Rural and Special Needs Schools (Aberdeenshire)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2770, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the proposed closure of rural and special needs schools in Aberdeenshire. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the proposals by Aberdeenshire Council to close or amalgamate a number of local schools; recognises the strength of feeling amongst parents and the wider community over the implications of closing those schools, as illustrated by the formation of the Garioch Schools Action Group and other local campaigns; notes in particular the proposal to close St Andrew's school in Inverurie, a school that is widely recognised as providing an excellent educational environment for children with special needs; recognises the opposition to the current proposals by local parents at St Andrew's who are genuinely concerned by the impact some of the options proposed by Aberdeenshire Council will have on their children; notes the ongoing confusion over the exact nature of the local authority's proposals which is causing considerable distress amongst parents; believes that Aberdeenshire Council must make available to parents all the necessary information in relation to all those schools proposed for closure as part of the current consultation process; considers that Aberdeenshire Council should recognise the strength of the arguments put forward by parents and the wider community for the retention of their local schools, and further considers that the Scottish Executive should play what role it can to ensure that Aberdeenshire Council's proposals do not damage the educational welfare of the children and wider interests of the community.
I thank everyone who signed the motion—they were from all the parties bar one—and I hope that many members will take the opportunity to speak in this debate. The debate is about the welfare of children in Scotland who are attending special needs schools—especially in north-east Scotland—and our rural schools. It is also about ensuring that the educational welfare of our children is put before bricks and mortar.
Many councils the length and breadth of Scotland face difficult decisions on the future of educational provision. A few months ago, Aberdeenshire Council launched 24 projects under its 21st century school improvement programme, on which it is currently consulting. Many of those projects are welcome, but one or two are questionable and one or two are, I believe, indefensible.
However, there is good news today. The education committee of Aberdeenshire Council met and a proposal to amalgamate four schools in the Garioch area—Rayne North, Old Rayne, Chapel of Garioch and Logie Durno schools—has been reduced to a proposal to rebuild Logie Durno school, which effectively means that the other schools have been saved. I pay tribute to the campaigners in that area, who have achieved a significant victory today. I also pay tribute to the communities. I believe that the decision is a victory for common sense. I would like to think that it also indicates the power of Scottish National Party motions in the Parliament.
One of the serious points about the Garioch schools proposal is that the parents at three out of the four schools went through the same process a couple of years ago, when the future of the schools, with the exception of Chapel of Garioch, was similarly up for discussion and a vigorous campaign had to be fought. Despite the fact that the schools have been saved before, they have been forced just a few months later to jump through hoops and the local communities have again had to launch vigorous campaigns against Aberdeenshire Council. That is unacceptable. I hope that the minister takes on board the fact that the timescale was so short. Once the axe that is hanging over a school is taken away, it should not be put there again a couple of years down the line. The cycle of uncertainty is damaging to the morale of staff and parents in the affected schools.
I visited all the schools. Indeed, I went to Logie Durno a couple of days ago. The status quo is not an option for that school. A supposedly temporary portakabin has been in the playground for 27 years and older children have to cross the playground just to go to the toilets. The school needs to be modernised and I am delighted that the council has chosen to rebuild it.
The issue of special needs has risen up the political agenda during the past few years; the delivery of special needs provision is certainly high on the agenda in north-east Scotland and areas such as Gordon, west Aberdeenshire and the city of Aberdeen. Indeed, in Aberdeen, a campaign is under way to save the well-respected Raeden centre, whose future is on the line. Many parents are concerned that splitting the current provision at Raeden across three sites in the city will mean that much of the expertise and the reputation that have been built up over a long time will be lost.
The consultation options have been expanded for Carronhill School in Stonehaven as part of the Aberdeenshire proposals. I understand that Aberdeenshire Council's education committee has added the option of upgrading Carronhill School, rather than just closing it. That proposal, too, will now go to consultation, which is a small breakthrough for the campaigners in that part of the world, whom we wish well.
A crux of the debate is the future of St Andrew's special school in Inverurie. Currently, the school has more than 100 pupils, 40 of whom are autistic, with the others representing a wide variety of complex needs. The school has an excellent reputation and is one of only seven in Scotland accredited by the National Autistic Society. An enormous campaign is now under way in Inverurie and throughout Aberdeenshire to save the school, which has an excellent reputation. Despite the fact that the children seem happy there and the parents are extremely happy with the education that is provided for their children, the school is now facing closure.
Until today, the only options that Aberdeenshire Council has given are the closure of the school and perhaps the establishment of two special educational needs bases at a local primary school and the local academy. I understand that the council has now added a new option for a stand-alone new build, on which it will consult. That is a significant breakthrough for the community and for the parents who have been campaigning to save the school. The campaign has attracted enormous public support. Almost 15,000 signatures have been gathered from across the local community—that speaks volumes about the school's reputation.
