| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robertson: I will develop that point. We are asking all authorities to adopt the good practice of most authorities.
We consider that it would be helpful to introduce an express duty requiring authorities to have regard to safety issues when making decisions on the entitlement of individual children to school transport. It should, of course, remain for education authorities to exercise their discretion in determining whether school transport arrangements are necessary in individual instances to meet the differing circumstances of individual applicants. In doing so, however, it is vital that authorities should at all times have due regard to the safety implications of not providing school transport for a particular child for whatever reason.
That is what our amendment seeks to achieve, and I commend it to the House.
Mrs. Liddell:
We shall not oppose the amendment, because it puts into statute the good practice currently undertaken by Scottish local authorities.
I share the concern of some local authorities, however, about the shortage of time for consultation on the matter. It is a commonsense issue, and those concerned about accident prevention are aware that one of the most vulnerable groups is pedestrian schoolchildren, particularly in Scotland, where we have long periods of darkness. It must be recognised that many local authorities already consult the police or road safety organisations.
Rather than an amendment that reminds them of the importance of safety, local authorities need ring-fencing of funding to permit them to fulfil their known obligations. A number of local authorities have found
themselves in a difficult position as a result of the local government settlement they are enduring this year, which is why difficulties have arisen in some local authorities.
I urge the Government to take other issues into account, such as the definition of safety and parents' responsibilities in respect of accompanying pupils to and from school. How would the Government seek to define those?
The Opposition have no intention of opposing the amendment.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
Will the Minister say a little about safety on buses? As he knows, the son of a constituent of mine from Drongan was killed on his way to Auchinleck academy. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) had the same tragic circumstances in his constituency. Those accidents caused an outcry, and the campaign "Belt up school kids" was introduced.
Will the Minister give an update of the position regarding seat belts in school transport and attendants, particularly on double-decker buses? People are still greatly concerned about safety on buses. When transport is provided, as the amendment helpfully seeks to do, we want to ensure that it is safe for the youngsters who use it. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether progress is being made along those lines.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is aware of recent Department of Transport regulations requiring the fitting of seat belts on school transport vehicles, and I am sure that he welcomes them. The education authorities already have a common law duty of care in respect of children under their supervision, as is the case when pupils travel to and from school under arrangements made by the authorities. I hope that the recent Department of Transport regulations will provide comfort to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about this issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 30, line 24, at end insert--
The purpose of this amendment is to limit the use of procedures under the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 for schools to seek self-governing
status by school boards or parents simply for the purpose of blocking school closures proposed by an education authority.
There are currently two self-governing schools in Scotland--Dornoch academy and St Mary's Episcopal primary school in Dunblane. Both are performing extremely well and experiencing considerable benefits from the immediacy of decision making and greater financial efficiency that self-government brings.
Self-government remains central to our policy of extending parents' choice in how their children are educated. We remain committed to encouraging more school boards to seek self-governing status, and are confident that, in time, many more boards will see for themselves the benefits of following the lead shown by Dornoch academy and St Mary's Episcopal primary school.
We shall shortly establish a self-governing schools support unit to provide information and advice to schools that wish to know more about self-government. In addition, my forthcoming White Paper on education will contain further proposals on that matter.
However, we have said many times that school boards should not regard the self-governing procedures simply as a means of blocking education authorities' proposals to rationalise school capacity. The recent Accounts Commission report on managing surplus places in school buildings estimated that 13 secondary and more than 100 primary schools could be closed, as there is sufficient alternative provision locally. The savings to be achieved from such rationalisation are significant, and can benefit all the pupils.
Education authorities have difficult decisions to take to tackle the significant surplus of school capacity in Scotland, and they should be free to consult fully on their plans. Well-structured plans will be to the benefit of all pupils in an area by ensuring that the best use is made of resources. The amendment is designed to help education authorities.
As matters stand, a school board can start self-governing procedures by passing a first resolution or by receiving a petition from parents, calling for a ballot of parents on whether self-governing status should be sought.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
Why have only a couple of schools opted out in Scotland in the past few years?
Mr. Robertson:
I should be happy to debate our self-governing policy with the hon. Gentleman at any time, but this is not the time to do so, because the debate is not on the merits of self-governing but on allowing education authorities to get on with taking difficult and sensitive decisions.
It is not open to a school board at the moment to take such action in circumstances where the education authority has already taken a final decision to close a school after appropriate consultation with parents of pupils, the school board and, for a denominational school, the relevant denominational body.
In recent weeks, a total of eight school boards have either passed a first resolution or received a petition calling for a ballot of parents. In each case, the education
authorities had published proposals consulting on the closure or merger of their schools. Before such proposals emerged, none of those boards had expressed any interest in self-governing status.
I assure the House that, in due course, should those ballots of parents lead to self-governing proposals being published and submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for approval, the proposals would be fully considered on their merits in the usual way.
It is clearly possible for a school board, minded to obstruct the progress of an education authority's consultation on school rationalisation, to use the self-governing legislation in a manner that the House obviously did not intend. The amendment provides that, once an education authority has formally resolved to publish proposals for the closure of a specific school, the school board could not validly start self-governing procedures, either through a first resolution or by receiving a petition from parents, until three months after that resolution by the authority, or until such time as the authority had taken a final decision on the closure of the school, whichever was the sooner.
'. After section 13(3) of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 (eligibility for self-governing status) there shall be inserted the following subsections--
"(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where an education authority makes a proposal to discontinue a school by virtue of section 22A of the 1980 Act, no resolution shall be passed or request made under subsection (1) above during the relevant period.
(3B) The relevant period is whichever is the shorter of the period from the date when the education authority decides to consult persons in accordance with section 22A of the 1980 Act to the date the decision to discontinue the school is reached or--
(a) where no consent is required under section 22B, 22C or 22D of the 1980 Act as regards the decision to discontinue the school, three months later;
(b) where consent of the Secretary of State is so required, six months later.".'
4 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |