Statement to Parliament on Rural School Closures in Argyll and Bute by Cabinet Secretary Michael Russell

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on proposed school closures in Argyll and Bute.

Long before I was an MSP, I was involved in campaigning for rural schools and I have championed the cause of rural schools for almost my entire political career. Rural schools are critical to fragile communities: they anchor the future of such places because young people are the future.

The continued health of rural schools is about much more than education. It might even be said that the cause of rural schools goes to the heart of why the Parliament exists, because we are here to serve the interests of all the communities of Scotland, no matter how small, and to do so without fear or favour. I know that many other members share that view. For example, in the first session, Cathy Peattie was the rapporteur for an inquiry that not only saved some schools, but presaged the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. Murdo Fraser introduced a bill on the topic, and Jamie McGrigor and Jackie Baillie have been working effectively to oppose local closures.

Let me make two points clear at the outset. First, this statement has been requested by the Opposition parties and is therefore a ministerial statement, but any and all of the actions that I took in relation to the proposed school closures in Argyll and Bute were not taken as a minister. Moreover, that point was made clear at every stage of the events that I shall describe.

Secondly, the moment that there was the prospect of school closures in Argyll and Bute, I took the correct steps to insulate myself as a minister and, in keeping with official advice—which I had sought—put in place arrangements for another minister to take decisions on and to act in all capacities concerning the matter. Those arrangements were announced on the very day on which a formal process was started.

I will now give the details of the Argyll and Bute school closure proposals. In late October 2010, Argyll and Bute Council released a list of 26 schools that it proposed should be closed. That list was met with consternation locally—it represented

Col 32076

almost one third of local schools. Many people believed that it would be a significant—perhaps fatal—blow to the entire diverse and disparate area. The final decision on the proposals was due to be made at a council executive meeting on 2 November, but that meeting demurred and instead asked officials to bring back revised proposals to the full council on 25 November. Instantly, the school closure plan became the single biggest local issue. I received numerous requests to meet councillors and parents, but from the outset I made it explicit that I could do so only as the prospective parliamentary candidate for the area, and in that role alone.

In that capacity, on 5 November, at the request of the local councillor and during a visit to Kintyre, I met parents of pupils of Glenbarr and Southend primary schools. On 13 November, again at the request of the local councillor, as well as of the parent council, I met the community on the island of Luing, whose school had been raised with me five days earlier in this chamber by Des McNulty. On 20 November, while I was undertaking local campaigning in Rothesay, I met parents from North Bute primary school who were running a street stall. On 27 November, while I was campaigning in Dunoon with a local councillor, I visited a coffee morning in Strone where, yet again, the school issue was on everyone's lips. On 13 December, when I visited Ulva and Lochdon on Mull, I was accompanied by no fewer than four councillors, including one independent Liberal and one independent. Later that evening, I was at Barcaldine with two councillors. In addition, I had the issue raised with me in shops, in pubs, at events and in the streets across the area. I even had it raised with me in neighbours' houses because, of course, I live in the constituency and in a community that was threatened with the closure of its primary school.

In every one of those meetings and in every conversation, I made three things clear: first, that I could speak only in my capacity as a prospective parliamentary candidate; secondly, that given my governmental office, I could not and would not take a position on the closure of any individual school; and finally, that the only help I could give was to ensure that everyone was fully familiar with the rights of parents and communities under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.

That is what I said—or to put it another way, let me quote one of the parents I met, Mr Robert Millar of Southend, who last weekend told Scotland on Sunday:

"He made that quite clear before he started. He said I can't comment about the school and say anything with the job I've got."

I was very touched to be contacted yesterday morning by another member of one of the affected

Col 32077

communities, who made it clear that the parent council on the island of Luing would be willing to say exactly the same thing.

When I entered schools, those visits were arranged by and were at the invitation of local councillors, the local teachers or the parents themselves, and I did so as a local candidate. As members know, I am not exactly a shrinking violet. Consequently, I was accompanied on a number of visits by local journalists who covered the discussions. Their reporting, for example in the Campbeltown Courier and in The Oban Times, confirms what Mr Millar said. As a local candidate, I met local people to discuss local issues that were of concern to them.

At the meeting on 25 November, the Scottish National Party group in Argyll and Bute Council refused to back a list of closures that had only one change and consequently withdrew from the council administration. That was a decision for the council group and one that it reached after listening to its constituents.

