lead to the educational aspects becoming pre-eminent in any education authority proposals.
Educational aspects will become more and more important as public spending is slashed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London and we have less and less room for manoeuvre in the Scottish budget. Councils will face financial constraints like every other public body will, and although they will continue to want to improve education in their areas, as they have always done, I have no doubt that the pressure to find savings will be intense and that there will be a temptation here and there to look at closing schools for financial rather than educational reasons.
I believe that the people who stand for election to councils, including those who are successful, do so with the intention of improving services, and that none of them stands with a secret desire to close schools. Equally, I am sure that no councillor is elected with an ambition to find large savings from their municipal budgets. I am sure, too, that the discipline of preparing the educational arguments for HMIE will help our councillors to crystallise their thoughts on education provision in the areas for which they are responsible. That discipline will help them to improve on the already excellent work that they do.
The bill will certainly not centralise decisions on the school estate. Our local authorities are responsible for the delivery of school education and they should be trusted to get on with it within the framework that is laid down by Government. It will still be for local authorities to determine education provision, working in partnership with the Government. The Scottish Government might lay the framework and provide the finances, but it is the local authorities that have to deliver. It is because the Government works in partnership with local authorities that COSLA felt able to say:
"COSLA is completely supportive of this legislation. It has been carefully developed in a collaborative way which we believe has produced a balanced and considered bill."
The supreme example of that, of course, is the historic concordat and the outcome agreements. That is why we now have the smallest ever classes in Scotland, that is how we are delivering for Scotland's pupils and that is how we are going to keep delivering for them.
I am proud to be a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, which worked closely on taking the bill through all its stages and supported its evolution into the constructive and positive bill that we have in front of us today. I echo my colleagues in congratulating and thanking the clerks, the SPICe researchers and everybody who came to the committee to give evidence. They all deserve our thanks for their help in developing the bill.
The bill will enshrine in law the best practices of local authorities. It will smooth out the differences between education authorities and give parents, teachers, trade unions and, most important, pupils a benchmark against which to measure the actions of their councils. It is a good piece of legislation and I am delighted to support its passage into law.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. With few exceptions, there has been a great deal of consensus on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. That has not necessarily been characteristic of our committee's discussions in recent months, but the bill's basic principles—to improve communities' ability to contribute meaningfully to discussions about proposals to close schools and to protect vital community assets—have been accepted by all.
Before I say more about the details of the bill, there are some organisations and individuals whom I would like to thank on behalf of the committee. I note that many of them have already been thanked by other members. First, as ever, I thank the clerks to our committee and the staff of SPICe for all their support and guidance during the passage of the bill. I also recognise the important role that was played by Murdo Fraser, who introduced a member's bill proposal on the same subject but chose to withdraw it when the Government produced a similar proposal. His contributions to the committee's consideration of the bill were helpful to members who had not taken such a keen interest in the subject before.
I also recognise the contribution of my colleague Cathy Peattie, who reported on school closures much earlier in the Parliament's life, and I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, including the bill team and the minister, Fiona Hyslop, who was always willing to engage with the committee and discuss our concerns. Although it would be wrong to single out any of our witnesses, it is right to put on the record our special thanks to Sandy Longmuir and the Scottish rural schools network, which has long campaigned on the issue. I hope that the passing of the bill today will provide the campaigners in the Scottish rural schools network with a lasting legacy of their campaigning efforts and work in the past few years.
In some respects, it is true to say that the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill formalises much of what already happens in local authorities. For example, North Lanarkshire Council has given a commitment to use the consultation procedures that are set out in the bill for its current school closure proposals. I understand that, following representations from parent groups, the council agreed to extend the six-week consultation period because part of it fell during the Christmas holidays. Such willingness to respond to concerns and actively to engage with communities should lie at the heart of the bill.
However, it is also true to say that consultation practices have varied across Scotland's local authorities. Along with the committee, I feel that it is reasonable to expect all local authorities to adopt a similar level of consultation to ensure that the voices of local people are heard. We recognise that it will not always be possible to act on every concern or objection that is raised during a consultation and that difficult and unpopular decisions must sometimes be made. As has already been noted, the bill will not mean that no school in Scotland ever closes. However, we feel that the reasons for any decision to close a school need to be made clear to those who will be affected and that alternative solutions must be taken seriously before a council moves to a closure decision. I believe that the bill will help to ensure that that happens.
As has been acknowledged, there were a few relatively minor differences of opinion within the committee, but I hope that, in concluding stage 3 today, we have reached some consensus on the issues. Let me highlight just two of them. First, I said at stage 1 that my personal view was that rural schools require particular protections, but that view was not shared by all in the committee. However, in concluding our considerations on the bill, I think that we have recognised that, in rural communities, the school might well be the only facility for some considerable distance and that rural schools not only make an invaluable contribution to local education opportunities but provide a valuable community asset. I am pleased that, in passing the bill today, the Parliament will reassure rural communities that we accept their long-held concerns and that those concerns and the impact that school closures can have on rural communities will be recognised in legislation.
A second issue that the committee considered, which we have debated briefly at stage 3, was access to consultations and the provision of information and evidence to back up closure proposals. That issue demonstrated the cabinet secretary's willingness to engage with the committee by recognising Margaret Smith's concerns that, based on her personal experience of school closures, the current system is imperfect so we need to ensure that further information is provided. That willingness to engage was demonstrated by the cabinet secretary's stage 3 amendments, which struck the right balance by protecting the rights of communities and parents to participate in the consultation process without putting in place unnecessary burdens that local authorities would be unable to meet. I think that we have managed to address those concerns.
