Council forced to U-turn on nursery mothballing plans
Despite previously insisting that the closures would go ahead, council officials have now indicated that they will abandon the plans and seek a review of the authority's approach to mothballing.
In response to multiple requests to explain why unelected officers were able to make decisions on mothballing without consultation, a council spokesperson had previously suggested that government guidance – which includes clear instructions to consult with communities on any such decision – does not apply to nurseries, meaning that they did not need to discuss the matter with families before implementing the changes.
In recent days, however, the council has come under increasing pressure over its plans. The matter has been raised in the Scottish Parliament, and government officials recently wrote to the council to warn that the proposals were not in line with statutory requirements.
In a letter to Laurence Findlay, the Director for Education and Children's Services at Aberdeenshire Council, a government official explicitly stated that mothballing guidance applies to council-run nurseries, and highlighted a section of the document stating that any mothballing decision 'should be taken in consultation with the parents involved.'
The government's letter also raised concerns about the mothballing of another nursery in 2024 which has since been removed from the options that parents can choose from when applying for a space for their child.
Scottish Conservatives MSP Alexander Burnett has also written to the administration, which is led by councillors from his own party. His email, which has been seen by The Herald, sharply criticised several aspects of the council's approach and urged them to abandon the mothballing proposals.
In addition to this, The Herald has been shown email correspondence in which the council is explicitly advised by a solicitor acting for parents that they considered the plans "unlawful". Officials are asked to state whether they agree with this, in which case they would have had to advise councillors of this, or disagree, in which case there would be no reason for families to delay further legal action.
Opposition councillors had successfully demanded a special meeting of the council take place to consider the matter, with the session planned for Monday 9 June.
When The Herald approached the council about this matter earlier today an official declined to comment, stating that they did not wish to 'pre-empt' any decisions that might be made by elected representatives.
However, by mid-afternoon this position had changed, and the council's press team issued a release stating that the administration now intends to abandon the controversial mothballing plans:
'The Administration is minded to seek a review of our mothballing guidance to incorporate a consultation process with parents.
'We acknowledge the strong feelings concerning the four settings and appreciate the concerns of parents who highly value their local early learning facilities. We are trying to balance the needs of children and families, with a challenging financial position – but it is critical we do this in the right way.
'We will be recommending that we pause planning for all future mothballing activity currently underway, whilst we examine the guidance. Whilst we have been engaging with parents, we need to consult at a much earlier stage to inform the decision-making process, and we will explore how to integrate this into the procedure.
'We will also recommend reversing the budget decision identifying this as a saving in our 2025/26 budget process and seek to identify the saving from elsewhere.
'We are taking the unusual step of announcing our intention prior to the meeting in the hope that we remove further anxiety for the people who have made requests to speak.'
The original proposals had been strongly opposed by SNP and some independent councillors who have welcomed the U-turn.
Commenting, SNP Education and Children's Spokesperson, Cllr Louise McAllister, said:
'The decision to mothball these nurseries, without consultation or democratic oversight, was wrong from the get go, and that is a point we have strived to make since the announcements in April.
'As well as the U-turn on mothballing, I sincerely hope that the administration also accept that these decisions need to be fully returned to the hands of elected members, so that we can truly be a voice for the communities we represent.
'Whilst I am delighted for the children who can now continue to access their childcare provision in these settings, I think the administration must acknowledge and apologise for the hurt and distress caused by this short sighted decision making.'
SNP Deputy Education and Children's Spokesperson, Cllr Jenny Nicol, added:
'From the outset we have voted against mothballing decisions being made by officers, and consistently challenged a process that lacked proper consultation and failed to consider the long term impact on rural families.
'For too long, decisions were being made behind closed doors, without the input of those most affected and facing the traumatic realities of mothballing. This reversal shows what can be achieved when communities stand up and are supported by Councillors who put people before 'process'.'
'We welcome this shift, but it must now be followed by a full review of the guidance and a genuine commitment to rural early years provision going forward.'
