Agenda item

7.1

The lead signatory to the call-in was Councillor Colin Ross and the co-signatories were Councillors Bob McCann, Andrew Sangar, Roger Davison and Ian Auckland.

7.2

The Committee scrutinised the decision of Cabinet from its meeting held on 12^th December 2012 to withdraw all current provision for discretionary transport with effect from September 2013, including the withdrawal of passes for pupils who were currently in receipt of them under the current policy, and also received the report of the Interim Executive Director, Children and Young People’s Service which had been submitted to the Cabinet meeting.

7.3

Attending the meeting for this item were Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families), Alena Prentice (Assistant Director, Inclusion and Learning Services, Children, Young People and Families) and John Bigley (Manager: Admissions, Children, Young People and Families).

7.4

Reasons for Call-In

Councillor Colin Ross outlined to the Committee that the reason the decision had been called-in was that he believed that the Cabinet selected the wrong option and did not feel that due consideration had been given to those already attending Catholic schools. Other local authorities who had introduced a similar policy had undertaken it on a more staged basis so as not to disadvantage children.

7.5

Co-Signatories to the Call-In

Councillor Roger Davison commented that Catholic schools provided some of the best schools in comparable localities and took pupils from all areas. The concerns of the signatories were not just about bus passes but the future viability of the schools if the policy was introduced.

7.6

Alena Prentice reported that the reasons for the proposals were that the Council needed to make significant savings. The current policy was not equitable for all children and could leave the Council open to challenge from parents from other faiths. The consultation had taken place between 29^th October and 4^th December, 2012, and 326 responses had been received.

Public Questions

7.7

John Martin, Headteacher at Notre Dame High School, commented that he objected to how the consultation process had been undertaken and did not believe the proposals were fair in terms of equality. He referred to a historic agreement which had been made with the Council when the last Catholic Secondary Schools had been closed, which stated that the Council would continue to fund transport to school for Catholic children and pointed out that there was no reference to this in the Cabinet report. If the proposals were agreed, the school would no longer be able to receive children from low income households and 95% of those affected would not be eligible for free bus passes.

7.8

Alan Dewhurst, Headteacher at St. Marie’s Catholic Primary School, commented that 15-20% of pupils currently travelled to the school by bus and most would be negatively impacted by the proposals. He also questioned whether the principle of a catchment area still existed within the Council.

7.9

Chrissie Meleady questioned why, if the proposals aimed for equality across all faiths, why these proposals were not agreed when the Equality Act was introduced in 2010. No other faith had complained about Catholic children’s transport being subsidised. The Equality Impact Process was highly flawed, for example, it stated that there were no issues of race at Notre Dame, despite having gypsy and traveller children as pupils. She also commented that it was believed Councillors had free bus passes and asked where the equality was in this circumstance.

7.10

A parent of a child who attended Notre Dame reported that she would no longer be able to afford to send her child to the school if the proposals were agreed. There would be no guarantee that her child would gain a place at King Ecgbert School, her local school, as she had been told that the school was full. Her child may then have to relocate to a school over 3 miles away where they would be entitled to a free bus pass which would mean that there would be no cash saving. This was not an isolated case so surely the justification of cash savings would not be realised.

7.11

Alena Prentice reported that officers had no record of the historic agreement referred to by some of the questioners, which is why it was not referred to in the Cabinet report. The current arrangements existed within a discretionary transport policy which could be withdrawn. The catchment area was a defined geographical area which formed a priority for admissions.

7.12

Councillor Jackie Drayton commented that 80% of the children and families budget was spent on children and families, safeguarding and statutory responsibilities. The current economic situation had resulted in officers presenting savings proposals which would never have been considered in the past, which was why the proposals were not considered in 2010. The proposals were not about discrimination and the Council valued the work of Catholic schools in the City.

7.13

Members of the Committee then asked a number of questions and officers responded as follows:-

·        If documentary evidence was made available of the historical agreement referred to this would be passed to the Head of Legal Services for consideration.

·                   

·        If a Catholic school was giving priority to a catchment area within its admissions policy, this would be giving priority to local children and not necessarily Catholic children.

·        The reason for the timescale for introducing the policy in September 2013 was that it would allow time for those parents who were in the process of applying currently to consider their options in terms of how they would be affected by the introduction of the policy.

·        All schools received a Pupil Premium and the Catholic Schools could use this or other funding to make up the shortfall in funding for transport should they wish to.

RESOLVED: That the Committee recommends that no action be taken in relation to the call-in decision.

(Note. The votes on the decision to take no action were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

For the resolution (9)

-

Councillors Gill Furniss, Clive Skelton, Talib Hussain, Karen McGowan, Nikki Sharpe, George Lindars-Hammond, Mohammad Maroof, Lynne Rooney and Geoff Smith

Against the resolution (6)

-

Councillors Colin Ross, Andrew Sangar, Rob Frost and Gillian Foster, Jules Jones and Joan Stratford

Abstentions (0)

-

Nil