To conclude, I welcome the passing of the bill today. The bill will help to ensure that communities are more involved in decisions on proposed school closures. It will also help to ensure that some of the wider benefits that schools provide in communities, particularly in rural communities, are taken into account before any decision is taken to close a school. I am grateful to all who have been involved in the process.
As others have said, we are now, finally, meeting to vote on a bill that many in rural Scotland and in Scotland more generally have worked long and hard to achieve. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill is crucial to offering a greater degree of protection to all school communities, but I believe that it is particularly relevant to remote and rural constituencies such as mine, where schools are often—to use an overused but underappreciated phrase—the focal point of the community. Indeed, rural schools are integral to the sustainability of many remote regions.
It is clear that the main purpose of the bill is to revise and strengthen the statutory consultation process that is required when education authorities consider changes to the school estate, particularly school closures. I want to focus on rural schools not to belittle the importance of schools in urban areas—that importance is recognised in the bill—but because a crucial distinction must be understood. A school closure in an urban community is damaging—we have seen that in Glasgow and other places—but a school closure in a rural area can effectively close down an entire community economically. Rural school closures can render huge tracts of Scotland out of bounds, in effect, for young families, which can result in huge economic and social impacts, as well as educational impacts.
There are around 1,000 schools in rural areas, which includes 41 per cent of Scottish primary schools and 23 per cent of Scottish secondary schools. The number includes 39 schools in my constituency, the smallest of which has a roll of eight. However, there are 552 fewer schools in Scotland than there were four decades ago. Since I was in primary 1—I hasten to add that that was not quite four decades ago—the total number of publicly funded schools in Scotland has dropped by nearly 17 per cent, and there are 357 fewer primary schools. My school was among the casualties. It is undeniable that that decline is partly due to falling school rolls, but the trend has often been so steep because local councils have had to do relatively little to shut down local schools when they have decided that they want to do so.
The bill aims to redress the balance. It sets out a much more vigorous set of procedures for consultations on school closures, which local authorities must adhere to. The intention is to establish, in effect, a presumption against the closure of schools unless certain prescribed factors have been taken into account. That will help to safeguard in particular rural schools in my constituency and schools like them, which can be fundamental to safeguarding small and fragile local economies.
The bill does not say that no school should ever close—members have made that point—but it means that local authorities will have to publish and advertise clear educational benefits statements that set out why a school closure might be justified on education grounds specifically. Parents, teachers and pupils are among the mandatory consultees in the process. In addition, rural school closure will not take place without the council examining alternatives to closure.
I am delighted that the Scottish Government is determined to ensure that rural communities on the islands and elsewhere are much more meaningfully listened to when school closures are proposed. Specifically, local authorities will have to take into account the impact that any school closure would have on the rural community concerned.
The bill has been improved as it has gone through the parliamentary process, specifically at stage 2. For example, amendments have introduced community councils as statutory consultees. Following amendments that I lodged, the bill will require local authorities to take into account and to consult on the impact that any school closure would have on Gaelic language provision in the local community where that is relevant. Gaelic education is growing, but it could fall victim to school closures if it is not one of the factors that are taken into account when decisions are being made on school closure proposals.
I went to a one-teacher school and I am only too aware that closing a school can take the heart out of a community. We should be clear that there will always be circumstances in which schools have to close, but we should seek to make rural and remote communities more, not less, attractive to young families. The bill will go a long way towards ensuring that that is the case.
The bill has achieved broad support from local authorities, parent councils and community councils. I hope that members will vote to pass it and support schools throughout Scotland.
I am pleased to take part in this stage 3 debate on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. Although I was on the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee during the scrutiny of the bill, it felt as though much of the hard work had already been done.
The issue of school closures and how the decisions to close schools are made has been a heated one for the Scottish Parliament. Its first look at the issue came when I was a researcher in the Parliament, some 10 years ago, when Cathy Peattie undertook the role of reporter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on rural schools. That led to a new code of practice on school closures, which was a significant step forward in improving the system. Perhaps as a Highland MSP, Peter Peacock had a greater interest in and commitment to improving the lot of rural schools than most. As Minister for Education and Young People, he sought to improve the system further, producing stronger guidance on how to improve consultation. Also within the Parliament, Murdo Fraser proposed a member's bill that would have introduced a presumption against the closure of rural schools. That also provided momentum to the campaign.
Alongside all the parliamentary activity on the issue, there has been the huge commitment of the Scottish rural schools network, which has conducted an effective and reasoned campaign. It is fair to say that the network has had more involvement, over the years, with Richard Baker than with me, but it has always sought to build cross-party engagement and consensus on the issue, even going so far as to send its best wishes when my daughter was born. As a campaign group, it has always sought to avoid playing politics with the issue, which is to be commended. The bill is an excellent example of what can be achieved by constituents engaging with parliamentarians and effectively using the levers of the Parliament.
I was fortunate to come to the matter once most of the thorny issues had been wrestled with by the Parliament and a consensus had largely been reached. Of course, during stages 1 and 2 we again considered what would constitute the right balance between local decision making and national accountability, the education needs and financial demands that are placed on education authorities and how the needs of pupils in rural and urban settings are being addressed. The bill does not presume against the closure of rural schools, but offers a more nuanced solution of clear consultation and clear expectations of all the parties that are involved so that the difficult process of proposing the closure of a school and, possibly, closing it, can be done fairly and with the confidence of all who are involved.
The bill is about empowering people and stakeholders to participate in the process. Although we know that there have been good examples of that in some local authorities, there have also been poor examples, and the bill will go a long way towards addressing that situation. We all agree that the bill offers a robust system that parents and communities can have faith in, although, as with all legislation, the proof of that will be in its implementation. There are key issues that remain to be addressed through guidance, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's assurances on some of those issues this afternoon—including her assurance to Margaret Smith on statutory consultees, which was very helpful.
