Parliamentary Bureau Motion: S2M-1003

05/03/2004 - Motions and Amendements

S2M-1003 Christine Grahame: Crisis for Borders Schools - That the Parliament notes with concern the proposed closure of the following Borders schools: Cranshaws, Teviothead, Eccles/Leitholm, Hutton, Roberton, Teviothead, Ednam, Channelkirk, Newlands, Oxnam, Glen Douglas, Heriot and Fountainhall; further notes that Scottish Borders Council in its consultation document Management Review of the School Estate in the Scottish Borders, in particular the chart describing the factors that may be considered when making decisions on the schools' long-term viability, did not include the "importance of the local school to the community" which had been included in the first stage evaluation; reminds the Scottish Executive of its commitment in A Partnership for a Better Scotland to "continued reform so that our public services are designed and delivered around the needs of individuals and the community within which they live" and also its commitment in Building our Future Scotland's School Estate to place "the child at the centre, meeting the needs of the individual" and "the school at the heart of the community, meeting the needs of the communities"; believes that the proposed closures, against the expressed wishes of many communities, are driven by the requirements of proposed PPP/PFI school building programmes, and therefore believes that the Executive should adhere to its aforesaid commitments and reject rural school closure proposals which, if they proceed, will permanently damage fragile communities.

25/03/2004 - Official Report

School Closures (Borders)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1003, in the name of Christine Grahame, on a crisis for Borders schools.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the proposed closure of the following Borders schools: Cranshaws, Teviothead, Eccles/Leitholm, Hutton, Roberton, Ednam, Channelkirk, Newlands, Oxnam, Glen Douglas, Heriot and Fountainhall; further notes that Scottish Borders Council in its consultation document Management Review of the School Estate in the Scottish Borders, in particular the chart describing the factors that may be considered when making decisions on the schools' long-term viability, did not include the "importance of the local school to the community" which had been included in the first stage evaluation; reminds the Scottish Executive of its commitment in A Partnership for a Better Scotland to "continued reform so that our public services are designed and delivered around the needs of individuals and the community within which they live" and also its commitment in Building our Future Scotland's School Estate to place "the child at the centre, meeting the needs of the individual" and "the school at the heart of the community, meeting the needs of the communities"; believes that the proposed closures, against the expressed wishes of many communities, are driven by the requirements of proposed PPP/PFI school building programmes, and therefore believes that the Executive should adhere to its aforesaid commitments and reject rural school closure proposals which, if they proceed, will permanently damage fragile communities.

17:10

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): In the gallery today are representatives from several Borders schools that are threatened with closure. Members may have been passed leaflets on their way in at decision time, and the roll call of schools is given on those leaflets. Only one of them-Ednam Primary School-has had a reprieve. I would like to speak about all the schools, but as time is tight I will refer in particular to two schools that cover the spectrum: Newlands Primary School, whose current roll is 80 plus-Ednam's roll, by the way, is only 60-and Roberton Primary School, which has 18 pupils.

The extensive and professional document that has been prepared by parents of children at Newlands Primary School shows that 77 per cent of parents voted against closure of the school. Its test results are way above the national average in mathematics, reading and writing. It has an optimum school roll and operates at between 80 and 90 per cent capacity. Its board concedes that the school needs new facilities, such as a bigger gym, a new classroom and a disabled toilet, but it argues rightly that a relatively modest long-term investment-compared with the cost of constructing a new amalgamated school-would allow their school to continue to deliver high-quality local education and remain "at the heart of the community".

That quotation comes from the Executive's document "Building our future: Scotland's school estate".

Scottish Borders Council, which is an independent and Conservative coalition, included in its management review of 2003 a list of factors to be considered when deciding on a school's long-term viability. All criteria were valued equally, but it is interesting that the original document included "importance of the local school to the community" as a factor, because that does not appear in the management review.

I visited Roberton Primary School, which is four miles from Hawick, earlier this week. It has a school roll of 18 pupils from primary 1 to primary 5. In their latter two years, pupils attend Drumlanrig St Cuthbert's Primary School-that has been the practice for the past 40 years and parents are content with it. In 1999, the school roll had fallen to six, but it is now 18 and there are children in the valley who will soon go to the school. Indeed, there are three children who will travel from as far afield as Qatar in the middle east. An e-mail from a lady there said:

"Dear Mrs Grahame,

We have a young family of three children, ages 8, 6 and 16 months. We currently live in Qatar in the Middle East, but plan to return to the area (my husband is from Langholm, near Hawick) in the not too distant future. We plan to live at ... Roberton ... where we intend to run a business from home."

She also said that she is

"not idealising a rural village school because it is small and quaint."

She has been thorough; she has visited the school and has examined it for the qualities that we often recognise as being special and good in small rural schools. She said:

"I was impressed by the work that I saw, the behaviour of the pupils and the general atmosphere of enthusiasm that prevailed in what was clearly a cosy and secure environment. My eldest ... children also saw the school classroom and are now looking forward to going to the local school and meeting their future playmates there ... Roberton is such a vibrant and living community, we should fight to save the centre of that community, its school."

