Loading
On each item the committee resolved that the Chair will write to the Cabinet Member for Education with its comments and observations. The minute records no decision to approve or reject any of the proposals.
Apologies were received from Mel Godfrey (Director of Education and Lifelong Learning) and Cllr Saleh Ahmed.
The following Members declared personal interests as school governors: Member School Cllr Hopkins Lakeside Primary School Cllr Humphreys St Francis R C Primary School Cllr Reid-Jones Thornhill Primary School Cllr Melbourne Llysfaen Primary School Elisabeth Hagen Rhydypenau Primary School Carol Cobert Holy Family Primary School and Bishop of Llandaff CIW High School Bridgid Corr Llanedeyrn Primary School Patricia Arlotte St. Bernadette’s Primary School
Cllr Gunter clarified that her declaration of interest had referred to the board of the 1910 Trust. The minutes of the 14th July meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item provided information on objections to proposals to extend and realign additional learning needs provision, and actions that needed to be taken to implement the proposals. The Chair welcomed: Cllr Sarah Merry Cabinet Member for Education Helen Williams Assistant Director, Education and Lifelong Learning Brett Andrewartha School Organisation Programme Manager The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she noted that the proposals would be familiar to the Committee. The full list of expansions was provided, including Specialist Resource Bases (SRBs) at several primaries and new Welsh medium provision. The consultation had resulted in only three objections, all linked to Greenhill Special School and addressed within the report. The recommendation in the report was to progress with the proposals. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members noted the objections linked to Greenhill School and queried whether the school would continue to use Archer Road Recreation Ground. Officers confirmed that it would continue peripatetic use of the Archer Road site as well as other facilities across the city. Members welcomed the clarification and requested further information about the use of the former Court School site, specifically whether its use would be temporary or longer term, and if the building would be adapted. Members asked what percentage of pupils requiring additional support the plan represented, and heard that this was a difficult question to answer. The data used was based on school surveys, with a 100% return rate from mainstream schools. If the data were 100% accurate it would lead to a shortfall in the region of 500-600 places, but this didn’t take account of how that should be split into specialist provision, and learners were referred over a 12 month period. The proposals made significant headway in tackling ALN need without fully addressing it. Members noted the size of the gap and requested further information on how this would be addressed, and clarification of the different phases. Members explored the topic of capacity, particularly in terms of staffing provision, and heard that significant work had been undertaken to recruit all SRB leads and specialist support staff. Training modules had been designed and delivered for all SRB staff, including university-type placements and training days in schools. Members asked if there would be any pinch points, which officers were confident would not be the case due to the scale of recruitment. Officers also noted the benefits of an SRB to mainstream provision, with training disseminated across the school. Members welcomed the scale and pace of recruitment, and asked how the new recruits reflected the service’s priority of a diverse workforce. Officers explained that they had worked with different groups and communities on this, including with Diversity and Anti-Racism Professional Learning (DARPL) to remove barriers to sustainability. Members queried the funding for extra SRB financing and heard that this was formula allocated and part of the wider education budget, rather than taken as a levy from other schools. Members noted the reference in the report to Welsh government grants covering 75% of SRB funding, and asked if any changes to this regime were anticipated. Officers explained that each proposal formed part of their bid, with a 75% intervention rate. They were currently at an early stage of discussions, making their strategic outline case, and though there was no indication that they were likely to be unsuccessful at this point, it was always a risk to be reliant on that funding. Members noted the controversy over ALN in the Supplementary Budget, and heard that the Cabinet were continuing to lobby on the financial impact of growing ALN need. Members asked how the impact of additional training would be tracked, and heard that continuous development of professional learning was key to their approach. The Education Endowment Foundation would be involved in an 18-month pilot starting in November, seeking to introduce new skills for schools to use. Members asked to be kept informed about the most impactful areas. Members asked how inclusion would be addressed within schools, and heard that the ten-year Inclusion Strategy would be key to this. All children should feel like they belonged, and collaborative work was being done across the service, in particular tracked through the Inclusion Board and with input from the Child Friendly board. Members asked for more information about who would sit on the Inclusion Board. Members noted that there were 347 young people with out of county placements, and queried how many of the 462 new placements in Phase 1 would go to these individuals. Officers agreed to provide the specific figures after the meeting, but did not expect that the out of county learners would be able to come back straight away, though it was an objective over the next three to five years to bring them back by increasing provision. Officers also noted that out of county was an umbrella term which included the independent sector within the city. