Agenda and minutes

The Chair was taken by Councillor Paul Crossley, Leader of the Council.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Questions submitted before the deadline will receive a reply from an appropriate Cabinet member or a promise to respond within 5 days of the meeting.  Councillors may ask one supplementary question for each question they submitted, up to a maximum of two per Councillor.

There were none.

Councillors and members of the public may register their intention to make a statement if they notify the subject matter of their statement before the deadline.  Statements are limited to 3 minutes each.  The speaker may then be asked by Cabinet members to answer factual questions arising out of their statement.

This is a standing agenda item (Constitution rule 14, part 4D – Executive Procedure Rules) for matters referred by Policy Development and Scrutiny bodies.

The Cabinet at its meeting on 10^th April made a decision relating to Home to School Transport.  The Cabinet decision was Called-in.  The Early Years, Children and Youth PDS Panel met on 9^th May and upheld the Call-in.  Councillor Sally Davis, Chair of the Panel, will be invited to present the Panel’s recommendations to Cabinet.

Cabinet must then reconsider its original decision after taking into account all of the representations made.  The “second” or “replacement” decision will not be subject to Call-in.

The Chair referred to the recent meeting of the Early Years, Children and Youth PDS Panel, which had considered the Call-in of the Cabinet decision on Home to School Transport. He observed copies of the notes and resolution from the Panel meeting had been placed in the public gallery prior to this meeting [and a copy of which is attached to these minutes as appendix 1 and on the Council’s website].

He welcomed Councillor Davis, Chair of the Panel, to the meeting and asked her to introduce the Panel’s recommendations to Cabinet.

Councillor Davis in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these minutes as appendix 2 and on the Council’s website] explained that the Panel had agreed to ask Cabinet to reconsider their decision made on 10^th April.  She laid out the reasons behind the Panel’s request.

The Chair thanked Councillor Davis and the Panel for their hard work and said that the decision would be reconsidered, taking into consideration all the new evidence alongside the previously existing evidence.

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.