All parents of children at the school are opposed to its closure; some are here tonight. The quality of education in all its roundness-not just academic results-is high. Children socialise, they grow in confidence and they help each other. Bullying and teacher stress are unknown; how many schools with grand buildings can say that?

Some children already travel six miles to school. If they are transferred to Hawick, the day for a five-year-old will start at 8 am and end after 4 pm, which will give the young children a 40-hour working week. Like the parents of children at Newlands Primary School, the parents of the children at Roberton school are adamant that the building's space can be increased and that the school that the children are to be transferred to is in no better condition than their current school. Worse still, this is the third time in 12 years that the school has been under threat. Why should parents have to keep battling for a school that is successful?

The background to how these Borders schools have found themselves on death row deserves close examination. In September 2003, the Executive published its consultation paper "Building our future: Scotland's school estate". It was that document that compelled local authorities throughout Scotland to produce a picture of their local school estate. Scottish Borders Council, like other councils, did so. However, I submit that the closures in the Borders are additionally related to the council's need to raise funds to add to its public-private partnership/private finance initiative building programme, in which there is a funding gap. To sell off the estate of the schools that are on death row would raise £500,000.

What does "Building Our Future" actually say? It says:

"The school is a core part of the physical community and should play a role in building strong, confident communities and a safer environment, and contribute to an improved quality of life for the community."

It also talks about

"the school at the heart of the community".

That is what the cry is about.

What is the guidance to local authorities on proposed school closures? I will not be able to develop that subject too far, but the legal position is set out in sections of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. In 2000, the then Education, Culture and Sport Committee considered rural school closures and asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to produce a code of practice, which I mentioned at question time today. In 2001, COSLA referred that code to the Executive, asking for a review of the legislation on proposed school closures, and on 12 March 2003, the Executive indicated that it would consider guidance in the light of the school estate strategy, which was published in 2003, and to which I have referred.

I will correct the minister's answer to me at question time today when he said that the Executive had not caused the delay. In February 2003, the review of school buildings was put on the agenda and COSLA had still not produced the guidance. A letter of 12 March 2003 makes it clear that the Scottish Executive Education Department "met the officials from COSLA ... who had been leading on the work on the draft Code of Practice on school rationalisation on 19 December 2002."

The Education Department then decided that it would not do anything until the consultation had been produced.

Why has the guidance simply drifted when it is most needed? Why has the role of schools that are at the heart of their communities apparently been set aside, and why are buildings more important than 100 per cent parent and staff support for a successful school? Will the minister intervene beyond the strict regulations about referral to ministers, which we know is already provided for, if communities demonstrate their unwavering commitment to their local school? Will he note the agreed presumption in England against the closure of rural schools?

To revive our rural communities, we must retain our rural schools at the heart of the community. It is as simple as that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I open up the debate, I remind members that the title of the motion is "Crisis for Borders Schools". However, I am aware that, in her motion, Christine Grahame has noted the documents "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" and "Building our Future: Scotland's School Estate". Although the motion is about Borders schools, I will be lenient, but I ask members to remember what I am saying to them.

Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The motion says at the end that the Parliament

"therefore believes that the Executive should adhere to its aforesaid commitments and reject rural school closure proposals",

which is fairly general.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is why I pointed out that the motion is fairly general, although the title refers to Borders schools.

17:18

Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): I agree with Christine Grahame about few things, but I agree with her that the future of rural primary schools throughout Scotland is extremely important, and I hope that the Executive will treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. I am sure that the minister will, and I approach the subject with due respect to Euan Robson and Jeremy Purvis as constituency members for the Borders. I happen to live in the Borders and to be the MSP for a neighbouring constituency. Moreover, many years ago, I was the MP for Berwick and East Lothian, but I suspect that that has disappeared into the mists of antiquity.

I still have a potential, peripheral constituency interest in Cranshaws Primary School, which is one of the schools that is on the list in the motion, because in the past, a number of children from the hill farms in the Lammermuir area of East Lothian went to that school. However, I have established that all the children from that area now travel to the excellent village school in Gifford, Yester Primary School, so that point is not entirely relevant at this stage.

I observe from long experience that the Borders has a long and sad history of village school closures, which is in marked contrast to the experience in my constituency of East Lothian. In the 25 years that I have represented the county of East Lothian, we have lost only one village school, at Whitekirk, and that happened when Brian Meek was in charge of Lothian Regional Council. That was one of many mistakes that that administration made.

Whitekirk's neighbouring schools-East Linton, West Barns and Law Primary Schools-are now bursting at the seams. I have heard education officials in East Lothian say that they wish that they could have Whitekirk Primary School back. The Borders can learn a lesson from that. Responsible local authorities make it their business to sustain communities. East Lothian Council has done that not only by supporting local schools but by helping to provide affordable housing and business opportunities in rural communities.

As a Borders resident and the father of two sons who had the benefit of excellent primary education at Hutton Primary School, which is on the list of schools that we are discussing, I deplore the fact that Scottish Borders Council takes a completely different line from that taken by East Lothian Council-it appears to seek actively to run down remote communities and to close village schools.