SNP Cllr Dawn Black, who represents Stonehaven and Lower Deeside, praised local communities who 'have stepped up and fought this campaign so passionately and so successfully.'
'As Councillors our hands have been tied to a certain extent and we have done all we can to push this issue forward – and finally we see some change. We could not have done that without the dedication of local voices who took the time to email and speak with individual Councillors and at the education committee.
'Regardless of guidance from elsewhere, as a council we should want to consult with communities – to work with them to find sustainable ways forward – that should have already been in our guidance. Instead the Tory-led administration have tried to force change on communities, whilst hiding behind officers, and have realised that people just will not stand for it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
an hour ago
- STV News
Hundreds apply to compensation scheme set up after armed forces LGBT ban
More than 1,200 Scots have applied for payments from a compensation scheme set up to help members of the military impacted by a ban on LGBT personnel serving in the forces. The Scottish Government confirmed the figure as it vowed to act to ensure those who suffered under the ban – which was in place until 2000 – get 'every penny they are entitled to'. It comes after the UK Government announced in December last year that it was setting up the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme, with up to £75m set aside for payments. These could see former services personnel who were impacted by the ban receive up to £70,000 each. With veterans also potentially able to receive financial help through the council tax reduction scheme, Finance Secretary Shona Robison said regulations will be changed to ensure any compensation payments do not affect eligibility for this. Robison said: 'As we mark 25 years since the lifting of the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, it is important to recognise the hardship that so many faced, with widespread homophobic bullying and harassment. 'Nothing will make up for the difficulties that LGBT veterans faced, however our action will ensure those in Scotland receive every penny that they are entitled to.' Under the UK Government scheme, those who were dismissed or discharged from the armed forces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity could receive £50,000 in compensation. Former service personnel who suffered harassment, intrusive investigations or even imprisonment could also receive payments of up to £20,000. Peter Gibson, chief executive of Fighting with Pride, said it had 'campaigned for justice for LGBTQ+ veterans for many years, helping to secure reparations and financial recognition of their horrendous treatment prior to 2000'. He added: 'As we slowly see the UK Government deal with those financial payments, protected from benefit and taxation impact, it is wonderful to see the Scottish Government taking action to ensure other benefits such as council tax benefit is also protected too. 'We continue to seek out veterans who were discharged or dismissed from the military to support them, and this news is one more step towards helping those in Scotland.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Western Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Fund Winter Fuel Payments with MP expenses cut says petition
The petition was started by Yvonne Keegan, who calls for the benefit to be reinstated: "I know first hand the importance of Winter Fuel Payment - it's a lifeline to pensioners during the harsh winter months. Their heating bills can skyrocket, and they end up struggling, trying desperately to keep themselves warm. "Meanwhile, our politicians are living comfortably with expenses that would be considered extravagant by most standards. We believe that our politicians – who have a stable income, can afford to pay their heating bills and do not need taxpayer-funded expenses to support this aspect of their lifestyle." Once a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the Government responds, and if 100,000 people sign, a debate in Parliament is considered. This petition currently has 110,421 signatures. Signatures can still be added here. How much do MPs get paid? MPs' basic salary rose 2.8% to £93,904 from April, after Parliament's expenses watchdog linked it to wider proposals for the public sector. They can also claim expenses including: Office expenses Office running costs Staffing costs Travel for staff Centrally purchased stationery Postage costs Central IT costs Communications allowance They also receive allowances towards having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency. MPs can claim their utility bills, including gas, electricity, other fuel and water bills, on expenses at a single property, either in London or their constituency. This is only available to those who aren't MPs in London, or don't occupy 'grace and favour' accommodation in London. There is no upper limit on how much MPs can claim back on heating and fuel costs. Which pensioners will receive Winter Fuel payments after the changes? The Government has said more pensioners will receive winter fuel payments, but payments will not be universal. Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'. She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.' My instant response to Winter Fuel Payment news & key message to the Chancellor (I heard while walking to the office, so pls forgive the fact it was done there and then for speed) — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) June 4, 2025 Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments. Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that. 'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.' (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure. Pension Credit is currently the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment. The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment. Recommended reading: What were the cuts to winter fuel payments, and who currently receives them? On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that. 'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.'
