Issue - meetings

At the EYCY Panel on 9^th May, it was RESOLVED :

“To UPHOLD the Call In for the reasons presented by the Lead Call In Member, Councillor Gabriel Batt and refer the decision to remove subsidies for denominational schools transport to be reconsidered by the Cabinet.”

Cabinet must now reconsider its original decision after taking into account all of the representations made by the EYCY Panel and others.  This “second” or “replacement” decision will not be subject to Call-in.

Note:  The papers for this item were not available at the time of despatch but will be published in due course.

Councillor Liz Hardman in a statement said she felt the Cabinet had been misinformed when they had made their previous decision, resulting in a decision which was discriminatory.  She also felt that the cost analysis had been flawed, so Cabinet had made a decision which would not deliver the headline savings figures, and had not properly considered other options which might have delivered substantial savings without abolishing the subsidy entirely.  There were therefore no good grounds for withdrawing the subsidy.

Councillor Sarah Bevan in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council's website] declared an “other” interest because her son attended a faith school and she received a transport subsidy from the Council.  She felt that the process had been flawed from the outset because the original research had been based on the LEA boundaries, yet the two schools in question served much larger geographical diocesan areas.  The decision would discriminate against families who lived in the outer parts of the dioceses.  Removing the subsidy would also represent a discriminatory disadvantage for ethnic minority families, a substantial number of whom were catholic and whose children attended St Gregory's.

Cllr Bevan was very concerned that the decision might lead to large numbers of catholic parents being financially unable to send their children to the one school in the diocese which would uphold their faith.

Raymond Friel (Executive Head Teacher, St Gregory's and St Mark's) in an ad hoc statement emphasised the impact the decision would have across the city.  He challenged the argument about a demographic bulge which it was claimed would provide increasing numbers of children into the schools in Bath; he said that it would have only a short-term effect.  He asked the Cabinet to consider carefully the impact their decision would have on the whole school provision in the city and much wider.

Councillor Dine Romero in her introduction referred to Raymond Friel’s statement and said that primary school numbers supported the contention that secondary admissions numbers in future years would increase.  She assured Councillor Davis that Cabinet had been aware of all the facts available at the time, and that all the new evidence now available would be considered.  She explained to Cabinet that it was not in fact possible to be sure how many parents might decide not to send their children to a faith school as a result of losing the subsidy.  She acknowledged that it would be some time before the full savings would be delivered, but explained that this was because Cabinet had been determined not to deprive existing families whose children already received the subsidy and whose younger children would also be able to enjoy it.

Councillor Romero reminded the Cabinet that she had addressed all the issues when she spoke at the Call-in Panel; it was not correct to say that some evidence had not been taken into account.  She was very clear that the phrase “cost-neutral” meant cost-neutral  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9

This report sets out the call-in by 11 Councillors of a Cabinet decision relating to the decision for a phased withdrawal of subsidised home to school transport for new starters.  The role of the Panel is to consider the issues raised by the call-in and to determine its response.

The Chairman informed the Panel that the meeting will run in the following order (according to the Running Order circulated in the Council Chamber):

·  Statement from the Lead Call-In Member - Councillor Gabriel Batt

·  Questions from the Panel to the Lead Call-In Member

·  Statement from the Cabinet Member for Early Years, Children & Youth – Councillor Dine Romero

·  Questions from the Panel to Cabinet Member

·  Statements from Councillors Eleanor Jackson and John Bull

·  Comments and/or statements from anyone else who was in the room but didn’t register to speak

·  Closing statement from the Cabinet Member

·  Closing statement from the Lead Call-In Member

·  Members of the Panel to debate the matter

·  Panel’s decision.  The Panel may either:

o  Dismiss the Call-In – in which case the decision shall take effect immediately, OR

o  Uphold the Call-In and refer the decision back to the decision makers for reconsideration, setting out why it has decided that the decision should be reconsidered, or

o  Refer the matter to Council to itself undertake the role of the Panel (NB: the ultimate decision still remains with the original decision maker/s).

Statement from the Lead Call-In Member - Councillor Gabriel Batt

The Chairman invited Councillor Gabriel Batt, the Lead Call-In Member, to read his statement.

Councillor Batt read out the following statement:

‘Madam Chairman and Members of the Panel, I would like to declare that I am Foundation Governor of St Gregory’s Catholic College.  I believe that the decision taken by the Cabinet on 10^th April was fraud.  Your Panel was asked by then Cabinet Member for Early Years, Children and Youth, Councillor Nathan Hartley, to consider a review on home to school transport in order to make some financial reductions as part of the 2013/14 budget setting process.  You Panel recognised that doing nothing was not an option and that the school transport system needs to be more effective.  I would like to point to a bit of inefficiency related to the home to school transport that is happening in my Ward.  Two children, both from primary school age, attend two different schools and they are taken to their schools by two different taxis,  paid for by the Council.  Your Panel, in 2013, almost unanimously recommended to the Cabinet to accept the recommendation 3C (of the review).  This is where the denominational subsidy is kept but reduced.  The Panel also confirmed their recommendation at March 2013 meeting.  This recommendation was not being available to the Cabinet at their meeting in April 2013 and not at the Council’s website.  If the subsidy is removed it would cost the Council more.  For example, if the pupil from Peasedown St John who attends St Gregory's School and pays part of the transport cost is now attending Writhlington School then Council would have to pay for the whole of the transport cost. 

Your Panel asked for the cost neutral option to be investigated.  I think this was considered with ambiguity on what the cost neutral option means – was it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101

To consider recommendations from the Early Years, Children and Youth Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel Transport Review

Raymond Friel (Executive Headteacher, St Gregory’s and St Marks) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 14 and on the Council's website] said that the proposals before Cabinet would save very little and might prove costly in other ways.  He urged the Cabinet to follow the recommendation of the PDS Panel which was that the subsidy should be retained.

Councillor Sarah Bevan in a statement declared that she was a parent of a child at a faith school, but that her interest was not pecuniary.  She felt that the impact of the proposals would be critical for some families and reminded Cabinet that faith based schools were a central hub for many minority families.

Councillor Liz Hardman in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 15 and on the Council's website] said that she was a member of the PDS Panel whose recommendations had been to retain the subsidy but to find some ways of reducing the cost to the Council budget.  She observed that some of the advertised savings would not be realised because some children would still qualify for subsidised travel to the schools to which they moved.  Many of the affected families lived outside the city of Bath and the proposals could be represented as Bath centred.  She asked Cabinet to adopt the recommendation of the Panel.

Brendon Rouse (Chair of pastoral council, St Mary's) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 16 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to continue the subsidy for home to school transport and explained some of the consequences he believed would follow if the subsidy were removed.

Councillor Gabriel Batt in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 17 and on the Council's website] explained that the catchment area for St Gregory’s School was very wide, extending way outside the authority’s boundaries.  It was never intended to be a local school.  He felt that if the subsidy were removed, then Catholic families who live more than 3 miles away would struggle to get their child to the first school of their choice.

Cindy Stockting (Acting Head, St Benedict’s Catholic School, Midsomer Norton) in an ad hoc statement reminded Cabinet that for her pupils, it was a natural progression to go on to St Gregory’s School but that if the subsidy were removed that would become too difficult for many parents to afford.

Councillor Tony Clarke in an ad hoc statement said that for many people, denominational school transport was a front-line service.  He felt that savings could be made by looking carefully at the providers of the service and by making it more efficient.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson in an ad hoc statement was concerned that if the number of Christian children at these schools was reduced, the ethos of the schools would be lost.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178