Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Public Petitions Committee, 28 Jun 2005

28 Jun 2005 · S2 · Public Petitions Committee

Item of business

New Petitions

Rural Schools (Closure) (PE872)

Hyslop, Fiona SNP Lothians Watch on SPTV

I compliment the Public Petitions Committee, although I am not sure whether it will help my case to do so. I will put matters in context. Two petitions have been referred to, but a petition concerning Argyll and Bute Council was lodged some time back calling for new guidance on rural schools to be produced. When a petition was lodged last year, there could have been a temptation to say, "No, we have already addressed that issue. Let's let it go." I thank the committee for not doing so. The petition was referred to the Education Committee, of which I am a member. When we studied it, we realised that the guidance that should have been issued after the first petition had not been issued. New guidance was produced as a result of the second referral, which my colleagues have talked about. Perhaps it reflects on the Parliament that sometimes when members start things off, they do not necessarily complete them and close the loop. We should ask whether matters are followed through. As a result, there is a strong case for considering the petition.It is clear that new guidance was produced, but the general concern is that that guidance is not necessarily delivering what rural communities want. The sheer scale of the proposals is enough to give us pause for thought. Between 50 and 75 schools in Scotland are under threat of closure in areas such as Moray, Aberdeenshire, the Borders and Fife. I was involved in campaigns in Midlothian, for example, last year. There is a case for people in Scotland to reflect on whether we want to sustain rural schools or whether we are happy for the new estates management review to result in new capital spend throughout Scotland—which is welcome—but at the price of closing rural schools and ripping out the heart of many communities.The petition calls for a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools. That would not mean that no rural school would ever close, but it would mean that there must be strong arguments to pursue closure. That is where we run into problems. The educational case is up front in the current guidance, which resulted from a previous petition. In recent days, I have spoken to Angus Council, which is involved in one case. The fact that that council recognises and has said to me that the educational case must be one of the prime arguments when the closure of rural schools is being considered is interesting.I have a prop that I am not sure that I am allowed to use. It is a chart of Scotland that shows that the 50 to 75 proposed closures are down the east coast. From correspondence that I have had, I suspect that, in the Western Isles and other areas, the matter may be up for review.The issue has a national perspective. I do not blame councils for seeking best value and looking after their finances in order to invest. However, if the price of that has implications across Scotland, we have to take stock. I make a plea to the committee. The success of what has happened so far is due to the fact that we have paused and reflected on what has happened previously. The sheer scale of this makes us think that, although we have the new guidance, we may need to do something further. The minister may not be mindful of it yet, but the sheer scale of what is happening—despite the new guidance—might give us pause for reflection, and that is an opportunity that we should embrace.I completely support Alex Johnstone's point about rural development. When the previous petition was heard, the Rural Development Committee had a full agenda. This is both an educational and a rural development issue, but the rural development perspective has not been properly considered by the Parliament's committees.

Search Hansard contributions

Public Petitions Committee, 28 Jun 2005

In the same item of business