When I visited the school a few weeks ago, I was stunned by the dedication shown by the staff. The head teacher has turned the school around. One of the parents refers to the school as an oasis because of the ethos that has been built up there and because of the contentment among the children who attend it. The head teacher and the staff are an inspiration and I pay tribute to them. I am talking about staff who come in during the summer to knock cupboards together to make more room for the children and who come in during their holidays to paint the school and undertake other modifications. That speaks volumes about the dedication of the staff in that school.
The status quo is not an option. A rebuild is the best way forward, but the parents are concerned that it should not split resources and expertise among other sites. They believe that inclusion and mainstreaming are appropriate for some, but not all, children.
In an e-mail, Owen Williams, whose two sons are at the school, told me:
"The loss of St Andrew's School as a stand-alone institution would be disastrous for Paul and Niall. Neither Niall with his physical and educational difficulties nor Paul with his developmental and emotional difficulties would be able to deal with life in, or at close proximity to, a mainstream educational establishment."
That is the crux of the parents' concerns. They want the current stand-alone situation to continue on a new-build site. I hope that the Parliament will support their sentiments.
What can the minister do? For a start, the consultation process has been vague and confusing and the fact that the council's options have been difficult to understand has caused the parents much needless distress over the past few months. The minister should investigate how the consultation process has worked in Aberdeenshire and how it can be improved. He should also review the inclusion policy to ensure that it is not putting undue pressure on education authorities such as Aberdeenshire to do something that might not be right for children.
We should consider the economic and social impact of rural school closures, because I do not believe that authorities examine those factors hard enough when they contemplate closing such schools. I understand that, even though special circumstances must be taken into account, central Government has not issued specific guidelines for local authorities that are contemplating closing special needs schools. I wonder whether such guidelines could be issued. Finally, I urge the minister to use his influence to ensure that education authorities do what is best for children's educational welfare, not what is best for the school estate or for economics. I hope that the minister will reaffirm that number 1 priority this evening.
I pay tribute to all the staff and parents who have been involved in the various campaigns over the past few months. As we have heard today, many inroads have been made. I hope that, after this debate, the outcome of the consultation, which closes at the end of September, reflects first and foremost the best interests of the children and the affected communities.
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing the debate. Obviously a cross-party element has already generated some movement on the matter. I want to focus on the two issues that have been causing parents concern: rural school provision in Aberdeenshire and services for children with special needs in the area.
I, too, acknowledge that it is right for local authorities to review the way in which they provide education to ensure that maximum value for pupils is gained through local spending on education. However, we must remember that there are sustainable rural schools whose rolls are not falling, whose teachers are providing excellent education and whose pupils should not be disadvantaged because of an overall restructuring strategy. Those issues have exercised campaigns in Aberdeenshire such as that run by the successful Garioch schools action group, and the local authority must pay careful heed to them. I welcome today's news about that campaign and hope that there will be further acknowledgement of some of the other campaigns.
Of course, Aberdeenshire Council's proposals to close St Andrew's and Carronhill schools have caused parents great anxiety. Indeed, a petition against the closures has gained enormous support and has attracted 25,000 signatures, because parents have been unclear about the alternative provision that is being proposed for their children and are now concerned at what some of the alternatives might be. I very much welcome the fact that new proposals are being considered.
Like other members, I have met parents, particularly those associated with St Andrew's School and the Raeden centre, who are worried about the proposals and I have written to Aberdeenshire Council to express my concerns about the plans. I am particularly concerned by remarks apparently made by some local councillors that the local authority has to pursue plans to close St Andrew's and Carronhill because of Executive guidelines. At a previous question time, the minister helpfully clarified for me that such a view is wrong. Rightly, these are local decisions that are based on local need. Not only are local authorities not forced to put children with special needs into mainstream education, but Executive guidelines state that there must be the facility to review the progress of children with special needs in mainstream education. If the system is not working for a child, the capacity must exist to put them back into a special school setting. I sincerely hope that in future such a misconception—indeed, misrepresentation—of the guidelines is not relayed to parents, who are now aware of what the guidelines in fact say.
In his reply to my letter, the council's director of education makes it clear that the proposals, including the proposal for co-located units that are linked to schools, abide by Executive guidelines. However, parents are concerned that the proposal for co-location is not an adequate alternative to the mainstream provision that Executive guidelines refer to. There remains a need for further dialogue with parents. That dialogue will have to be more useful than the earlier dialogue and it should, as the motion suggests, recognise
"the strength of the arguments put forward by parents".
It should represent genuine consultation.
This is not the first time in the chamber that I have discussed services for special needs children in the north-east. It is important that those services improve. There is concern over the proposals for the Raeden centre. Along with Lewis Macdonald and Anne Begg, I visited the Raeden centre to hear the concerns of staff and parents. Lewis Macdonald has put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting between Grampian NHS Board and local MPs and MSPs. Again, the decision is a local one and I am bewildered that people are saying that the Executive is forcing the changes. It certainly is not. The Executive is determined to have excellent services for children with special needs and the Raeden centre has in the past been excellent at providing such services. Grampian NHS Board should bear that in mind when making any further decisions.
