Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

Petitions to be debated at Council.  Reports of the Monitoring Officer (copies attached).

(a)       Don’t Cut the Youth Services.  Lead petitioner Kate Barker.

(b)       One "choice is no choice".  Lead petitioner Samantha Fern.

65.1      The Mayor sated that where a petition secured 1,250 or more signatures it could be debated at the council meeting.  He had been made aware of two such petitions and would therefore take each in turn.  He also noted that there were two amendments from the Green and Conservative Groups to the recommendation contained in the covering report to the first petition which would be taken as part of the debate on that item.

(a)          don’t cut the youth services funding

65.2      The Mayor then invited Kate Barker and Raven as the lead petitioners to present the petition calling on the Council not to cut the youth services budgets.

65.3      Raven thanked the Mayor and stated that the petition had reached 2,042 signatures which demonstrated the strength of support for youth services in the city.

65.4      The Mayor thanked Raven and called on Councillor Chapman to respond to the petition.

65.5      Councillor Chapman thanked the petitioners and stated that the Council was facing significant cuts to budgets and that meant very difficult decisions had to be considered and taken.  He noted that councils across the country had reduced their youth services and were planning further cuts to those services, in order to maintain other services.  He stated that it was intended to continue to provide support services to young people and noted that a consultation process was currently underway which would inform the re-design of the service provision.  The results of the consultation would be reported to all councillors prior to the Budget Council meeting in February, so that decisions could be made in regard to the provision of youth services and the transition to other providers.  He also noted that a delegation of young people were due to attend No. 10 Downing Street and offered his support to the delegation.

65.6      Councillor Knight moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group, calling for the petition to be referred to a Special meeting of the Children, Young People & Skills Committee, along with an update from officers on the consultation which could be considered and any recommendations then made to the Budget Policy, Resources & Growth Committee meeting on the 9^th February.

65.7      Councillor Phillips formally seconded the amendment.

65.8      Councillor Wealls moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group, calling for an urgent report to be brought to the Budget Policy Resources & Growth Committee meeting on the 9^th February.  He noted that the proposal to cut youth services budgets had been late in the day and that a number of young people had asked questions on this subject at the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee meeting on the 19^th January.  He believed that further information was required in order for the committee to determine whether the level of proposed savings could be made, hence the request for an urgent report to the committee meeting.  He acknowledged that difficult decision had to be made, but felt that there appropriate level of information should be available to inform those decisions.

65.9      Councillor Brown formally seconded the amendment and stated that there was a risk of creating more costs in the long-term as there would be a need for greater intervention.  She hoped that a further report would address the points highlighted in the amendment.

65.10   Councillor Phillips stated that it was unacceptable to treat young people in this manner and the council should be listening to them and supporting them.  The consultation was very poor and was due to end after the Budget  Policy, Resources & Growth Committee, which left little time for consideration and gave the Children, Young People & Skills Committee no input into the process.

65.11   Councillor Bewick noted that there was a need to make savings and that this was down to the level of cuts being made by central government to local government funding.  There was a need for the council to balance all priorities across its services and the Children’s Service faced a total of £5.6m savings to be achieved.  He welcomed the attendance of the young people at today’s meeting and their efforts to highlight the difficulties that they had to face and hoped that a way forward could be found.

65.12   Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he believed the proposed cuts were short-sighted and harmful and would leave young people in a vulnerable position as they could not necessarily ask for help from their teachers, parents or carers.  There was a need to support them and enable them to reach their potential.

65.13   In response to the debate Councillor Chapman stated that he was happy for an urgent report to be brought to the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee but could not support the Green amendment.  He also wished to assure Members that any decision would not be taken lightly and that full consideration would be given to the proposed savings.

65.14   The Mayor noted that the Green amendment to the petition report’s recommendation was not supported and therefore put the amended recommendations to the vote which were lost by 11 votes to 41, with 1 abstention as detailed below:

65.15   The Mayor noted that the Conservative amendment to the report’s recommendation had been accepted and therefore put the recommendations as amended to the vote which were carried unanimously as detailed below:

65.16   The motion was carried.

65.17   RESOLVED:

(1)       That the petition be noted and referred to the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee for consideration at its meeting on the 9^th February 2017; and

(2)       That a report be produced by officers and brought back to Policy, Resources & Growth Committee detailing –

(a)     service descriptions and client reach which could be provided at a range of funding levels;

(b)     descriptions and impact assessments of expenditure reductions which were considered as an alternative to the proposed cut; and

(c)     an impact assessment of the funding reduction on the services themselves, and their clients and the increased pressures on other budgets and services should the proposed cut be implemented.

