8/6/2019 David Pugh Speech on Faith and Post-16 Transport

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-pugh-speech-on-faith-and-post-16-transport 1/3

 

1 of 3

Update from Cllr David Pugh, Leader of the Council

to Full Council – 20th

July 2011

FAITH & POST-16 TRANSPORT

As I indicated in my written report, I wish to provide a verbal update regarding faith and post-16

transport. This update will be supplied in written format after the meeting.

As members know, we have been consulting on proposed changes to our discretionary provision in

these areas, as part of our wider review of the Council’s discretionary expenditure. We have looked

at the long-term sustainability of the current arrangements, but equally at the principle of continuing

to provide such arrangements. The consultation on both of these matters ended on Monday (18th

 

July), and therefore I wish to use the opportunity here this evening to provide members with an

initial response to the consultation, along with thoughts on what is likely to be included in therecommendations to Cabinet on Tuesday 16th

August.

Faith Transport

Turning first to faith transport, it is clear that this issue has generated some strong opinions on both

sides of the debate. I would like to thank publicly all those who took the time to engage in the

consultation process. As part of this process, a number of issues were raised about our overall

home-to-education transport policy, which we consider need to be addressed as part of a wider

review.

It remains our view that it is wholly inequitable that when parents choose a secondary school basedon their holding of a particular religion or belief they are given a unique entitlement to free

transport which is not made available to parents when choosing a school based on other factors. If 

parents make a school choice on religious grounds, based on holding a particular set of beliefs that

are aligned to a particular school’s religious character, it is surely not equitable that they are entitled

to positive discrimination (and selective financial benefit) in exercising that choice when other

parents who make education choices based on not having a set of beliefs in line with that particular

school’s character are effectively discriminated against (in comparison).

Therefore it remains our intention to cease providing such a universal entitlement which

differentiates our approach to non-faith schools. We must have a policy which, as far as is

reasonably possible, treats parents and pupils the same – irrespective of religion or belief. However,we need to be careful that ceasing to provide such a universal entitlement that we do not simply

reverse the unfairness. For example, if a pupil would be entitled to receive free home-to-school

transport to a school in Newport (as their catchment area school) by virtue of where they live, we

believe that such an entitlement should be transferable to another school in Newport – whether that

be Medina, Carisbrooke or Christ the King College. This is a point that has been raised by many

parents in the west and south of the Island, and I am also particularly grateful to those elected

members who have raised this point with us on behalf of their residents.

We are saying that if you are entitled to free transport to your catchment area secondary school, you

should be able to transfer that for attendance at another school – as long as the travel to the

alternative school does not add more than a marginal increase in cost for the travel. Clearly travel toanother school in the Newport area wouldn’t add such a measurable increase. I am therefore stating

this evening that it is now our stated intention to agree a policy that would allow for this flexibility.

8/6/2019 David Pugh Speech on Faith and Post-16 Transport

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-pugh-speech-on-faith-and-post-16-transport 2/3

 

2 of 3

Critically, such an approach must be applied equitably, whether the alternative choice of school is a

faith or non-faith institution. This is what leads us to review the entire home-to-education transport

policy. As a result of the consultation on faith transport, a number of points have been raised which

we can address in a wider review of policy. The benefit of reviewing this entire policy is that welook at our provision as whole – rather than just the faith issue in isolation. It is therefore our

intention to bring a revised proposed home-to-education transport policy to Cabinet on 16th

August,

which we will be asking the Cabinet to agree for a further period of representation to take place in

advance of a final decision as to whether that revised policy should be implemented. Therefore, to

be clear, there will be no decision for implementation on 16th August in relation to faith transport –

but instead an incorporation of our proposed preferred option on such matters (including all of what

I have said this evening about choosing an alternative school) – into a proposed wider policy

approach. We consider that this is an appropriate way forward that will both take into account the

points raised during the recent consultation and seek to take a comprehensive and equitable

approach to home-to-education transport, irrespective of religion or belief.

