Chamber
Plenary, 02 Sep 2009
02 Sep 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4734, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on stage 1 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.I am delighte...
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop):
SNP
I express my gratitude to Karen Whitefield and the other members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their careful, thorough and co...
George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
Lab
The cabinet secretary is dealing with her manifesto commitments in relation to rural schools. Can she confirm that there was also a clear manifesto commitmen...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Yes, I acknowledge that commitment. I am delighted that we now have record lows in class sizes and record lows in pupil teacher ratios. Indeed, on my visits ...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab):
Lab
Is the cabinet secretary willing to urge local authorities that are undertaking school closure exercises, such as the City of Edinburgh Council, to follow th...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
As the member will understand, the consultation to which he referred is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council. He will note on page 19 of the bill and i...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
In the event that a consultation does not meet the best practice requirements that the cabinet secretary has outlined, will parents have recourse to somebody...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Indeed, yes. I refer the member to the bill. One proposal is for ministerial call-in: if a consultation process is not carried out properly, parents can refe...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
Does the minister accept that those of us who have some concerns about that in no way want to diminish the safeguards in the bill for rural schools? Extendin...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
It is important to recognise the strength of the improvements on consultation for all schools, including semi-rural schools with transport issues. The defini...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in the stage 1 debate on the Schools (Consultation) (S...
Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab):
Lab
We came back from the recess to the fall-out from the al-Megrahi debacle and the decision to postpone the introduction of the children's hearings bill, and t...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Oh, no!
Ken Macintosh:
Lab
I was extending the hand of friendship, Mr Foulkes.A number of issues with the bill remain, but I hope that with a little movement from the cabinet secretary...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
This is an important point. The committee convener stated that rural schools require special consideration. Does Ken Macintosh agree with that? If so, what s...
Ken Macintosh:
Lab
The committee convener made that point but then went on to say that the committee wants the Government to keep the three criteria under active consideration....
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Ken Macintosh:
Lab
Yes.
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
To clarify, there was not consensus on the consultation, but quite a polarised response. However, the compromise and new creative solution of ministerial cal...
Ken Macintosh:
Lab
I think that there is still some anxiety about whether ministers should have a call-in at all, but I recognise that that is an improvement on the current pro...
Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
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 Eliz...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
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 consu...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
That is an important part of the debate. Even under the current system, the transport issues that are associated with school closures are subject to scrutiny...
Margaret Smith:
LD
I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but I think that there is a potential lack of clarity in the way in which those three criteria are set out...
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate as we consider the general principles of the bill. However, as I am a Glasgow MSP, members would expect me t...
Ken Macintosh:
Lab
Does Mr Doris believe, given the nature of his remarks, that rural and urban school closures should be treated identically, or does he think that different c...
Bob Doris:
SNP
Given that the SNP's manifesto commitment—which I suspect members are only too keen to see us fulfil—specifically mentioned rural schools, it is only right t...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
The member made an interesting argument about calling it an educational analysis statement as opposed to an educational benefits statement. That cuts to the ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Mr Doris, you should keep an eye on the time.
Bob Doris:
SNP
Of course. I thank the cabinet secretary for her helpful clarification.I conclude by saying that I am delighted with the core change to allow call-in by the ...