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item provided background information to facilitate their scrutiny of proposals relating to the Home to School Transport Policy, prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 17th September. The Chair welcomed: Cllr Sarah Merry Cabinet Member for Education Suzanne Scarlett Partnerships & Performance Manager, Education and Lifelong Learning Helen Williams Assistant Director, Education & Lifelong Learning Steve Gerrard Network Operations Team Leader Jason Dixon OM Transport Development & Network Management The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she noted that the policy had not been refreshed since 2017. The draft policy sought to improve accessibility for families and transparency for schools, and tweaked some alignments with current legislation. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, noting that the refreshed strategy needed to be approved a year before enaction, and would be implemented from September 2027. There was no substantive policy change, and it primarily sought to improve alignment with legislation, guidance and current practice, for instance updating terminology like ALN rather than SEN, and reflecting the current operational practice and context. Officers explained that around 3,000 mainstream pupils were transported every day, mostly secondary school pupils on coaches. A further 1,700 ALN pupils were transported daily, either due to distance or specific need, and more than 800 transport routes were in operation. The 2026-27 budget for home to school transport was £17m, with £1.1m in savings targeted, and the 2025-26 budget had been £18.61m, with an underspend of £1.963m. A service review had strengthened governance and accountability and helped to reduce the annual budget growth from 24% to 4%, and making the policy clearer would help with this further. Officers added that statutory eligibility remained the same, based on Welsh government guidance that a child could travel two miles to primary school and three miles to secondary school. Individual assessments of needs were applied for ALN, Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) and children looked after, and there was continued support for Welsh medium and faith schools. Discretionary support could be provided above the statutory minimum in exceptional circumstances, on a case by case basis. Officers noted that during the last academic year, they hadn’t been able to sell any spare seats where they didn’t comply with national guidelines under the Public Service Vehicle Access Requirements (PSVAR). The rules regarding this had now changed and enabled contractors to reapply for exemption permits for 4 years. When they next went out to tender, they would specify the need for compliance, and the issue then for Cardiff would be that they were competing with other authorities for a limited pool of compliant vehicles. Officers outlined the key enhancements of the new policy, which included an updated ALN framework, stronger safeguarding arrangements, clearer guidance for EOTAS learners, enhanced corporate parenting provision and a requirement for annual reviews of entitlements and routes. There was also a strategic shift towards travel independence, tightened criteria for entitlement during temporary accommodation, and clearer definitions of unsuitable travel arrangements. The policy also renewed the definition of the right to request a review of a decision, and signalled their intent to introduce digital bus passes. Officers noted the key risks, which included increased demand for ALN places and fuel price volatility. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members asked how students could report safeguarding issues if they didn’t wish to do so through their parents or other adults, and heard that the policy had undergone a thorough child’s rights assessment. The service worked closely with designated safeguarding leads and Child Friendly colleagues, and wanted to extend opportunities to raise issues independently, either through schools or existing safeguarding channels. Members welcomed last year’s budget underspend and asked how likely this year’s desired savings were with fuel prices increasing and increases in ALN pupil numbers. Officers acknowledged that this would be a challenge, but there was a concerted effort across the directorate. A lot of savings had resulted from a focus on entitlements and assessing learner needs, as well as looking closely at routes, placing learners as close to home as possible and grouping them where suitable. Members asked whether the previous Welsh government’s £1 bus fare initiative had any impact on the policy or budget. Officers clarified that this did not have any impact on operators as it was a concession, and affected public buses rather than contracted services. Members explored the appeals process and asked whether there were any implications for parents in terms of their rights, following the change in terminology from ‘appeal’ to ‘right of review’. Officers explained that the move to a right of review should make things more straightforward, as parents could request an immediate review of a transport decision, and could ‘step up’ to a second stage if they were not satisfied with that decision, so officers could review the evidence. It was a neater process that complied with legislation and would be phased in over the next year, and would not disadvantage parents. Members noted that annual assessments of entitlements could cause anxiety for those who relied