Public Petitions Committee

The Convener: The next petition is PE725, on the closure of rural schools, which was lodged by Richard Lock on behalf of the Midlothian Rural Schools Action Group. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to restore the presumption against closure of rural schools and asks that

"any departure from the presumption in individual cases shall be on the grounds of the balance of educational advantage to the children of those schools being clearly"-

and independently-"demonstrated".

Richard Lock is here to give evidence in support of the petition and he is accompanied by Irene Stewart and Colette Pemberton. I welcome you to the committee; you have three minutes in which to make introductory remarks and members will then ask questions.

Richard Lock (Midlothian Rural Schools Action Group): There should be an assumption in Scotland that rural schools should stay open unless the case for closure can be thoroughly proven. Any suggestion that a rural school should close should be scrutinised closely by the Minister for Education and Young People and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and detailed assessments of the educational and community impact of the proposed closure should be carried out. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, any proposal by a local education authority to close a rural school is called in by the minister responsible for a decision. The local education authority has to present a strong case before closure is considered, and the presumption is against closure.

Proposals to close rural schools are contrary to the Scottish Executive's report "Social Justice ... a Scotland where everyone matters" of 2000, which states that rural Scotland faces many obstacles because of isolation. Rural areas are defined as postcode sectors with a population density of fewer than 100 people per km2, or as areas with fewer than 10,000 people. Eighty-nine per cent of Scotland's land mass is considered to be rural, and 27 per cent of Scottish employment is based in rural areas. Small rural schools are a legitimate investment in areas where there is less benefit from other Government spending on services, for example on street lighting, roads, public transport and, recently, new 21st century technologies such as broadband internet access.

There is no evidence to suggest that a small rural school is not capable of providing a good cross-curriculum education. In fact, it has been shown that rural schools generally outperform the attainment levels of their urban counterparts. The children who come out of small rural schools benefit from having a much broader understanding and appreciation of their citizenship roles, which on the whole are gained because of the broad social mix and age ranges of pupils in composite classes.

From a financial point of view, it can be claimed that there is a higher per-pupil cost in small rural schools. However, any indirect costs of closure-such as the loss of benefit to the wider and local community-are not taken into account, and knock-on effects are not always quantifiable in monetary terms. Why should rural schools be given a higher priority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland than in Scotland, where rural schools play an equally, if not more, important role in the education system?

The Convener: Thank you, Mr Lock. The petitioners are joined by Rhona Brankin. Do you have anything to add to the information that the petitioners have provided?

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab): I have a couple of quick points. When the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in the previous session examined school closures, it received evidence and recommended that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities draw up new guidance. That was way back in 2001. COSLA then referred the matter to the Scottish Executive, which said that it would consider the issue in the context of the estates review. There is no specific guidance on rural schools in Scotland, yet we have many such schools.

We have fallen behind the other countries in the United Kingdom. The issue is hugely important. We have good policies on sustainable rural development, but there is no read-across from those policies to the importance of keeping rural services going. Nobody is suggesting that no schools in rural areas should ever close but, where rural schools are sustainable, have healthy rolls and are bringing people into the community, it is important that the Scottish Executive recognises the important role that they play.

The Convener: Do members have questions?

Carolyn Leckie: Thank you for presenting your petition. I have a couple of questions in reference to Rhona Brankin's comments. It perturbs me that although guidance was asked for back in 2001, here we are in 2004 with five schools proposed for closure. What stage is the guidance at? Has the minister indicated a willingness to take a view on those school closures? I am concerned that the Executive's tardiness in producing guidance has meant that those five schools-and no doubt others-are in danger that could have been avoided.

I just want a wee bit more information on what is happening with the five schools, in relation to representation to the Executive. I would also appreciate a wee bit more information about rural schools that have closed and the negative impact that those closures have had on the vibrancy and viability of their communities.

Richard Lock: The Scottish Executive says that, because of the guidance, closure is a local authority issue and that the decision has nothing to do with it. The Executive defers to the local authority.

The situation with our fight to keep the schools open is that the consultation period closes on Friday of this week. The local director of education will produce a report that will go before Midlothian Council at the end of May or the beginning of June and the members will then vote on what to do with the schools. The report does not cover just those five schools; it will mention many other issues such as refurbishment and new schools in the urban areas of Midlothian. Our five schools are a small portion of the overall project.