Hutton Primary School has been blighted for years by Scottish Borders Council's failure to fulfil an undertaking to perform essential upgrading works to comply with a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. The council reneged on an undertaking to do that work two years ago and it is unsurprising that staff and parents have been demoralised by the shabby conduct of the council's education department. Having deliberately blighted the school, the council has now put it on the closure hit list.

I am thankful that my children had the benefit of high-quality primary education in their local community school. I am alarmed by the council's threat to put short-term economies before the long-term interests of children and of rural communities. The unnecessary bussing of young children to distant primary schools is not a good idea. I sincerely hope that Scottish Borders Council takes a grip of the officials who are driving the reckless and destructive policy. I urge the Scottish Executive to intervene if necessary to protect quality education in all parts of rural Scotland.

17:22

David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con): I have a sense of déjà vu, as I represent the whole of the South of Scotland region, and we in Dumfries and Galloway have been here. Three years ago, the Dumfries and Galloway Council administration proposed the closure of more than 40 schools as part of its review, and the Executive seems to have learned nothing since then.

I welcome Christine Grahame's debate and her speech, which was generally non-political. If her contribution remains that way, I will continue to support her calls.

The Executive has learned nothing because the guidance on rural school closures that was called for and which the Education, Culture and Sport Committee discussed has not been produced. In England, there is a presumption against closing rural schools and a rural schools fund that targets money to cover the extra costs that rural schools necessarily incur-costs will always be higher because, sometimes, half a person rather than a full person is needed to do the job. If we took such an approach, which I concede that the UK Labour Government has developed, we would not be in the present situation.

We need to send a clear message that we support rural education and that we consider it pivotal to rural communities. There is no point in complaining that rural communities do not have enough children or young people, and then closing schools. That is extremely short-sighted and reveals a lack of vision for rural Scotland at council level. Of course, the councils' position is that the Executive is driving them to act on the number of schools in the school estate.

The picture in Dumfries and Galloway has been turned around by determined campaigns by parents and communities, such as those that we now see in the Borders. I say to all the parents and communities represented here tonight that the fight is worth taking on because it can be won. When it comes to the bit, councillors of any persuasion do not like voting for school closures. Councillors in Dumfries and Galloway who supported school closures found themselves not being councillors after last May's elections.

It would be helpful to make clear the position-which is also my position-of my Conservative colleagues on Scottish Borders Council. They clearly believe that no school should close unless closure has the support of parents and the community. On the consultation proposals that have been put forward by Scottish Borders Council, it is already clear in most cases that if the closure of a school does not attract the support of parents and their communities, Conservative councillors on Scottish Borders Council will not support it. I commend them for taking that line, which is also the line that I take. Parents and communities must be put at the heart of the decision-making process and a clear message must be sent out from the Parliament, and particularly from the Executive, that rural education is valued and will be sustained.

17:26

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): I am passionate about the schooling provision in the area in which I live and that I represent. I went to a small rural school and members of my family teach in a small rural school in the Borders.

I am as concerned about the review as any other resident in the area, but I also recognise that powers over schooling are vested in the local authority. It has already been said that local councillors must engage in the debate with parents. I have made scores of representations on behalf of concerned parents and have had meetings with the director of education and officers on the issue. I have also spoken to individual parents, councillors and prospective parents in the relevant areas.

This is not a party issue. Scottish Borders Council is controlled by Conservative and independent councillors and schools in my constituency that are on the list are represented by Conservative and independent councillors.

Local authorities throughout Scotland have had to address the issue of the location of schools and the provision of education in both rural and urban areas. Angus Council, which is controlled by the Scottish National Party, has closed four schools since 1996 and another closure is proposed this year. The SNP representatives on Aberdeen City Council have voted twice for a school closure. I repeat that the issue is not about party policy. Some people recognise that cherished schools cannot continue because of dramatically falling school rolls. However, as John Home Robertson rightly stated, the role of local authorities is to work hard to keep rural communities vibrant.

Before I speak about the schools in my constituency that are listed in the motion, I want to say that it is vital that we have a proper debate and address the difficult issue of demographic change. Trends in service levels from 1960 have been given in a Government report on the quality of rural services in Scotland. The report shows a decline in the 30 years between 1960 and 1990 in the number of shops, sub-post offices, primary schools, doctors' surgeries, banks, pubs and hotels in rural areas. It is correct to say that local communities are strongly connected to primary schools, but one closure does not necessarily follow the other.

I recently met students from Earlston High School, who attend the school from across a wide part of my constituency that stretches from Lauder to Newstead and to Duns, which is in my colleague Euan Robson's constituency. I asked the 50 or so sixth-form pupils, who are about to leave for university, how many of them would return to the Borders: two out of the 50 said that they would. David Mundell was right. Local communities must survive by having young people who will start families in those areas.

There is an increase in the number of people moving into many parts of my constituency from outside the area, which is to be welcomed. When they add to the vibrancy of the community, that benefits all of us, and they benefit from above-average-in fact, excellent-attainment levels in school.

Of course the schools review should address the estate. The proposed multimillion-pound investment in the Borders school estate is badly needed. I have spoken to hundreds of parents who have for years demanded improvements in schools, whether it is schools West Linton or Earlston that are bulging at the seams.

Small schools are important to the community that they serve and the aim must be to retain high-quality education in rural areas. I pay tribute to the parents who have put together alternative plans and proposals for Newlands Primary School, Channelkirk Primary School, Heriot Primary School and Fountainhall Primary School. Those plans should be considered in detail, in good faith and in a timely way. I have consistently stressed that to the council. There must be flexibility in the process to accommodate debates on the availability of public transport for pupils and the undesirability of longer travelling distances for young pupils, which is an issue that has already beset Fountainhall and other schools. Many of the areas have the prospect of housing developments that will affect their demography, and the process must be flexible so that such issues can be taken into account, too. However, there is uncertainty in Lauder, for example, about the development of any proposed new school.

The debate is important for the local authority and for parents, who must engage with one another. Decisions should be made not just on educational grounds but with the active participation of parents and prospective parents. That is what the council must do.

17:31

Ms Rosemary Byrne (South of Scotland) (SSP): I thank Christine Grahame for lodging the motion and securing tonight's debate. I believe that no school should close unless it does so on sound educational grounds. I see no sound educational grounds for the proposed school closures in the Borders.

Scottish Borders Council's recent track record on education funding is at the heart of the situation. Rural schools in the Borders are in badly maintained buildings and the funding has not gone in to keep them up to standard. That is a major part of the problem that faces the communities affected by the proposed closures and it should not be an issue.

Eleven of the 12 schools that are under threat do not reach the school of the future standards and most are considerably below those standards. That is a disgraceful situation. It can be blamed only on incompetence, and that is not a reason for closing schools.

Because of the geographic spread of people in Scotland's rural areas, it has always been necessary to provide small rural schools. Traditionally, those schools have been focal points for communities, because they are at the heart of their areas and provide a much needed link in the communities that they serve. How are we to regenerate rural communities if there is no local school to attract people? If there is no school in a village, people will think twice about moving there. They do not want their children to have to travel for miles, adding hours on to their days. If we want to regenerate an area, there has to be a good local school for people to use. That is a simple and sensible approach.

A decent consultation process with communities is required. It should not be constrained by the requirements of proposed PPP or PFI schemes and should not rely on big business dictating the size, location and ownership of our schools. Some of the schools are small and some have no nursery provision. However, having had the privilege of teaching in a rural school in Ayrshire, I know that there are many benefits to be gained, such as a positive ethos, a sense of community and small class sizes. That is of great value.

Most of the proposals will require ministers' approval on the ground of distance. However, in the case of Newlands, Heriot and Fountainhall schools, it will be because they have more than 80 per cent occupancy. There is no reason for those three schools to close other than Scottish Borders Council's poor track record on maintenance. As for the other schools, all fall outwith the 8km distance-5 miles for those who are like me and have not managed to transfer to the metric system-thus requiring primary school pupils to travel more than 5 miles back and forward every day.

Christine Grahame outlined the success of several of the schools and the parental campaign that is fighting the closures. I hope that Scottish Borders Council will reconsider, and I ask the minister to intervene.

17:34

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): I congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing the issue to the chamber. The motion addresses the closures that the Borders schools we heard about are facing. It also opens up the wider issue of education and rural school closures.

I am pleased to see Karen Gillon in the chamber because some of my speech will reflect on what happened in the previous session and the commitments that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee raised about guidelines for rural school closures-I can see her nodding.

When I was first contacted by Midlothian schools that are facing closure, I wanted to find out about the context and previous policy on the issue. We know that, in Midlothian, Howgate Primary School, Temple Primary School, Borthwick Primary School, Cousland Primary School and Cranston Primary School face closure. School closures are happening not just in the Borders and Midlothian, but throughout Scotland-and they are happening this year.

Rosemary Byrne made the point that closures are closely tied to the buildings and estates review and the second-phase PPPs, and we must address that issue. Some of the school closures that were discussed before were in authorities that had falling school rolls. That issue needs to be addressed, but it is separate from the closure of some schools, especially in Midlothian and parts of the Borders, in which occupancy is above 80 per cent. Our approach to education policy and social inclusion is very important.

I quote the report of the minister's colleague, Jamie Stone, on rural school closures, which was the result of a petition that came to the Parliament in May 2001. The issue has not arisen recently-it has a history. With reference to Moray Council, the report states:

"Moray considers that the Scottish Executive's Social Inclusion agenda is closely focussed in the Central Belt."

I appeal to the minister-if the Parliament is to pursue social inclusion, it must embrace rural issues and schools.

I want to address the minister's responsibility for school closures. I hope that we will not hear him say that the issue is the responsibility of local authorities only. When I was contacted by the Midlothian schools campaign group, I sought to find out about the last stage that the petition reached. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee asked COSLA to produce guidelines. As the minister will know, on 12 March 2003 the Scottish Executive Education Department wrote to the committee on the subject of school closures and rationalisation. It said:

"COSLA decided to abandon its work on a Code of Practice and wrote to the Executive on 9 October 2001".