Another area that requires clarification in guidance is that of the definition of "material consideration". As other members have said, alongside other reforms in the bill there is a power for the Scottish ministers to call in any closure decision after that decision has been made if they consider that there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of the bill or when an authority has failed to take appropriate account of a material consideration that is relevant to the decision. The interpretation of what constitutes a material consideration is a key issue for guidance, and I would welcome further assurances on that this afternoon.
The issue of correcting inaccuracies and omissions—something that was pursued by Margaret Smith and addressed through Government amendments today—is important. There is an argument that placing a duty on the local authority to investigate inaccuracies will make the system more robust and self-policing. If any disagreements arise, and if parents or campaigners challenge information in the proposal paper, the local authority will remain the adjudicator with regard to information, which may seem a bit weighted. However, as any remaining dispute over information will be recorded and the local authority will be required to publish in the consultation report its reasons for any decision that it makes on allegations of inaccuracy, its argument will be transparent and its reasons for not upholding a disagreement will be clear.
In many cases, the inaccuracy will be a typographical error or a fact that can be easily established, such as a journey time to school. However, other challenges may centre on matters such as projected demographic changes and roll projections, on which it is more difficult to distinguish between opinion and fact. Such matters may remain disputed, although I accept that they will be aired. 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. That is often where the rural schools network can provide support and advice. As I said in committee, it may be unimaginable, but Sandy Longmuir will not be around for ever; we should be mindful of the support that parents and communities may need in the future.
The content of the educational benefits statement and the merits of a cost benefit analysis were discussed in the committee, and the committee welcomed an indication from the cabinet secretary that statutory guidance is being positively considered. I welcome the cabinet secretary's earlier comments on that.
In the early stages, the committee considered evidence on and debate about the merits of small rural schools and disagreements over the costs of closure, but the fact was that the Parliament could not directly address such issues. Instead, in acknowledging that such decisions are best made locally, we sought to ensure that they could be explored in a structured and transparent way and that each proposal was considered on a case-by-case basis. I am pleased that people on all sides of the debate supported that approach.
Of course, a school closure can be very divisive. We cannot overstate the significance of a school to an area; indeed, people make a huge emotional investment in schools not just because their own children are pupils at them but because their association with teachers and families alike can go back generations. Although it is not always best to be asked, "Are you your brother's sister?"—an experience that Ken Macintosh's children will have to go through several times—it shows that a school is a vital part of a community, often going a long way towards sustaining a community's spirit and ensuring its sustainability.
I am pleased to have been part of what I hope proves to be the final leg of this journey for the Scottish Parliament.
In the stage 1 debate, I pointed out that it had not been long since the summer holidays. The Christmas break is now on the horizon and I am pleased by the speedy progress made in taking the bill through its final stages.
Once again, I thank the wide range of organisations that gave evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, the ministerial team for its helpful contributions at all stages and my fellow committee members for the constructive and consensual way in which we have engaged with and progressed the bill. Murdo Fraser and Karen Whitefield have already alluded to the fact that we do not often use "consensual" and "Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee" in the same sentence.
In the few short months since the stage 1 debate, the bill has become even more important and necessary. The impact of the recession and budget cuts are being felt across Scotland, and there is a danger that many local authorities could look to their school estates for what might seem like quick and easy ways to reduce overall spending and institute a school closure and consolidation programme.
We have already heard in the debate—and will no doubt hear more—about closures that are planned or have happened across the country. Education authorities should be aware that, although they do not yet have the force of law, the bill's principles represent a high standard of good practice, and communities affected by school closure proposals should rightly expect councils to make every effort to meet such standards. As Ken Macintosh pointed out and as the committee made clear in its stage 1 report, some education authorities do follow these standards; however, we must avoid the perception of councils rushing through closure programmes to escape the added protections of and principles behind this legislation.
In my South of Scotland area, parents, pupils and teachers in Coulter and Lamington primary schools are waiting to hear the outcome of a consultation on the future of the two sites and the possibility of a merger. Throughout the consultation period, I encouraged South Lanarkshire Council to bear in mind the principles behind the bill, even if it is not yet law. The council is well known for being quite inclusive in its approach to any school consolidation or closure programme and I welcome the steps that it has taken to consult widely on this proposal. I hope that it will thoroughly consider the responses to its consultation—and the principles of this legislation—before reaching a final decision.
That said, the most worrying aspect for parents is the uncertainty of a school's future, along with the Chinese whispers that can sweep through communities as speculation and rumours run riot and further fuel the panic. If the legislation can stop any unnecessary anxiety and strain, it can only be welcomed.
The importance of rural schools to their local communities and economies has been discussed at length during the bill's passage and in the debate and I warmly welcome the strong protection that the legislation will provide for such schools and the communities that they service. Like other members, I benefited from early education in a small rural school—which is still going strong and achieving very good HMIE reports—and have first-hand experience of such schools' valuable contribution to rural Scotland and the country as a whole.
After all, we should note not only the good quality education that small rural schools can provide, but the added extras that often allow them to give an enhanced educational experience. Parents, local businesses and community members can play a hugely positive role in such schools and ensure that they are more than just bricks and mortar.
Some aspects of the bill are particularly welcome, such as the requirement for the consultation period to include at least 30 days of the school term, and the importance of consulting the pupils as part of the process. The right to be heard is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the bill ensures that that right will be recognised if a school is threatened with closure. Of course, we should always try to find appropriate and sympathetic ways, taking their age into account, of engaging with children and young people about the future of their school.