on them, and asked how this would be mitigated. Officers explained that the ALN eligibility review would be aligned with IDP reviews, and there would be annual reviews for discretionary decisions including emergency provision. It was important to ensure people had the right transport for their needs, and some transport may have been arranged for emergency situations which no longer applied. Close communication would continue between ALN support and families to mitigate anxiety, and it was planned to have a communications campaign following approval of the policy. Members queried the definition of safe routes to school, and asked whether the safeguarding elements of the policy took child exploitation into account. Officers explained that safety was taken into account when judging a route’s sustainability, with an annual review of the whole network and considerations of what safeguards could be put in place to mitigate concerns. Officers highlighted Welsh government guidance which stressed parental responsibility, and that routes were assessed as if a child or young person was accompanied by a parent. Members asked at what age a child should be able to walk to school on their own, and heard that it was for parents to decide whether they should be accompanied. When walking routes were assessed, it was assumed that a parent would be walking with them, and Welsh government legislation and guidance did not specify a particular age. The policy sought to provide a clearer sense of parental rights and responsibilities, and it was generally down to the parent to decide if they felt it was a safe route. Officers confirmed that parents could request sight of the risk assessment for their child’s route to school. Members asked how often the Travel Behaviour Code had to be enacted, and heard that unfortunately there were frequent issues with behaviour on school buses. The council worked closely with schools to identify pupils and take action, and was seeking to make the Code more transparent and accessible for parents. Members asked whether the service was advised when a child sex offender moved into an area, and heard that it was not. Independent travel training included a ‘stranger danger’ element as well as safe places to go in an emergency. Members asked how unsafe areas of the city were managed, and heard that the council worked closely with neighbourhood policing, in particular through the Community Safety Partnership, to make crime hotspots safer. Members noted that discretionary support was assessed on a case-by-case basis, and suggested adding extra wording on what might be considered reasonable circumstances to increase clarity for parents. Officers agreed that the criteria needed to be as clear as possible, though this would likely be an operational tool rather than part of the policy itself. Discretionary powers could be used to respond to both short term crises and long term complex needs, and parents had the right to review the decision as well. Members queried the reference to a strategic shift towards travel independence, and heard that a key aspect of the service’s work was ensuring that children could travel independently and safely where possible, particularly as they approached the end of their statutory education. It might not always be in the child’s best interests to have door-to-door travel by taxi, and although some children might never be able to travel independently, some could. The service worked with learners on a case-by-case basis, and independent travel training had been very successful since it was first offered in 2010, in particular in helping Year 9s, 10s and 11s to gain confidence before sixth form. The road safety training team had also expanded, previously only covering Years 3 and 7, but now offering refresher courses to Years 5 and 6 too, both mainstream and ALN. Members noted longstanding concerns about young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), and asked to what extent transport being a barrier to provision outside of school was considered in the criteria. Officers explained that the policy focused on the authority’s statutory responsibilities, and there was no requirement for post-16 except for ALN. Maintaining education was taken into account as a factor, and transport was considered as part of a placement in the same way as it would be for a school. Post-16 arrangements to help access further education or training were not part of the home to school transport policy, but it was in everyone’s interest to ensure that transport wasn’t a barrier when they got to that point. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item provided additional information to enable them to undertake a short scrutiny on the proposed five-year strategic plan for youth work in Cardiff. The Chair welcomed: Cllr Sarah Merry Cabinet Member for Education Helen Williams Assistant Director, Education and Lifelong Learning James Healan Principal Youth Officer, Youth Service The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she thanked Cllr Bradbury for steering the development of the strategy forward as part of his Cabinet portfolio. Youth work was a key topic to Cabinet, and it was refreshing to see extra funding going into youth services in England as well as Wales. The strategy focused on key priorities identified by young people themselves, and recognised the vital role that youth work played. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, explaining that the strategic plan built on the five-year Youth Work Strategy that had previously come to the Committee. Cardiff had been the first local authority in Wales to produce a five year strategy, and since then there had been a new requirement where all local authorities had to produce a youth work strategic plan. The plan would be reviewed on a yearly basis and would be submitted to the Welsh government by 30th September for evaluation. Officers added that Cardiff had by far the biggest youth service in Wales, and sought to consult with the widest possible group of young people. A Youth Work Partnership Board would be created to strengthen governance and oversight and ensure that provision met needs. Their approach built on the Integrated Locality Model, focused on access to qualified youth workers, consistency of support from staff working in schools and the community, with local provision built on participation, collaboration and sustainability. In particular, they sought to develop their own youth workers who were reflective of their communities. The key aims had not changed, including participation, inclusion, Welsh language access, targeted support, safeguarding, wellbeing, workforce development and partnerships. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members noted the importance of youth work, and asked about support for specific groups such as for sport and music. Officers explained that while there was a wide and varied offer for young people across the city, the strategic plan followed a specific framework focused on youth work rather than encompassing everything the council was involved in. Members asked about officers’ confidence in the plan, and heard that the Welsh government’s feedback would be key as it was an intuitive process that they were undertaking for the first time. Members asked which of the barriers summarised in the Children’s Commissioner’s report were particularly relevant in Cardiff, and heard that reaching underrepresented voices was important, and they were currently undertaking a participation review which would be ready in the next few months. In particular, officers noted a drop-off in engagement as children reached secondary school. Members asked whether young people had been involved in the 2025 task group on this topic, and heard that they had come up with the questions used. Members advocated further developing the feedback loop to ensure young people were aware of changes made following their engagement. Officers explained that while it was difficult to respond to every person who engaged as they moved on and around, the participation review sought to improve tracking and build an overarching view of what was going on, possibly using a system like HALO or Citizen Space. Members asked for more information about the timescale of the delivery plan and how it would be measured, as well as requesting the participation review report when it was complete. Members queried the reasons for the unsuccessful online push, and heard that officers had been surprised by this. They had made use of platforms like TikTok and Instagram but didn’t see much engagement with that consultation. Young people were generally much happier to engage when guided through it. Members welcomed the work done to expand and diversify the workforce, and asked how the recruitment process was going. Officers explained that the Corporate Apprentice scheme had been a particular success, with five now working within the service. However, it was challenging to fill all the available posts with the requirements for qualification having increased in recent years, with a Level 3 qualification requiring 300 hours of training. They were offering training for free and trying to find placements in-house, but this was a slow process. Members asked which teams within the council were involved in work to prepare young people for employment. Officers explained that there was a range of activities, in particular focusing on transition points such as the summer after young people finished Year 11. They used a three-pronged attack based around targeted support and preventative work; summer transition tracking young people leaving school; then post-16 work with Careers Wales and their five-tier model. Members noted that both the youth service and ALN provision discussed earlier in the meeting had similarities in their recruitment strategies, with a focus on specialised skills-based training, and advocated ensuring these initiatives worked together to share good practice in strategic workforce development. Members noted the provision of guaranteed interviews and opportunities for work experience for care-experienced children, and asked whether other groups of children who faced similar barriers could be included in this. Officers clarified that children looked after were prioritised under the authority’s statutory responsibility as corporate parents, but there were certainly other vulnerable groups who needed advocacy on their behalf. Members explored the 2025 consultation and asked whether data was collected on participants’ ethnicity. Officers believed this had been gathered, and were happy to provide this after the meeting. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
There were none.
6th October at 4:30pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Hopkins: Personal interest
School governor at Lakeside Primary School.
Humphreys: Personal interest
School governor at St Francis R C Primary School.
Reid-Jones: Personal interest
School governor at Thornhill Primary School.
Melbourne: Personal interest
School governor at Llysfaen Primary School.
Elisabeth Hagen: Personal interest
School governor at Rhydypenau Primary School.
Carol Cobert: Personal interest
School governor at Holy Family Primary School and Bishop of Llandaff CIW High School.
Bridgid Corr: Personal interest
School governor at Llanedeyrn Primary School.
Patricia Arlotte: Personal interest
School governor at St. Bernadette's Primary School.
Gunter: Interest
Clarified that her earlier declaration of interest referred to the board of the 1910 Trust.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.