Agenda item

The Cabinet Lead Member for Transportation, Mr. P. C. Osborne CC, has been invited for this item.

 

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning the outcome of the public consultation into proposals to change some elements of the Mainstream Home to School Transport policy. A copy of the report, marked ‘Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

 

Following circulation of the Commission agenda, a report of the Director of Environment and Transport to the Cabinet meeting on 9 July outlining the proposals arising from the consultation had been circulated to the Commission. In considering the matter, the Commission had regard to a further supplementary Cabinet report, which reported the complete findings of the consultation exercise which closed on 30 June. A copy of both supplementary reports is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Lead Member for Highways and Transport, Mr. P. C. Osborne CC, to the meeting who was present to introduce the report and respond to questions.

 

As part of the introduction to the item, it was reported that the proposals were part of the agreed Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) in 2012/15. The Council currently spent £8.5m on mainstream home to school transport. A saving of £1.1m had been identified from discretionary elements provided in the Home to School Transport policy..

 

Arising from questioning by the Commission on the timing of the consultation and the way in which it had been conducted, the following points were noted:

 

·      Concern was expressed that the consultation on Home to School Transport should have been part of the planned consultation on the MTFS. In response, members were advised that the Home to School Transport proposals were part of a previous MTFS and there was a need to agree changes now in order that parents and pupils were aware of the new policy ahead of making choices for entry in September 2014;

·      The response rate, although disappointing, was still nearly 12% of those affected. The majority of responses were in relation to faith schools. The consultation was genuine in that the Cabinet would look carefully at the responses and comments made, particularly if issues or concerns that had not been previously identified were raised;

·      The suggestion that the review be done in two stages: introduce the proposed changes for 2014, but defer consideration of the proposed changes from 2015 onwards, would create an uncertainty, both in terms of parents and pupils making informed choices and in terms of financial planning.

The Commission then debated each element of the report, as outlined below:

(a)   Faith School Transport: £350,000 (affecting 900 denominational pupils)

Mr. L. Spence CC, having declared a personal interest that may lead to bias on the issue of school transport to faith and voluntary aided schools, left the room during this part of the discussion.

 

The Commission, in considering this matter, had regard to the written submission of Father Colin Patey of the St Wilfrid of York Catholic Church, Coalville, which briefly outlined the objection of the Catholic Church community to the Council’s proposed removal of subsidy for denominational transport. A copy of the comments is filed with these minutes.

The Proposals, if accepted, would mean that the following changes would be made:

·      September 2013: £252 contribution for transport capped at £504 maximum contribution per family

·      September 2014: £450 contribution for transport – no maximum cap

·      September 2015 onwards: £640 full cost recovery for transport. No new transport agreed for new applicants and existing transport phased out over the following 4 years.

 

It was confirmed that, as part of the new proposals (from September 2014), the present cap of £480 per family would be removed and full cost recovery be made for all pupils, in line with the withdrawal of denominational school transport for new applicants.

 

The Director reported that the proposed removal of subsidy for faith transport would bring it in line with other school transport in the County, (ie. there was still an entitlement to free transport if it was the nearest school to the home address and over the relevant statutory distances). It was further reported that the County Council provided a “hardship fund” grant of £20,000, administered by the Diocesan Board, which would continue until the 2019/20 academic year to allow for phasing out of this discretionary provision.

Arising from the debate, the following comments of the Commission were noted:

·      The phasing of the changes would ensure that pupils currently at faith schools and those joining in the next academic year would have certainty about transport provision. Pupils joining in subsequent years would need to be aware that transport provision would not be available;

·      The increase in charges agreed previously had given rise to a marginal impact on faith school intakes and the ethos of such schools. It would be a matter for the school as to how it managed the position. Most faith schools in Leicestershire were academies and, as such, were independent of the County Council;

·      There was an issue relating to equity. Pupils attending Roman Catholic schools were provided with a subsidy which was not available to parents of pupils who wished to exercise the right to have their child attend a school which was not their nearest school.