The Executive went on to say:

"The outcome was an agreement that it would be sensible to await the publication of the school estate strategy"-

which has led to the second-phase PPPs that we have heard are leading to the closure and rationalisation of many schools-

"and then to meet again to discuss further the issue of school rationalisation after authorities had had time to consider the document".

What has happened since then?

What is the educational value of closing schools? In March 1998, Brian Wilson said that there had to be proportionate advantage and that no school should close on financial grounds alone.

What about composite classes? There has been a big increase in the number of composite classes because the Executive has cut class sizes from 32 to 30 pupils. No research has been done on that. One argument for school closures that is being used in Midlothian, in particular, is that single-stream schools are not as good as double-stream schools. Where is the research base for that assertion? It was not there for the commitment that was made on composite class sizes.

We must ensure that decisions are based on the needs of communities and on good educational foundations and arguments. Those are lacking in this case. I say passionately that we must address the issue now, as school closures are happening in this financial year. We cannot allow the problem to go for three years without being addressed and without guidelines being issued that stand up for communities, as happened in the previous session.

I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate and ask all members to gather behind her on the issue of rural school closures, so that we can address it here and now in the Parliament.

17:39

Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green): The Scottish Green Party has made a clear manifesto commitment. It states:

"Primary schools in small or remote communities will be kept open whenever the community so wished."

I am delighted that Christine Grahame has lodged her motion and congratulate her on securing today's debate. I am even more delighted that the motion has received such warm support, especially from John Home Robertson of the Labour Party and David Mundell of the Conservatives. By building a consensus that school closures against the will of the community must be opposed, we can move forward on the issue.

I have responded to Newlands Primary School, which produced an excellent and compelling document on the school closure and the responses from parents to it. The benefits of small schools are clear and have been outlined-the security for a child of being in a smaller school, the sense of identity with the community that comes from the fact that children learn in the same community in which they live and the absence of bullying are all strong advantages of small schools. Community participation in schools can be encouraged in small schools and we will lose that as communities become more remote from their schools.

There are alternatives to closure. Schools could form confederations to share specialist facilities and to broaden the range of educational opportunities. Such confederations could also extend to teachers. Co-head teachership has been tried successfully and it should be examined in the Borders. Sharing sports facilities is another consideration.

There are probably cases in which the local community accepts the need for closure. In a recent report in The Scotsman, the chairman of Teviothead school board said:

"We are certainly not happy about the likely closure of our school, but the falling roll means we will eventually run out of pupils."

Where it is absolutely necessary for a school to be closed, it is most important that the community should support the decision for the closure to go ahead. However, that will always be the exception rather than the rule.

The other matter that we should highlight is transport. For every school closure, we create the potential for an extra four car journeys a day-which is 20 car journeys a week for every pupil-and for an increase in the number of school bus journeys for children who now have only one little journey to and fro. We are also liable for headlines such as the one that appeared in the excellent Border Telegraph on 23 March, which read "First bus overtime ban leaves pupils stranded". That is a taste of things to come if we go ahead with school closures.

A clear message to the minister comes out of the debate. We realise that he cannot say, "I will say no to every school closure that is proposed," but I ask the minister to say that, when and if requests for school closures come to him from the Borders, he will take on board as a priority the views of the parents involved.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders to extend the debate by 10 minutes to allow all members to take part.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 10 minutes.- [Christine Grahame.]

Motion agreed to.

17:43

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab): I realise that the debate is about the Borders school closures, but the motion raises other issues and I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing members who represent other areas to speak.

Members will be aware of the strength of feeling of parents in my constituency about the proposed school closures in Midlothian. Midlothian Council's main proposals are to be welcomed-the building of well-equipped primary schools and the much-needed refurbishment of other primary schools. Those schools are in urgent need.

However, the proposals to close small rural primary schools have been met with unanimous opposition from parents. I have said that I have grave concerns about the proposed closures and whether the existing legislation to protect rural schools is adequate. The Education Act 1980 and the Education Act 1981 provide for only 28 days of consultation. In the case of Midlothian, only slightly more than 28 days was allowed-in fact, it was only 28 days for some parents. For proposals as far reaching as these, 28 days is a totally inadequate period for consultation. Although I recognise that Midlothian Council is operating under the legislation, I would strongly argue that the legislation is inadequate.

I am not against rural schools closing per se, although my own daughters went to a very successful 25-pupil rural school, which is still open. There are situations where the population changes and small schools are no longer viable. I do not think that anyone would argue in favour of keeping every single rural school open, whatever the circumstances. However, where rural schools are viable-where school rolls are rising, as in Midlothian, where attainment levels are good, and where the buildings are in an acceptable condition, albeit with some work being required-I believe that rural schools should be supported. That is in line with our policy on sustainable rural communities, and I would add that the population in Midlothian is set to rise considerably over the next years.