When we next discuss these issues, I hope that the goal of providing improved services for children with special needs will have been achieved. That will mean that the local authorities and Grampian NHS Board will have to have listened to parents and responded to their concerns. The parents, after all, are the ones who are most keenly aware of and concerned about the needs of their children. I am sure that the local authorities and Grampian NHS Board want to provide excellent services in education and health. Through the right partnership working, they can achieve that.
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing the debate. The motion focuses on Aberdeenshire, but it raises national themes. I have met parents from St Andrew's and Carronhill schools and the minister should reflect on the pertinent points that they raised.
We have to respect the fact that local authorities must manage the education services in their areas. However, some key points must be addressed. The case for special schools must continue to be made. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 encourages the presumption of mainstreaming, but ministers have said time and again that special schools should not close as a result of mainstreaming.
We welcome the funds that are available for estate management, new build and refurbishment, but arguments for those funds could conflict with the arguments on the need for special schools. We should be more creative in using the talents and expertise of the teaching staff in special schools. Staff could be exchanged with mainstream schools. Those schools could learn a lot from working with staff who have experience of special needs children and children who need additional support for learning.
We have to address the consultation process and the guidance. The minister will know about the petitions from Argyll and Bute and from Midlothian and he will know that revised guidance was finally produced last year. That guidance is still not satisfactory, however. When special schools have a wide remit and a catchment area that is far wider than the local community and local schools, their cases should be referred to ministers. Unfortunately, the guidance treats special schools just like any other schools.
I am glad that there have been changes and I welcome the movement that we have heard about today for St Andrew's School, Carronhill School and other schools in the Gordon area. Because there were specific proposals for Carronhill, the parents of the pupils there were in a different form of consultation process from the one in which the parents of the pupils at St Andrew's were engaged. It had not been decided at that point what association Carronhill would have with any other school. The Carronhill parents were perhaps more involved in the process than the St Andrew's parents, but the consultation process is still woefully lacking.
There has to be a debate about the merits of co-location of special units with mainstream schools. That should not become the orthodoxy just because it is simpler to administer and cheaper from an estate management point of view. The sell-off of stand-alone sites means that people can make money through public-private partnerships and can save money for other purposes.
A choice must be offered. There has to be movement between mainstream and special schools when that is desirable for individuals, but the choice should not be between having stand-alone schools and mainstream schools with special units attached. The option of co-located schools is being pursued throughout Scotland, not just in Aberdeenshire.
Just as the estate management argument runs counter to the special needs agenda, the rural development policy is being largely ignored when it comes to the case for rural schools. The Education Committee made that quite clear to the Minister for Education and Young People when he appeared before us about a year ago. There should be a presumption against the closure of rural schools, but that does not mean that no rural school will ever be closed; rather, it indicates that educational merits must be put at the forefront. Time and again, when I hear from campaigners throughout the country, I worry that that is not happening.
Very special individuals support children with special needs. Their work needs to be acknowledged and supported and the parents of the pupils who attend such schools need to be reassured by the Parliament and the minister that they will not continue to be treated in the way in which they have been treated so far. I welcome the changes that have been announced today, but I think that we will have to return to the issue repeatedly during this session of Parliament.
Before I call Nora Radcliffe, I remind members that the title of the debate is the proposed closure of rural and special needs schools in Aberdeenshire. Members should stick to what the motion says.
I am keen to speak in the debate as I am fully alive to the issues and concerns that are outlined in Mr Lochhead's motion. However, I have not signed his motion because I find outrageous the suggestion that any education authority or local authority would set out to
"damage the educational welfare of the children"
for whom it is responsible or the
"wider interests of the community."
Aberdeenshire Council, and its predecessor council, Grampian Regional Council, have a long and proud track record of prioritising and protecting education provision, even in times of viciously tight budgets, when extremely difficult decisions had to be made. As individuals, many of the councillors have been elected and re-elected to serve their communities and I have no doubt that they will do their utmost to serve those communities well.
I commend what the council is trying to do in respect of its educational provision for the future. It is consulting—no more, no less—on options for a school estate that contains predominantly elderly buildings, some too large, some too small, some badly sited, some in poor repair and many without modern facilities.
Does the member appreciate that I am not saying that Aberdeenshire Council is setting out to damage the rural economy or the educational welfare of the children for which it is responsible? I am saying that that could happen if the council goes down the wrong road. Surely Nora Radcliffe should support her constituents, many thousands of whom have expressed support for the future of St Andrew's.
I am well able to support my constituents, believe me.
I have criticisms of the report that the council's officers have produced and of the way in which the exercise has been handled, but the principle behind it is absolutely correct. Officers were asked to undertake a review of the entire school estate in Aberdeenshire and to lay out a set of options on which the council could consult. That is entirely laudable and to be commended. Unfortunately, the report is not as good as it could and should have been, and parents have pointed out a number of quite serious inaccuracies in the descriptions of some of the schools and their facilities.
