Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 02 Sep 2009

02 Sep 2009 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Smith, Margaret LD Edinburgh West Watch on SPTV

The Liberal Democrats welcome the opportunity to speak about the bill.

The issue is important. As members may be aware, the City of Edinburgh Council is consulting on some school closures in the city, including the closure of Drumbrae primary school in my constituency, so I am under no illusion about the importance of the issue. About two weeks ago, there was a knock on the door of my constituency office in Drumbrae. A young girl came in carrying a handwritten letter, which read:

"Dear Mrs Smith,

Please don't close my school. I promise to save up all of my pocket money every week for the rest of my life and give it to the Council if it means they can pay to keep my school open."

That, more than anything, shows us the importance of schools to the pupils who not only get an education from them, but who form their first memories and first friendships in them. Schools are of fundamental importance to their pupils. I know that many colleagues will have faced possible closures in their constituencies. It is always a controversial and emotive situation, given the importance of schools to the fabric of our communities.

We know that councils across Scotland face difficulties because of tight education budgets and the need to ensure best value for every penny that they spend in education. Parental choice and changing demographics will always mean that some schools face underoccupation, which leads to higher costs per child in those schools. However, the evidence on savings is far from clear. Ken Macintosh mentioned the differences in the evidence that we took on cost benefit analyses. That is certainly an issue to which more attention must be paid.

It would be unrealistic to say that no school in Scotland should ever face closure, but we can say that no school should ever face closure without a detailed explanation being provided by the authority of the benefits of closure to the education of local children. No school should ever face closure without consideration being given to the impacts not only on the children who would be directly affected, but on those in the receiving schools in surrounding areas, on the local community, on others who use the school and on the wider authority area. No school should ever face closure without the views of its pupils, their parents and the parents of its prospective pupils being heard.

The SNP's original promise to enshrine in law a presumption against the closure of rural schools would potentially have taken decisions on schools out of the hands of the local councillors who were elected to make them. Parents need reassurances that proposed school closures are not foregone conclusions, that robust consultations will be carried out, and that councils really will listen and consider the impacts and alternatives—many of which are proposed by local people—before they make a final decision.

The Liberal Democrats' main concern about the bill, which I have already articulated in committee and which others have mentioned earlier in the debate, is the inclusion of special provisions for consultations on the closure of rural schools. The bill requires local authorities to have special regard to three factors: viable alternatives, the effect on the community of a closure and the impact of having to make travel arrangements to alternative schools. We fully appreciate the fragility of certain rural communities, and we do not disagree that rural communities are more strongly affected by the closure of a school that might serve many functions and make a significant contribution to the life of an area. However, we believe that community impact and travel considerations, in particular, could apply equally to non-rural schools. Ensuring that that was the case would not challenge the needs of rural communities. I have experience of proposals to close two of what I would describe—even if the description is not technically accurate—as semi-rural schools, on the edge of my constituency, where there are rural roads and which is on the edge of a large city. Transport issues were crucial in determining whether those schools should be closed. A case can be made for the appropriateness of such issues being taken into account. I have a concern that councils that are told that rural schools should be given special consideration might believe—wrongly, given what the cabinet secretary has said—that transport alternatives and community impacts can be ignored when closure proposals in non-rural areas are considered.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 02 Sep 2009

In the same item of business