Agenda item

The present the draft Education Transport Policy following a consultation period on proposals to amend the content of the current policy.

1.         To accept the report and note the observations.

2.         To ask the Cabinet to pay particular attention to the Empty Seats Scheme when making a decision.

3.         To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Education:

•           That consideration should be given to modifying the Draft Education Transport Policy to designate parishes rather than distance in terms of transportation to faith schools.

•           To look at reducing the number of forms that parents of pupils with Additional Learning Needs had to complete.

The Cabinet Member for Education submitted a draft of the new Education Transport Policy, and the Committee was asked to submit observations on it. It was noted that the main changes had been clearly highlighted in the report, including the Empty Seats Scheme, faith schools transport, dual residency arrangements and the offer to post-16 learners.

It was explained, although this was a Cyngor Gwynedd policy, that it must operate within the Education Transport Measure and the associated statutory guidance set by the Welsh Government. It was noted that the Council did not have freedom to act as they wished in every case, because there were statutory requirements that they had to comply with. The opinion was expressed that the Welsh Government should review the Measure and the associated guidance because some elements of them did not make sense.

During the discussion, the following observations were made:-

The matter of the Empty Seats Scheme was raised, explaining that the scheme allowed children who were not eligible for free school transport to use empty seats on school transport vehicles for a fairly low cost. It was noted that the scheme had been paused since October 2025 and there was no provision for it in the draft policy. It was asked whether this meant that the scheme would permanently end and would not be re-established. In response, it was confirmed that there was no provision for an Empty Seats Scheme in the draft policy and such a policy would not be implemented from September onwards.

Significant concern was expressed regarding the decision, referring to a previous confirmation that there was no legislation preventing an authority from implementing an Empty Seats Scheme, and the fact that other authorities continued to implement such schemes. It was noted that the main reason for revoking the scheme was to reduce the financial and operational risk to the Council. It was acknowledged that the risk must be managed in a responsible way, but it was questioned whether the risk had been balanced appropriately against other considerations.

Reference was made to the Ffordd Gwynedd principles and the expectation to find practical ways of meeting the needs of Gwynedd residents. It was noted that revoking the scheme could lead to more cars travelling to schools, and it was questioned whether the environmental impact had been considered in the context of the climate emergency declared by the Council. It was questioned whether the decision had been considered in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015, fairness for children in rural areas and the impact on children who faced an economic disadvantage. It was suggested that the Council's financial and operational risk had received more emphasis than all these other considerations, and it was asked whether the department's priorities were correct. It was asked whether an assessment had been conducted of the likely impacts of revoking the scheme. In response, it was noted:-

·       It was acknowledged that the offer could appear unreasonable at first glance, because providing an empty seat for a specific period was not a problem in itself. It was explained that the problem arose due to the statutory duty of the department to provide transport to eligible pupils.

·       It was explained that a seat could be empty at the start of a term and offered to a child who was not eligible for free transport. Should a new family move to the area later and need the seat for an eligible child, it would not be possible to take the seat from the discretionary user immediately.

·       It was explained that the discretionary user would have to be consulted during the autumn before revoking the seat the following September. Consequently, the Council could be required to provide additional separate transport for the eligible pupil, although an ineligible child was still using the seat on the current vehicle.

·       It was emphasised that there was a need to protect the Council's benefits, the department and all Gwynedd residents. It was explained that it was no longer possible to rely on an arrangement where the user of an empty seat accepted that they would have to give up the seat should an eligible pupil move to the area, because this previous arrangement had been challenged and there were already cases in Gwynedd where the Council provided transport that it would not have had to provide historically as a result of this.

·       Over 50 children currently used empty seats, and the plan had been frozen to avoid creating a further reliance on the provision until the department had consulted on the policy.

Reference was made to other authorities that continued to implement schemes where users signed to confirm that they only had a right to use a seat whilst it was available.  It was suggested that such an arrangement gave some protection to the authority and that the Council operated in a manner that was too risk-averse. In response, this suggestion was rejected, noting that there had been local examples where the individuals had threatened to take legal steps against the Council regarding the implementation of the discretionary provision. It was explained that many rural authorities had revoked similar schemes many years ago because the implications and the risks were higher in rural areas than urban areas. It was acknowledged that the level of the offer varied across Wales, but it was noted that the department's recent experience was that implementing the discretionary offer left the authority open to a challenge. It was confirmed that legal advice had been received that the provision should not continue to be offered because the long-term risk to the authority was significant.

