Hansard

I apologise on behalf of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who is absent from the debate because his wife Emma has just given birth to their second child, Lucy Elizabeth. I think that is a very good choice of name. As members will be aware, Murdo Fraser has a strong personal interest in the bill. It was good to hear the cabinet secretary paying tribute to him and giving him credit for taking some of the initiative on this front. I know that he is genuinely sorry to miss the first stage of the bill's parliamentary process.

The school is, perhaps more than any other institution, often the defining characteristic of a community. Quite apart from delivering the crucial element that is education, it binds together families and people of different age groups, and is usually the focus for a wide variety of community activities. In rural areas, that focus is even more pronounced and is, indeed, often the difference between there being and there not being a community. We are therefore very pleased by the Scottish Government's recognition in section 12 of the specific concern about closure of rural schools, not least because of the much wider implications for sustainability of their local areas and the fact that—as was put very strongly to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee by the Scottish rural schools network—in the case of several rural school closures, the combination of increased travel costs, increased overheads at the receiving school and the possible loss of revenue from grant can result in additional costs, rather than savings.

It is also good to see that the Scottish Government recognises the different categories of rurality. That recognition is vital to ensuring that schools are treated on their individual merits rather than as universal structures, which can sometimes ignore local circumstances. Those definitions will be important when we debate the principles of the bill as they relate to all schools.

The second principle—tightening the regulations that govern the consultation process—is also important. It is a matter of concern that there has not always been a consistent and equitable approach across our 32 local authorities.

The Conservatives will support the new power that will be introduced to allow ministers to call in any closure decision after it has been made, should they think that it does not comply with the new requirements of the bill, or if a local authority fails to take account of all the relevant information. Accurate information is essential in the process. We have seen too many situations in which inaccurate and misleading information has been presented as justification for a school closure. The legal requirement to challenge any inaccuracies is therefore crucial.

In general terms, we fully support the principles of the bill. However, in case the Scottish Government thinks that it is in for too easy a ride, I suggest that clarification is needed in some areas. First, the educational benefits statement, which is essential to any decision, needs to be balanced with a more holistic approach so that we can give confidence to communities that the economic and social aspects have been correctly identified and properly weighted in the equation. I think that we all agree on that, but the cabinet secretary knows that opinion was divided among those who provided evidence on who is competent to comment on each of those aspects. Unless an attempt is made to clarify fully which factors will be contained in the educational benefits statement, I foresee a little difficulty.

I still think that there is a little concern about the role of HMIE, which is a hugely important stakeholder. The bill team rightly identified that the educational benefits statement should necessarily include a wide range of factors, such as the after-school facilities that are on offer to children, the links with the local community, and the school's ethos. Indeed, HMIE's role is paramount—probably in the minds of most parents, too. I ask the Scottish Government to reflect again on whether HMIE's new role is possible, given the available existing resources. I understand from the cabinet secretary's full reply in committee on 3 June this year that the main difference between the role of HMIE as proposed in section 8 of the bill and the current situation is that it will be involved in every proposal from the beginning, even if the case is not called in by ministers. That could mean quite a lot of extra work for it, especially if the educational benefits statement continues to include more and more factors. Members would like an assurance that HMIE has the resources to cope with that change, both in respect of the number of available staff and relevant experience.

There is a question of whether the financial settlement's terms might be revised in the future—Ken Macintosh referred to that. Currently, local authorities receive a revenue grant for the percentage of pupils who are educated in rural schools with fewer than 70 pupils, which means that if those small schools close, the local authorities will lose that financial entitlement. Obviously, that will mean a loss of revenue. There has been some discussion about possible future changes to those financial arrangements, but that might be just rumour. It would therefore be helpful if the Scottish Government clarified its position. As Ken Macintosh said, it would be unforgivable if, at the very time when huge progress has been made on protecting our schools, the Scottish Government unwittingly created a financial incentive to close them down.

I reiterate the Scottish Conservatives' strong support for the bill. As I said in my opening remarks, my colleague Murdo Fraser has campaigned long and hard with many other people for such legislation. We believe passionately that it is needed. It is good that the Scottish Government has taken up the cause on the same basis.