Agenda item

The Cabinet Committee is invited to consider whether to make any recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport in relation to the action taken by the petitioners.

1.            The Chairman advised that the Lead Petitioner Nicola Hibbard had been invited to attend the meeting to speak to the petition but Ms Hibbard had notified the clerk that she would be unable to attend the meeting, but would like the petition to be considered in her absence.

2.            The Chairman then invited the Cabinet Committee to debate the petition. During debate the following views were expresses and concerns were raised:

a)    Mr Baldock questioned whether the item should be postponed until Ms Hibbard was able to attend the meeting.  The Chairman advised that the statement from Ms Hibberd had been circulated in the meeting papers and should be debated at this meeting.

b)    Mr Caller said that he had sympathy with the Petitioners as parents often had no choice in which school their children attended.

c)    Mr Balfour reminded Members that the YPTP had been debated at length and the decision made last year when it was noted that any increase to the cost of the YPTP would be in line with the increase in charges made by the bus companies to KCC and that this would be passed on to the users of the service.  He stated that this was still a valuable and generous scheme for Kent children subsidized by taxpayers.  He reiterated that this scheme was not carried out by other local authorities and was discretionary.

d)    Mr Lightowler reiterated the basis of the operator fare increases using examples of current operator fares for children travelling to and from school over 190 school days per year to demonstrate that the YPTP gave value for money.  He considered that the challenge for some parents was paying for the fare up front.

e)    Mr Lightowler advised that fuel was part of the cost but was not the predominant cost.

f)     A comment was made that Members did not require lessons in business from officers.

g)    Members agreed with Mr Balfour on the benefits of the scheme but considered that there was an impact on those who earned just over the average annual income of £16k per year and would therefore not be entitled for free school travel.  It was suggested that this could affect the decision to send their child to a grammar school.

h)   Mr Balfour reiterated that he fully appreciated that any increase in costs would not be easy for many families but the Local Authority had to make choices in how it spent its budget.

i)     A comment was made that the bus operator could extend the scheme to include weekends.

j)      A Member compared the cost of Stage Coach tariffs to the cost of flights to Europe and suggested that there should be more competition from alternative bus companies.

k)    A comment was made that subsidizing school travel was a benefit to all who lived in Kent as driving from one area of Kent to another took twice as long in term time.

l)     Mr Baldock proposed that the £20 increase to the YPTP be delayed for this year but as there was no seconder, the proposal could not be pursued.

3.            Mr Caller proposed, seconded by Mr Bowles that the recommendation set out in the report be moved. By 9 votes to 2 the proposal was carried.

4.            RESOLVED that the comments and responses to questions by Members on the petition statement be received.