For more than a year, The Herald has been the only major news outlet to cover the Mull School Saga consistently and in-depth.
The story centres around council plans to replace the aging school in Tobermory, which provides early years, primary, and secondary education in a single location.
Officials at Argyll and Bute Council decided to pursue another single-site project for the replacement, which will be co-funded by the Scottish Government, but reinforcing the status quo on the island has in fact proven hugely controversial, because many hoped that the new school would also allow for the righting of a historic wrong that many say has harmed communities on Mull for generations.
At present, children from the south of the island are excluded from its secondary school: rather than staying at home for their education, they are forced to leave their families and board in Oban during the week instead.
This approach was put in place because of the distances involved, but now a solution seemed to be available: split the existing education provision, keeping the nursery and primary in Tobermory, while moving the secondary to a central, accessible location. This idea, which was the clear preference of the people of Mull, would have brought an end to the routine separation of families that is carried out by Argyll and Bute Council.
However, officials insisted that the terms of their application to, and agreement with, the Scottish Government made this impossible, and at a hugely contentious special meeting, councillors ultimately approved the selection of unelected officers’ preferred single site just a few minutes from the existing school buildings. Under these terms, the new school will remain inaccessible to children from the south of Mull, who will continue to be sent away to board from the beginning of secondary school.
Judicial Review
In response the council’s refusal to change course, locals launched legal action in the hope of forcing a rethink, arguing that officials had acted in an unfair and irrational way. They said that proper consultation had not been carried out, that proper procedures were not followed, and that an offer of free land had been improperly handled.
Work on the programme, which was initially called the Mull Campus Project but had by then been named the Tobermory Campus Project, was halted while the action was under way.
Ultimately, the campaigners lost their legal battle, with Lord Cubie of the Court of Session finding in favour of the council; however, this was not – as officials no doubt hoped - the end of the matter for those opposed to Mull’s schooling status quo.
By the time the judgment had been issued, the campaigners had sought, and received, the support of human rights experts. One of them – Professor Katie Boyle – told The Herald that the council’s current policies, and their plans for the future, mean that children’s rights are “interfered with” and that families face a “deep and systemic injustice.”
Some local councillors also spoke out in support of the campaigners, arguing that although their legal challenge had been unsuccessful, the council still faced a “political reckoning” over the decisions that had been made and the way in which the community had been treated.
Within days of the Judicial Review result being published, the campaigners from Mull had also finally secured a meeting with education secretary Jenny Gilruth.
Cross-party support for a new solution
In recent weeks, members of Scotland’s opposition political parties have expressed support for the Isle of Mull campaigners.
At the beginning of March, Scottish Conservatives MSP Tim Eagle wrote to both Jenny Gilruth and Pippa Milne, the Chief Executive of Argyll and Bute Council. He advised that he had “met with parents on several occasions” to discuss to current school proposals, which have been a source of “significant concern” for many.
Mr Eagle argued that it is “clear” to himself and many in the community that “genuine consultation and co-design were not undertaken at an early stage, leaving local families excluded from decisions that affect all children on the island".
The new school, he added, will be “at the heart of the island’s education provision for generations to come”, and he urged those involved to “fully engage with parents and the wider community” in order to deliver a school that “unites the island".
Read More:
- Expert calls for scrutiny of school policy creating 'deep and systemic injustice
- Mull school campaigners lose court fight but the wider battle is far from over
- The Mull school saga won't be resolved in a courtroom, a political solution is needed
Last week, the Scottish Greens’ MSP Ariane Burgess added her voice in support of those calling for a different approach. Writing to the same individuals, she said that she has the “deepest respect” for those who pursued the legal action, insisting that their defeat “should not be mistaken for a lack of merit in the underlying concerns”.
She went on to argue that the educational status quo on Mull places a major burden on families, and that forcing children to stay away from home during the week leads to “disrupted family life”, “a weakening of the community bonds that are so vital to island and rural life”, and the “rural depopulation that continues to harm communities like this one across the Highlands and Islands".