Carolyn Leckie: You are entitled to express a view. I am concerned that the Executive says that it does not have guidance or a role that enables it to intervene. There are statutory concerns about occupancy that would allow ministerial intervention. COSLA intended to produce its own code of practice and guidance, but did not do so because the Executive was going to produce guidance. Now there is no guidance.

The Executive was not prepared to intervene on your five schools but, in effect, it intervened to prevent COSLA from producing guidance that might have helped you. What is your response to that?

Rhona Brankin: COSLA referred the issue of guidance to the Executive. There is guidance at the moment, but it is not specifically for rural schools. I understand that the minister has said that the Executive will reconsider the guidance, but we have not had any more information than that.

Irene Stewart (Midlothian Rural Schools Action Group): The current guidance, which is very basic, comes from the Education Department on a single sheet of paper. All that it says is that there must be a minimum of 28 days' notice of closure, and that the decision can be referred to ministers only if the school has more than 80 per cent of its roll, or if it is more than 5 miles from the school to which the children would be transferred. Those are the only tests that the closure process has to pass before it can go ahead.

It is outrageous that a school can be closed under those conditions and that is why we lodged the petition.

Richard Lock: In addition, the local authority gets to set and interpret the rule on the school roll. Two of the schools are contending the roll issue. We believe that their rolls are above the 80 per cent that is required, but the council is not coming back on that-it is just keeping quiet.

John Scott: If guidance has not been issued, and the Scottish Executive has been aware of that for some time, one must assume that the Executive does not intend to issue such guidance. Does one have to wind back the clock a little further? Perhaps we should invite the Executive to make its position clear on the matter. In England and Wales, the stated position is clear. Given that the COSLA guidelines do not exist, should the Executive follow the line that has been taken in England and Wales, which is that there should be a presumption against closure?

Richard Lock: Yes, there should be a presumption against closure. Scotland should be in line with the rest of the UK.

Irene Stewart: If we are not in line with the rest of the UK, the Executive should explain why we are not.

John Scott: I support what you are saying. My experience of rural schools is that, when a school is lost from the heart of a community, it is not long before the doctor or the bank also goes and the heart of the community is lost. When any one of the services in a community is lost, whether it is the village shop or the garage, the village starts to crumble. Those services are an essential part of rural communities.

Richard Lock: Definitely.

Mike Watson: The question of school closures is always fraught. I represent an inner city constituency. Things are bad enough there and yet distances are shorter. The old cliché applies-nobody can tell you which school to close, but everybody can tell you which school not to close. It does not help that there seems to be confusion on the matter. Irene Stewart has just confused me-unwittingly, I am sure-by reading out some proposals about the minimum time periods that are involved. I know that the consultation in Midlothian has just finished. How long did it last?

Irene Stewart: In total, the consultation lasted for about eight weeks. Originally, it was supposed to last for six weeks but it was extended for a further two weeks. The council voted to close the schools on 25 February and yet the formal consultation period ends on Friday. The problem for us, however, is that there has been no informal consultation period. We went straight to formal consultation. The guidelines that were issued by the Department of Education, which apply in England and Wales, include guidance on a long period of assessment and information gathering-an informal consultation period, as it were. During such a period, it would be possible to have a more productive dialogue.

I understand that our petition relates to the whole of Scotland, but I will bring the debate back to the Midlothian example. Our problem is that, when we ask specific questions of our elected councillors in Midlothian, they cannot, under the rules of the formal consultation, answer the questions. If councillors take one side or another of the argument, I think that they are precluded from participating in the final vote. When we go to see councillors to ask them questions, they have to sit there and say, "I can't tell you that. I can't answer that question." Apart from anything else, that is immensely frustrating for those of us who are trying to find out about the situation. There is nothing in our petition that says that rural schools should not be closed; the petition simply says that they should not be closed without a proper process of review.

Mike Watson: Thank you; that is helpful. I was concerned in the main about the 28-day period, which seems ludicrously short. It stacks everything up in favour of the councils rather than local parents.

Irene Stewart: That is the current legal minimum in the guidelines.

Mike Watson: I believe that 28 days is far too short a minimum period.

Further confusion arises from a reference that I note in our committee papers to the "proportionate advantage" guidance that was issued in 1998 by Brian Wilson, when he was the minister with responsibility for education. The minister asked whether

"the educational and financial gains deriving from a closure stand up to scrutiny and do they outweigh the negative effects - on that rural community and the children and their families- which that closure will have?"

