Council and democracy

Agenda item

Children's Transport: Re-procurement of Service

Minutes:

The Contract and Performance Manager gave a brief outline of the report which stated that the provision of home to school transport was a statutory service. The current service was expensive and the service aimed to remove discretionary service. Individual schools would be looked at to see who could use public transport. The proposal was for the procurement of a framework contract for children’s transport over a 4 year period. It would enable subsequent call off arrangements to be made that were flexible and responsive to changing journey needs e.g. downsizing a minibus carrying 1 child to a taxi instead.

 

Councillor Hague asked the Officer to expand on what the programme would do from paragraph 3.4. The Contract and Performance Manager answered that safe and unsafe home to school routes would be looked at. She gave an example of one school that had an unsafe route as it was also used by contractors. Councillor Hague went on to ask if this had a positive impact on buses as they were being used more. Stating that all bus routes had been looked at to ensure optimum use, the Contract and Performance Manager also mentioned inviting bus providers in for discussions. Talks included what services the bus providers could offer and support in home to school transport. There had been some positive comments from bus providers to run more buses during school times.

 

The Parent Governor Representative 1 sought clarification on what was considered an unsafe route and also on the meaning of ‘call off activities’ in paragraph 3.6. The Contract and Performance Manager explained that unsafe routes could include things such as the location of the school and roads with high speed vehicles. To overcome these, pelican crossings would be installed and speed limits reduced. The priority was to get children to school safely and the same went for unplaced children who could be attending a school that was not within their immediate area. ‘Call off activities’ were ad-hoc funds that would give the flexibility to change routes if needed.

 

Following on from the previous question, the Chair asked how an unsafe route was measured. The Contract and Performance Manager explained that there were a certain set of criteria from the Department for Education that had to be met to ensure a safe route. This was different for each school which was why schools had to be looked at individually. The Chair commented that it was more of a desktop exercise and a child should be taken by the hand to walk the route. The Chair felt sending officers out was not the same given the age so he was concerned on the methodology used. He wanted these concerns to be fed back to the Cabinet Committee when the report was due there for decision.

 

Adding onto this, the Parent Governor Representative 1 thought every route was unsafe. She referred particularly to Treetops School and Woodside Academy due to the increase of vehicles. The Contract and Performance Manager said these were looked at regularly and knew that Treetops had been unsafe at the time of construction. Children would have been offered transport. The Parent Governor Representative 1 went on to say that she had seen minibuses carrying just 1 child which was concerning considering the extra pollution added to the environment. The Contract and Performance Manager clarified that the child may have been the last one to be dropped off but if not, the service would downsize to a taxi.

 

The Parent Governor Representative 1 went on to ask if there were any cases where the service would charge for school travel arrangements which were free for eligible children. The Contract and Performance Manager explained that not every case was funded and each one was monitored closely. Following on from this, the Chair queried whether extra seats were sold as concessions. Explaining that this was the case previously for parents, the Contract and Performance Manager stated this was no longer the case as it was disruptive for other children who had to wait until the concessionary seat was available again.

 

Regarding a Local Authority’s duty to provide home to school transport to enable attendance, the Parent Governor Representative 1; asked if this would be a special case that would run for a short period to increase attendance. The Contract and Performance Manager explained it was the parents’ duty to ensure the child’s school attendance whether they were eligible for transport or not. Each case was monitored closely for eligibility.

 

The Vice-Chair queried the £4 million cost to the Council to take children to school. He asked how many children that would cover. The Contract and Performance Manager answered there were over 123 school transport routes and over 1000 children attending school. There were no specific data to hand but could be provided to the Committee from the Contract and Performance Manager.

 

As children had safe routes going to school, the Chair asked what happened after getting there. Routes from there would become unsafe within the school. He gave an example of one school where the road was blocked with vehicles taking children into school. The Chair asked if a drop-off point could be established to ease congestion. As the trouble was getting parents to listen, the Contract and Performance Manager explained the service needed to work with schools on drop-off points. An example was given where one school used a local pub’s car park for parents to park for drop-offs. Walking buses were also an option the service was considering. The Chair went on to ask if concessionary transport vehicles could have a drop-off point established to which the Contract and Performance Manager confirmed it could.

 

Moving onto procurement, the Chair asked what chances was the service giving Thurrock based taxi firms to win a contract. The Contract and Performance Manager replied that the service was looking to bring in software that would enable providers to choose the routes. There was the option to break the routes down and still be able to deliver the service required.

 

The Chair went on to ask what weighting was given to environmental concerns and keeping extra miles down to a minimum. The Contract and Performance Manager answered the service was working with procurement to ensure specifications were met. Sustainability was one aspect and social values were another aspect. The service had been engaging with local providers who were looking for innovation within the service and were looking to deliver different services as well. For example, this could be specialist vehicles for special needs children.

 

Querying on out of borough contractors, the Chair asked if the service would accept those with lower licensing standards than Thurrock’s. With a firm no, the Contract and Performance Manager confirmed the service would not reduce standards.

 

Supporting the Chair’s points, Councillor Hague asked that the criteria surrounding the procurement process be provided at the Cabinet Committee when the report would go there. In particular the environmental impact and border issues and how these would be addressed to ensure Cabinet had a clear structure of this.

 

The Youth Cabinet Member 2 felt 123 routes was a lot for Thurrock and questioned if these routes could be combined. He expressed concern on how taxpayers’ money was used for these many routes. The Contract and Performance Manager explained that the amount of routes contributed to the fact that Thurrock was close to the London network and the borough was comprised of many villages. The service had a statutory duty to provide transport to children to get to school but they did look at every possible method to reduce spend where possible.

 

On public transport, the Youth Cabinet Member 2 asked if this was used to which the Contract and Performance Manager confirmed they did. He went on to suggest free transport for children similar to the Transport for London model. The Contract and Performance Manager stated the service was working with bus providers to negotiate discounted tickets for children although it would not be free. The Youth Cabinet Member 2 continued by asking if sixth form children would use a walking bus given their ages. Answering that this would be for special needs children, the Contract and Performance Manager also mentioned travel training for special needs children as well.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that the following recommendations be made to Cabinet in December 2018:

 

1.1  That approval was given for the re-tender of a framework contract for children’s transport in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules for a term of 4 years commencing at the start of the academic year 2019/20.

 

1.2  That agreement was given for the award of the contract to be delegated to the Corporate Director of Children’s Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

 

1.3  That it was noted that a further report would be presented should any policy changes be required in due course.

 

Supporting documents: