Meeting documents

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

EDUCATION, YOUTH, CULTURE & LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

DRAFT NOTES

Monday 15th May 2006

PRESENT:- Chair 2005-2006: Councillor Andy Furse

Councillors: Sally Davis, Shirley Steel, Hilary Fraser, Dine Romero, Leila

Wishart and Marian McNeir

Also in attendance:

Co-opted members (voting) - David Byrne (Clifton diocese), Mike Brownbill (Bath

& Wells Diocese), Colin Hitchin (Parent Governor). Co-opted Members (non-voting)

and Trades union observers - Rob Henderson (special school governor)

Officers: Gail Quinton, Tony Parker and Kevin Amos (Education), Debbie Incledon

(Legal); Martin Genge (Transport); Michaela Gay (Democratic Services).

Apologies: Paul Grant (Primary School Governor)

01 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced those present.

02 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on

the Agenda

03 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members of the Panel announced that they sat as Governors for the following

schools:

Colin Hitchin - St Stephens; Rob Henderson - Wansdyke Special School; Hilary

Fraser - Wansdyke Special School; Sally Davis - Farmborough School; Leila

Wishart - Combe Down and Wansdyke Schools; Shirley Steel - Somervale and

Longwell Green Schools.

Dine Romero and Andrew Furse announced that they had children at schools in

the authority.

04 ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR

There was none.

05 TEMS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COUNCILLORS - TO RECEIVE DEPUTATIONS, STATEMENTS, PETITIONS OR QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THIS MEETING

There were a number of statements, they were taken as part of item 7 (see

minute 6 below).

06 HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT

The Chair introduced the item and explained the background. A triple Joint

Overview and Scrutiny Panel was launched in 2004 comprising 3 Panels. These

were Planning, Transportation Economy and Sustainability, Health and Social

Services and Education Youth Culture and Leisure (EYCL). The purpose was to

undertake a review of Passenger Transport Services managed by Bath & North

East Somerset Council, with a view to recommending improvements to the ways in

which these services are prioritised, developed and organised in the future.

The Chair explained that this meeting of the EYCL Panel was being asked to

consider a report which had been written as a result of the recommendations of

the Passenger Transport Review.

David Byrne - Diocese of Clifton (Co-opted Member of the Panel) stated that

Church groups had not been invited to the Passenger Transport Review. The

Chair replied that he had chaired the meeting of the Review and all schools

had been informed of the public meeting, representations were received from

some Schools.

The Chair thanked everyone for the many letters that had been sent to the

Panel.He stated that while the Panel welcomed these representations, there had

been some accusations that he and the Panel were anti-Church or Anti-Catholic,

the Chair wished to strongly refute these allegations.

The Chair invited officers to give a brief outline on the Educational, Legal

and Financial background to the issue:

Tony Parker - Head of Strategic Services (Education) explained that 25,000

consultation documents had been sent out. He also explained that any change in

denominational transport would not affect current pupils, there would be no

charges until September 2007. He stated that the levels of potential cost were

outlined in the report. He stated that 422 pupils currently use denominational

transport, the majority of these being pupils at St Gregory's School.

Debbie Incledon - Senior Legal Advisor explained that there were two

particular legal issues that were covered in the report. Firstly the

consideration of whether the decision to impose a charge was legal under the

education legislation and secondly whether restricting transport to

denominational schools breached the Human Rights Act. In response to a query,

the Legal Advisor explained that the advice given in the report had been

superseded by Counsel's opinion which had been sought by the Council.

Richard Morgan - Education Finance Manager explained that all the financial

information on this issue was contained within the report. £3.5 million per

year is spent by the Council on home to school transport. He stated that the

report covers the possibility of charging for denominational transport at

various levels.

(Information given in the above presentations are contained within the report)

The Chair invited the Church representatives on the Panel to make statements:

David Byrne (Clifton Diocese) made a statement (A full copy of this statement

is kept on the minute book in Democratic Services). His statement covered the

following four areas: Consultation - he stated that he felt that the

consultation process had been flawed. He felt that it was insensitive to ask

one set of parents to comment on an issue that was going to affect another set

of parents. Consequences for Catholic Schools and Families - he stated that

the demography of schools would change and schools would lose families that

are less wealthy. Financial Impact - He stated that the Council would make no

savings until 2007 and would not get full cost recovery until 2013. Legal - He

stated that the discretionary nature of home to school transport was in

dispute.

Questions from the Panel

Following a question about how the new Education and Inspection Bill would be

relevant to this issue, Gail Quinton, Interim Education Director explained

that school travel issues were mentioned in the new Bill, for example the

environmental and health impact of the school run and the perception that

transport is a barrier to low income parents were two issues covered. The Bill

would also require Local Authorities to produce an Annual Sustainable

Transport Strategy. In response to a question as to whether there was specific

reference to denominational transport in the new Bill, The Interim Director

stated that she was not aware of any reference.

Regarding the issue of consulting parents of current pupils about an issue

that would affect a different set of parents, Tony Parker - Head of Strategic

Services (Education) explained that the review is on the overall cost of

transport and all parents of all quarters were asked, it was wide

consultation.

Mike Brownbill (Diocese of Bath and Wells) made a statement. He stated that he

was opposed to charging for denominational transport. He stated that 38 out of

48 Local Authorities continue to give support to parents with denominational

transport. He stated that the consultation was poor and that the review was

partial and incomplete. He stated that there was a need for a full and proper

survey of the transport picture and that maybe a university student could be

asked to do a thesis on this. He queried why the issue of denominational

transport was being looked at at this time, this review should come after the

Secondary Review.