However, other councillors had not listened to their constituents. The six Liberal Democrats immediately joined the administration, backed by the two Tories, and voted through the list of 25 school closures at that very meeting, by 19 to 17. If they had not, the closures would have fallen. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer: Order. There should be no interruptions or interventions.

Michael Russell: As December dawned, it became obvious to many people that the unprecedentedly long list of formal closure proposals was deeply flawed. Forensic work by the Scottish rural schools network, by the new Argyll rural schools network and by the local media, including The Oban Times, the Campbeltown Courier, the Dunoon Observer and Argyll Online, increasingly exposed the new council administration and the entire process to censure. The national press joined in, with a particularly effective contribution from Ruth Wishart in The Herald.

As a result, the council clearly felt under some pressure. On 17 December, the chief executive of Argyll and Bute Council raised concerns about the process with the permanent secretary, who responded to her on 23 December emphasising the clear separation, that had already been publicly announced, to ensure that I would take no role in any governmental decision on call-in or closure. In the same week, an extraordinary attack on critics of the proposals was made on the official council website by one of the council's staff.

On 5 January—just one week ago—a special council meeting took place, which was requisitioned by the SNP council group that was

Col 32078

working with the Argyll first group and some non-aligned independent councillors. Its purpose was to hear an authoritative presentation from the Scottish rural schools network on the flaws in the closure proposals, and to persuade councillors to withdraw them because of those errors. A summary of the information was circulated prior to the meeting.

That was enough. Faced with the facts and likely humiliation, the Liberal Democrat and independent Administration caved in suddenly and without prior notice. It proposed a motion to withdraw the entire closure package, having been forced to recognise public anger and the mess that it had created.

However, two days before the meeting, an e-mail that I had sent in mid-November in reply to one from an SNP councillor from his official council e-mail address was leaked to a range of newspapers. In a piece that was published last week, the Dunoon Observer revealed that my e-mail was sent to it from an e-mail address purporting to belong to a John Mackinnon. The journalist on the paper recounts how he e-mailed the sender back, asking how he had obtained it and whether he was a member of, or worked for, any political party. He got no response.

How that e-mail came to be in the hands of the media is a question for others. In what way it might have been linked to the special meeting also needs to be examined, but given the fact that I had already decided that I would play no role in any possible Scottish Government decision on the closures, it was entirely appropriate to share my view as the local candidate with my local party colleagues. Indeed, it would have been inconceivable not to do so.

I am also clear that under the MSP code of conduct, it is entirely permissible to take an active role in an issue in another constituency when the member has the agreement of the relevant constituency MSP. I had that clear agreement from the relevant local constituency MSP, Jim Mather.

The Government introduced the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill to improve the way in which communities are consulted on closure plans and to insist that closures can only occur when they are of educational benefit to the pupils. That is the that standard that we have set; we will apply it in every community in Scotland. We are not saying that a rural school will never close, but that full consultation and consideration of viable alternatives is mandatory. A fair and robust process that is informed by accurate and verifiable data is the key to the matter.

Members across the chamber regularly talk to me about school closure issues in their

Col 32079

constituencies and regions. I am always happy to explain to them that the legislation is not about second-guessing decisions but about ensuring fairness. If I can be helpful to members on such a thing, surely I should also be helpful to those who ask me elsewhere.

The SNP Government will go on being fair to communities across Scotland. I can update the chamber this evening about further progress. Today we have rejected proposals from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar to close four schools—Shelibost primary school, Carloway primary school, secondary 1 and S2 at Shawbost and S1 and S2 at Lionel. I have also decided to call in the decision by Shetland Isles Council to close one school—Scalloway—for further consideration. However, I have granted consent to Moray Council to go ahead with the closure of Cabrach primary school because the council has adhered to the process that is set out within the legislation.

We should all be proud of the legislation that we have passed to give better protection to vulnerable schools. However, more might usefully be done. I have been reflecting on how the legislation works in practice and whether it should take in issues such as calculation of capacity and the verification of information. I shall now consider what is needed to improve the process further.

Since this SNP Government took office, when a ministerial decision has been required on a school closure, half have been refused consent or called in for further investigation by SNP ministers. However, under the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, every time a ministerial decision was required on a proposal to close a school—every single time—those Labour and Liberal ministers closed the school. Let that fact speak for itself.