There is no evidence that rural schools have lower attainment levels than other schools. In fact, the Executive's national statistics publication "Social Focus on Urban Rural Scotland 2003" states:

"on average attainment in ... rural primary schools is higher than in schools across other parts of Scotland."

Let us scotch the myth: there are good schools in towns and there are good schools in rural areas as well, but the

"average attainment in ... rural primary schools is higher".

Brian Wilson, when he was responsible for education, said:

"No school should close on financial grounds alone. There must also be a credible educational justification for closure. I am now inviting education authorities to apply a test of proportionate advantage to any proposed closure of a rural primary school."

I ask the minister whether that "test of proportionate advantage" is still being applied to primary schools. Will he consider updating the existing legislation to ensure that there is adequate protection for successful, viable rural primary schools, which are at the heart of their communities?

17:47

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con): I welcome Rhona Brankin's support for rural schools in sustainable communities.

It is important that the minister addresses the fact that there is no guidance in Scotland in this area. In stark contrast, there is very clear guidance south of the border, which states:

"There should ... be a presumption against the closure of rural schools."

It goes on to state firmly:

"The transport implications of rural school closures should also be carefully considered, including the welfare of the children, the recurrent cost to the LEA of transporting pupils to school further away, the effects on road traffic congestion, and the environmental costs of pupils travelling further to schools."

It adds:

"The overall effect on the community of closure of the village school should also be taken into account."

Not only is there no such guidance in Scotland, the difference between Scotland and south of the border is stark. South of the border, only three rural schools have closed per year on average since 1998. In Scotland, 38 rural schools have closed. I can only assume that the refusal of the Executive to come forward with clear guidance, stating a presumption against the closure of rural schools, is because it is content for a far larger number of rural schools to be closed in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain.

It is not just a matter of guidance; there are also matters of funding. South of the border, the small schools support fund was set up and about £60 million was allocated to it in November 2000. There is no small schools fund in Scotland. The First Minister claimed that Scotland had a similar fund, called the excellence fund. The fund has been the subject to a recent review, and the key outcomes of that review did not include any mention of rural schools.

Not only that, there is no code of practice. The Parliament's committees are not to blame for that. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee recommended that a code of practice on rural school closures be developed with COSLA. That recommendation was made in June 2000, so it is disappointing that it still has not been fully acted on.

David Mundell said that no school should close unless the closure has the support of parents and the community. We strongly support the presumption against closures. The Administration should send out that message. Doing so would fit with everything that has been said by members of all parties tonight; we cannot understand why it has not been done. If necessary, we would like an amendment to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.

The key point has been made clearly by Christine Grahame, whom I warmly congratulate on tonight's motion for debate. Local schools are of fundamental importance. Our job is to protect and enhance the future of the communities concerned. We must stress the importance of the local school within the community.

17:50

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): I congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing an important issue to the chamber. I am with Rhona Brankin and Fiona Hyslop in respect of the concerns that they voiced about Temple, Borthwick, Cousland, Howgate and Cranston primary schools in Midlothian, which also face closure.

I was lucky enough to be brought up in Orkney. A survey in the 1960s found that Orkney, where 80 per cent of the children were educated in small primary schools-some of which were one-teacher schools-provided a greater proportion of professors to the world than any other region of Scotland.

I have had the honour of visiting several small primary schools, including Lauder Primary School and Blackness Primary School. They have superb atmospheres and provide a wonderful education. I am sure that all the other primary schools that have been mentioned this evening provide the same.

As far as I can see, there could be no proportionate advantage to the children in those schools in closure of the schools, with the children being sent to bigger schools. We would be taking those children out of their communities. First the post offices go, then the shops go, then the pubs go, then the hotels close. Their schools closing is the death knell for small communities in Scotland.

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): I thank Robin Harper-or is it Professor Harper?-for giving way. Does he agree that part of the problem for many of our rural communities is the high cost of living and, in particular, the high cost of fuel, which is the highest in the western world? Do the Greens support the reduction in the excessive cost of fuel and the high tax on road fuel-

Robin Harper: We have been through this before. We should tax fuel to make people use it as efficiently as possible. However, there is a very strong case for a reduction in the disproportionately high charges for petrol in rural areas; Fergus Ewing knows perfectly well that I support that.

Jeremy Purvis: Will the member take an intervention?

Robin Harper: May I please return to the subject of the debate?

Jeremy Purvis: Mr Harper mentioned Howgate, which is in my constituency.

Robin Harper: I will take an intervention on that subject.

Jeremy Purvis: I accept entirely what Mr Harper has been saying and I appreciate his giving way to me in his limited time. Howgate is in my constituency, but the majority of pupils who live in Howgate do not go to primary school in Howgate. Serious considerations arise there. I hope that Mr Harper supports the cross-party view that, in the longer term, alternative models for the running of schools in rural communities could be examined by Midlothian Council.

Robin Harper: I would be completely behind new ideas that would ensure that developments in rural areas were appropriate. I want, however, to return to my subject and the subject that everybody else has been trying to speak about- the general problem of closure of rural primary schools in Scotland. We have heard excellent speeches from everybody in the debate so far.