The bill is just one aspect of the Government's ambitions for Scotland's education system. When it is combined with the legislation to reduce the legal maximum class size in the early years, and make progress towards class sizes of 18 in primaries 1 to 3, as well as the introduction of free school meals for the early years, we can see the importance that the Government attaches to every young person in Scotland and that it wants to enable them to achieve the best possible start in life. Regardless of the political parties that we represent, I am sure that we all share that aspiration. Those ambitions are good for the individual child and for the country as a whole because these young people are the leaders and innovators of tomorrow.
As has been said, there will sadly be times when a school closure is unavoidable, but I believe that the bill will help to reduce those occasions to a minimum. However, when it is necessary, I hope that the bill will help with the process of understanding and acceptance among the affected communities. Full transparency, genuine consultation, and a willingness to respond are the hallmarks that will help to ensure that any final decision is made in the best possible interests of the pupils whose education is at stake, and all those who interact with the school in any way.
I hope that the bill will attract support across the chamber when we come to decision time because, at its heart, it is about strengthening Scotland's education system and recognising that schools are more than just their buildings. They are often at the heart of the communities that they serve, and they deserve all the support that we can give them.
Claire Baker mentioned Ken Macintosh's children experiencing comments about their brothers and sisters. If Ken Macintosh lived in my constituency, I would think that he was trying to grow his own local rural school.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. During the first session of Parliament, I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which heard petition after petition about the failure of the consultation system to involve parents, staff and communities in proposals to close schools. It was the real dissatisfaction with the situation in Argyll that led to the appointment of a reporter at that time. Others have mentioned the work that was undertaken by my colleague, Cathy Peattie, who played an important role in bringing to Parliament the fact that the existing consultation rules did not work and did not fully involve communities.
Similarly, the work done by Peter Peacock in his time as Minister for Children and Young People was significant to the progress that has been made. Murdo Fraser has been mentioned, and I commend the work that he undertook. The cabinet secretary has also been in the process since early on; it must seem to her like a long time. I congratulate her on the work that she has done in ensuring that the process on the bill has been positive, and on the manner in which she has handled the bill; it has been very good for the Parliament.
As other members have said, school closures will happen, but they must happen in a transparent way that involves communities. Members have also said that many local authorities already follow the good practice that is enshrined in the bill. In Clydesdale, South Lanarkshire Council has, until this year, had a presumption against the closure of any school. Indeed, it embarked on an ambitious school building programme that has seen many small rural schools being rebuilt—Braehead pupils have recently moved into their new school. The council is demonstrating its commitment to our small rural schools. It has looked at innovative ways of safeguarding the future of those schools by introducing shared headships and sharing resources.
My constituency has a mixture of communities, and the fact that the bill will apply to them all is welcome. When a closure happens anywhere, we must be clear about the reasons, that they are the right reasons, and the process must be transparent. I welcome the specific criteria that will apply to rural schools, which relate to a viable alternative, the effect on the community and the likely effect of travel arrangements to an alternative school. On a day such as today, when the weather is bad, travelling anywhere is difficult. In rural situations, the roads are perhaps not as well maintained as those in the trunk road network. Parents are conscious of the challenges that might arise in any merger of schools.
MSPs have a role in the process, too. We should not perpetuate the Chinese whispers that go about communities, but ensure that the consultation is clear, open and transparent and we should support communities to get the information that they need. For the first time in 10 years, South Lanarkshire Council has undertaken a consultation in my constituency on the merger of Coulter and Lamington primary schools. I commend the council for that consultation, which has been positive and has involved a wide range of stakeholders. I am confident that the council will come to the right conclusion for the communities that I represent.
The bill is welcome, but one issue on which more could be done is to make schools genuine community schools. In Scotland, we still have not got that right. Too many barriers and restrictions are still in play whenever we try to achieve genuine community use of schools. Other countries in Europe show what can be achieved if community schools are real community schools with genuine community access. If we make progress on that, we can provide more support for rural schools and a significant safeguard for their future. I ask the cabinet secretary to take up that issue with COSLA and perhaps to do further research on how community use of schools works in other parts of Europe and what lessons we could learn in Scotland. I ask her to consider how we can make progress with our colleagues in local government to ensure that schools, particularly in rural communities, can become an even greater focus of community life, thereby safeguarding their future.
I commend the bill to the Parliament. It is a positive bill that will safeguard the future of rural schools. It recognises that, when difficult decisions have to be made, they should be made for the right reasons and should involve the communities that they affect. Everyone in politics and in community life will welcome the bill and will move forward positively with it.
In March 1998 at the SNP national council, I proposed that there should be a presumption against the closure of rural schools. I am therefore pleased that, 11 and a half years later, we appear to have gone a considerable way towards securing that objective. In 2007, the SNP made a manifesto pledge to
"introduce a legislative presumption against closure of rural schools and tighten the regulations for closing all schools."
It is therefore my hope that, after due discussion and deliberation today, we will fulfil yet another promise to the people of Scotland.
There have been many congratulations for those who have made a significant contribution to the bill. I do not want to repeat all the names that have been mentioned, some on a number of occasions, but we should thank Mervyn Benford, the information officer with the National Association for Small Schools, who came up from south of the border to share the experience on rural schools down there with the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. I found his contribution to be invaluable.
The bill is an extremely important one that will benefit not only the schoolchildren of Scotland, but their parents, teachers and wider communities. The fundamental aim is to improve and update the consultation procedures that local authorities apply to school closures and to help safeguard schools throughout Scotland that are vulnerable to closure, particularly in rural areas. As Karen Whitefield said, a unified all-Scotland approach is important, and I believe that the bill will deliver that.