I, for one, am glad to be known as a defender of our rural schools in Argyll and Bute and across Scotland who, I believe, has acted with propriety throughout.

The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in the statement. We have until 6 o'clock, when we will move to decision time. It would be helpful if members who would like to ask questions would press their request-to-speak buttons.

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I have three specific questions and a number of requests for further information.

Will the cabinet secretary name the eight or nine schools in Argyll and Bute that he apparently considers could have been closed with minimal difficulty?

Col 32080

In his statement, the minister said that the moment there was the prospect of school closures, he took steps to insulate himself. Was that when the council's proposals were published or the date on which the formal process was started?

On what date did the cabinet secretary first direct the SNP councillors, who were the architects of the closure proposal, to withdraw from the administration?

Will the Government publish, through the Scottish Parliament information centre or via the internet, all written and e-mail correspondence with Argyll and Bute Council on the handling of school closures, including the letter that was sent by the chief executive of the council to the permanent secretary, which was referred to in the statement, and the permanent secretary's reply? Will the cabinet secretary publish a list of all e-mail and written correspondence received from members of the public on school closures since his appointment as cabinet secretary, together with an indication for each communication of whether a response was sent by the cabinet secretary or by an official?

Will the cabinet secretary list the dates of all visits he has made to Argyll and Bute schools since his appointment and publish details of all phone calls, e-mails and letters sent to those schools or parents representatives connected with those schools? [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer: Order.

Des McNulty: Finally, will the cabinet secretary provide details of ministerial and parliamentary resources used to arrange and deliver the meetings?

Michael Russell: Perhaps I could wish Des McNulty a happy new year, as this is the first time I have had an opportunity to communicate with him across the chamber.

I make it absolutely clear that I have never listed a group of schools. There is always the possibility of school closures—my statement makes it entirely clear that no school exists for ever—but it is for others to list those possibilities and for full consultation to take place.

I will move on to the second question—there were a large number of questions, not all of which, I am afraid, I was able to get in the time available. My statement made it clear that I sought advice the moment that there was any prospect of the closures, when I first heard about them towards the end of October. My statement gave a clear timeline thereafter.

As for the question of direction, I do not direct councillors. No SNP members direct councillors.

Col 32081

Control freakery lies on the Labour benches, not on the SNP benches.

Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of what is a very robust statement.

If the cabinet secretary is absolutely convinced, as he seems to be, that he has acted with propriety throughout the period, will he say why he chose not to publish some of the communication, which would have been immensely helpful last week when we asked for that to happen? It would have cleared up the issue with parents and his constituents.

Secondly, will the cabinet secretary confirm for the record that he has not had any correspondence with SNP councillors in other parts of the country, making directions to them about school closures?

Thirdly, will he confirm why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was giving some direction to SNP councillors and telling them what should be happening in their areas? Is that a cabinet secretary who is running away from very difficult decisions?

Michael Russell: The answer to the final question is no.

I do not give directions to any group. As a candidate, it would have been extraordinary if I had not had conversations with a wide range of party members and others about the issue in Argyll. I have given a very full account of the chronology and the contacts. I had hoped that that might have been enough for a fair-minded person. I am somewhat upset that Liz Smith proves herself to be not a fair-minded person.

Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD): Parliament recently passed schools consultation legislation—a new system that Fiona Hyslop said would be "open and transparent" for parents. Like others, I have had painful experience of school closures in my constituency, in particular when Drumbrae primary school closed down. This week, the chair of one of the local receiving schools—East Craigs—contacted me and is deeply concerned about the cabinet secretary's actions. It is perfectly reasonable to think that parents across Scotland are concerned about what they have heard.

The chair of East Craigs told me that in December 2009 the parent councils in my constituency contacted the First Minister and ministers to ask them to intervene and to talk to their SNP councillors about their manifesto commitments on school closures. When Mike Russell responded weeks later—after the decision was taken—he was clear:

Col 32082

"I want to assert from the outset that I would not at any point have had locus to intervene in the City of Edinburgh Council's consultation or decision ... as distinct corporate bodies, local authorities are responsible for their own actions".

Given that that was the cabinet secretary's response to parents in Edinburgh, and that he has told us today that the issue should be about fairness to parents all over Scotland, why did he consider it acceptable to meet parents where he had no electoral locus? [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer: Order.

