Agenda item

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.  The Ofsted ratings of the schools spoke for themselves.

Councillor Dine Romero introduced the item by thanking the PDS Panel for the hard work which had gone into their report.  Her response to the recommendations had been published separately.  She noted that both Councillor John Bull and to Raymond Friel had both suggested that if the proposals went ahead, the faith schools would attract more pupils from within Bath to compensate for their reduced numbers from further afield, and that this in turn would put pressure on the other Bath schools; but she did not agree with their analysis because the other schools in Bath were all already full and the demographics showed increasing numbers of secondary pupils in future years.  She said that in an ideal world, all children would travel to school free, but she was determined to protect the authority’s other statutory responsibilities.  She reminded the Cabinet that in her response she had accepted all but one of the Panel’s recommendations.

Councillor Romero explained the implications of the various options available to Cabinet.  She announced that it was her intention to propose to Cabinet that they adopt option 3(d) but with an additional protection for families with children currently in receipt of home to school transport subsidy, so that those families would continue to receive the subsidy for their additional children.  But families whose first child arrives at school from September 2014 would not receive the subsidy.  The wording of her proposal was displayed on the screen for clarity.

She confirmed that the burden of administration would fall on the Council, not on the schools, and that her proposals did not take away parental choice.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal and said that Councillor Romero’s proposal to protect the future siblings of existing pupils was very fair.  He did not feel that the proposals would impact the take-up of places at the schools.

Councillor David Bellotti said that the issue had been a hard one to consider.  All of the surrounding Councils had begun to take steps to resolve the difficulties and this Council must also deal with it.  He did not share the view expressed by some that the proposals would negatively impact on pupil numbers in other schools in Bath, because there were new developments at Bath Western Riverside and on the MOD sites which would increase student numbers.  He reminded Cabinet that the government had reduced funding to the authority by 40%, which had to be saved by facing some very difficult issues.  It had been possible to limit the cuts to front-line services to £3M and to avoid raising Council Tax.

Councillor Bellotti did however acknowledge the dilemma of some large families with an existing child at a faith school; so he welcomed the proposal to protect those families by continuing the subsidy for subsequent siblings.

Councillor Roger Symonds referred to paragraph 2.2 in the report.  He committed to ensure that the two safe routes to school mentioned there would be pursued as a priority.

On a motion from Councillor Dine Romero, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED

(1) To AGREE that the Council should continue to seek to encourage more sustainable methods of home to school transport, particularly an increase in cycling;

(2) To AGREE that the Council should encourage the promotion of safe cycling routes to school as an alternative to using the car where there is a safe route to do so and that the feasibility of establishing the following two routes should be investigated.:-

a) Between Bishop Sutton and Chew Valley School.

b) Between Compton Dando and Marksbury.

(3) To AGREE with effect from September 2014 a phased withdrawal of subsided home to school transport services for new starters attending denominational schools from September 2014 who would not qualify under other home to school policy subsets, (e.g. as a low income family) save in the case of children with siblings currently at the school. This option would not affect students who currently attend the school, only new pupils joining in September 2014. The anticipated savings from this withdrawal would be seen over a number of years can be found in the table in 3.2.5.

(4) To AGREE to maintain the budget to provide transport for Children in Care [circa £70,000] for the foreseeable future; and

(5) To ASK Passenger Transport Services to review home to school transport routes on a termly basis to ensure best value for money and that home to school transport bus routes are as efficient and effective as possible. This should also include liaising with parents/carers of students who have Special Educational Needs to consider whether it is appropriate for them to receive independent travel training and a personalised transport budget to arrange their own transport which may be more suitable for their needs, similar to the system used at Coventry City Council.