I attended a meeting in connection with the proposed set of options for a group of schools in the Garioch, at which council officers could not explain or justify some of the statistics in their report or answer the perfectly reasonable questions that were put to them by members of the school boards. The two local councillors who were also present at the meeting will have drawn their own conclusions. Following the meeting, I spoke to other councillors about my concerns and encouraged the parents who were present at the meeting to make representations directly to the councillors on the council's education committee. This evening, Mr Lochhead has indicated that that has been effective and that the option that local parents want has been adopted.
The consultation on St Andrew's School in Inverurie has also been unsatisfactory in many respects and different interpretations of the proposals that are contained in the report have been advanced at different times.
I have known St Andrew's School for more than 30 years; throughout that time, it has had an enviable reputation.
You have one minute left.
St Andrew's now caters almost exclusively for children with highly complex needs. The staff do superb work under the leadership of head teacher Mrs Burnett, who, in creating facilities out of cloakrooms and broom cupboards, has done an extraordinary job that is comparable to the spinning of straw into gold.
It cannot be denied, however, that the constraints of a building that was not designed to the space standards that are required to accommodate wheelchairs and standing frames mean that that building should be replaced as soon as is practicable. I think that there is general agreement on that.
I am bound to say that I did not see the option in the report as the best option when I first read it. I said so immediately to the convener of the education committee. A visit to the school, meetings with the director of education, the head teacher and the chair of the school board, as well as with many parents of children at the school, have confirmed my first response. I believe that the argument for replacing St Andrew's School with a free-standing single school is incontrovertible for a number of reasons that I have put to the local councillor and many of his colleagues. I have encouraged everyone who has contacted me on the issue to make their views known to the councillors who will eventually have to take the decisions on what happens.
I do not discount for one moment the anxiety, stress and distress of the parents—and perhaps the children—that this exercise has occasioned. However, it is important to emphasise that consulting is one thing; doing is quite another. It would have been helpful if some of my colleagues had proceeded on that premise. It is irresponsible to present the council's consultation and dialogue as proof of its having a policy of closing rural schools or schools that cater for special needs children when no such policy exists.
Are we to take the position that such matters cannot even be discussed? Of course they need to be discussed, unless we adopt the irrational view that the school estate can never change.
You must finish now, Miss Radcliffe.
I have two paragraphs to go.
The cynical assumption that consultation is always a sham will ultimately exclude the public from actively participating in shaping decisions. I would worry about the future of a democracy if it were to become impossible to consult the public on difficult subjects.
I have confidence that the people of Aberdeenshire and their council can and will work together to arrive at workable and acceptable outcomes for the future that are in the best interests of the children whom they all care about.
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing the debate. The subject is an important one, on which all members who represent north-east constituencies have had much communication from parents and families. Conservative policy is, and has been for some time, against the routine closure of rural schools as and when authorities have difficulties with cash. Those schools are the centre of many communities; they hold the communities together.
As far as special needs education is concerned, I was first contacted by parents who have children at St Andrew's School. The parents were very anxious that the council appeared to be having a discussion without taking any input from the parents. I phoned Hamish Vernal, the director of education, and was assured that that was not the case. He told me that there would be proper consultation and that meetings would be held with parents and so on.
I visited St Andrew's School with Nora Radcliffe. I have also visited Carronhill School. I have met parents; I have met the chairs of the school boards; and I have talked at length with staff. There is no doubt that St Andrew's is a high-achieving establishment, but it needs new premises; the premises are no longer fit for purpose.
Replacing the school with two separate tag-on units or bases would be a disaster; it would split up an excellent working team of professionals who are highly skilled and caring. How on earth can a decision on the needs of a child be taken on the basis of age? One would assume that children of primary school age would be attached to a primary school, but age has nothing to do with the conditions in which they should be looked after. It is a fallacy that that should happen and the council should not go down that route. I hope that St Andrew's gets a new-build school. There is ground on the site for such a building; the school should be made fit for purpose and its excellent staff should be kept together.
I am delighted that Carronhill will be upgraded. In fact, the school supplies support for teachers who work in the different bases that are scattered around Aberdeenshire, at which children who are able to do so take part in part-time mainstream education.
I will read from an e-mail that I got last evening from Mr and Mrs Petrie, constituents who live in the north-east:
"My wife and I are utterly disgusted that they should do this to a highly acclaimed school. It has been awarded a gold medal from the autistic society for its achievements with autistic children (our son being one of them) only two of these Gold medals have been awarded in Scotland … We need the Scottish parliament to tell Aberdeenshire Council to leave our kids and school alone … We as parents feel that our son's education will be compromised by the school closure, he has made such good progress, we don't want him to be cheated out of an excellent source of education, support, safety and facilities that St Andrews school has to offer our son."
That is just one of hundreds of communications that I have received on this subject.
We have to look at special needs education in a different light. Every child who needs support should be assessed separately. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 declared that mainstreaming was a presumption, but that is politically correct nonsense and flies in the face of the way in which children with special needs should be treated. The minister will not interfere with the operation of a council, but I would like him to ensure through his office that Aberdeenshire Council is given adequate resources to continue to develop the two full-time bases and to provide the support that is given to the bases that are attached to some primary schools in the shire.