 

It was moved by Mr. Lewis and seconded by Mrs. Camamile:

 

“That, with regard to the proposals for transport to faith schools, the Cabinet be advised, that whilst noting the concerns expressed by consultees and by members during the course of debate, the Commission supports the proposed changes to transport arrangements for pupils attending faith schools.”

 

The motion was put and carried, six members having voted for the motion and none against (members of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Groups asked that it be recorded that they had abstained).

 

At this juncture, Mr. Spence CC re-joined the meeting.

(b)  16+ School Transport: £605,000 (affecting 3,500 students)

The Proposals, if accepted, would mean that the following changes would be made:

·      September 2013: £252 contribution for transport – no “low income” exemption

·      September 2014 onwards: £425 full cost recovery for transport with a “low income” exemption introduced

The Director reported that the low-income exemptions would apply to those families who were in receipt of maximum working tax credit. The proposals had been discussed with the heads of Further Education colleges, who had given some positive feedback to the retention of a service, given that other local authorities had removed 16+ transport completely.

The Chairman welcomed students and tutors from Beauchamp College to the meeting, who had requested the opportunity to speak on the proposals affecting the cost of 16+ transport provision. With the consent of the Chairman, Neeraj Thakar and Jack Hancock (students at Beauchamp College) addressed the Commission and made the following points:

·           The consultation had not been widely advertised to all parents and had been conducted at a time when, following completion of their exams, a good number of (largely year 11) students were not at school and would not have been aware of the consultation, despite being most likely to be affected by the proposals;

·           Those students from less affluent rural families would be most hit by the proposals and, generally speaking, public footpath and cycleway provision in these areas was poor. Road safety concerns would therefore prevent some making this choice;

·           The effects of the proposals would be felt further down the line as some students might not continue their further education as a result of the proposals to increase charging and would therefore be less employable as adults. This would represent an added cost to the taxpayer in unemployment benefits;

·           The proposals would give rise to an increase in car use. The traffic increase would consequently give rise to increased traffic management costs to the Authority;

·           There was a concern that the removal of concessionary elements of the Policy would impact upon academies who might have to provide some support for transport, thus diverting funds away from the classroom.

 

Arising from questioning by the Commission, the following points were noted:

·           There was a concern that less affluent pupils in rural areas were being disadvantaged and might decide not to continue with their education;

·           There appeared to be little in regard to qualitative feedback from heads of Further Education Colleges, which would have been beneficial;

·           Arising from the Government’s removal of Education Maintenance Allowance, funds  were made available to schools and colleges to support the less well-off students to continue with their education;

(c)  Increased farepaying charges and withdrawing “change of address” eligibility: £145,000 (affecting 400 students)

 

The Proposals (to reflect costs of other discretionary provision), if accepted, would mean that the following changes would be made:

 

·         Currently charged at £300 for primary school and £400 for secondary school

·         September 2013: £318 for primary and £420 for secondary

·         September 2014: £450 flat charge

·         September 2015: £640 flat charge

·         Withdrawal of transport from September 2013 for those children changing address in their final year of each phase of education (this currently applied to the last year of primary school, the last year of high school and both GCSE years)

 

Arising from questioning by the Commission, the Director reported that the proposal to withdraw transport for those changing address in the final year of each phase of education was subject to exemption covering exceptional circumstances such as those families who had been relocated due to a house fire. This would mean that, unless the move was beyond the parents’ control, they would be responsible for the travel arrangements from the new address.

 

It was further noted that the new farepaying rate was being set at the highest level and would equate to a small surplus in the first year of operation.

 

RESOLVED:

That the comments and concerns now expressed in respect of the proposed changes to various aspects of the Home to School Transport Policy other than transport to faith schools be drawn to the attention of the Cabinet at its meeting on 9 July.