Edinburgh Reporter
4 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection
In just under a year's time the Scottish Parliamentary election will have decided who will be running the government for the following five years. As is the way of the polls there are some showing that Labour will win, and others that the SNP will win. The proportional representation by which MSPs are elected is not supposed to return a majority government – it happened only once, unusually, with the SNP under Alex Salmond in 2011. Labour won most seats and most votes in 1999 and 2003 but no overall majority. In 2021 the SNP was one short of a majority (there are 129 seats so the majority is 65). In an effort to do business more easily, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens and Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, the co-conveners of the party became government ministers. Now that there is one year before the election Lorna Slater said that her party offers the 'real, hopeful' and 'transformative' change that Scotland needs. We met with Ms Slater on the day when the programme for government was about to be announced by John Swinney the First Minister. She did not believe it would bring many changes, but was proved wrong on one policy – the scrapping of peak rail fares. However the Scottish Greens later responded to the announcement to say that while very welcome and a 'huge win for commuters and climate' the policy change amounted to a U-turn by the government. They also pointed out that this policy was 'initially secured by the Scottish Greens through budget negotiations in 2023 before it was then dropped by the SNP who said the numbers did not stack up to allow them to continue supporting it'. Ahead of the Programme for Government Ms Slater – who hopes to be selected to stand as Green candidate next year, and who hopes to continue as co-leader after an internal election in the summer, said: 'I don't think there'll be any new news. I think it will absolutely be a holding pattern. They don't have a plan for bringing down people's bills, because that would involve having an ambitious heat and buildings bill to insulate homes and improve the grant system and really roll out that programme. 'I think that they're going to kind of curl in on themselves and be unambitious because they're worried about doing anything ambitious before an election.' Out of government Asked if she misses being in government Ms Slater said: 'I really miss the ambitious positive energy we have because we had some really good, ambitious things going, and all the bills that have come out since we've been in government without our influence have been gutted. 'Natural Environment Bill, gutted, heat in buildings Bill, gutted, rent controls watered down. And it just goes to show that with the Greens in there, we were much more ambitious on taking practical action on climate, much more ambitious on tackling landlords, tackling polluting corporations, tackling the vested interests – and the SNP have a lot less interest in that. They have much more interest in keeping things as they are, sort of steadying the ship instead of making big change. And the Greens were about making that big change.' As to the fallout from Scotland's deposit return scheme which has landed the government in court, being sued by Biffa for their expenses getting ready for legislation which did not materialise, she is matter of fact. She said: 'The legislation for that was, of course, passed before I was elected. So in 2020 Scottish Parliament agreed that Scotland would have a deposit return scheme. So that already existed before I was in post, my role was to work with industry to implement that scheme. And that I did, we were weeks away from launching the scheme. 'We had nearly all the producers in Scotland lined up. I think it was 95% of the items that were on shelves in Scotland. The producers of those items had paid their money. They were part of the scheme and we had a workable scheme. It would absolutely have launched on time. It would have had maybe a bit of a rocky start, a bit of a phasing in period, but we absolutely would have launched on time. 'But then because Alister Jack (then Secretary of State for Scotland) interfered with it from February 2023 by putting doubts in the media, (and that was despite the fact that he had stood on Boris Johnson's manifesto to implement a deposit return scheme with with glass), he was able to use the internal market act to veto the scheme. 