I should also bring to members’ attention the Government’s current consultation on the schools

admissions code. The outcome of this national consultation will undoubtedly have an impact on our

local home-to-education transport policies – in terms of where the statutory obligations may apply

in the future. The review of our local policy will therefore take place within the context of the

Government’s consultation and acknowledge the need for further potential changes in the future in

light of possible national changes on admissions.

Furthermore, the paper to Cabinet will set out a timetable for the period of representation and the

intended date of a final decision, along with an explanation of how the schools admissions process

this autumn will sit alongside this process, enabling parents to be fully informed of the possiblechanges when expressing their parental preferences for entry to primary and secondary schools in

September 2012.

Post-16 Transport

I would now like to turn to the issue of post-16 transport. Myself and Cllr Cousins had a

constructive meeting recently with the IW College Principal, Debbie Lavin, regarding this matter.

She accepts that the local authority – like all public bodies – is facing particular financial challenges

and needs to cut its cloth accordingly. The College wishes to work closely with the local authority

to find a way forward that is affordable to the taxpayer whilst also ensuring that there is not a

damaging adverse effect on the ability of students to access post-16 education – be that at theCollege or in their local sixth form. Our shared concern relates to the potential increase in NEETs,

particularly from those on low incomes who could be most affected by additional financial burdens.

That is why we have agreed with the College that we will undertake further work to explore how

the recently announced 16-19 Bursary Fund could possibly be used, alongside local authority

resources, to help fund the travel needs of those in greatest need. This new fund is being introduced

from September 2011. With this in mind, and the need for a further dialogue in light of this

announcement and our shared commitment to support post-16 education in advance of the increased

statutory participation age, we will be recommending to Cabinet on 16th

August that the subsidised

travel arrangements for post-16 education continue from September 2011 – albeit at an increased

termly rate.

8/6/2019 David Pugh Speech on Faith and Post-16 Transport

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-pugh-speech-on-faith-and-post-16-transport 3/3

 

3 of 3

It is important that we signal this now in order to allow pupils, parents and the College (along with

school sixth forms) to be aware of the likely arrangements that will be in place – and the likely rate

for a termly pass that will apply. Therefore I am announcing tonight our intention to agree an

increase in the charge for a termly pass from £27.50 to £50, with effect from September 2011.

We have discussed this proposed change with the College Principal and the revised approach has

been broadly welcomed. Furthermore, we will work with the College in advance of September 2011

to explore how the 16-19 Bursary Fund can be used during the 2011-12 academic year to support

any families on low incomes who may have difficultly with this revised termly rate. These

discussions will be extended to school sixth forms as well, albeit the issue affects them considerably

less. This dialogue will be a precursor to more detailed discussions as to how we can make use of 

local authority funding along with the 16-19 Bursary Fund in the longer-term to ensure continued

affordable access to post-16 education, particularly in the context of the raised participation age

from September 2013 for 17 year olds.

Although we are proposing to increase the charge for the termly pass from £27.50 to £50, this

would represent the first uplift in many years and would still be a cheaper option than purchasing

the Freedom Pass for a broadly equivalent number of days. It would also still represent a

considerable subsidy by the taxpayer.

Furthermore, I should be clear that this remains only a proposal at this stage, and is still subject to

consideration and decision by Cabinet on 16th

August. However, as I have said, we wish to give

students, parents and institutions the greatest possible advance notice of what is likely to happen –

hence why we are signalling this proposed change now. As a result of this announcement, the

College will be sending a letter to all their potentially affected pupils in the very near future,

advising them of this likely change – and we are working with them closely on this. We will of course extend this communication to school sixth forms and potentially affected pupils there also.

The papers to Cabinet on 16th

August will set out these proposals in much more detail, and the

background and financial implications. However I wanted to set out this evening an overall of what

are likely to be the proposed revised arrangements, particularly in those areas which are likely to be

implemented with effect from this September.

I would be happy to take questions in relation to any aspects of this update.