People at all levels of government in Scotland—local and national—must listen to the parents.
Richard Lochhead's motion is misleading, to say the least. It would have been helpful if he had turned up to the special briefing that Aberdeenshire Council provided for parliamentarians—MSPs and MPs—to discuss what it intended to do. He would have been less confused about the council's intentions and the options for change that are being put before local people. However, for whatever reason, Richard Lochhead was unable to attend that briefing.
Will Mike Rumbles give way?
No. Richard Lochhead has had his say.
The proposal is not a master plan that has been put out and consulted on after the event. It is a consultation on options. Aberdeenshire Council—in particular its education convener, Councillor Richard Stroud—is to be congratulated on its approach to the issue. The council has not followed the consultation model that has been pursued disreputably by many of our health boards over the past few years—they have put up their plans, which have been worked up by officials, and then asked people to approve them. The situation in Aberdeenshire is not like that. The consultation process is working well. The council has performed its review of the school estate and has come up with options for multimillion-pound improvements, if it obtains the funding from the Scottish Executive. The council is involving local people in the decision-making process.
I want to focus on the options for Carronhill School in Stonehaven, in my constituency. To date, the consultation on Carronhill has received 11 responses from staff, pupils, parents and community representatives requesting the removal of the option to close Carronhill. No responses were received in support of the option to close the school. There was also an overwhelming response against the option of closing Carronhill in a petition of more than 10,000 signatures.
I know that Aberdeenshire Council will listen to everyone who has responded to the consultation. With no responses being received to date that support the closure of Carronhill, I cannot believe that our councillors in Aberdeenshire will do anything other than respond in a positive way and keep Carronhill open. I have full confidence in our local Aberdeenshire councillors. I do not have the same confidence in the way that Richard Lochhead has misrepresented the actions of our local councillors and misled local people.
I recall the briefing to which Mr Rumbles referred. It may come as a surprise to him but, given the inability of Richard Lochhead to attend, I ensured that what happened and what was said at the meeting was shared with my colleagues.
So that is what went on.
That is as members would expect. I suggest to Mike Rumbles that we do not make this a party-political issue–
Oh dear.
—unless he wishes it to be one.
The core of what matters is the parents and the children who are affected by the plans. They are, in large part, affected beneficially. In some areas, however, that is less clearly the case. In that spirit, I welcome in particular the St Andrew's School parents, who have joined us in the public gallery to watch the debate. Because the time of the debate was brought forward, they were not able to be here for it all. I hope that, now that we will finish somewhat earlier than planned and the minister has some spare time, he might be able, as a courtesy to the parents who have travelled down here to see us, to spare them a few minutes after the debate, so that we can actually engage ministers and parents. Parents at St Andrew's and other schools who want to influence the outcome of Aberdeenshire's options and plans have conducted their campaigns in an excellent, professional and reasoned way throughout the shire.
There are people in my constituency who, like people in Inverurie, will be dancing in the streets tonight following some of today's proposed changes by the education committee of Aberdeenshire Council. A number of closures are proposed for my constituency. They are, by and large, sensible and respond to the demographic changes that have taken place. In one case, the council is closing a school that had an open roofless toilet for its children, which is absolutely unsustainable in the modern world. Such responses to changing circumstances are entirely appropriate.
In the brief time that is available to me, I want to say a few words about Longhaven School, south of Peterhead, where the case for closure is not as strong by any means. In fact, its closure was considered among the options only because of a slightly loose remark, or rather a question, by a local councillor—no names, no pack drill; this is not the time for that. That councillor asked why Longhaven was not one of the schools that were being considered for closure. It did not come under the initial considerations, although it ended up being recommended for closure.
That decision is a great mystery to parents and to me. The grounds for the school's closure relate to the state of the building, yet there is no evidence that it is inappropriate. It has had money spent on it in recent years, and I have visited it a number of times. Not only that, but the council has given a near six-figure sum to redevelop the village hall, which is located just a few feet from the school. Facilities are shared by the two buildings, and those improvements were required for the school. I hope that, when the full council considers the issues around Longhaven School, it is able to reconsider the case that parents have advanced and to examine more carefully whatever proposal the parents end up wanting to include among the options.
Dialogue has been mentioned in the debate. The issue of Longhaven School was voted on without any of the proponents of including the option of closure even speaking for their proposal. We need dialogue on Longhaven School. I welcome the fact that, elsewhere in Aberdeenshire, there is delight at the changes that are being made. I congratulate Richard Lochhead on bringing us the opportunity to consider—I hope objectively—this important issue.
In order to allow members who wish to speak to speak, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 10 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 5.12pm.—[Richard Lochhead.]
Motion agreed to.
I am pleased that Richard Lochhead has secured this debate on an issue that is of great importance to many parents and pupils in Aberdeenshire. Aberdeenshire Council's proposed improvement programme is still out for consultation, and the proposals are not yet prioritised or costed. As yet, no funding has been made available for any of the proposals. Some of them are not contentious, but others have given local residents significant cause for concern.
