Agenda item

Considered

 

A report by Amanda Fielding, Assistant Director Inclusion.

 

Councillor Yvonne Peacock left the room for this item.

 

Amanda gave a summary of the report and asked for comments on the outline structure and content of the post implementation review (PIR) of the home to school travel policy. The committee had the following questions and comments:

 

·       To what extent will colleagues in other council services referenced in the report be involved in the review and how will they work together?

 

Finance colleagues have full sight of the financial implications and will obtain information from the Integrated Passenger Transport Team who will provide financial data to them on a monthly basis. Current data on individual pupils is limited and the Admissions Team and the Transport Team will work together to provide data around those who are and are not eligible for transport. The Inclusion Team will provide SEND transport data and Transformation colleagues will work on the digital tool and calculator. Legal and Democratic Services will oversee the appeals.

 

·       Why will it take so long to complete the review?

 

Data will be obtained at different times of the year and from different databases and datasets. Payments to transport providers are paid in arrears, so September/October payments are paid in November. It takes time to be able to gain a firm idea of the cost of the policy change. The May Census is the most comprehensive data.

 

·       Will the May 2027 Elections impact the review, given that Purdah will start in March 2027?

 

Recommendations resulting from the PIR will be brought to the Executive in October/November 2026. If the Executive would like to make changes to the recommendations, this will be completed after November 2026 and before Spring 2027. Consultation will be carried out before Purdah. The report will come to Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Audit Committee in September 2026. 

 

·       Please ensure that schools are notified of the policy well before parents start to apply to secondary schools.

 

Information was sent out to all schools to pass onto Year 6 families last year. This year, a dedicated school bulletin was circulated, and schools have been asked to share it with families to ensure they are all aware of the current policy. The council has also circulated a set of slides for schools to show to families at open evenings. A tick box has been included on application forms for families to confirm that they understand the policy.

 

·       Can a rolling programme be introduced for the council to contact schools every year to check if any new gates or entrances to their premises have been installed. Schools are being contacted to request that they notify the council about any changes so that the mapping system can be updated if necessary.

 

·       Given the feedback that some councillors have received from parents about the policy, is an internal review credible? Could there also be an independent oversight?

 

The review is comprehensive, and an independent review would not be recommended as it sets a precedent for other decision making within the council. Policy decisions are political and carried out in a structured and democratic way. They are not independent. There is not a legal requirement to do a policy review, it is undertaken as good practice. Officers would not recommend an independent review, but this is a decision for councillors to make.

 

·       One councillor asked to clarify the appeals process, specifically whether a supporter can speak on behalf of the appellant. The Democratic Services Manager confirmed that the appellant can bring a supporter, but any questions or statements should come from the appellant. The supporter may be able to present the case in exceptional circumstances, and the appellant should talk to the committee before the meeting about it. It was acknowledged that the appeals process can be intimidating, and the appeals meeting can be adjourned if the appellant needs to take a break.

 

One councillor felt that scrutinising the PIR should be the responsibility of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Chair asked Amanda to review the indicative timeline and include more updates to the committee.

 

Councillor Poskitt stated that irrespective of how councillors voted on the home to school travel policy, it has had a significant impact on some families. She proposed a motion of setting up a politically balanced working group to ensure transparency, fairness and public confidence in the PIR. The Democratic Services Manager said a working group can be established, but the committee would usually decide whether one is needed after the work is finished, not while it is still ongoing. If a working group was set up now, there would essentially be two reviews running in parallel. 

 

There followed a debate, which included its remit, terms of reference and implications on officer time. If the working group wanted to focus on the home to school transport policy, reports would be required for the Executive and Full Council.  Since the policy was considered by Full Council in May 2025, it cannot be reconsidered until 12 months later, which would be after May 2026. It was pointed out that recommendations from the working group could have significant financial implications for the council.

 

Councillor Poskitt proposed the motion, and it was seconded by Councillor Slater. Following the vote, the motion failed.

 

Resolved

 

1)    That, the report is noted.

2)    That, the Assistant Director Inclusion reviews the indicative timeline to include more updates to the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

3)    That, the motion to establish a working group is not supported.