It seems that that guidance ought to be capable of being used as a presumption against closure. I would have thought that it would be quite difficult to argue that it would be of benefit to families if schools were to be closed.

My second point concerns what happened between COSLA and the Minister for Education and Young People. On 1 April, the Minister for Education and Young People said, in reply to a parliamentary question:

"Following discussions with COSLA, we will prepare guidance for parents and local authorities, to raise understanding of the processes and the responsibilities of the respective parties."-[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 April 2004; S2O-1886.]

That is a pretty broad statement, which could not, in any sense, be taken as guidance. It would seem that we need something stronger than that.

I am not saying that the situation in Scotland should necessarily be the same as that which applies in England and Wales, as different circumstances apply there. However, it seems that everything is too vague and that we need to have firmer guidance. Two years ago, COSLA stood back from producing its own guidelines because of an understanding that the minister was going to do that. For more than two years to pass and nothing to appear is not something that we should regard as acceptable.

John Scott: At the moment, there is nothing; neither COSLA nor the Government has issued guidance, even though they have both undertaken to do so. Schools are closing all the time, and that is not satisfactory.

Richard Lock: Midlothian Council proposes to close in one fell swoop more schools than were closed in the whole of England and Wales in the past year, I think, and it is one of the smallest authorities in Scotland.

Jackie Baillie: This is less of a question and more of a comment. Every area is experiencing the problem, to a greater or lesser extent. The problem is not that there are no regulations, but that the regulations are woefully inadequate and do not spell out clearly the way in which school boards and parents should be involved. You are quite right-the regulations set out a circumscribed period of 28 days during which certain things have to be done. They go further, and talk about the criteria by which any closure will be referred to ministers, but I suspect that something could be done to expand that set of criteria, and that that might cover the points that you raise.

At a basic level, it would be enormously helpful for guidance to be sent out to tell local authorities the optimal way to have a dialogue with parents about contentious issues such as school closures. To turn to my recommendation, specific guidance about the closure of rural schools would be welcome, building on the comments that were made by Brian Wilson and endorsed by the minister, Peter Peacock. We should ask the Executive to review the legislative framework in broad terms, rather than to consider the case of the particular schools that are referred to in the petition, and to consider bringing forward the guidance that has long been promised.

Helen Eadie: We are not reporting accurately what COSLA has done. Our papers state that COSLA attempted to produce draft guidelines but that it had to abandon the work because it was advised that the Scottish Executive was producing such guidelines. I mention that point in the interest of not misrepresenting COSLA's work-it is a minute point in today's discussion, but it is always important to give credit.

I agree with my colleagues' comments about the importance of the matter throughout Scotland. We are all involved; I represent a semi-rural and urban area and I know that if the issue arises there, as it may do, I will be faced with the challenges that Rhona Brankin mentioned this morning. I do not want to be left in a position in which there is inadequate consultation. Irene Stewart made the key point that informal consultation is vital because it enables everyone to get the answers to the questions that they ask. I recommend that we write to the Scottish Executive to raise all the issues that have been raised this morning and, specifically, to ask when it will produce guidelines to the standards that the committee has defined this morning.

The Convener: We have some clear recommendations, but I will take one more point, from Carolyn Leckie, before we move on.

Carolyn Leckie: I support Helen Eadie's recommendation, but I ask for a tight timescale to be put on the Executive's response. I am sure that the Education Committee would be interested to find out, if it has not done so already, what has happened since its predecessor asked COSLA to produce guidance on rural schools, and to follow that up. I ask for our deliberations to be copied to the Education Committee and drawn to its attention. We should write to the Executive with a tight timescale and we should refer its response to the Education Committee as a matter of urgency. The situation that the schools in the petition are in, and that other schools throughout Scotland are in, is unacceptable, and there is fault to be applied.

John Scott: I agree with what Helen Eadie and Carolyn Leckie said, but the committee should appreciate the irony of this morning's deliberations. In relation to our first petition, PE734, we agreed to write to the Executive to ask it to do what it can to expand education in a worldwide sense and yet it seems that the Executive is making it harder for people to easily access education in rural areas in Scotland. There is a delightful irony in that.

The Convener: I take Carolyn Leckie's point about the timescale. Are members happy that we write to the minister and say that we expect a response within a month? Shall we give the Executive 28 days?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: I thank the petitioners for coming and for bringing the matter to our attention.