The problem is not simply an education problem; it is a problem for the Environment and Rural Development Committee as well. If we have a rural affairs policy, that committee should-for goodness' sake-be involved in discussing the issue. If we take the schools away, we will not attract people who have young children. Do we want a rural economy in which the small towns and villages are inhabited by no one but well-heeled retired people and DINKYs? DINKY stands for double income, no kids yet. John Home Robertson should not take my comment personally.

Mr Home Robertson: I have two children.

Robin Harper: Congratulations.

I plead with the Executive to put out now at least one piece of guidance to all councils that states that there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools and that the Executive will call in such proposals every time they are made.

17:55

Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab): I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate. I had not intended to speak, given that I have no locus in the Borders area. However, I was brought up and educated in Jedburgh and I was convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, so I hope that my colleagues Euan Robson and Jeremy Purvis will indulge me on this occasion.

My first point is that the local school is at the heart of a community. I am a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and I represent a constituency that has a large rural component. I have seen at first hand how schools in rural areas are at the heart of community life. A school is far more than a building. It is often the focus for community activity and community life-it brings people together and enables them to interact socially. If a school is taken away, its building is also taken away as a facility. If people in a community do not engage with one another, the community will, in the long term, die. The issue is not just about schools; it is about how schools are at the heart of their communities and how everything else that goes on around a school is a component of what the school does. We must consider what else schools bring to their local communities.

Fergus Ewing: That was a stunning insight.

Karen Gillon: I thank Fergus Ewing for that. At least I have contributed to the debate.

My second point is on guidance. I would be abdicating my responsibility if I was not critical of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Executive for the role that they have played in the past four years. The closures process has been underpinned by delay and dithering by both, but primarily by COSLA, which was asked by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to consider rural school closures four years ago. The issue did not come as any great revelation to COSLA, because at the time schools in Argyll and Bute were facing closure, which was the subject of a petition. Schools in Moray were also facing closure.

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee undertook a review and produced what I believe was a balanced report, which said that far more robust guidelines should be in place in Scotland. For a reason that is not apparent to me, COSLA has abdicated its responsibility. It did not produce a framework or guidance. The Executive, which took on the mantle in March 2003, has similarly failed, because it has had a year in which to produce guidance. Producing that guidance will be difficult, but there is a blueprint-it is good to see the nationalists accepting that what happens in England and Wales can sometimes be right.

I, too, believe that there should be a presumption against the closure of rural schools, although there will be occasions when schools need to close. I do not know the detail of all the schools to which the motion refers, because they are not in my area. I know only two particularly well: Oxnam Primary School, which I understand has a roll of four; and Glen Douglas Primary School, which has a roll of 18. Those two schools are close to the area where I was brought up and both have played an important part in their communities. Local people must play an important role in deciding whether those schools are viable in the long term.

Housing development must also be taken into account. We need to consider whether new people are coming into an area and whether they are bringing families with them. We must consider the long term rather than the short term. The Executive must produce guidance urgently, because the Borders will not be the only area in which school closures are proposed. The local authority in my area has decided not to consider closing rural schools, but who knows what will happen down the line? Unless there is clear guidance and criteria to which every council in Scotland works, people will feel that they are not being dealt with properly. I appeal to the Executive and to the minister to stop mucking about and to get the guidance produced, so that people in Scotland can know what to expect and what we are working to.

18:00

The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People (Euan Robson): This has been a helpful debate and I have listened with interest to members' contributions.

I have some reservations about the framing of the motion. It is perhaps a bit emotive to talk about a crisis in Borders schools when the percentage of the overall school population that is affected is not very big. However, let me make it absolutely clear that that in no way minimises the importance of the issue for the schools that are mentioned in the review. Obviously, the issue is of crucial importance to parents and to the education of the children concerned.

As members will know, ministers do not express views on specific proposals, primarily because the consultation process is a matter for the council and, secondly, because some proposals might require ministerial consent if the council remains minded to proceed with its proposals after detailed consideration of the representations received during the consultation.

Let me briefly reconfirm what I said in an earlier debate, which I think was on Holy Trinity Episcopal Primary School in Stirling. Ministerial consent is required if the school that is proposed for closure is more than 80 per cent full. In the case of a primary school, ministerial consent is required if the distance between the school proposed for closure and the alternative school is 5 miles-like Rosemary Byrne, I am more familiar with miles than kilometres-and, in the case of a secondary school, if the alternative school is 10 miles away. The exact requirements are laid out in the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, which are referred to in the briefing that the Scottish Parliament information centre produced for tonight's debate.

Fiona Hyslop: The minister cites the current legislation, but he has heard calls for an urgent review of the guidance. Given that he has mentioned the requirement that a school should have an 80 per cent occupancy rate, I should mention the fact that there is dispute about what the capacity of specific schools is. That is particularly the case in Midlothian, where school rolls were limited by teacher numbers, which were prescribed by the local authority. I believe that the 80 per cent rule is somewhat arbitrary and I hope that ministers will be flexible in considering how it should be implemented.

