To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support schools in rural communities. (S6O-03616)

Rural schools play an important role in our communities. In Scotland, there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools. When local authorities plan to close a school, they are required to undertake a thorough and lengthy consultation process, including demonstrating the educational benefit of the closure, considering the impact of the school closure on local community and school travel arrangements, and consulting the community on alternatives to closure. That process ensures that the impact of any decision is properly considered and that options are explored. No school closure decision should ever be taken lightly.

The cabinet secretary wrote to me on 3 June to confirm that the most recent list of rural schools in Scotland showed that there were 21 mothballed primary schools, with Aberdeenshire Council and Highland Council having the most, with four in each area. That list was from 2021, which is now three years ago. In Aberdeenshire alone, I believe that there are now 14 mothballed primary schools, and 16 more are at risk, including Tullynessle and Logie Coldstone primary schools in my constituency. That is a clear betrayal of our rural communities. Does the minister have any idea how many primary schools are currently mothballed across Scotland? What will he do about it?

We really need to admire the brass neck of the member in asking that question, given that Aberdeenshire Council is Tory controlled. Local authorities have responsibility for the school estate, and decisions on closures and mothballing of schools are for them to take. Ministers have the power to call in a local authority decision only when the closure of the school is permanent.

From the information about Tullynessle that we have been provided with thus far, that would not appear to constitute a permanent closure. However, my officials have written to the local authority to seek further information about its plans and to remind it of its responsibilities under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. I will write to the member about the numbers that he is seeking.

I go back to my earlier point about the absolute brass neck of Mr Burnett. If he is genuinely concerned and if he shares the concerns of local residents about the two school mothballings, as they are referred to, he might want to have a chat with some of his councillor colleagues in Aberdeenshire.

I am sure that the minister will welcome the progress on two new-build secondary schools in my constituency—Peebles high and Gala academy—which are due to be completed next year and are funded by the Scottish Government.

Does the minister agree that it is a massive burden on Scottish Borders Council’s budget that Borders secondary schools were built under public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative in 2009 by the then Tory-Liberal Democrat administration at an initial cost of £72 million but, by the end of the contract in 2039, they will have cost £258 million, and that we should never forget the punishing continuing costs of projects funded by PPP/PFI, which, thankfully, the Scottish Government ditched?

The Scottish Government was pleased to announce in December 2020 that we would provide financial support to Scottish Borders Council for its priority projects—namely, Galashiels community campus and Peebles high school—through phase 2 of the joint £2 billion learning estate investment programme. As Christine Grahame rightly notes, that was not done through the discredited PFI scheme, which the public purse is still bearing the cost of and which limits the amount of money that we and, indeed, councils have to invest in front-line services. The toxic legacy of PFI is still being felt in Scotland, and Labour members should be ashamed of their party’s record in government.