3 Kyles Flodda
Isle of Benbecula
HS7 5QR
13 June 2012
Dear Sir/Madam
Process of School Closures – Corporate Child Care Abuse
The chronology of actions, and counter-action, in the matter of school closures, leaves me feeling utterly despondent in terms of the undoubted impact of both psychological and emotional damage now being inflicted on the children and families caught up in this maelstrom of decision-making.
The report by the CEO of the CnES to today’s Education Committee, refers to these critical timelines:
14 January 2011
Scottish Ministers confirmed that closure would not be permitted, for varying reasons, in respect of the four schools.
8 February 2011
Chief Executive requested to seek Senior Counsel’s Opinion on the legal aspects of Scottish Ministers’ determination, and the possibilities for Judicial Review of these determinations.
29 and 31 March 2011
Education and Children’s Services, and Policy and Resources, Committees, and the full meeting of the Comhairle, note the terms of Senior Counsel’s Opinion, authorise the Chief Executive to seek further discussions with Scottish Government and, in the event that these discussions were not productive, delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation, to instigate proceedings for Judicial Review.
19 July 2011
Petitions for Judicial Review lodged by the Comhairle with the Court of Session.
13-14 March 2012
Hearing of the Comhairle’s application for Judicial Review before Lord Brailsford, in the Court of Session.
6 June 2012
Lord Brailsford’s Opinion issued.
Over 16 months have elapsed since the original decision of the Scottish Ministers stated that the closures of the four schools would not be permitted. I fail to understand how it took nearly 4 months from CnES Committee decisions on 31 March 2011, to 19 July 2011, for the Petition to be lodged with the Court of Session. Another 8 months then passed until the Judicial Review (13-14 March 2012), and then another 3 months until we have a legal decision from his Lordship, which we hear is subject to appeal by the Scottish Govt by the 27th June, and which the CEO of the CnES may then challenge! Has this process no ending in sight?
From today’s report to Committee:
7.4 It is recommended that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive to take such further incidental actions as may be necessary to conclude the action and, in the event that an appeal against Lord Brailsford’s decision is lodged, to defend any such appeal, following discussion with the Leader, Convener, and Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Education and Children’s Services Committee.
Do our elected Members, Officers, and those of the legal fraternity have any consideration towards, or understanding of, the untold psychological damage now being inflicted on the children still being educated at the four schools in question now again threatened with closure (or perhaps not?)?
When you start digging a hole it is sometimes pertinent to a consider when you should stop digging and consider all of the consequences, for all parties concerned. I get the distinct impression that the Comhairle is now so deeply and obstinately entrenched in its stand-point, that it is now only about “winning” or “losing”, and that the children being educated, and their parents, and of course all the teachers, are mere bystanders, left more perplexed than ever.
I recommend that the parents of children in the schools affected should now consider a formal complaint to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Tam Baillie, on the grounds of “corporate abuse”. They find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a never-ending intolerable legal wrangle, which will inevitably adversely effect their social, educational and psychological well-being, now and well into their future adult lives.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Walker
As the author of this letter I should have added that all statutory bodies working with children and young people have a duty under the 1995 Children (Scot) Act to “act in the best interests of the welfare of the child”, and in doing so to consult and listen “to the views of the child”. The Commissioner for Children & Young People Tam Baillie produced an excellent report on school closures, in regard to consulting with children, entitled “Participants not Pawns”. It is now abundantly apparent that our children in the four schools again threatened with closure are indeed “Pawns” in a lengthy and unseemly legal dispute between the Comhairle and the Scottish Government. If you wish to refer to the report of the sccyp please follow this link:
http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/docs/Participantsnotpawnsguidance20100315_000.pdf
Andrew Walker
I concur completely. Our sons, currently in S1 and S2 in Lionel, were so worried about going to the Nicolson that they could not sleep properly. My wife and I have told them that they will not be attending the Nicolson as we are going to move off the island. However, in the unlikley event that we cannot move we would homeschool them instead. I am a journalist by profession and I cannot fathom why a council in the face of such fierce and prolonged local and government opposition should continue down a path that only some of it wants. My gut feeling here is that should, some of the council, fail to close the schools and boost the rolls of the Nicolson that there may be skeletons in cupboards that may see the light of day which otherwise wouldn’t have.
Ian, children have more power and rights than adults realise in this vexed situation. Get your boys to organise themselves with a few other kids in their years (S1, S2), and organise a written petition/letter to the Commissioner for children. Get them to start a f/book page with other pupils – look what Martha has achieved in Argyll re school meals issues! Tam Baillie, Children’s Commissioner is a good guy, he will listen to the views of YP and take appropriate action. Pupils in other schools affected should do likewise. Councillors and Officers will pay more att’n to young people – they daren’t do otherwise! The Law is on their side – UN Convention on Children’s Rights, “acting in the best interests of the welfare of the child”, and “listening to children’s views”: these are statutory rights! Read the SCCYP report “Participants, not Pawns” re procedures which should have been carried out at the consultation phase by the Comhairle, in their negotiations with pupils in the affected schools. An “Independent Consultant” (non-biassed) should have been appointed as recommended in the report by SCCYP. The formal response to tokenistic consultations with children which I have seen from officers (CnES web site) clearly comes down in favour of children not wishing to be moved to other schools and very anxious about this prospect for a number of significant reasons. These views should receive much more prominence.
Sorry to hear of how this situation has predictably affected your boys – they clearly need your support and that of the community, and their teachers, at this time. I hope they enjoy their summer hols and that by becoming actively involved they will begin to believe that they are being listened to by other concerned adults. Please contact me if you wish me to provide any more assistance.
Thanks Andrew. That’s useful. If you would care to drop me a line at: [email protected] we can talk off forum.
Best regards.
Ian