Latest news with #2010Act
The Herald Scotland
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Sometimes what communities really need from councils is bravery
Schools across Scotland have shut their doors for the summer, but not all will reopen for the autumn term. If you have followed any of The Herald's education coverage in recent months, you have read stories about council strategies for mothballing schools and nurseries and the Scottish Government guidance which sets the rules for this process. Mothballing refers to the temporary closure of a school (or nursery), and local authorities are required to review this decision at least once a year. Mothballing is intended to provide schools with a lifeline. Instead, it is often used as a way for councils to prolong the inevitable. As a result, painful decisions become more painful and drag on for years. The vast majority of mothballed schools never reopen, to the point that campaigners have come to describe mothballing as 'closure by stealth'. Read more: It is not difficult to see why this is the case. Technically, local authorities are only allowed to mothball a school when the roll has fallen to zero, or very close to zero, according to guidance for the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. At first glance, a recent decision regarding Fountainhall Primary School in the Scottish Borders Council appears to be a textbook case for mothballing. On closer inspection, however, it proves to be a better example of a council trying to soften the blow — and likely deflect some heat — by kicking the can down the road on a likely closure. Between 2020 and 2024, Fountainhall's roll fell from 24 to five pupils, with a total capacity of 50. There was only one child enrolled for the start of the 2025-2026 academic year. Fountainhall fits some of the criteria established in the mothballing guidance: it is only for schools with a 'very low' roll where education for the pupils is 'not presently viable.' However, there is another important criterion that the Scottish Government guidance outlines. Local authorities should only mothball schools when the roll is low and there is good reason to believe that the low roll is only temporary. According to the guidance, the 'and' is crucial and it is clear about why. Even though permanent closure is more final than mothballing, it triggers a statutory consultation process that involves extensive community engagement, culminating in approval from the Scottish Government. This consultation process places additional requirements on local authorities and, in theory, provides more protections for parents and community members to have their voices heard. An important side note: councils love to use the word 'consultation,' but they do not usually mean this type of statutory consultation. What they usually mean is engagement, not the legal definition of consultation found in the 2010 Act. I like to think of it as the difference between a consultation and a Consultation. The mothballing process requires consultation, not Consultation, and councils have much more freedom to decide what that looks like. This game of semantics frustrates parents and rural campaigners, because the guidance explicitly states that mothballing should not be a way to deprive communities of their legal right to a Consultation about the potential closure of their school. However, because mothballing often leads to closure, parents feel that the ultimate Consultation isn't an accurate reflection of the situation. If a school has been 'temporarily closed' for one, two, three years, is it any surprise that few parents asked about enrolling their children or considered moving to the area? This means that when the legal Consultation on closure finally rolls around, the picture is skewed. Interest has fallen off. Parents who had battled the original mothballing have since been forced to move on. Their children attend schools in other communities, and a fight for another transition is different from a fight to keep children in place. All of this is why guidance states that if a council wants to mothball a school, it must be more likely than not that the school will be viable in the long term. Otherwise, the council should initiate the more formal process of permanent closure. And yet, during the recent debate at Scottish Borders Council (SBC) over whether to mothball Fountainhall, the language made it clear that the assumption was that the school would not become viable in the future. The council papers were explicit: 'The Fountainhall school roll is projected to be 1 from August, which is an out of catchment placement. 'Based on this, and considering future planning and migration, Officers project that the number of children will not significantly increase in the coming years within the Fountainhall catchment area.' If the school is being mothballed due to low enrollment, and the council has no expectation that the enrollment will increase, then the question should be about closure, not mothballing. In their objections to the mothballing decision, a group of parents seized on this. In a letter to councillors on the eve of the vote, they called for a statutory consultation on closure to begin "without delay". "Fountainhall deserves proper consultation and legal safeguards – not administrative shortcuts that carry permanent consequences." On the surface, this sounds counterproductive for a group that is fighting to save their school. However, what the parents recognised is that the permanent closure process should provide them with more protections and impose greater oversight on the council's ultimate decision. If nothing else, it offers parents a sense that the democratic process is being followed. As many have told me, an unwanted decision is easier to swallow if there is trust that decision-makers were brave enough to take the hard way out. Instead, another community is looking at unknown years of uncertainty, likely followed by a painful trek towards an even more painful conclusion.
The Herald Scotland
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
What is ‘mothballing' and what rights do parents have?