(b)          ONE CHOICE IS NO CHOICE

65.18   The Mayor sated that where a petition secured 1,250 or more signatures it could be debated at the council meeting.  He had been made aware of two such petitions and would therefore take each in turn.  

65.19   The Mayor then invited Samantha Fearn as the lead petitioner to present the petition calling on the Council to ensure that children across the city were given at least two secondary schools in their catchment area so that all children had a choice.

65.20   Ms. Fearn thanked that Mayor and confirmed that the petition had 1,350 signatures and stated that the current situation was unfair and needed to be addressed to ensure that all children have a choice of secondary school. We are objecting to the unfairness of the current catchments and the working party's proposal to place the new University of Brighton Secondary school into the central catchment from 2019. If Brighton and Hove City Council take forward these proposals they will not be honouring their responsibility to treat all children in the city equally.  This seems obvious for at least three reasons:

Firstly and fundamentally, how can it be fair for some children to have a choice of three schools whilst others have no choice at all?  How does refusing choice to one third of the city's children deliver the principles of equality that this council claims to support?  Many people believe that MORE effort should be made for less advantaged areas of the city to address the imbalance in opportunities facing the city's children. We are only seeking the SAME treatment for all children.   Either all of our children have a choice or none do.  Anything else is an injustice. The Council commissioned a report published by the University of Brighton in 2016. Its top recommendation was: "Redrawing the current geographical catchment area boundaries to try and ensure that all parents and students have a genuine choice of at least two secondary schools." This recommendation could not have been clearer.

Secondly, let's recognise critical differences in the catchments: the one's with the most choice are home to greater wealth, less deprivation and can be said to shout the loudest.  In comparison, the single school catchments including Coldean, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, Whitehawk and Woodingdean are more deprived and have a quieter voice.  Normal working families can no longer afford to live in the central catchment.  How do these plans promote social mobility and the truly comprehensive education system that the working party claimed as one of its goals?

Thirdly, children are different, schools are different. What suits one child might not suit the next?  Some schools are able to offer more GCSE subject choices, some less. For many children in the city, school is their only route to better prospects and a better future. To reduce their options of schools and of subjects is to reduce their life chances altogether. To the working party we say - listen to the views of people across the city. We seek new catchment proposals that ensure a genuine choice for all children.

To the Councillors we ask - will you agree that these proposals are unfair and that the degree of choice and opportunity should be equal for every child in the city?

65.21   The Mayor thanked Ms. Fearn and called on Councillor Chapman to respond to the petition.

65.22   Councillor Chapman thanked the petitioner and stated that he had been invited to meet with parents last year during the review of the arrangements that the cross-party Working Group was undertaking.  He also noted that 90% of the schools across the city were either good or out-standing which was a positive situation for all parents.  He stated that the question of admission arrangements was a difficult one to resolve.  The need for a new secondary school had been identified and the council was working with the University of Brighton to find a suitable location.  There had been an extensive consultation exercise and the Working Group had not reached a consensus in terms of the arrangements for catchment areas.  However, once a suitable location was found, it was intended to review the proposals for catchment areas and to consult further on possible arrangements so that a workable solution could be found.

65.23   Councillor Brown stated that the current situation whereby some children had a choice of 3 schools and others only 1 was not viable and the need to know where the new school would be located was becoming imperative.  There was a need for the Working Group to meet and to be able to put forward proposals for the revised catchment areas that would ensure a choice of schools for all children.  She noted that the new school was likely to have a city-wide catchment area for its first year; but that would need to be taken into account when determining the catchment areas for the other schools.

65.24   Councillor Phillips welcomed the petition and stated that the need for broader catchment areas was evident so that a greater mix of children in schools would be achieved which would enable them to fulfil their potential.

65.25   Councillor Page stated that he was grateful for the petition as it had focussed councillors’ minds on the issue and the unfairness of the current situation.  He believed that every child should have a choice of schools within their catchment area and hoped that this could now be achieved.

65.26   Councillor Chapman noted the comments and stated that he hoped a meeting of the cross-party Working Group could be held shortly so that a way forward could be discussed and agreed.

65.27   The Mayor noted it was recommended to refer the petition to the next meeting of the Children, Young People & Skills Committee and therefore put the recommendation to the vote which were carried unanimously.

65.28   RESOLVED: That the petition be noted and referred to the Children, Young People & Skills Committee for consideration at its meeting on the 6^th March 2017.