'Alister Jack never gave any justification or basis for that interference. We asked repeatedly why he didn't want glass in the scheme. He never produced any evidence for that. So that was purely political interference in terms of the scheme itself.' At the time in April 2023 the Scottish Greens called for an investigation into the comments Mr Jack made, saying he had misled the House of Commons. Ms Slater said that this particular interference shows how the Internal Market Act has been used to 'stifle devolution'. She said: ' The deposit return scheme was a fully devolved matter, protecting the environment, recycling schemes – all fully devolved. That the internal market act can be used to undermine Scotland's ambitions and to harm Scottish businesses is a shocking state of affairs.' Under the still relatively new UK government administration she still holds the view that devolution is under threat. She said: 'It's an interesting question about how the Labour government is going to treat this. I have noted of course, that Wales is being allowed to continue forward with a deposit return scheme that has glass in it, even though that does interfere with the Internal market act. So why can't Scotland? Why does Wales get a free pass, and Scotland doesn't. So it isn't clear at all that Keir Starmer is changing direction. He hasn't said he will repeal or even revise the internal market act. So the status quo remains. It depends on the goodwill of individual ministers.' One of the reasons that the Scottish Greens and the SNP made for a relatively easy marriage was over the question of independence on which they agree. Ms Slater said: 'I'm a proponent of Scottish independence, and that is the only way we can be sure to put in place plans and programs that we know won't be interfered with by the UK government.' Whether or not I am selected as a candidate, the Scottish Greens will be standing on being a proudly progressive party of Scottish independence. Other parties, Labour, SNP, have conceded that left ground are moving toward the centre. They're allowing Reform to pull them in that rightward direction. You can see that with Labour, with its anti immigration policies, with its neglect of the social security net, the betrayal of the WASPI women, betrayal of disabled people, people who need benefits to live on – sick and disabled people. 'The Scottish Greens will not betray that ground. We are solidly behind equalities. We are absolutely trans rights supporters. We are absolutely in favour of ambitious work toward net zero. We are not going to give this ground. All of these things are really important to us. Human rights are important to us. A secure social safety net. Taxing the rich to pay for it is something we will we are not shy about saying, the rich for too long, have been under taxed. Have increased their wealth enormously well the poorest suffer. We have hungry children in this country. We also have billionaires. The Scottish Greens don't think that that's right, and that's the ground that we are going to contest the election.' This then shows little change in any policy which the party has stood on before – and their numbers improved at the last election. She continued: 'We are a party of values. We are a value led party. We believe in peace, equality, sustainability and human rights. Radical local democracy. We are not going to change our values, we believe that we set out a vision for a fairer, greener, independent Scotland, and it's how effectively we can persuade people that we have the power to implement such a vision, that it is possible that the future can be brilliant. We just have to decide to make it so. Constituency As to her constituents in Lothians they tell the stories of poverty and lack of benefits that are heard all too often. Ms Slater said that at the top of people's minds is their 'quality of life, and that includes everything from being able to pay their rent, being able to find housing in Edinburgh to anti social behaviour, whether it's in Portobello or Corstorphine. And people are experiencing anti social, social behaviour in the streets, all the usual troubles that go with having an NHS and care system industry and people being able to find places for loved ones in care homes people being able to get medical procedures in a timely manner. 'All those things are, of course, what people are concerned with. We also get a reasonable amount of case work because of decisions of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Those are decisions that are not taken it at the Scottish level, but we work with constituents who are, you know, facing exorbitant fees, deportation, uncertainty in their visa status because of paperwork problems, those are all the kind of things we can support people with.' But there is at least one small chink of light. Asked if it is easier to work with the UK Government under Labour she concedes it is 'slightly easier, yes it is slightly easier. The Conservative government was extremely hostile to Scottish interests. Some of their MPs wouldn't take, correspondence from MSPs, wouldn't help our constituents if they went through an MSP – so they had to always go through an MP. 'I think things are definitely more cooperative, but it doesn't solve the problem that so much of what we need to do we can't help people with because it has to go to London, because it's not devolved. 'And every single day we come across things, Oh, can we help with this? No, it's not devolved. If only Scotland were an independent country, we could take action these things, and that is frustrating every single day.' Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related