It was proposed to ask the Cabinet to reconsider the matter as it considered the draft policy. In response, it was explained that the decision was based on the Government's guidance and was not an interpretation created by the department. It was acknowledged that the Empty Seats Scheme made sense and this was why the scheme had originally been introduced, but it was noted that the scheme had been implemented in good faith within a legislative framework and weak guidelines from the Welsh Government that put the Council on uneven ground.

The Cabinet Member for Education reported that a letter had been sent to the Minister for Education asking her to review the Measure and the guidance. It was explained that the requirement for an 11-month notice before changing a transport arrangement did not provide enough flexibility to authorities in relation to a discretionary provision. It was confirmed that the department had listened to the observations submitted and the matter would be fully considered, as well as the potential implications of any change to the existing policy.

Reference was made to the need for an effective working relationship between the Education Department and the Environment Department to implement the policy and commission the transport provision. In response, it was confirmed that the department had worked with the Environment Department to implement the policy and commission the transport.

It was asked whether the relationship between the two departments had worked effectively. In response, it was confirmed that the relationship had been strengthened, with the Transport Manager coordinating the work within the Education Department and managers within the Integrated Transport Service commissioned the transport and managed the day-to-day provision. It was noted that the collaboration and communication between the services strengthened as they went on.

It was asked whether the arrangement had improved since the school bus service between Abererch and Ysgol Glan y Môr was stopped at the beginning of the school term the previous year. In response, it was noted that lessons had been learned regarding the need to communicate and share messages in good time, instead of during school holidays. It was hoped that there would not be a similar situation again in September.

Reference was made to the relationship between school transport, safeguarding and child protection. The opinion was expressed that there was a tendency to place more emphasis on the legal and organisational safety of the system, the authority and schools instead of child protection. In response, it was explained that the challenge was to draw a balance between basic statutory requirements and the public's expectations around safeguarding.

It was noted that some matters reached the well-being and attendance level rather than reaching the safeguarding threshold, such as children purchasing junk food on the way to school. Reference was made to children using public transport to reach the school and having to stand due to a lack of seats, as well as behaviour problems and the impact on people travelling to work. It was expressed that those considerations had not received enough attention.

Clarity was sought regarding the arrangements for faith schools, asking whether there was significant demand for transport to the faith schools for children outside their catchment area. In response, it was explained that there was generally no significant demand, but there was a specific demand in relation to the Catholic schools in Bangor and Caernarfon. It was noted that a reference to faith schools had been included as it had not appeared in the previous policy, and that a 5-mile transport catchment area had been designated.

Reference was made to the difference between rural and urban areas and the fact that safe footpaths to the school were not available in every area. An example was given of children who lived in villages near the A470, where it was unsafe for them to walk from one village to the other because the road was so busy. The opinion was expressed that there was inconsistency between rural and urban areas due to a lack of funding for safe footpaths. In response, the suggestion that the policy did not give fair consideration to rural areas was rejected. It was explained that footpaths were assessed to determine whether they were safe and suitable for children, and that the process applied in rural and urban areas. It was emphasised, should there not be a safe footpath to the school, transport would be provided. It was emphasised that there was an attempt to be consistent and fair within the policy across the county.

Support was expressed to providing support to families to ensure attendance at school, but it was acknowledged that continuing with the existing Empty Seats Scheme could create an additional significant cost due to the requirement to provide a 1-year notice before revoking a seat. It was suggested that a legal challenge about a shorter notice period had led to a weaker policy for parents in the end and had forced authorities such as Gwynedd to change their arrangements. The policy was accepted as it was in relation to the Empty Seats Scheme, and it was appreciated that the Cabinet Member had written to the Government asking to reconsider the guidelines.

The information about the pilot at Ysgol Hafod Lon was welcomed, but concern was expressed regarding the tendering process for transport for children with additional learning needs. It was noted that the report placed great emphasis on costs without sufficiently explaining the detrimental impact that changing providers, drivers or transport arrangements had on children with additional learning needs.