I had not heard about the outcome of today's meeting of the council's education committee until recently, as I have been in the chamber most of the day. Members will be pleased to know that, as a result, my speech will be about half the length that it was going to be originally.
I warmly welcome the news about the Garioch schools. The decision is clearly sensible. It is the same as the decision that was made two years ago after a successful campaign to keep the schools open. Naturally, the parents were disappointed when the debate seemed to reopen and I understand why parents were really upset when, at a meeting with officials, they were given the erroneous reports—to which Nora Radcliffe referred—about the current state of their schools. I regret the frustration and worry that the Garioch schools parents have undergone in recent weeks; thankfully, it has turned out to be needless.
The proposals for St Andrew's School and Carronhill School are also welcome. I have visited both schools in recent months. Carronhill is ideally situated. It has plenty of space and upgrading is the obvious answer for it. Parents will be delighted with the news.
I thank the member for supporting the motion and will follow her comments about Carronhill. Does she agree that it was a bit bizarre for Mike Rumbles to say that the motion misleads Parliament when Aberdeenshire Council's leader, Audrey Findlay, was quoted in The Press and Journal on 11 May as saying that the consultation process had "gone pear-shaped"?
I agree with Mr Lochhead; Mr Rumbles often makes comments that are quite bizarre.
It is clear that the present St Andrew's School building in Inverurie is near the end of its life, but in it, pupils receive a first-class education that is appropriate to their needs. The atmosphere is calm, caring and inclusive. As Richard Lochhead said, of the 100-plus pupils for whom it caters, 40 are autistic, many of whom are at the severe end of the autistic spectrum and several of whom have very complex needs. Several of those pupils went to St Andrew's from mainstream schools in which they had failed to cope. All their parents are full of praise for the progress that they have made at the school. Those parents are aghast at the prospect of the free-standing St Andrew's School being replaced by support-for-learner bases that are co-located with mainstream schools, even if the bases are modern state-of-the-art units such as that which is attached to Banff Primary School or that which is incorporated in Banff Academy. Those bases are impressive and successful, but none of the pupils whom I saw at them has the complexity of disability that I have seen in St Andrew's and none has such severe autism. St Andrew's caters for children who meet the criteria for exceptions to mainstream education that are included in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 because such education would not suit their disabilities and aptitudes.
Other local authorities are building new stand-alone facilities. Until today, that was not an option in the consultation for Aberdeenshire schools. A parent asked me to quote her daughter's draft record of needs, which says clearly that she needs to be placed in a special school. Pupils' needs must be put first. The parents of severely disabled children are the best judges of how their offspring are coping. They are devoted parents. Many went through hell before their children went to St Andrew's and their desire for new stand-alone facilities to replace that excellent school must be listened to.
I am well aware that decisions on such matters are for the council to make in due course, but the concerns are real. The parents feel that they must fight for the right provision for their children, including their right to an education that suits them and which will enable them to reach their fullest potential. I hope that the minister understands those concerns and I look forward to his response to the debate.
I warmly welcome Richard Lochhead's motion and the chance to debate the issue, which could have a serious impact on many children and families in Aberdeenshire. Two separate topics with their own special implications arise from the same mindset and lack of joined-up thinking.
The closure of rural schools flies in the face of all policies to encourage rural regeneration. There is no way that people will be encouraged to stay in or move to rural areas if local services are not provided. I am delighted to hear the news that Aberdeenshire Council has moved somewhat to allay many families' fears. Closure of rural schools, along with closure of post offices and local shops, has one consequence: it undermines any incentive to live in such areas, because it leaves them poorly serviced.
We need to address a distinct problem in our much larger and more remote rural areas, such as Aberdeenshire. It is essential that the Executive is aware of the need to provide funding support to enable local authorities to react sensitively to the needs of rural areas. To digress a bit, I was encouraged by the Kerr report on the health service, which was published yesterday and which emphasises rural communities' needs and the aim of providing services as locally as possible. In that context, we surely need a similar review of communities' need to remain vibrant and sustainable.
The proposals to close or amalgamate special needs schools such as St Andrew's and Carronhill raise issues about the value that society places on disabled people; such proposals call into question whether we value each member of society as an individual and whether we recognise everyone's ability to contribute to society in whatever way, however small. "Inclusion" and "equal opportunities" are buzz words, but they need the broadest interpretation. To me, equal opportunities means enabling everyone to achieve the best that they can achieve within their abilities. Inclusion is about recognising that everyone has a part to play in whatever community best suits their needs. However, that level of inclusion and equal opportunities requires targeted and flexible funding. For many children who are disabled by a huge variety of needs, schools that provide dedicated services are the most effective way in which to develop to their full potential, whatever that may be. Like other schools, St Andrew's provides that service.
