To consider possible responses to the proposed changes to Herefordshire Council’s School Transport policy.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

That    (a)        the Cabinet be formally advised of the concerns raised at the meeting;

            (b)       the Chairman of the General Overview and Scrutiny Committee be formally advised of the concerns raised at the meeting; and

            (c)        the Chairman of the Budget Working Group meet the Cabinet Member (Children’s Wellbeing) and if the Chairman considers it necessary convenes a meeting of the Budget Working Group to report to the Forum on 29 November.

The Forum considered a report inviting possible responses to proposed changes to the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.

The interim Head of Sufficiency and Capital Commissioning (HSCC) presented the report which had been circulated to the Forum in advance of the meeting.  He acknowledged that the subject was an emotive one.  However, the Council’s policy position was that it should provide services to the statutory minimum level unless there was a clear reason to provide additional services.  It was also policy to charge full cost recovery unless there was a clear reason to amend this approach.  The Council was currently providing more home to school transport than it was statutorily required to do.

The Council was seeking to save £250k by changing the policy of free home to school transport entitlement to nearest school only, rather than nearest and catchment.  A decision was to be made by Cabinet in December 2013.

Efficiencies made over the past ten years on home to school transport budgets meant that further efficiencies were extremely hard to achieve.  Benchmarking data suggested that the current service provided good value for money.

He reported that there had been a good response to the consultation exercise on changing the policy.  A number of concerns had emerged to date including in particular:  

·      The implications for Schools on the border with Wales where a pupil’s nearest school might  lie across the border;

·      The implications for schools on the border with neighbouring English authorities where a pupil’s nearest school might lie in a neighbouring County.

·      What regard should be had the concept of a Herefordshire identity and whether an offer should be made to support residents to send pupils to a Herefordshire school if that was their preference.

·      The timing of the introduction of the proposed new policy and whether implementation could be phased.

He noted that amendments to the proposed policy to seek to address these concerns would have an impact on the proposed saving.

The Cabinet Member - Children’s Wellbeing commented that the proposal was not being made lightly and outlined the significant pressures on the Council’s budget and the savings that needed to be made (£33million over the next 3 years with £15m of that made in 2014/15).  Councils nationally were facing these sorts of pressures.  The Council had to look particularly carefully at expenditure on non-statutory services, however much that might be regretted.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The HSCC commented that about 800 pupils would be affected.  He observed that 43% of children currently did not attend their catchment school.

·         It was suggested that more pupils would be affected than suggested by the Council.

·         The nearest school for many pupils might be across either a national or county border.

·         What would happen if places were not available at the nearest school? 

·         The proposal would have a long term impact on families and children.

·         The HSCC acknowledged that it was very complex to model the effects of the proposal because it depended on the choices parents made.  In the longer term in other authorities that had adopted a similar policy the evidence was that the home to school transport cost was reduced.

·         It was suggested that whilst the proposal might generate a saving centrally for the authority, it would be helpful to know whether the experience of other authorities showed the extent to which schools ended up picking up the costs of transport from their own budgets, and what proportion of any saving this represented.

·         The HSCC noted that some schools already provided transport of their own volition.

·         There was too much uncertainty about the proposal, which could destabilise the Herefordshire learning community.  The implications needed to be more thoroughly investigated and set out.

·         A view needed to be taken on the concept of Herefordshire as a learning community.  The fact that 43% did not choose their catchment school reflected the different offers from schools within the County which met a range of needs.

·         Changing school was a significant matter for a child.  The policy change could have a significant effect on pupils, in particular those from Key stage 4, and could have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable families who would not be able to afford to pay for transport.  In reply the HSCC commented that the extended rights scheme would continue to protect the most deprived families. He added that strong representations had already been received that the proposal should not disrupt Key Stage 4 and that the introduction of the proposal on a phased basis should be considered, although that would have complexities associated with it.

·         Year six pupils in primary schools were facing uncertainty and difficult choices.  It was difficult for Headteachers to plan ahead.  In response the HSCC commented that a decision had been taken to extend the period for accepting year 6 transfers to the end of February.

·         The Council’s action seemed to reinforce the difficulties associated with the rurality of the County, rather than seek to overcome those issues as the Council generally sought to do.  The areas most affected by the proposal did not have access to public transport.

·         Schools within the County had traditionally worked with and supported one another.  The proposal threatened that approach.

·         Officers had acknowledged the complexity of modelling the effects of the proposal and accepted that there was a possibility, at the least in the short term, that the proposal might incur cost rather than generate a saving.  The proposal    represented a considerable risk. This did not make financial sense. A different approach was needed.

·         Whilst there may be no certainty over the financial modelling it was asserted that the proposal would have a significant impact on schools and families.

·         The Cabinet Member commented that he understood the concerns expressed and would seek to mitigate the effects of any decision.  However, the Council faced many competing pressures, for example, funding support for vulnerable adults, and the Council’s funding from Central Government had been substantially reduced.  A consultation exercise had been launched on 24 October inviting people to consider whether they would support a 5% Council Tax rise to preserve more services.  He noted that in other areas where this question had been asked such proposals had not commanded public support.

·         A position, such as that apparently being taken by the Council, that any support for a service above the statutory minimum level was a luxury, might be mistaken; there might well be a business case for additional support.

·         In response to a question the Assistant Director Children’s Commissioning Children’s Wellbeing commented that it was not the Council’s policy or approach to leave everything entirely to market forces.  However, parental preference was an important principle and the current education environment was very complex.

·         The report contained a recommendation that the Budget Working Group (BWG) should explore the implications if the Council did decide to proceed with a revised policy.  The Forum discussed whether there would be merit in the BWG looking at the proposals in advance of a decision by Cabinet to seek to influence it, rather than after the fact, or indeed whether evidence was available that could be presented to the BWG to enable it to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate at all.  It was noted that the response to the consultation was yet to be analysed and the Forum concluded that the Chairman of the Budget Working Group should meet the Cabinet Member (Children’s Wellbeing) and if the Chairman considered it necessary he convened a meeting of the Budget Working Group to report to the Forum on 29 November.  Officers confirmed that Cabinet would not take a decision before December.

·         It was proposed that the Cabinet be formally advised of the concerns raised at the Forum’s meeting

·         It was noted that the Chairman of the General Overview and Scrutiny Committee had indicated that he did not propose to put the matter before that Committee.  The Forum proposed that he should also be formally advised of its concerns about the proposals.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

That    (a)        the Cabinet be formally advised of the concerns raised at the meeting;

            (b)       the Chairman of the General Overview and Scrutiny Committee be formally advised of the concerns raised at the meeting; and

            (c)        the Chairman of the Budget Working Group meet the Cabinet Member (Children’s Wellbeing) and if the Chairman considers it necessary convenes a meeting of the Budget Working Group to report to the Forum on 29 November.