The children of the south of Mull, she added, “deserve access to secondary education that does not require them to leave their community”, and she urged both the government and the council to re-engage with those on the island “without precondition".
Responding to a query from The Herald, the Scottish Liberal Democrats offered further support to those seeking a change in approach, with their spokesperson insisting that “a solution needs to be found that works for all the children and families on Mull".
They added: “Like-for-like projects form the basis of LEIP funding, but this case has shown just how rigidly that rule can be applied.
“Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that there needs to be greater flexibility. That means allowing funding for a proposal that isn’t strictly like-for-like, if the circumstances merit it.”
Scottish Labour did not respond to a request for comment, but their local candidate in the forthcoming Holyrood election – Dr Callum George – attended a recent meeting on Mull and said that he “fully supports” the campaigners, and that community voices had been “ignored by decision makers".
The campaigners meet Jenny Gilruth
The meeting between the Mull Campus Working Group and the education secretary took place in Edinburgh on March 18, with the campaigners describing this development as the “next step of their campaign for equality of access to education for all on the Isle of Mull".
During the meeting, Ms Gilruth also “heard first-hand” from a teenager living in the south of Mull, who spoke about his experiences of being separated from his family during the week while attending school in Oban.
According to the campaigners, the meeting was “very positive and constructive” and the Cabinet Secretary was “very supportive”. They say that Ms Gilruth expressed “disappointment” that the community had been “forced into taking Argyll and Bute Council to Judicial Review”, and told them that even though they were unsuccessful, this was still a “sure sign that something was badly wrong".
They also revealed that Ms Gilruth had “undertaken to consider all the options, after taking her own legal advice.” They noted that although she does not have the power to force Argyll and Bute Council to adopt a different approach, she is responsible for the terms of the funding package that “resulted in the council looking at such a narrow set of options.” The campaigners explicitly argued that the government’s funding model has never been “island-proofed” and, as a result, “embeds historical injustice” for communities.
Ms Gilruth was also provided with a copy of an extensive ‘human rights explainer’ produced by Professor Katie Boyle and Dr Michelle Donnelly of the University of Strathclyde. This document “lays out the legal obligations” affecting both the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council with respect to the new school on Mull.
Specific issues covered in the briefing include the fact that family separation must be a last resort, and that historical precedent is not a suitable justification for continuing this clear burden on families and communities.
In addition, the experts point out that even though the council is ultimately in charge of the process, any breaches of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - which is incorporated in Scots law and clearly applies to the current controversy - would also be the responsibility of the Scottish Government. As such, Ministers will not be able to dismiss the campaigners by simply referring them back to their local council.
What happens now?
With legal action now out of the way, cross-party support emerging, and concerns about the human rights implications becoming much more explicit, the campaigners are hopeful that a fresh solution – one which allows for the historic separation of families to be ended – can now be developed.
Experts have also suggested that further legal action, specifically over the breach of children’s rights, could still follow, with this prospect – and the PR disaster it would create, regardless of the outcome – sure to concentrate minds in various corridors of power.
And of course, Scotland’s political parties are now fully engaged in campaigning for the forthcoming Holyrood election.
With all that in mind, could a change in direction finally be a genuine possibility?
Perhaps, but if Jenny Gilruth and her colleagues are indeed planning to take some sort of corrective action, they are keeping their cards close to their chest for now.
Asked to comment on the latest developments, a government spokesperson would only say that they remain “committed to providing significant funding” for the project.
They did add that the education secretary would write to the local council “outlining the need for continued engagement”, but followed this by stating: “Ministers look forward to the project being progressed as soon as possible.”
For now, then, the people of Mull, and especially the families from the south of the island, are left in limbo.
It is increasingly obvious that a change in approach is needed, and that such a move would attract a great deal of support, but as things stand there is no guarantee that this will be enough to force officials to rethink their plans.
Share