Margaret Smith: The cabinet secretary was not an elected member for the area in which the schools were being closed. Why did he risk a breach of the Parliament's code of conduct to deal with a matter relating to a constituency issue outwith his region?

John Swinney: That is a smear.

Margaret Smith: Did the cabinet secretary seek permission in any way from regional MSPs? When he was asked by parent councils to attend meetings, was he asked to attend those meetings along with other candidates or was he asked because he was the candidate who happened to be the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning?

The Presiding Officer: You must finish, please.

Margaret Smith: Why did the cabinet secretary compromise his ministerial position by telling SNP councillors what to do? That is not a fair and transparent way in which to deal with school closures.

Michael Russell: I understand the embarrassment of the Liberal Democrats on the matter—I want to be very clear about that.

I, too, am grateful for advance notice of the Drumbrae issue, which came to me from The Scotsman this afternoon, so one knows to whom it was given before it came to the chamber.

I behaved in exactly the same way in Drumbrae as I did in Argyll and Bute. As I said in my statement, I immediately insulated myself ministerially from the decisions in Argyll and Bute. In all those circumstances, as my statement indicated, I acted with absolute propriety and absolutely openly. All the rest—as I heard my friend, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, say from a sedentary position—appears to have been an attempt at a smear, which I regret.

Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): The cabinet secretary mentioned that, under the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, every time a ministerial decision was required on a proposal to close a school the Labour and Liberal ministers

Col 32083

closed the school. Can he tell us about the SNP's record on saving rural schools compared to the Labour-Lib Dem record?

Michael Russell: I am happy to repeat that part of the statement. Since this SNP Government took office, when a ministerial decision was required on a school closure, half have been refused consent or called in for further investigation by SNP ministers. In other words, we are active and vigorous. We have always said that the position of rural schools throughout the country is important. They are vital to rural health, but not all schools stay open. That is why we introduced the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, and I am glad that the whole chamber supported it. It is another SNP policy that has been delivered successfully.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that the schools need to be saved. However, what appears to be missing from his rhetoric is recognition of the fact that there are good educational arguments for that. Instead, he has turned the whole issue into a political football with the intention of furthering his own political career rather than of saving the schools. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer: Order.

Rhoda Grant: His behaviour is jeopardising those schools. Will he now apologise for that behaviour?

Michael Russell: I find myself in some difficulty with the nature of that question, given that the politics of the situation have been fuelled by Rhoda Grant on every single one of the past seven days. I hope that the chamber might come together in a positive way and welcome the announcements that I made at the end of my statement. This is the first occasion on which effective legislation has been used to ensure that a number of schools will remain open. I am sure that Rhoda Grant will welcome that.

It has also given us the opportunity to consider another proposed closure. That should be welcomed. Perhaps we should also welcome the fact that Moray Council has followed the procedure well and, therefore, has permission to close the school. I think that the 2010 act is working well, so I am sorry that Rhoda Grant did not spend at least a moment in her question welcoming those announcements.

Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): We know, from the cabinet secretary's e-mail correspondence and from what we have already heard, about the eight or nine primary schools that he suggests could be closed without any difficulty. First, can he name those schools and explain how he reconciles his suggestions with the legislation that he says he supports, which

Col 32084

states that each school should be considered individually on its educational merits?

Secondly, the minister stated that the SNP withdrew from the council administration on 25 November, but did it not do that on 6 December?

Thirdly, he stated that six Lib Dems and two Tories voted through the list of 25 closures, but did they not vote for consultation?

Michael Russell: I will start with the member's last question. Those councillors voted to consult on closure. That was a decision that they wished to close the schools. I do not think that the member can get round that. I commend Jamie McGrigor for going to Southend and helping the parents there by arguing for the retention of that school. Unfortunately, he was not backed by the two Tory councillors, who vigorously voted for the closures. Indeed, one of them indulged in a speech that insulted those who were protesting against the closure.

I hope that Jamie McGrigor would join me in welcoming the change of heart that has taken place in the council and the new opportunity that has been given. I have often backed Jamie McGrigor's views on this matter and I think that he and I are at one in this regard. Indeed, at the start of the process, he urged me to be more active on this matter. Clearly, one cannot please all the people all the time.

Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD): Returning to the cabinet secretary's e-mail reply to Councillor Macdonald on 19 November, which was sent from Mr Russell's Scottish Parliament account as an MSP, which he justified in his statement as being entirely appropriate as it was done with the permission of Jim Mather, I ask not whether Mr Russell had the permission of the local constituency MSP, Jim Mather, to make that reply; instead, I ask what was the cabinet secretary's locus for sending such detailed comment and advice for schools in Argyll and Bute in his capacity as an MSP for the South of Scotland.

Michael Russell: As I made clear in my statement, under the MSP code of conduct it is entirely permissible to take an active role in an issue in another constituency where one has the agreement of the relevant constituency MSP. I had that agreement from Jim Mather. That is absolutely clear.

Alasdair Allan (Western Isles) (SNP): Does the cabinet secretary agree that, judging by the tone of some of the Opposition contributions, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that a candidate defending rural schools was doing a bad thing, which stands in sharp contrast to the welcome decision of the cabinet secretary to save two primaries and two secondaries in the Western Isles?

Col 32085

Michael Russell: It is curious that those who have been, quite properly, vociferous in their support of rural schools should endeavour to make this issue a "political football"—to quote an earlier questioner. That is unfortunate, and it is also politically very silly. I would have thought that those who have stood up for rural schools in that way would want to be commended by the population. Instead, they appear to be against the idea of saving rural schools, even though, previously, they must have voted for the legislation. I would have hoped that the chamber would have welcomed the climb-down by the Liberal Democrat-independent administration and the decision on the Western Isles schools—Alasdair Allan is the first to do so—and would agree that the legislation is working well.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and for acknowledging my efforts to oppose the closure of local schools in Helensburgh and Lomond. I confess that the cabinet secretary has not yet been to a school in my area, but I will happily arrange for a coffee morning or a stall, should he wish to drop by.

Although it is the case that the proposals were developed by an SNP-independent administration—indeed, the education convener was an SNP member—I have worked on a cross-party basis to protect schools and will continue to do so.

I repeat my request to the cabinet secretary that Angela Constance, the Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning, agree to a meeting to discuss the proposals, because we know that the proposals will come back with a short space of time for consultation.

Michael Russell: That was a helpful question. It was, of course, a question that needs to be addressed to Angela Constance, but I am sure that as she is a reasonable person, she will be delighted to meet Jackie Baillie. I welcome the opportunity to attend a coffee morning in Helensburgh or any other part of Jackie Baillie's constituency.

Bob Doris: In relation to the aborted mass school-closure proposals in Argyll, does the cabinet secretary agree that it would have been ridiculous and untenable for any candidate in the forthcoming election in Argyll to stay quiet on such a matter, apart from the candidate from the Labour Party, who might not have wanted to draw attention to the fact that their party was responsible for the savage closure of 20 primary schools in Glasgow?

Michael Russell: Of course, the Labour Party had no chance to vote on the matter in Argyll and Bute Council because it has no councillors in

Col 32086

Argyll and Bute Council. However, I would have thought that its candidate would have wanted to place himself on the right side of the issue rather than getting involved on the wrong side.

It is for others to say why they have acted as they have done. I do not pretend to understand why candidates of any sort would go against such a clear worry in the community about rural schools.

For me, rural schools are at the heart of rebuilding rural communities. Not every rural school can stay open—I am absolutely clear about that—but rural schools make a vital contribution, and we should value and build on that rather than allow them to be cut off all the time.

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): I listened very carefully to the education secretary's timeline in his statement. He failed—inadvertently, I am sure—to mention that the original proposal to close 26 schools in Argyll and Bute came from the SNP administration. Will he confirm that that is the case, and that he inadvertently left it out of his statement?

Michael Russell: No, I did not inadvertently leave it out of my statement at all. The timeline started in October, and the information that I gave indicated that the original administration proposed 26 closures. However, there is no greater joy than the joy over a sinner who repenteth.

The SNP councillors, who bothered to go and talk to the local communities and who discussed the matter in full, recognised that the original list of proposals was deeply flawed. Moreover, freedom of information material that has been sought and gained by Argyll Online indicates that Isobel Strong, the convener of the education committee in Argyll and Bute Council at that stage, was not fully involved in all the key meetings and was excluded from some of the decision-making processes.

I suspect that that was one of the reasons why the group decided that it was well shot of its independent partners. The new Liberal Democrat partners in the council may shortly find that they are not in bed with the happiest or most forthcoming group of people.

The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement and questions on the proposed school closures in Argyll and Bute,