Agenda item

The Committee considered a report from Fintan Bradley which provided an update on the progress and emerging issues following the consultation as part of the Home to School Transport Review. It was made clear that this was only an update paper as full feedback from the consultation was still being collated and analysed for further consideration at a later date.

In presenting the report, Fintan Bradley began by setting the context of the review, explaining that there had been the need to review the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy due to the tight financial framework that Cheshire East and other authorities had to operate within. After reporting on the legal and financial ramifications of the proposed changes, Fintan Bradley moved on to provide a brief review of the consultation process and the initial findings emerging from this. It was explained that there had been a number of issues that had arisen from the consultation and that the service had grouped these into 28 themes which they had then provided an initial response to. These were outlined in appendix 3 of the report.

Following the introduction to the report, the Chairman invited a number of visiting Councillor to voice their views on the issue.

Speaking first, Councillor Corcoran explained that he was a parent whose child used the school bus to go from Sandbach to Alsager. Without this service, he described how he would have to take his child himself, losing up to 7 ½  hours of work time. Moving on to make a number of more general points, Councillor Corcoran asserted that firstly the proposals were unfair. Parents, it was suggested, would be retrospectively charged for their choice of educational setting under the proposed changes. Additionally, the point was made that changing schools would be detrimental on the educational outcomes for Cheshire East children and that it would also be disruptive to families to have siblings in different schools.

Secondly, it was argued that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on the environment. The point was made that Cheshire East should be encouraging the use of public transport rather than taking it away. Thirdly, it was purported that the proposed changes would be disproportionately harsh on poorer parents, further exacerbating the poverty trap that many families found themselves in. Lastly, it was asserted that the proposed changes would erode the number of faith schools in Cheshire East.

Speaking second, Councillor Keegan made a number of points regarding the presentation of figures in the first two tables of the report. He queried why the gross expenditure for denominational travel based on the approximate number of pupils affected in Table 1 differed from the denominational cost saving figures stated in Table 2. On the whole, Councillor Keegan asserted that the report did not demonstrate enough information about what the potential savings would be and that there was not enough detail about the potential consequences of the savings. It was suggested that this would need to be rectified before the Committee received the report again. On a separate issue, Councillor Keegan made the point that the proposed changes would put a large burden on parents with children who were post-16 with SEN and that this would mean that Cheshire East would be failing its obligations to its most vulnerable populace.

Councillor Shirley Jones was the last speaker. She made the point that denominational schools had been very careful in where they had situated schools in order to keep the burden of travel to a minimum. Indeed, it was stated that the respective faiths had invested a large amount of money to manage this and Cheshire East had benefited from this investment. Councillor Jones continued to make the point that a number of towns and villages in Cheshire East were dependent on faith schools in order to fill a school places shortage. If these schools no longer were viable and closed this would result in Cheshire East having to invest in building more schools, inducing an obvious cost burden. Councillor Jones also argued that Cheshire East needed a skilled workforce and that by increasing the charges for transport the authority would be discouraging young people away from further education – having a detrimental effect on the economy.

The Chairman thanked the visiting Councillors for their views and then opened the discussion to the Committee. Before doing so, he reminded Members that the purpose of the meeting was to put questions to the officers so that consideration could be given to them in time for the proposed special meeting rather than debating the efficacy of the suggested policy.

A number of Members agreed that the figures in the report were difficult to follow based on a lack of clarification on how the savings would be made and where they fitted in the ‘bigger picture’ of the Children and Families budget. It was also suggested that the potential impacts to specific areas and/or groups was also unclear and needed further clarification.

In response to the concerns raised, Members were reassured that the figures were accurate but it was noted that they could be presented in a more easily understandable way. It was confirmed that this would be rectified when the final report was brought to the Committee.

A query was raised over how Cheshire East had communicated the consultation process to the Headteachers and Governors of the respective schools. It was put to the officers, that two schools in Cheshire East had not been advised of the consultation process. In answering, it was explained that the consultation process was communicated to all Headteachers and Governors of Cheshire East Schools using the usual method of the weekly bulletin. Councillor Gaddum confirmed that the weekly bulletin was a vital tool in communicating to schools and that it was an adequate method in this respect.

RESOLVED –

a)    That the report be noted.

b)    That a special meeting of the Committee be organised in advance of the July Cabinet to consider the options and recommendations arising from the consultation.

c)    That the report brought to the special meeting include the following aspects:

·         The background to the proposals and their relationship to the wider budget

·         Clear and detailed financial information on the savings

·         An impact assessment on the groups/areas affected