Committee
Education and Culture Committee 21 January 2014
21 Jan 2014 · S4 · Education and Culture Committee
Item of business
Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Like the cabinet secretary and Liz Smith, I apologise at the start for the length of my comments, convener, although I hope that you are reassured that we will witness an increasing level of brevity, in accordance with Liz Smith’s comments.As ever, I need to declare an interest in this issue, as the father of a son at a primary school that was identified for closure prior to the last local council elections. From that experience, I am all too well aware of the impact that even the prospect of school closure can have on pupils, staff, parents and the wider rural community.Fortunately, two of the proposed school closures in Orkney appear to have been shelved, but it is fair to say that people in Stenness and Burray remain apprehensive. That threat brought both communities closer together, although the experience was difficult for all those involved. I accept that it was also difficult for those on the council who were involved in the proposals.All of that might be predictable, but I did not anticipate the effect that the situation had on some of the pupils involved. Listening to my youngest son, it was clear that he, along with some or perhaps all of his peers, felt somehow responsible for what was happening. That was despite the reassurances and support that were given by us as parents, by the teachers, by support staff and by others. I confess that I found that almost the most difficult aspect of the whole experience to deal with.I do not underestimate the importance of the amendments to this part of the bill, including Liz Smith’s amendment 406, which seeks to limit the speed with which any closure proposal affecting a particular school could be initiated—save in exceptional circumstances, as articulated by Mr Russell. However, we passed the previous act only in 2010 and, if that experience tells us anything, it is that we should take great care not to raise expectations unduly about what we are trying to do or what the bill will be able to do. I am in absolutely no doubt that responsibility for the decisions should continue to rest with local authorities and not with ministers or panels of experts, however esteemed or independent they are. We can undoubtedly assist in that task and help to ensure that decisions are taken on the best possible evidence and are subject only to tightly defined and clearly understood criteria, but ultimately government at all levels is about making choices and taking decisions even—or indeed particularly—when they are difficult. To pretend otherwise may offer short-term respite, but the longer-term consequences can invariably prove more serious and damaging.I turn to the amendments in the group. I broadly support the proposed changes, which, as the cabinet secretary said, largely reflect the conclusions of the Sutherland commission. That said, I recognise the disappointment that some commission members and many in local government feel about the Scottish Government’s refusal to accept recommendation 20. It seems to me that this is likely to be the area on which the most controversy will continue to be focused and where decisions will be challenged in future. However, it was not clear to me—like, I think, Liz Smith and the minister—that adopting recommendation 20 and diluting the educational benefit threshold that has to be met would avoid those challenges.I welcome the efforts to support councils in the earlier stages as well as to improve the basis on which proposals come forward and are then consulted on. I certainly hope that amendments 407 and 408 reduce the number of cases that are subsequently challenged, although it is not entirely clear how Education Scotland will be able to manage the potential conflicts of interest in its different roles, as was indicated through evidence early in the process. The Chinese walls that are needed here may well be visible from space.Mr Russell’s amendment 409 proposes changes to call-in procedures and introduces the idea of a review panel. He recalled in his earlier remarks our exchanges during stage 1 evidence and my concerns about ministers retaining the power to call in council decisions but leaving examination and determination to an independent panel of experts. I accept—and Mr Russell has confirmed—that I am not going to persuade him to change his mind, but he will appreciate my concern that that leaves ministers free to play to the gallery in calling in controversial decisions without having to worry about actually determining whether they were justified.In order to address that issue, my amendment 409A seeks to introduce an option for the panel also to pass judgment on the validity of the call-in by the minister. That option would be exercised only when the panel felt that the council was justified in its original decision to close, but it—or at least a variant of it—could act as a useful check on ministers simply calling in decisions because it is politically expedient to do so. Even the perception of that, as the minister acknowledged, is damaging and has given rise in the past to accusations of political bias.Like the cabinet secretary, I understand the motivation behind Liz Smith’s amendment 408A, but I have concerns about the practicalities of the provision. At the end of the day, it may be impossible to demonstrate to the satisfaction of those who oppose a proposed closure the benefits to be had, in which case such wording is likely only to raise expectations unfairly, prolong conflict or indeed both. I know that we are all keen to avoid that. In conclusion, I acknowledge the importance of the improvements that we are seeking to introduce in this part of the bill. I am disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s failure to accept my amendment in the group, although at this stage it hardly comes as a surprise. I accept that improvements are being introduced to the bill through amendment 409 but, without some safeguard of the kind that I seek to introduce through my amendment 409A, I have reservations about how they will be implemented. I therefore reserve the right to bring my amendment or a variant of it back at stage 3. However, I welcome the comments that the cabinet secretary made to clarify his position.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Stewart Maxwell)
SNP
Good morning and welcome to the third meeting in 2014 of the Education and Culture Committee. I remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other...
