Council forced to U-turn on nursery mothballing plans
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
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? Legal insights
On Tuesday, the High Court granted a temporary injunction to Epping Forest District Council, blocking refugees from being allowed to stay at a former hotel. The ruling blocks asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town, and current residents must be removed by September 12. While the court ruling that asylum seekers be removed from a hotel in Epping, Essex was won by the council against the hotel over the breach of planning rules, Reform UK and far-right protesters are taking the injunction as a "victory" for them. READ MORE: 'Emboldened' far-right advertise Perth asylum seeker hotel protest Nigel Farage has stated that the Epping community "stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won". He has further called for peaceful protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers "across Britain" to put pressure on local authorities. Questions are being asked on what the implications of the ruling are for Scotland, and whether Scottish councils could take similar action. Nick McKerrell, senior lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, told The National that his view was that Scotland is unlikely to see councils block hotels housing asylum seekers, despite the potentially landmark ruling in Essex. What happened in the Epping ruling? The ruling from Mr Justice Eyre is significant but framed in "quite a specific way in the framework of English planning law", McKerrell explained. "Essentially the argument of Epping Council is that the hotel, by housing asylum seekers, is no longer acting as a hotel therefore it is in breach of the planning permission that was granted to allow it to operate in such a way. 'In legal terms, the council are arguing there is a change of use but not only that there has been a 'material' change of use – which means the change is so significant that it requires a new planning permission application if it wants to house asylum seekers." READ MORE: 'This rhetoric leads to firebombs': Humza Yousaf issues warning over asylum debate McKerrell added that a significant point was that the court did not make a ruling on whether they agreed with the council's position. The interim injunction (a court order banning behaviour – an interdict in Scots Law) is about the use of the hotel until a resolutions at a later hearing. "So he is saying that he will not make a ruling on whether the hotel is breaching planning law but it is saying that because of the broader issues raised it should not operate as a location for asylum seekers in the interim." Ultimately in his ruling on Tuesday, the judge conceded that "housing destitute asylum seekers is an important public policy," McKerrell summarised, "but there is also a public interest in ensuring that planning control is followed within local authorities which are ultimately responsible for it." Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? The judge in the Epping Forest case was keen to emphasise that his decision was very 'fact sensitive' so could not be seen as a precedent, McKerrell stressed. "He actually outlined a number of different contradictory decisions in the English courts on whether using hotels to house asylum seekers is a 'material' difference from operating 'usually' as a hotel. Scotland also has its own planning laws. 'Here it would require a local authority to challenge a hotel for breaching planning law. Scots planning law uses similar terms to those argued in the English court over change of 'material use'. Generally though that would be difficult in this context given councils in Scotland generally have been involved in discussions with the Home Office and contractors to agree to bring asylum seekers into the local area." He added: "A group that was angered by asylum seekers being housed for example as seen in Falkirk at the weekend would not be able to raise such an action." 'In England the numbers of asylum seekers are much greater and enter into direct contracts with the hotels which may not involve the council as can be seen in Epping where the District Council brought the action'. How many asylum seekers in the UK in 2025? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Western Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Former Salmond staffer rejects Sturgeon claims in book as ‘obviously false'
Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Mr Salmond when he was first minister, hit out at Ms Sturgeon, saying: 'I was brought up that you didn't speak ill of the dead. 'But I think if you're going to speak ill of the dead, at least make your claims accurate.' Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon with her memoir, Frankly, which was published last week (Jane Barlow/PA) He told the Holyrood Sources podcast that Mr Salmond's widow Moira was 'particularly upset and frustrated at a lot of what has been said' about her late husband, who died suddenly in October 2024. Mr Aberdein continued: 'I think it was important to set out and correct the record not just because Alex is not in position to defend himself, but for myself as well and the series of other officials and civil servants that have contacted me.' Claims that Mr Salmond was the person who leaked the story of the sexual harassment allegations against him are 'obviously false', Mr Aberdein insisted. He said that when his former boss took the phone call to say the story about the allegations was being published by the Daily Record he was actually meeting lawyers to 'draft a legal summons to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's Government from making the allegations public'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'To suggest Alex was simultaneously leaking documents deeply damaging to his reputation whilst at the same time paying lawyers a lot of money to get a court order to prevent publication of the same material is just utterly absurd.' Mr Salmond went on to be acquitted of all the charges against him in a court case in 2020. Mr Aberdein also dismissed claims by Ms Sturgeon that Mr Salmond 'didn't read' the white paper on independence which had been produced by the Scottish government in the run up to the 2014 referendum. In her recently published memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon spoke out about her 'cold fury' with her former leader over his 'abdication of responsibility' on the key document. Mr Aberdein – who said he would not be reading the book – accepted that his former boss 'delegated the responsibility for drafting the white paper to Nicola Sturgeon'. Mr Aberdein said he wanted to 'correct the record' following comments made about his former boss, Alex Salmond (Andrew Milligan/PA) However he insisted: 'To suggest, as I think was the purpose of this story, that he wasn't engaged in the process of a prospectus for independence is utterly nonsense. The former Salmond chief of staff also rejected claims that Mr Salmond was 'apparently against same-sex marriage' – saying that this was 'demonstrably false'. Mr Aberdein told the podcast Mr Salmond had 'declared his personal support for gay marriage for the first time' in a newspaper article in April 2011. And he added that while the SNP election manifesto that year had pledged to consult on the issue Mr Salmond 'chose to come out… excuse the pun, the turn of phrase, ahead of that result, to say that he personally supported it.' With the SNP having won the 2011 Holyrood election, Mr Aberdein recalled 'being in the room with advisors, civil servants and indeed ministers about how we would go about reassuring different sections of our society about that legislation, particularly religious leaders and other civic leaders'. He also made the 'obvious point' that 'if Alex Salmond didn't want legislation to be progressed, he was the first minister of a majority SNP government, it wouldn't have been progressed'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'The point falls down on that alone.'