Questions from the Panel

In response to the question of why this review was being done now, Tony Parker

- Head of Strategic Services (Education) explained that this review goes back

to 2004, the secondary review outcomes will be in the medium/long term, there

will be no immediate affect so it is feasible to look at transport now.

The Chair then asked the Members of the Public who had requested to speak to

make their statements (the names of the people who spoke are shown below along

with a brief summary of their statement):

Mr Gordon Edwards (Secretary, South West Public Transport Users) stated that

he supported some of the principals in the consultation paper, especially with

regard to reducing the school run. He stated that 9 routes were being cut in

one part of the authority yet other children in the authority were getting

free transport - this was because it was two different budgets. He said there

was a need to set up an integrated transport unit and a need for some joined

up thinking. He said he would like to see an equality of treatment for all

school children.

Martin Genge - Commercial Services Manager (Transport) responded on the

suggestion of an Integrated Transport Unit. He stated that transport

arrangements for most Councils are quite complex. Some authorities set up an

ITU because they were failing. He felt there was not need for this Council to

combine services.

John O Regan (Parent) -The cost implications for families is a concern. This

could be up to £1,000 per year. This will make the traffic situation in Bath

even worse. The Council may be restricting our kids from having a Catholic

education. When I got the survey, I felt persecuted. It is obvious what is

happening, two barristers have already been consulted - the lawyers will win.

Mr Friel (Headteacher - St Gregory's School) - St Gregory's School has the

most to lose if the proposals go ahead. The School was set up to serve a wide

area for Catholic families. Councillors believe that the provision of free

transport is discretionary, we have advice and we believe it is mandatory. The

savings achieved will not be significant to justify the impact. St Gregory's

is the poorest funded secondary school in Bath, this is an area of inequality

that needs to be addressed.

Peter Barrett (Parent) - I am concerned about the way this is developing, the

average wage is £20,000, and £1,000 is a high proportion of that for parents.

The proposals seem to favour people who live in the city at the expense of

those who live in Wansdyke. The authority should be careful that it is not

divisive.

Louise Price (Parent) - I am a barrister, the opinion from the Professor is

stark and clear, you should take this legal opinion into account and exercise

fairness, justice and proportionality. This proposal will affect voting at the

ballot box.

Maggie Goodbody (Parent) - Children have the right to attend a denominational

school and this will be undermined if these proposals go forward. The money

gained will be insignificant in the wider picture, it will be a huge burden on

families.

Simon Gane (Parent) - These proposals could be seen as an attack on faith

schools. There will be an increase in traffic congestion. Reduction in pupil

numbers could have a dramatic affect on an excellent school.

Anne Beck (Parent) - A travel plan was passed around regarding Hayesfield

School. Bus services do not cater for all children. The travel plan shows that

Hayesfield suffers from poor travel provision, children have to change at the

bus station. There is significant demand for a bus service from the east of

Bath to Hayesfield School. The goal would be an integrated bus service for all

schools in Bath.

The Chair thanked all the above members of the public for their contributions.

The Panel asked the following questions of all those present:

In response to a question from the Panel, Tony Parker explained that if a

parent lived close to a denominational school but didn't want their child to

attend that school, they would receive school transport to their chosen school

but the 3 mile rule would normally preclude this scenario in this authority.

Councillor Wishart stated, in response to the point raised by a member of the

public about the city being given favourable treatment over residents of

Wansdyke, that there were three rural Councillors on the Panel so the

interests of their residents would be considered. Tony Parker - Head of

Strategic Services (Education) explained that the majority of the pupils at St

Gregory's School come from beyond the city of Bath.

In response to a question from the Panel, Martin Genge - Commercial Services

Manager (Transport) explained that he did not have information about pupils

travel needs outside of those applying for school transport. Steven Rose

(Ralph Allen School representative) stated that his school had the kind of

data on pupil's transport that the Panel member was asking for. Panel members

were asking why the Council did not have these statistics. Gail Quinton -

Interim Education Director, explained that the Education Inspections Bill will

require an Annual Sustainable Transport Strategy.

There was some discussion about approaching companies such as Wessex Water

about the possible use of their buses when they are not using them.

A member of the public raised the issue of adopted children, sometimes it is

stipulated as part of the adoption procedure that they must be raised as

Catholics (for example), this would be difficult to fund in large families if

the proposals go forward.

The Panel went into recess at this stage.

When the Panel returned, it was RESOLVED that:

2.1 Regarding the possibility of charging for denominational transport, it is

considered that full cost recovery is not an option;

Bath & North East Somerset Council has the aspiration that all children

are entitled to free transport over 3 miles and that officers be required

to provide information on the cost of implementing this. However, in the

mean time, while we work towards achieving this aspiration, we propose to

retain the status quo other than to introduce a charge of denominational

transport with the following caveats:

(a) Low income families are protected and officers are charged with

establishing the precise factors to be used which should include income

support, working tax credit etc.

(b) A maximum charge per term (6 terms) should be set;

(c) A maximum charge per family should be set.

(Voting - 8 for and 2 against)

Note - Mike Brownbill stated that he would have voted for the aspiration of

all children being entitled to free transport for journey's over 3 miles if

this had been a separate resolution from the rest of resolution 2.1.

2.2 Officers be requested to start to develop plans to establish a

sustainable school transport strategy in response to the current

`Education and Inspection Bill'

(Voting - unanimous)

The Chair thanked all those who had attended the meeting. The officer

explained that these recommendations would be put into a report to go onto

the agenda for the July meeting of the Council Executive (12th July 2006).

The meeting ended at 8:55 pm

Chair(person)

Date Confirmed and Signed