Although the right to attend a good-quality local school is important to people throughout Scotland, it is right and proper that an emphasis should be placed on rural schools. For those who have not had the good fortune of visiting my constituency of Cunninghame North, I say that it comprises many towns and villages. In such areas, the importance of the local school should not be underestimated. Two years ago, North Ayrshire Council proposed the closure of one of my island schools, in Corrie on Arran. There was an outcry on the island about that, not just because of the potential loss of a much-loved school that is a century old and which forms a focal point of the village, but for many of the reasons that Murdo Fraser touched on and which came up in the evidence to the committee. Without a school at their heart, many villages would likely die, given the closures that have already occurred of shops, post offices and other facilities and amenities.
Corrie is a village in which half the houses are already let to second-home owners, so the closure of the school would have been a nail in the coffin of an extremely picturesque and important village. There is also the domino effect. If a local authority is seen to close one small rural school, there is the possibility that other schools nearby could close. That was certainly an issue on the rest of the island. I am delighted that the bill that we are passing will make that less likely.
It can be argued that to close a rural school takes away part of a town's or village's identity, can damage it economically or socially, and can destroy a way of life. If we want our most fragile communities to thrive and prosper, we cannot think it reasonable to take away their local school and make them unattractive and isolated places for people with families to live and work.
The bill has a direct impact on not only rural schools but Scottish teachers. It is surely wrong for local authorities to close schools in an attempt, in many cases, to save money, rather than according to strictly education criteria. Glasgow City Council this year voted in favour of closing 11 of the city's primary schools and nine nursery schools, but it has emerged that many parents feel that the correct consultation process was not adhered to. That highlights the failings of the current consultation process and shows that the measures in the bill are needed as well as desirable.
Parents who feel that they have been unfairly treated by authorities can now ask ministers from this Parliament to call in the closure proposal in a manner that is similar to the process in the planning system, to ensure that the law is properly adhered to.
The bill ensures that parents are involved with the relevant authorities from the very beginning of the six-week consultation period. Many members have touched on the consultation period being six weeks and including at least 30 school days. They are right to do so, because it is the crux of the bill. The three-week period after the consultation report is published will allow people time to voice opposition and doubts before the final decision is made.
It may be too late for the people of Glasgow to save some of their schools, but this Government wishes to ensure world-class education for all its young people. That is why it is ploughing more than £3 billion into school construction, why class sizes are at a record low, why gross capital expenditure on education is at a record high and why we support the bill in order to protect Scotland's schoolchildren, their parents and teachers, and local communities.
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, although, as I am one of the last members to speak, it will be a challenge to offer a new contribution.
I will offer a few observations from my experience of 25 years in education and my involvement in local government as far back as 1992. I will pick out some of the key elements of the bill that are helpful in improving current practice.
Any of us will acknowledge that we become attached to the schools that we attend, and those of us who are parents become attached to the schools that our kids attend. It is an emotional attachment and many of us will have experienced at first hand the pain or the joy of a school being closed or saved. The bill helps by setting out the detail of what is required of the local authority in making its case: the list of those to be consulted has been expanded and includes both pupils and staff; the education benefits of any changes proposed must be detailed; and, in the case of rural schools, the impact on the local community and the alternative travel arrangements that may be required must be assessed.
I note that any person can make a representation to the minister to request a call-in and that the minister must take that into account before deciding whether to call in a proposal.
I hope that those measures will help local communities that find themselves in a consultation situation to feel a bit more confident that the level of detail that they would expect from their local authority will be forthcoming.
It might be fair to note that local communities have often found themselves preparing much more detailed cases for the retention of a school than the authority has done in proposing to close it. Such work could even take the form of detailed alternative assessments of the condition and fabric of buildings, with financial assessments, or independent assessments of future population movements. That was all very impressive, but one wondered why that burden fell on local people. Quite correctly, the burden and obligation to make a detailed case must lie with the local authority and local people should be confident that the detail that is presented to them will be sufficient to allow them to challenge any assumptions that they might think it appropriate to challenge.
I am particularly pleased about two aspects of the bill: the requirement to consult the children and the requirement to assess the impact on the wider community of proposals that relate to rural schools, which will be so important in helping authorities to come to a fully considered position.
In the past we have perhaps not thought it appropriate to ask the kids what their thoughts and ideas are. I have visited school kids in my constituency for many years and I have complete confidence in their ability to share their views about their school and their hopes for the future. They are not afraid to be honest about their views and they will tell us straight if they think that their school is fantastic or if they would prefer to move elsewhere for a new experience and environment. Of course, sometimes it can be much harder to persuade the parents of the merits of moving to a new location.
I also like the emphasis on assessing the impact on the wider community of any proposals that relate to rural schools. As several members have said, we often find that community activities in rural areas are much more dependent on there being small schools in those areas than is the case in urban settings.
Formal consultation will be welcomed throughout Scotland. Providing as full a picture as possible of how a local authority is thinking about any school consultation can surely only be helpful in allowing everyone to arrive at the best possible outcome, in order to achieve the best educational possibilities for our children.
I hope that members throughout the chamber have found a number of positive proposals in the bill and that they will give it their full support at decision time.
We move to the wind-up speeches. I was going to call Margaret Smith, but she is not here, so I will call Elizabeth Smith. I will go back to Margaret Smith, if someone could find out where she is, please.
Many speakers have made it clear that a school, perhaps more than any other institution, is often the defining character of any small community. Quite apart from delivering the crucial element of education, it binds together families and people of different age groups and is usually the focus for a wide variety of community activities. In a rural area, that focus is even more pronounced. As Alasdair Allan and Kenny Gibson said, it is the difference between having a community and having no community. As the bill has progressed through its various stages, the evidence to support that view has been compelling.