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I know the Home Office is hiding the real costs of asylum
Our immigration system sometimes feels like an organised conspiracy against the British people. For decades, the public have voted for drastic reductions in immigration, only to see the numbers go up and up. For years, they have demanded an end to the Channel crossings and the asylum crisis, only to see politicians refuse to do what is necessary. When governments do move in the right direction, they are undermined by weak enforcement, litigious and often publicly-funded NGOs, activist judges who are often former claimant lawyers in the immigration tribunals, and human rights laws that make securing the border an impossible job. Not that governments should be let off the hook: ultimately our constitution allows Parliament to change the law. The last Conservative government had the right idea to stop the Channel crossings. Deporting every migrant coming to Britain without permission – to their home country or a third country like Rwanda – is ultimately the only way to end this wave of illegal immigration. But the plan was never going to work unless we left the European Convention on Human Rights, and that government – with exceptions like Robert Jenrick, who resigned for this reason as immigration minister – was unwilling to go that far. Immigration is the biggest single reason my party is in the predicament it is in, and we must be brutally honest about our record and radical in our solutions if we are ever to win back the trust of the British people. Labour's approach, however, is even worse. They abandoned the policy of deporting migrants who cross the Channel and are now rushing illegal immigrants through the asylum system. Approvals are up, and once asylum is granted, the migrants are hidden in the social housing and welfare systems, where it is impossible to track their costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that the average 'low-wage migrant worker' arriving aged 25 will cost the British taxpayer over £400,000 by the time they reach 81. Ministers muddy the waters by claiming they are deporting record numbers of people. But this is dishonest. First, the numbers they use include migrants who leave voluntarily. And second, only about three per cent of Channel crossers are ever removed. It's no surprise that Channel crossings are up – by almost 50 per cent – under Labour. And the court injunction won by the Conservative council in Epping, which stops a local hotel being used to house migrants, throws the Government's policy into further chaos. But while the injunction is undoubtedly a clear victory for the local residents – vilified as 'far Right' by those who should know better – it may yet mean more trouble for communities affected by 'asylum dispersal'. Those hoping for a policy of detention and deportation will soon be disappointed. Human rights laws can prevent deportation, and Labour reject automatic deportation for those who cross the Channel. So the migrants will still end up housed in towns and cities across the country. There are already more than twice as many migrants in private housing, including houses of multiple occupancy, than in hotels. And accommodation like this may suit a government as cynical as this one better than hotels. Individual houses provide less of a focal point for protest than hotels, and the Home Office, working with Serco, has been building up its property portfolio for some time. With 1.33 million people on local waiting lists for social housing, this is a serious breach of the fundamental deal offered by citizenship. Foreign nationals – who broke into our country knowing it was illegal – are being offered housing that is not available to British families in need. And the unfortunate residents who live nearby are very deliberately kept in the dark. As an MP elected last year, I have been horrified by the secrecy with which ministers handle housing migrants. When I asked why MPs are not informed about migrants being moved into their constituencies, the immigration minister said we would only be told when it is 'lawful, proportional and necessary.' In other words: never. After the disorder last year, we learnt from press leaks that an internal government paper had said asylum hotels had 'stoked community tensions' and were a 'critical factor behind the summer riots.' Yet when I used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the paper, the Government said while the information was held, it would not be released because ministers needed a 'safe space' to think about policy. The truth is that Labour's immigration policy means surrender and secrecy. The illegal immigrants crossing the Channel will keep on coming, Labour will keep granting them asylum, and ministers will do everything to keep the consequences – for housing, for crime, for the cost to the taxpayer – a secret from you.