Euan Robson: Fiona Hyslop makes an important point. It is for the local education authority to determine the capacity of a school and therefore the percentage of it that is occupied. That is the current situation.

Let me deal with the guidance and guidelines issue. I understood Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to say that there was no extant guidance but, as the SPICe briefing says, circulars were issued in 1981 and 1988. I accept what Karen Gillon said, but it is clear that the Executive did not postpone the production of guidelines. However, in response to Rhona Brankin's question earlier this afternoon, I have undertaken to consider with her whether guidance should be reissued.

Beyond that, the statutory position is clear. Parliament has established that the responsibility for the delivery of education services at a local level lies with local authorities, which must be mindful that they are publicly accountable to the local electorate. Authorities are under a statutory duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of school education in their area. That duty is inspectable by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Indeed, HMIE inspects not only schools but the education authorities-indeed, authorities could be criticised if they failed in their duty to keep under review their estate and their estate provision.

Such reviews are important not only because buildings age over time, but because the present context is one of population decline. In round terms, Scotland's schools will have about 75,000 fewer children per annum in 10 years' time. I have with me the General Register Office for Scotland's projections for five to 14-year-olds. In all authorities, there is not one plus sign; there are only minuses. Indeed, in West Lothian, the projection is -1 per cent in 2008, -5.2 per cent in 2013 and -7.6 per cent in 2018. In the Scottish Borders, the projection is -6.4 per cent in 2008, -12.1 per cent in 2013 and -18.7 per cent in 2018.

Christine Grahame: Does the minister agree that, in the context of a falling population, if the school is closed, people with families will simply not move into the area? We are looking at the prospect of the Borders railway line opening up the Borders to help to change the demographics and to bring families back in. As Jeremy Purvis mentioned, young people do not come back after they have been at university because there is nothing for them. We need the schools to build on.

Euan Robson: I agree with what Christine Grahame is saying, but what I am trying to tell members is that, across the piece, there is a declining school population, of which local authorities must be mindful. In some local authority areas, there is a growing population in some districts and a declining population in others. In that context, local authorities need to be able to adjust their pattern of school provision, including when they need to replace or refurbish schools. As I said, local authorities are under a duty to ensure that they have permanent regard to those matters, which they should keep under constant review.

Time is short, but I would like to refer to a number of the schools that are mentioned in the motion, some of which I know very well. I have heard what has been said and I have spoken to many people in local communities about a number of schools in my constituency. Chris Ballance referred to Teviothead and I think that it is fair enough for me to say that the chairman, whose remarks we heard, is Basil Gray. It is my understanding that, in relation to Oxnam Primary School, the decision has been taken, sadly and reluctantly, that the school roll is falling to a point at which there will eventually be no pupils. I may not have such a long parliamentary memory as John Home Robertson has, but I understood that the only primary school to close recently in the Scottish Borders was Traquair Primary School, where in fact there were no pupils. Perhaps, further back in time, there were others. I think that Foulden Primary School closed some time before that.

I agree with members that one of the primary considerations has to be alternative transport arrangements. It is simply not good enough to consider that they exist without clear evidence that they do. One issue that was raised at Teviothead was the adequacy of bus services to an alternative school. In some rural communities, we must take into account whether there are alternative bus services to schools where there is additional capacity.

I turn now to three other schools in my constituency. Ednam Primary School, as one member mentioned, is not now to be considered for closure-the recommendation for the director of education will be that that closure should not take place. Further discussions are taking place about two of the classes in Ednam Primary School and about the use of the village hall.

Christine Grahame: Will Euan Robson give way?

Euan Robson: I am sorry, but I have quite a lot of my speech to complete and the light is already flashing.

The two other schools are Hutton Primary School and Roberton Primary School. I have visited Roberton on several occasions and was there two or three days before Christine Grahame was. There are alternative proposals that I would urge the community to make. I was discussing an interesting proposal to create a new facility incorporating the village hall. Village halls in the Borders have had considerable advantage from New Opportunities Fund grants and that might be considered at Hutton.

I believe, and the Executive believes, that consultation with parents is essential and that it should be comprehensive. There is a statutory requirement for authorities to consult parents and the school boards of the affected schools. That should ensure that there is a full opportunity for all issues surrounding a closure to be aired and debated locally.

I will make two final points, if I may, Presiding Officer, as this has been a long debate and I have taken several interventions. First, I welcome what David Mundell said about the Conservative councillors on Scottish Borders Council. Secondly, I point out that the rural schools fund is for administrative support and collaborative work with other schools. There is a broad equivalent in Scotland-the national priorities action fund.

I do not think that we should prejudge the outcome of the consultation process in the Scottish Borders. It is nowhere near complete. The first decisions will not be taken until 13 May, when parents will have an opportunity to present their case to councillors directly. It is for the local authority to consider, in a measured way, the representations that it receives before it reaches a decision. Ministers cannot presume to comment before that process has taken place and before a reference has been made to them. I expect Scottish Borders Council, like all other councils, to proceed with the consultation process in a sensible way. I say to Rhona Brankin that the consultation period should be no less than 28 days. It would be helpful if councils paid due regard to that.