Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

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

Bibby, Neil Lab West Scotland Watch on SPTV

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 in the COSLA and Scottish Government commission report. That recommendation states:“It should be acceptable for an Educational Benefits Statement to conclude that the educational impact is neutral, with no overall educational detriment to the children directly concerned.”Councillor Douglas Chapman from COSLA has since written to the committee:“By not implementing recommendation 20 the Government has altered the balance brought in by the Commission, and we are now concerned it will be actually far harder for local authorities to take necessary decisions on the school estate.”He says that he has written to the cabinet secretary to express concern that“This is the impact that amended legislation could have on improving educational outcomes”,and he also raises COSLA members’ concerns“that the proposals to amend the 2010 Act do not ... embrace all that the Commission was trying to achieve and because of this local government’s job will be made all the harder.”In discussing these amendments, we need to take note of such very serious concerns and, indeed, the valuable points that have been raised about amendment 408.In addition, I am concerned about the unnecessary burden that the required steps, particularly those to be taken before any school closure proposals are made, could place on local authorities. For example, if there is a school with zero pupils in an area where the population is not likely to increase, there is little point in looking at alternatives. We do not want schools with no children to be mothballed. There is also the obvious question about why the community benefits and transport opportunities should apply only to rural schools and not to all.I also have a number of concerns about the proposal in amendment 409, the first of which is, as Liam McArthur has already mentioned, the abdication of ministerial and Government responsibility. Although the panel will be appointed by ministers, it will have a fair degree of autonomy and the amendment says little about the criteria for appointing the convener, who will select the panel members. That appears to be an attempt to divert responsibility for making unpopular decisions to the panel, and it is also unclear who the panel will be accountable to. As has been suggested, the panel will be another quango from a Government that said that it would cut the number of quangos. Given the Scottish Government’s statement that the panel will have whatever staff and resources are needed, its creation is likely to increase expenditure. As a result, it would be helpful to find out whether the Scottish Government has set any cost limit for establishing the panel. For all those reasons, I cannot support amendment 409.I very much agree with amendment 409A, in the name of Liam McArthur, which would ensure that, if a minister called in a closure proposal but the panel found in favour of the authority, the panel would have to say in its response that the proposal should not have been called in.Amendment 406, in the name of Liz Smith, seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot make any new proposals for five years. I believe that such a measure has the potential to be too restrictive and that the period should be reduced from five years to three. The five-year period is likely to end outwith the period of an administration given that it is unlikely to consult and get a decision on any new proposals on day 1 of its period in office.Amendment 407 in the name of Mike Russell, which relates to the financial impact of closures, appears to allow the Scottish Government to show that certain proposals by councils are being used to save money. However, on the flip-side, local authorities might be able to show that money is being better spent and, on that basis, I am comfortable with the amendment.Finally, amendment 408A in the name of Liz Smith seeks to place on local authorities an additional burden of demonstration. I do not believe that such a measure is necessary because, if an authority had met the preliminary requirements, it would in effect have demonstrated that closure is the most appropriate course of action. I am therefore not convinced by the proposal.At present, I will abstain on amendment 408 and oppose amendments 406, 408A and 409.10:30

Search Hansard contributions

Education and Culture Committee 21 January 2014

In the same item of business