I thank all the groups that have provided members with excellent briefings. Those groups, particularly the Scottish rural schools network, have been instrumental in forming opinion and helping members become much better informed about some of the inadequacies in the existing legislation.
We are delighted by the Scottish Government's response to the work that has been undertaken by many members in the chamber and to my colleague Murdo Fraser's proposal for a member's bill, which brought the issue back on to the agenda just recently. He has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, as have many others. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill is in the best interests of our children and our families, and passing it is the right thing to do to support our communities. Of course, I could say that we are also delighted that it is another example of the SNP adopting Conservative party policies—a common feature these days—but I will stick with the original point.
The Scottish Government and the other Opposition parties have done a very good job in recognising just how important it was to get consensus on this matter. It is good to see that the Scottish Government has recognised the different categories of rurality, which is vital in the context of ensuring that schools are treated according to their individual merits rather than universal structures, which can sometimes ignore local circumstances. Those definitions are also important in relation to the implications of the defining principles of the bill as they relate to all schools.
One of the key principles is improving transparency and democracy in the consultation process. Margaret Smith's amendments 13 and 13A, which we debated earlier, raised important issues in that respect. There have been bad decisions about the future of schools because information was not properly made available to all parties or because it was not entirely accurate. We cannot allow that situation to continue and I am grateful to the Scottish Government and Margaret Smith for lodging amendments that allowed us to probe that matter much more fully. We have made the bill much better. I look forward to the cabinet secretary providing us with more details on the statutory guidelines for councils in due course, because tightening the regulations that govern the consultation process is vital, as is having a more consistent and equitable approach throughout all 32 local authorities.
Conservatives support the new power that will be introduced to allow ministers to call in a closure decision after it has been made, if they feel that it does not comply with the new requirements in the bill, or that the local authority has failed to take account of all the relevant information. Like other members—Ken Macintosh mentioned the important issue of cost—I raised at earlier stages concerns about consequences that were perhaps unintended but still had to be addressed.
A more holistic approach should now be taken to the educational benefits statement, which will be crucial to any decision, so that we can give communities confidence that, although the economic and social aspects are being considered, the educational benefits statement will be properly weighted in the equation. Addressing that was important, as was giving a proper hearing to all the evidence at stage 1.
HMIE is a hugely important stakeholder. The bill team was right to identify that the educational benefits statement necessarily include a wide range of factors, such as the after-school facilities that are on offer to children, links in the community and the school's ethos. All that raised the question whether HMIE could cover all that work from its existing resources. Some such issues will need to be monitored, but I am satisfied that the cabinet secretary has had close discussions with HMIE and that the matter has been explored, if perhaps not yet 100 per cent resolved.
Another question was whether the financial settlement might be revised in the future, which raised the unfortunate spectre that, at the very time when we are making huge progress to protect rural schools, the Scottish Government would unwittingly create a financial incentive to close them. I am sure that Opposition parties will take a robust stance on reviewing that, but the Scottish Government has again confirmed to me that it will not make such a change.
Presiding Officer, time is short—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I did not mean that—I cancel that. Presiding Officer, time is not short, and I will take my speech a bit more slowly from now on. How many minutes do I have—six?
You have about 35 minutes.
Perhaps we could debate some of the other Conservative party policies in which the SNP is engaging. That would take much longer.
Time is short after all.
Time is very short.
I reiterate the Scottish Conservatives' unqualified support for the bill. As I said, my colleague Murdo Fraser has campaigned long and hard with the rural schools network, as have many other people. We owe them all, and the cabinet secretary, much credit. I am grateful to play my part in—I hope—the bill being passed this afternoon.
I call Kenneth Gibson—no, I do not. I call Kenneth Macintosh—sorry.
Many members—if not all of us—thrive on vigorous debate, but one part of me is pleased that most of the issues of contention and dispute in the bill were resolved before stage 3. I believe not that compromise or consensus always generates the best outcome, but that we—or at least I—need the occasional reminder that we can work together on many issues across party divides to reach agreement. Murdo Fraser, Margaret Smith, Karen Whitefield—our committee's convener—and others paid tribute to the cabinet secretary for her role in and approach to making that happen. I echo those remarks.
As the convener said, I am sure that my fellow committee members acknowledge that for consensus to break out among our small and select gathering is even rarer. I worry that this will be the only occasion on which it happens, so I am particularly grateful for the chance to thank my colleagues and the committee clerks for their communal efforts.
As members from all parties have said, our coming together was due in no small part to the work of the Scottish rural schools network, but I do not wish to heap further embarrassment on that self-effacing group of campaigners.
In a previous debate, we heard that school closures and the sustainability of small and rural schools in the future have bedevilled the Parliament for many years. Colleagues such as Fiona Hyslop, Claire Baker and Karen Whitefield paid tribute to Cathy Peattie, whom I, too, thank for the time and effort that she put in on behalf of the Parliament's first education committee—the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—on a report in which she flagged up the issue and highlighted some of the problems that needed to be addressed. Likewise, several education ministers, including Peter Peacock, grappled with the problem and made substantive improvements. Most recently, Murdo Fraser championed the cause through his proposed member's bill. I thank all those people.
All those efforts, and the momentum that had been generated over several years, came together in the campaigning work of the Scottish rural schools network. What I found most impressive about the SRSN was the evidence that it presented on the educational benefits of Scotland's small and rural schools. There is no doubt that there are some in the Scottish education system who believe that big is best when it comes to schools, but it emerged from the evidence of the SRSN and others that some of the schools that have been targeted for closure over the years were identified not because they were failing their pupils, but just because they were small and therefore potentially easier to close, through which money would be saved. I hope that today we have put in place a series of measures that will make that manifestly unfair behaviour less likely in the first place and challengeable, through the ministerial consent process.