The Convener
SNP
I start by calling amendment 380. As members know, the Presiding Officer has determined that rule 9.12.6(B) applies to this amendment. However, as no further...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 405, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 406, 407, 408, 408A, 409, 409A and 423.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell)
SNP
Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for inviting me before the committee to discuss these amendments. Unfortunately, given the amendments that I wil...
The Convener
SNP
I have been extremely generous with time because, given that we are inserting a completely new part into the bill, I feel that it is appropriate for members ...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
I am afraid that my speech will be a little lengthy, but not quite as lengthy as the cabinet secretary’s speech, I hope.In the event of a school closure prop...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
Like the cabinet secretary and Liz Smith, I apologise at the start for the length of my comments, convener, although I hope that you are reassured that we wi...
The Convener
SNP
A number of members wish to contribute to the debate on this group. I begin by calling Neil Bibby.
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I have a number of concerns about amendment 408, and I note COSLA’s concerns about the exclusion from the bill of provisions to implement recommendation 20 i...
Colin Beattie (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
SNP
Having experienced the closure of no less than six rural schools in Midlothian, I obviously have a big interest in this proposed new section. I welcome the c...
Mike MacKenzie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in favour of amendment 408. Indeed, I felt it important to do so, given the real difficulty that the issue of scho...
The Convener
SNP
Before I call the cabinet secretary, I have one or two comments to make on the amendments.I support the amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary. Give...
Michael Russell
SNP
Thank you, convener, and thank you for the discussion that has taken place.I will start with Mr McArthur’s amendment 409A. I understand the point that he is ...
Liam McArthur
LD
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Michael Russell
SNP
Absolutely.
Liam McArthur
LD
I am grateful that the cabinet secretary accepts at least the principle that lies behind what I am seeking to achieve with amendment 409A. He has just implie...
Michael Russell
SNP
No—I disagree. The matter will be best dealt with if we have robust legislation that is entirely clear, and we are trying to improve the 2010 act in this pro...
Neil Bibby
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Michael Russell
SNP
Of course.
Neil Bibby
Lab
It is not just me who has raised concerns about the altering of the balance of the legislation—Councillor Douglas Chapman has done that, too, on behalf of CO...
Michael Russell
SNP
I heard Mr Bibby the first time that he mentioned that. My point remains. I disagree with COSLA on the issue. I have done so openly and have had a discussion...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 406 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division.ForAdam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)Maxwell...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.Amendment 406 agreed to.Amendment 407 moved—Michael Russell—and agreed to.Amendment 408 moved—...
The Convener
SNP
I ask Liz Smith to move or not move amendment 408A.
Liz Smith
Con
I will not move it, on the basis of the strict understanding that the cabinet secretary will engage prior to stage 3 and that we can put in motion an amendme...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 408 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division.ForAdam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)Maxwell...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2. Amendment 408 agreed to.Amendment 409 moved—Michael Russell.
The Convener
SNP
I ask Liam McArthur to move or not move amendment 409A.