Our society grossly undervalues the contribution that disabled people can make in the workplace and the community. If we recognised that contribution, we would ensure that the best services were available for children from the earliest age. Early identification of need and early intervention are vital if children are to receive the basic education that will set them on the path to achieving the best that they can achieve. Surely that is what we want for all our children and what they deserve.
By investing at an early stage, we will enable children to become as independent as possible and therefore, one hopes, they will require less support in later years. I would like more vision from local authorities; they should take a more considered approach, before families such as those in Aberdeenshire, who already have enough stress in their lives, have to give so much time and effort to campaigns.
The proposal to close or amalgamate rural special needs schools is, needless to say, causing anxiety among the children who benefit so much from the schools and among their parents and local communities. The National Autistic Society Scotland estimates that 20,000 children in Scotland have autistic spectrum disorders. Schools such as St Andrew's in Inverurie cater for such children's specific needs. St Andrew's School, which is generally regarded as a centre for educational excellence, caters for more than 100 children who have severe and complex educational and/or medical needs. The school is one of only seven local authority schools that have received accreditation by the National Autistic Society.
St Andrew's provides children with the highly specialised care that they require in small group settings with a high staff to pupil ratio. The case that the parents have presented stresses the high level of expertise among the teachers and the excellence of the school facilities, which include a hydrotherapy pool with a sensory installation that benefits children with physical impairment considerably—many children access the pool twice a week. The parents also state that they
"are not against mainstream bases and many children have moved on into a mainstream setting when they are able to do so",
but that
"The education that St Andrews school has provided has enabled the children to reach this stage",
which might not have happened otherwise.
One factor that causes grave concern and which Aberdeenshire Council would be wise to bear in mind is a finding of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which, in January 2005, stated:
"the authority did not have a policy on special educational needs nor a clear overall strategy for further development of its services in this area."
In view of that criticism, there is a moral obligation on the council to be particularly careful before it takes decisions that could have a detrimental effect on the most fragile and vulnerable members of the community. There is a moral obligation on any council in Scotland that deals with the most vulnerable children in the local community.
Lord James makes a point, but that is what Aberdeenshire Council is doing. It is consulting widely and carefully.
I am delighted to hear that, and I very much hope that the member will use his good offices to impress upon the council not only the fact that St Andrew's is a centre of educational excellence, which provides an extremely valuable service for many children with additional support needs, but the need for it to be particularly careful before it takes any decision that could have an adverse effect on the children. That is the message not only from Richard Lochhead and the SNP, but from all parties in the chamber. The council would be wise to bear that in mind.
The National Autistic Society has made it clear that it believes that, for inclusion to take place, educational provision must be adapted according to pupils' individual needs and that a child's individual needs should be the starting point for identifying what type of school they should attend and what support they will need in that setting. I say to Mike Rumbles that there is a meeting of minds on that point—we must be fair to the council. All we are saying is that the council would be well advised to be extremely careful in dealing with one of the most important subjects for our country.
Any mention of school closures raises concerns and anxieties in the communities involved. I have been through that in my constituency, but I will return quickly to the subject of Aberdeenshire before the Presiding Officer reminds me of the geographical boundaries of the motion.
It is important that if there are concerns and anxieties, MSPs do not add to them by their actions. It is also important that we are clear about the process that Aberdeenshire Council is engaged in and that we see it from the proper perspective. It is particularly important that we are clear that, for most of the school building issues that the council has been considering and discussing with local communities, there is no question of the council having firm proposals to close schools or, indeed, to do anything else to them. What the council has been mainly engaged in is a series of informal discussions with local communities about possible future developments in the school estate in Aberdeenshire—all in the spirit of openness and of giving communities as much early notice as possible of ideas that the council has for their schools in the future. All of that is taking place in the context of a school building improvement programme, not a programme of school closures.
Aberdeenshire launched the discussions in January this year with its announcement of its 21st century school improvement programme, as members have said. It is worth recording that the programme that is under way has already resulted in the building of the new Meldrum Academy, major improvements at Meldrum Primary School and Banff Primary School, and construction of the new Port Errol School and Strathburn School in Inverurie. The building programme includes the replacement of Portlethen Academy and new primary schools for Kintore—Nora Radcliffe and I were there at the start—Banchory, Lairhillock, Longside, Rosehearty and Rothienorman, all of which are set to be completed by 2006.
As part of its on-going interest in its school estate, following an assessment of all of its schools, the council prioritised a further 24 school projects on which it wanted to share information with local communities; that is the enterprise it embarked on in January. However, in most cases, those were simply ideas for discussion about projects over a 10 to 15-year timescale—projects that were dependent on the availability of finance and a range of other factors. In many cases, no school closures even figured in the council's thinking. In most cases, the consultation with local communities was purely informal. As the council said when it announced the consultation arrangements, it was an information-sharing process, with further consultation to come if individual projects were to be taken further.
As councils are sometimes criticised for not consulting or for consulting with too short a timescale, it is disappointing to hear criticism of a council—Aberdeenshire Council—that seems to have gone out of its way to share its thinking and aspirations with its local communities at as early a stage as possible.