As I mentioned earlier, I agree that providing for a ministerial consent process is not the same as allowing a right of appeal, but it is clear that a system that allows for ministerial call-in on the basis of a failure to take account of "a material consideration" is a bit of a fudge. The difficulty that the minister and her officials had at stages 1 and 2 of the bill in providing the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee with any further clarification of the term rather gave the game away as to the nature of the compromise.
I accept that the SRSN wanted the relevant section to be beefed up, while COSLA and the local authorities were initially alarmed at the prospect of having their decisions second-guessed by ministers or HMIE, but I worry that by leaving the term "a material consideration" undefined, we might be postponing a difficult decision rather than avoiding it altogether. I appreciate that ministers of whatever political hue will not be desperate to intervene in as controversial a local matter as a potential school closure but, equally, I believe that it is entirely predictable that any and every parent with a sense of grievance or unfairness about the decision on their local school will beat a path to the ministerial door, quite often to be turned away.
That said, the new criteria for consultation are clearly fairer to all sides, and I have every hope that the bill will usher in a new attitude of openness towards the process that is to be followed when a school's future is to be decided.
Although the term "rural schools" does not appear in the bill's title, I still refer to it as the rural schools bill. I hope and believe that we have given some comfort and additional protection to those who rely on their local school. Alasdair Allan, Karen Gillon, Aileen Campbell and others rightly recognised that in a small village or town, the school has a status and a value in the community that go beyond the educational benefits that it provides for its pupils.
I am aware from our previous discussions and debates on the bill that several members present went to small rural schools. Although I did not, my father, his family and many of my cousins and their children attended—or still attend—Elgol primary in Skye. It is a school that has produced doctors, lawyers, teachers and nurses. There has never been any question about the educational service that it provides for the three villages that it serves, but even though it has never faced an explicit threat to its sustainability, I know that parents in those villages remain constantly anxious about its future. They look at the school roll constantly and worry when the children of a young family grow up and move on to high school. I hope that today we have assuaged that anxiety a little. I hope that we have said that, in our pluralistic system, we need and value our small and our rural schools. I hope that we have offered all parents and pupils across Scotland reassurance that their school is as important to us as it is to them.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate. You have 21 minutes. [Laughter.] I will amend that; you have up to 21 minutes.
I thank members for what has been an extremely useful and constructive debate. The whole tone of the debate on the bill has been hugely constructive at every stage, both within the Parliament and beyond, and I am grateful to everyone who has participated in it.
It was interesting that Murdo Fraser commented on how refreshing it is for Opposition parties and the Government to have such a positive and constructive discussion. He observed that it might be a passing moment, but perhaps I could persuade him to linger a little longer in the sunshine of progressive, constructive politics rather than return to the dark shadows of confrontation.
Some extremely interesting points were made during the debate, some of which I would like to respond to. Claire Baker and Ken Macintosh made important points about guidance on material considerations. We have said that we will issue such guidance, but we must be careful not to be overly prescriptive. I warned at previous stages that if we provide for a tick-box exercise, it will be easy for councils to go through the motions, instead of considering all the issues. We are conscious of that risk and of the potential for making improvement through guidance.
Important points were made about the strength of rural schools. Murdo Fraser referred to the social aspects of such schools—their strength of character and the opportunity that they provide for many young people to engage not just with their peers but with other people in the village, as part of their wider development. Karen Gillon, who is, unfortunately, absent from the chamber, made representations about community schools, which have great strengths. A number of members made that point.
Aileen Campbell made an important point about transition. I urge all members in whose constituencies consultations on rural school closure proposals are taking place to look at schedule 3 to the bill. We must await commencement, but transition arrangements are built into the bill to make clear to everyone whether the previous provisions or the new legislation will apply.
Margaret Smith and Elizabeth Smith mentioned the important role that HMIE has to play. That is part of front-loading provision—why should the cabinet secretary be the only person to see the content of HMIE's educational advice on these matters?
Alasdair Allan and Ken Macintosh referred to Gaelic. Our intention is to increase the number of young people who have access to Gaelic-medium education. In line with that initiative, we have asked Bòrd na Gàidhlig to produce an action plan of initiatives to increase the number of speakers. We look forward to acting on its advice; I refer members to the commitments that we have already made.
One of the most striking contributions was by Willie Coffey. He and Christina McKelvie made the point that the bill requires councils to make the case for closure. Too often, it is the protesters or those who are seeking to protect rural schools who have had to make the more detailed and well-argued case. In the bill, we say that responsibility for making the case should be placed on the shoulders of councils, who must do so from their resources. That is one of the biggest improvements that the bill will make.
I agree with what the cabinet secretary has just said. Does she agree that one of the major flaws of many previous consultations by local authorities has been in relation to the financial consequences of school closures? We have seen that in a number of recent cases. Does she hope that one of the outcomes of the bill will be a substantial improvement in understanding at local government level of the financial consequences of the closure of a rural school?
I agree with the member. Many people have mistakenly assumed that closing rural schools is a great revenue saver. In fact, although education authorities may realise the capital value of the building, the majority of costs relate to staffing. Unless they are using the closure of rural schools to cut staffing, all that they are doing is displacing members of staff to neighbouring schools, usually with the pupils who are moving there. We need to recognise the true value of rural schools, which is not always measured in pounds, shillings and pence—it may also be measured in the quality of the education that they provide. Murdo Fraser's point is well made.