Recent controversies across multiple local authorities have raised questions about how councils are allowed to 'mothball' schools and nurseries and what rights parents have to be involved in the decision. Although the Scottish Government provides guidance on the process, local authorities have taken very different approaches in recent years. So, what is mothballing, and what rules govern it? Mothballing is a term for the temporary closure of a school, stage of education, or nursery class. Guidance explains that it is only to be used when a local authority believes permanent closure is the only other option. Mothballed schools must be reviewed every year and either have their mothballed status renewed or be reopened. If the local authority decides neither of these options is suitable, then it must begin the formal process of permanently closing the school, which includes a statutory consultation with the community. Historically, it is rare for a school to reopen once it has been mothballed. Particularly in rural communities where the school or nursery in question is the only educational option, temporary closure can dissuade new families from moving to the area and eventually lead to a more long-term decline in demand for the service and overall population. This has led many parents and education campaigners to refer to the mothballing process as 'closure by stealth.' Although mothballing a setting does not require councils to conduct an official statutory consultation as defined by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, statutory guidance for the Act explicitly states that it should not 'be a way of denying parents access to the statutory consultation process.' In recent years, however, councils have used a number of strategies to attempt to close schools and nurseries and have not always engaged with the community ahead of the decision. This has highlighted potential loopholes or points of confusion in the legislation, to the point that First Minister John Swinney recently promised the government was 'reviewing' its mothballing policy in order to better protect rural schools and nurseries. How is mothballing described in the guidance? Statutory guidance defines mothballing as a temporary closure which is 'only appropriate in very restricted circumstances.' These circumstances are exclusively related to enrolment: 'A school can be mothballed where the school roll has fallen to zero and continues to be zero. It may also be appropriate where the roll or potential roll is very low and the authority considers the only other option to be closure.' The guidance places emphasis on the term 'may.' It goes on to state that, if there are children in the catchment area of the school in question then any mothballing decision should be made 'in consultation' with the parents involved. This means that, although the council does not have to follow the official requirements for a statutory consultation laid out in the 2010 Act, they must carry out some for of engagement with the community 'as early as possible, in order to ensure that families can understand the options open to them.' According to the guidance, this step is important because councils need to be able to gauge whether affected families are for or against mothballing the school, nursery or stage of education. If a majority of parents oppose mothballing, then the council should begin the process of opening a statutory consultation on permanent closure. 'Mothballing should not be a way of denying parents access to the statutory consultation process required under the 2010 Act,' the guidance explains, and the statutory consultation process contains safeguards and includes a review of the decision by Scottish Ministers. Where does the confusion come in? Word choice is not consistent in the statutory guidance on mothballing. In the first mention of 'a school', the guidance specifies that it is also referring to 'a stage of education or a nursery class.' This parenthetical is not repeated every time 'a school' is referenced, however. Section 65 of the guidance explains when mothballing is justifiable: when school roll falls to zero or where the roll has fallen so low that the council believes closure to be the only other option. The section does not repeat the clarification that it is also referring to a stage of education or a nursery class. This may be what has led some councils to suggest that the full guidance does not apply to nursery classes. When asked about a recent decision to mothball four nurseries–a decision made by officers with no input from the communities–an Aberdeenshire Council spokesperson told The Herald: 'The statutory guidance under the 2010 Act provides no specific guidance on circumstances where mothballing a 'stage of education' or 'nursery class' might be appropriate.' However, statutory definitions state that the "schools" referred to in the guidance include nurseries under local authority management. The Scottish Government has repeatedly weighed in on the question, telling The Herald that 'mothballing should only take place where the nursery roll falls to zero or is very low, and that decisions should be taken in consultation with the parents involved.' Is anything being done to address the confusion? During a recent session of First Minister's Questions, John Swinney was asked about an ongoing process in the Scottish Borders, which began when a council committee passed a motion to being the process of mothballing five nurseries. The council has since voted to undo the initial decision and is now carrying out a separate consultation on alternative strategies. In response, Mr Swinney said that the government was already working to address the issue. 'We are reviewing guidance on mothballing to provide greater clarity on whether it is an appropriate action to take. 'This will ensure local decisions are based on effective engagement with communities and better reflect the needs of rural families.'
Glasgow Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Supreme Court gender case battle cost Scottish Government almost £160,000
This came after an earlier legal challenge from the campaign group For Women Scotland cost the Government £216,000. The bills were revealed in a freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives. In April, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. The dispute centred on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Act. John Swinney has said he accepts the Supreme Court's judgment (Jane Barlow/PA) First Minister John Swinney has said he accepts the court's ruling and the Government is in discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission about its implications for the Scottish public sector. For Women Scotland had brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'. In the freedom of information response, the Scottish Government indicated the total bill may rise further than £157,816 as final costs have not been decided. The bulk of the sum was taken up by 'counsel fees'. Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'It will rightly stick in the throat of taxpayers that they are picking up a huge legal tab for the SNP's needless and humiliating court defeat. 'John Swinney's party threw good money after bad in a doomed attempt to defend their reckless gender policy which betrayed women. 'They dug their heels in defending the indefensible to the highest court in the land, instead of accepting that gender self-ID was a dangerous fallacy that ignored the legal rights of women and girls.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
Leader Live
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Leader Live
Supreme Court gender case battle cost Scottish Government almost £160,000
This came after an earlier legal challenge from the campaign group For Women Scotland cost the Government £216,000. The bills were revealed in a freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives. In April, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. The dispute centred on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Act. First Minister John Swinney has said he accepts the court's ruling and the Government is in discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission about its implications for the Scottish public sector. For Women Scotland had brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'. In the freedom of information response, the Scottish Government indicated the total bill may rise further than £157,816 as final costs have not been decided. The bulk of the sum was taken up by 'counsel fees'. Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'It will rightly stick in the throat of taxpayers that they are picking up a huge legal tab for the SNP's needless and humiliating court defeat. 'John Swinney's party threw good money after bad in a doomed attempt to defend their reckless gender policy which betrayed women. 'They dug their heels in defending the indefensible to the highest court in the land, instead of accepting that gender self-ID was a dangerous fallacy that ignored the legal rights of women and girls.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
North Wales Chronicle
15-05-2025
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Supreme Court gender case battle cost Scottish Government almost £160,000
This came after an earlier legal challenge from the campaign group For Women Scotland cost the Government £216,000. The bills were revealed in a freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives. In April, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. The dispute centred on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Act. First Minister John Swinney has said he accepts the court's ruling and the Government is in discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission about its implications for the Scottish public sector. For Women Scotland had brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'. In the freedom of information response, the Scottish Government indicated the total bill may rise further than £157,816 as final costs have not been decided. The bulk of the sum was taken up by 'counsel fees'. Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'It will rightly stick in the throat of taxpayers that they are picking up a huge legal tab for the SNP's needless and humiliating court defeat. 'John Swinney's party threw good money after bad in a doomed attempt to defend their reckless gender policy which betrayed women. 'They dug their heels in defending the indefensible to the highest court in the land, instead of accepting that gender self-ID was a dangerous fallacy that ignored the legal rights of women and girls.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