Concern was expressed regarding the requirement for parents of children with additional learning needs to fill a form to make a request for transport. It was asked how many forms parents were expected to fill across the Council's services, suggesting, should an Individual Development Plan already state a need for transport, that the same information should not have to be re-submitted. It was asked for a reduction in the number of forms that parents of children with additional learning needs were expected to fill. In response, it was noted:-

·       There was a need to ensure that transport providers understood the needs of children and young people with additional learning needs, and the journey to school was an important part of their school day.

·       There was a need for drivers, chaperones and providers to be aware of children's needs and do everything possible to reduce any stress caused by the journey.

·       Work had already been done with providers and more work was underway. Reference was made to the pilot scheme at Ysgol Hafod Lon, where electric buses and drivers employed by the Council were used by the Council to ensure more consistency and control over the standard of the service.

·       Problems could arise when contracts were re-tendered, because a different company could win the contract and lead to changing drivers. It was noted that a close relationship often developed between families, children and drivers, and that such a change could be difficult for the child.

·       Lessons had been learned from previous experiences and steps had been considered to mitigate the impact of changes when re-tendering contracts.

·       Some children had very profound needs and specifically adapted vehicles, and that parents may choose to transport their child themselves. Therefore, it was noted that the form could be necessary to ensure the most suitable provision.

·       Any unnecessary questions on forms would be reviewed and removed. It was confirmed that there was no intention to force parents to repeat the same information, and an effort would be made to reduce the load of paperwork.

Reference was made to the Ysgol Hafod Lon pilot, and it was noted that the priority was to provide a high-quality service to the children. However, it was emphasised that education transport was a significant expenditure field which was overspending, and any opportunity to make savings without reducing the quality of the provision should be taken advantage of. It was reported that the pilot had been successful during its first year and had led to a £55,000 saving. It was noted that a second minibus would be introduced next year, with the expectation that this would ensure a further saving of £130,000.

It was emphasised that the aim was to maintain or improve the quality of the service so that children and families would not see a deterioration in the provision. It was noted that there was a possibility to expand the service, but the department continued to rely on contracts with the private sector, and it would not be possible to change the arrangements overnight. Reference was made to the reduction in the number of taxi drivers and taxi companies, and they needed to gradually develop the service.

It was reported that the transport cost solely for Ysgol Hafod Lon was approximately £1 million per year, and there was an additional cost of approximately £500,000 for Ysgol Pendalar. It was noted that these figures showed the significant amount of spending. It was explained that a letter had been sent to the previous Minister raising a question regarding whether the Council received sufficient funding to pay the actual cost of transporting children to school. It was suggested that the real costs were not fully reflected in the funding received through the general block grant from the Welsh Government. It was suggested that a specific grant could be required for education transport, which would be directly allocated to the department, and it could be appropriate to raise the matter once again with the new Government.

Assurance was requested that the Welsh language would be duly addressed in the tendering process, although it was acknowledged that this would not always be easy. In response to a question regarding specific travel plans, it was explained that two different schemes were implemented alongside each other, namely the £1 travel scheme for young people up to 16 years old and a scheme for young people aged 16-21 called 'My Travel Card'. It was noted that the second scheme had started as a pilot, but the hope was that the Welsh Government would make it permanent to facilitate travel between educational sites.

Concern was raised regarding the 5-mile limit for transport to faith schools. It was noted that this would have a significant impact on pupils from some areas who had received transport historically. Reference was made to the fact that the faith schools were admission authorities themselves, and they did not have formal catchment areas, but it was argued that parish boundaries had been used historically for transport purposes. The Bethesda area was given as an example, noting that it had been within the parish boundary and had been included in maps shared with the local authority in the past. Concern was expressed that children from Bethesda would lose transport to Ysgol Ein Harglwyddes in Bangor. The department was asked to reconsider the limit and adapt it for faith schools.

In response, officers confirmed they would be willing to discuss the matter and look at the details. It was explained that the 5-mile figure had been set based on the template used for primary and secondary transport, but that did not prevent the department from reconsidering it. It was confirmed that the matter would be discussed before submitting the policy to the Cabinet.

Full support was expressed for the review of the policy, and the provisions for post-16 learners were welcomed, noting that they gave students more choice to attend settings that offered suitable courses. It was emphasised that the policy should give appropriate consideration to the safety of the child and school attendance. Reference was made to the significant overspend in the field and it was asked whether there was an estimate of the savings that the new policy would secure. In response, it was noted that the policy’s implementation was not expected to create savings. ⁠It was explained that the policy had been drawn up to ensure consistency and fairness across the system, not to reduce expenditure. It was noted that the budget was being managed as tightly as possible, but costs would likely increase when re-tendering contracts due to fuel prices and operational costs.

Attention was drawn to the need to review school catchment areas.  It was noted that closing schools and pupil movements could change which school was most suitable to a specific community.  It was asked when the catchment areas would be reviewed, who would be part of the process and whether the history of the areas and local connections would be considered.  In response, it was noted:-

·       The future of some schools had already been discussed and the whole catchment area had been considered as part of any such discussion.

·       Should a school close, there would be a need to decide where the catchment area should move, which boundaries would change and what schools would the children attend.

·       The department did not have the capacity to conduct a comprehensive review of every catchment area.

·       Catchment areas would be reviewed as changes arose, especially when the future of a particular school was being considered.

·       A wider review could be conducted per cluster of schools, using a secondary school catchment area as a foundation, should the capacity be available.

It was asked whether new housing developments were considered when looking at school catchment areas. In response, it was confirmed that the department worked with the Planning Service when a new housing development was proposed. It was noted that the Planning Service asked for information regarding local school capacity to receive additional children, but there were enough spaces in the majority of schools.

It was asked whether it was possible to change a catchment area when a new estate was constructed to facilitate a smaller school or prevent a school from closing. In response, it was confirmed that the department would not change the catchment area boundary to direct children from a new estate to a smaller school instead of the nearest school. It was explained that the boundary of the existing catchment area would be respected.  It was added that legislation made it a requirement to respect the right of parents to choose a school for their children, and it was not possible for the Council to encourage parents to choose one school instead of another in order to support the numbers of specific schools.

It was explained that housing developments did not currently create a significant problem because capacity was available in most schools. It was noted that not all pupils of every school necessarily lived within its catchment area. Should a school reach its capacity, the admission procedure would prioritise children from the catchment area. Reference was made to the low number of appeals regarding school admissions in Gwynedd, noting that there were usually enough spaces to approve the application according to the parents’ choice.

Concern was expressed that not all parents who used the Council's website to search for catchment area schools were aware that they had a wider choice. In response, it was noted that wider discussions were taking place regarding the sustainability of communities and what the Council could do to support it. Reference was made to a new stream, 'Nôl i Wynedd', in the Council Plan, and it was noted that they might need to think more creatively about how communities could be supported and to challenge existing trends.

It was emphasised that making savings was not the main reason for introducing the policy and the discussion had not been steered by an intention to remove bus services to reduce costs. It was explained, should opportunities arise to provide services in a different, better and more efficient way, those opportunities would be considered.

It was asked where the policy left post-16 students from Dwyfor who, due to curricular reasons and the range of subjects available, chose to study in sixth form in a secondary school in Arfon. In response, it was explained that the amended policy assured free transport to the nearest educational site that provided the relevant course. It was noted that the nearest provision to learners from Dwyfor who intended to study A Level would normally be Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor.

It was asked what would happen should a learner study a subject that was unavailable at the nearest setting. In response, it was confirmed, should the relevant subject or course not be available at the nearest setting, transport would be provided to another setting where the provision was available.

It was acknowledged that the Education Transport Policy was complex and there were many barriers and statutory requirements associated with it. It was noted that there was a need for flexibility to implement it, and the importance of pupil safety and ensuring fairness was emphasised.

RESOLVED

 

1.     To accept the report and note the observations.

2.     To ask the Cabinet to pay particular attention to the Empty Seats Scheme when making a decision.

3.     To recommend to the Cabinet Member for Education:-

·       That consideration should be given to modifying the Draft Education Transport Policy to designate parishes rather than distance in terms of transportation to faith schools.

·       To look at reducing the number of forms that parents of pupils with Additional Learning Needs must complete.