The bill may be modest in size, but its aims are much bigger. The scope is relatively narrow, but the impact on those affected will be considerable. The bill aims to change not just the framework within which all school consultations will be undertaken in the future but—importantly—the culture of local consultations, leading to a more open and trusting relationship between councils and the communities that they serve. We know that school consultations are often emotive and difficult proceedings; we also know from Government consultations prior to the introduction of the bill that many parents start from a position of suspicion or mistrust. The bill is partly about recognising the relationships that can be built and building an element of trust. It is never going to be easy, and it is never going to be perfect, but part of what we propose is to change the culture around school closures.
The bill will deliver a process that is open and transparent. It will ensure that those who are consulted are given comprehensive information right at the start of the process. Consultations will be launched with the publication of a proposal paper, which must set out the details of the proposal, the proposed date of implementation and any supporting information that the council in question considers appropriate. Each paper must include an educational benefits statement, in which the council will set out the educational basis for its proposals. That statement must address the likely effects on all pupils at the affected school and at other schools in the council's area, as well as the effects on other users. It is often argued by councils that that is implicit in a consultation, but the bill provides an opportunity for it to be made explicit. It is not only the pupils at the school who are concerned; there are other people to be considered. The educational benefits statement must also set out how the council intends to minimise or avoid adverse effects from its proposals, as well as setting out its benefits.
In cases where consultees—or anyone else—allege that information in the proposal paper is inaccurate, or that relevant information has been omitted, councils must respond to those allegations, and they must report the action that has been taken or justify it if they conclude that no action is required. Margaret Smith's contributions in that regard at stages 2 and 3 have been very important. Sometimes a process develops in which the information is accurate right at the start but, unless a problem is addressed, it will fester, fuelling the suspicion that something has been put in a deliberately misleading way. Factual inaccuracies will sometimes be made, but the point is to address the problem up front. Trust in the relationship, openness and transparency are important from the start. Again, I thank Margaret Smith for her contribution.
The bill extends the consultation period, which must now include at least six weeks of term time. I have seen consultations in which the injudicious timing of the start date has led to great difficulty.
Christmas eve.
I hear Christmas eve being mentioned. Those days will now be gone. That is common sense, and it respects those involved in the consultation. In cases where consultation straddles school holidays, the consultation period will need to be extended to accommodate that period.
HMIE will now contribute to every consultation, and its report will be included in the council's consultation report, so that everybody has the opportunity to see it. The council will be required to publish its response to the HMIE report in the consultation report.
The consultation report will include a summary of all oral and written representations, as well as the council's response to those representations. The consultation report is also where the council will publish details of alleged inaccuracies and omissions, and its response to those. The internet provides the opportunity to share those details more fully.
Following publication of the consultation report, there will be three weeks for consultees to consider it and to make further representations to the council before it makes its decision. It is important to remember that the council retains responsibility and accountability for decisions throughout the process, particularly in the three weeks leading up to the final decision, when there is still an opportunity for local people to contact and lobby their councillors as part of the decision-making process.
In the case of proposals to close a rural school, the bill puts in place three factors to which the council must have regard before moving to consult. Those factors—viable alternatives to closure; the likely effects of closure on the community; and the likely effects of closure on travelling arrangements—will make a decision to close a rural school a decision of last resort.
The bill will mark an end to the current, rather arbitrary, grounds for the involvement of ministers, such as occupancy and distance. That approach will be replaced with a safeguard for the most contentious decisions, school closures. In those cases, ministers will be able to call in decisions where they perceive serious flaws in the consultation or in the decision-making process. I emphasise the word "process"—it is not about second-guessing the decision that is made by the council; it is about ensuring that the process, as set out by law, has been carried through. That is why we could not rely on guidance alone and why we wanted to introduce legislation in this regard.
Although I suspect that most closure cases will be subject to representations to ministers in the early stages of implementation—I heed Ken Macintosh's warnings on this—I do not envisage more than a handful of cases being called in. That is, of course, in the hands of councils. Ministers may call in a case only when there are grounds to do so. If the process works and is sufficiently front-loaded, there should be no reason why a council will have carried out consultation in such a way that call-in will automatically be needed. There will be issues in the early stages of the bill's implementation, but I have given my commitment to ensure that we respect the decision making of councils and that we uphold the law, which will help parents and communities.
The bill will create a framework for fully informed, transparent and rigorous consultation. Decisions will be taken by people who are locally elected and accountable and ministers will intervene in closure cases only when there have been serious failings in the process. I am confident that if the letter and the spirit of the bill are followed, communities will develop greater confidence and trust in the process and in their councils, which will ultimately lead to better local relationships.
I thank everyone who was involved in developing the bill, which is an example of good practice for the Parliament. The role of the Scottish rural schools network was important and demonstrated that the experts are not always the people who are in administration, whether they are in the Government or in councils. The experts on local communities are often the people who live in and have experience of those communities. Such people have made careful and meaningful contributions on school closures and, as Karen Whitefield said, the bill will be a lasting legacy to their work. I distinctly remember introducing many of those people to one another—at the time I did not expect to be the cabinet secretary who would respond to proposals and introduce legislation. I am proud to have been responsible in small part for the bill, not just in government but in opposition.
I acknowledge all the people who have contributed to the debate and to the bill. The bill has been shaped by all the political parties in the Parliament. Presiding Officer, you often talk to people in countries throughout the world about the best aspects of the Scottish Parliament; perhaps you will use the bill as a good example of how we can work collectively and consensually and be part of the participative democratic process that should be the hallmark of how we go about our business in the Parliament.
I ask members to endorse the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.
That concludes the debate on the bill. Despite the impressive efforts of the cabinet secretary I have no choice other than to suspend the meeting until 16:59.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—