The minister's comments will be viewed with some scepticism by parents in Aberdeenshire whose children attend the schools concerned. Does not he agree that it is a bit bizarre for him to be making those comments when the leader of Aberdeenshire Council, Audrey Findlay, was quoted on 11 May in The Press and Journal as saying that her consultation process had "gone pear-shaped"?
Perhaps it has gone pear shaped because certain people have been misrepresenting it. I do not know, because I do not come from Aberdeenshire. However, I understand that the process started as early as possible with as long a consultation period as possible.
To return to the detail, it is certainly the case that, alongside informal consultations, there are three instances in which a full formal statutory consultation has taken place. Those involve proposals to close Longhaven School near Cruden Bay, Braeside School near Auchnagatt and Cairnorrie School near Methlick. The council will have set out its reasons for proposing those closures in the statutory consultation with parents and it is for the council to decide whether or not to proceed with any or all of the closures, taking account of the local representations that it receives. Indeed, I understand that the council is meeting today to decide on a number of matters to which members have referred and that changes have been made as a result of consultation responses. It is not for me to comment on those local issues, as the decisions are entirely for the council.
The statutory consultation process on school closures provides ample opportunity for those who are directly affected by school reorganisation proposals to make their views known before their local authorities reach decisions. Last September, we issued guidance to authorities covering a range of school estate issues, including school closures. Peter Peacock has already sent Richard Lochhead a copy of that guidance, which stresses the importance of consultation and for the emphasis to be on more consultation, more information and more time rather than less. It calls for a fuller process than the minimum that is required to comply with legislation.
Particular mention has been made of St Andrew's School in Inverurie. Stewart Stevenson has left the chamber, otherwise I would have accepted his informal invitation to meet the parents from that school after the debate. Aberdeenshire Council has said that St Andrew's School might be considered for closure as part of a much larger project to upgrade or replace Inverurie Academy, with bases for pupils with additional support needs being provided at appropriate local schools, but it has not proposed the school's closure. All that the council has said is that closure might be considered at some point in the future if it is able to identify funding for the wider project. I believe that there are other proposals for a stand-alone unit, but we are nowhere near to any decisions on that, as far as we are aware.
When authorities generate debate about potential changes to schools, including closure, there is bound to be an impact on the feelings of people in the community. When special schools are involved, that might especially be the case, because of parents' concerns about the particular needs of their children and how they might be met elsewhere. As I have said, Aberdeenshire Council has decided to bring local communities into its thinking at a very early stage. That is a commendable approach, and I urge everyone who is involved to use the opportunity to have a genuine and mature discussion about the possibilities for future school provision. It is in no one's interest simply to object and pull up the drawbridge.
St Andrew's School and Carronhill School draw children from a much wider area than their local communities. It does not make sense for consultations for such special schools to be carried out in the same manner as those for other schools. Will the minister reflect on that?
If a school draws from a wider geographical area, we would expect consultation to be with the wider group of parents. If it is necessary to reflect on that point, I will certainly do so, but we have made the point clear in the past. If the council proposes the closure of particular schools, full statutory consultation will be required. At that point—if it is reached—there should be firm proposals and fuller information.
There is no evidence that authorities are abandoning special schools in favour of a blanket policy of mainstreaming. It will always be necessary to tailor provision to the needs of the individual child. Peter Peacock and I have said that repeatedly in the chamber, but that does not seem to have penetrated into certain people's understanding. Authorities must make available a range of mainstream and specialist provision, including special schools, to meet the needs of all children.
I think that David Davidson will live to regret his extraordinary pronouncement that mainstreaming provision is utter "politically correct nonsense". Personally, I have never heard such nonsense.
The National Autistic Society Scotland has said virtually the same thing but in politer language. The real point is that if decisions ought to be made on the basis of individual children's needs, as the minister claimed a moment ago, the provisions of the 2000 act need to be rewritten to give parents confidence that they are.
If the member read the act, he would know that it gives three qualifications for exceptional circumstances. I will send the details to him so that he can see them.
Richard Lochhead's motion suggests that
"the Scottish Executive should play what role it can to ensure that Aberdeenshire Council's proposals do not damage the educational welfare of the children and wider interests of the community."
As he should know, there are statutory obligations on Aberdeenshire Council to provide adequate and efficient education, on which the council is scrutinised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. The recent HMIE report on Aberdeenshire Council to which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred will be considered by the council, which will doubtless give due consideration to the point that Lord James raised as well as to the other issues that are highlighted in the report.
The guidance on school estate issues that we issued last September makes it clear that local authorities have stewardship of education services at the local level. The role of ministers is not to second-guess authorities' decisions on school provision—I make that clear now, as I have made it clear in my responses to questions that Richard Lochhead has asked on several occasions in the chamber. However, I also make it clear that I expect Aberdeenshire Council to involve stakeholders as fully as possible in its consideration of its school estate needs and to take carefully considered decisions that allow it to deliver the best possible outcomes for its young people and communities.
Meeting closed at 17:12.