Hansard

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.