Issue - meetings

In accordance with Paragraph 17 of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, 5 Members of the Council (Councillors Brazil, Connett, Dewhirst, Hook and Way) have invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the decision of the Cabinet (Minute 51, 13 July 2016), relating to Post 16 Education Transport Policy for 2017/18, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Scheme of Delegation as set out in Part 3 of the County Council's Constitution, on the grounds that in taking this decision the Cabinet has ‘failed to consider the ability of colleges to make funding available for Post 16 student transport to 'plug the gap' created by the council decision. Further, the proposed new county scheme is so vague that it is wholly unclear what the benchmark is for students or their families to evidence there is no suitable transport for college. Additionally, the county states it will not provide transport even where, for example, where inconvenience is caused to the family. This fails to consider the potential economic and social impacts of each applicants own circumstances and is, therefore, unreasonable. The Cabinet has failed to consider the potential impact of this decision on discouraging young people from rural areas and/or families on low incomes from continuing in education’.

The Committee’s views will be reported to the Cabinet at its next meeting on 14 September 2016.

Electoral Division(s): All  

(Councillor McInnes, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Skills, attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(1) and spoke to this item at the invitation of the Committee).

The Committee noted that, in accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, the requisite number of Members (Councillors Brazil, Connett, Dewhirst, Hook and Way) had invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the decision of the Cabinet (Minute 51, 13 July 2016), relating to Post 16 Education Transport Policy for 2017/18, on the grounds that in taking this decision the Cabinet had ‘failed to consider the ability of colleges to make funding available for Post 16 student transport to 'plug the gap' created by the council decision. Further, the proposed new county scheme is so vague that it is wholly unclear what the benchmark is for students or their families to evidence there is no suitable transport for college. Additionally, the county states it will not provide transport even where, for example, where inconvenience is caused to the family. This fails to consider the potential economic and social impacts of each applicants own circumstances and is, therefore, unreasonable. The Cabinet has failed to consider the potential impact of this decision on discouraging young people from rural areas and/or families on low incomes from continuing in education’.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Skills outlined the reasoning behind the Cabinet’s decision and responded in detail to issues raised below upon the impact of the policy, commenting also on the Council’s:

·         statutory duty to provide transport support only where the absence of such support (through, for example, the College Bursary Scheme where schools now received funding direct from Government) would prevent a student remaining in education;

·         that duty was enshrined and re-affirmed in the proposed policy now commended to the Cabinet.  Students who were currently receiving support with transport would continue to do so until the end of their education;

·         that, as now, students and parents had the primary responsibility for getting to and from College and they would have to demonstrate that all possible options had been explored before seeking financial assistance either from the Bursary Scheme or from the County Council;

·         the Council was seen as the final ‘safety-net’ for claimants but where, for instance, students would be able to walk to and from College or public transport was available there would normally be no need for the Council to assist in any way.

The aforementioned issues raised related to the impact of the proposed change in policy upon:

·         parents with inflexible working hours being unable to transport children to school;

·         students with additional special educational needs would be supported;

·         students’ contributions towards transport costs;

·         school’s/college’s funding.

It was MOVED by Councillor Randall Johnson and SECONDED by Councillor Rowe that the Cabinet’s decision be endorsed with the addition of the wording that ‘the Local Authority continue to lobby central government regarding the sparsity factor faced by a County Shire such as Devon.

Report of the Head of Education & Learning (EL/16/5) on the outcome of consultations on arrangements for post 16 students for the 2017/18 academic year approved previously for report at this time, attached.

(Councillors Brazil, Connett, Hannan, Julian, Owen and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

(Councillor Davis declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in this matter by virtue of being a parent of a child in receipt of County Council post 16 transport and  withdrew from the meeting  during  its consideration).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Education & Learning (EL/16/5) on the outcome of consultations on the education travel policy for post 16 students for the 2017/18 academic year, seeking approval to the adoption of a revised policy.

The Council had a statutory duty to provide transport support only where the absence of such support (through, for example, the College Bursary Scheme where schools now received funding direct from Government for such schemes) would prevent a student remaining in education: that statutory duty was enshrined and re-affirmed in the proposed policy now commended to the Cabinet. 

A number of responses had been received to the consultation – which were set out in detail in the Appendix to the Head of Service’s Report – principally around concerns that students would not be able to get to College without transport provided by the County Council and/or that the level of funding available through the College Bursary scheme would not be sufficient to meet the needs of all students.  Members were reminded that, as now, students and parents had the primary responsibility for getting to and from College and they would have to demonstrate that all possible options had been explored before seeking financial assistance either from the Bursary Scheme or from the County Council. The Council was seen as the final ‘safety-net’ for claimants but where, for instance, students would be able to walk to and from College or public transport was available there would normally be no need for the Council to assist in any way.

Members noted that Government had recently announced it would shortly be undertaking a consultation on post 16 education travel which it was hoped might address the funding issues referred to at the meeting and reflected in the recommendation before the Cabinet.

The Head of Service’s Report also incorporated an Impact Assessment relating to the possible impacts of the proposal, which had been circulated previously for the attention of Members at this meeting, in order that as part of its determination of the next steps in the process the Cabinet might have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, where relevant.  The findings of that Assessment was that there would be a very limited impact upon the actions of parents or choice of school or travel arrangements and that, in socio-economic terms, the proposal was regarded a positive one and no unmanageable impacts had been identified.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, sustainability, carbon impact, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51