Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr P Denham, Mr C J Bloore, Mr R C Lunn, Ms C M Stalker, Ms P Agar, Mr R M Udall, Mr P M McDonald and Ms P A Hill.
The motion was moved by Mr P Denham and seconded by Mr R C Lunn who both spoke in favour of it.
The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.
Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:
· It was concerning that School Crossing Patrol attendants were so poorly paid with an hourly rate close to the minimum wage and therefore no surprise that there were so many unfilled vacancies. It was disappointing that the Council was no longer funding these patrols where pedestrian crossings existed. Many children were not capable of using pedestrian crossings safely. Although road safety training had been offered to affected schools, this one-off training was insufficient with a danger that some children would miss out or fail to learn anything and therefore did not compensate for the loss of a School Crossing Patrol. A daily rate should be introduced that would attract and retain suitable people with flexible working hours to meet the needs of individual schools
· School Crossing Patrols were not just important in terms of the safety of children but also the reassurance they provided for parents to be able to send their children to school on foot. The most likely outcome of this policy would be that more parents would drive to schools increasing congestion, air pollution outside schools and danger to children walking to school. The County Council had responsibility for employing someone to control the traffic and therefore it was not possible for schools to directly employ attendants
· Road safety training needed to be provided on a regular basis if it was to be effective. School Crossing Patrols were vital on busy roads and complex junctions
· The budget reductions to this service were creating a postcode lottery where schools in poorer areas would not be able to afford to replace its School Crossing Patrol
· The Council needed to understand why it was unable to attract people as School Crossing Patrol attendants. The School Crossing Patrol service was one of the few Council services that protected people and saved lives. The savings being made were disproportionate to the value of the service to the children and parents
· The motion was concerned with how School Crossing Patrols could be retained
· There was evidence that where School Crossing Patrols had been withdrawn, the number of vehicles on the surrounding roads had increased with associated parking issues in the vicinity of the school and consequent road safety implications
· The Council might wish to consider some form of branding/sponsorship arrangement to help with the funding of these School Crossing Patrols posts.
Those against the motion made the following comments:
· School Crossing Patrol attendants were employed on a pro-rata term time basis with the annual salary split over 12 instalments with a term-time factor. The salary took account of holiday entitlement and bank holidays. The nature of the work meant that applicants for the posts tended to be attracted from the local area to the school. In addition the rate of paid by the Council compared favourably with neighbouring councils. The proposal for a daily rate of pay was therefore rejected
· Certain schools had taken proactive actions to attract attendants and other schools might wish to take a similar approach. The Council was acting in accordance with the Green Book guidance and to introduce a daily rate would fall outside the Council's terms and conditions
· The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented that road safety education was offered to every school year group every year with follow up sessions and information provided on the school's web site. No evidence had been found to suggest that pay was the main reason for attracting people to the role of School Crossing Patrol attendant and increasing pay would not impact on recruitment levels. The Council was complying with national guidelines that stated School Crossing Patrols were not required where a pelican or zebra crossing existed on the basis that the crossing took priority
· If parents were concerned about the safety of their children walking to school then they should consider accompanying them rather than driving to school
· The Leader of the Council maintained this was not about saving money but maintaining the Council's commitment to School Crossing Patrols where they were necessary and met the Council's policy guidelines. The Council would be unwise to treat one group of staff in isolation outside the Council's terms and conditions otherwise a full countywide review would be necessary. If members had any concerns about patrols in their division they should take the matter up with officers. If criminal offences were being committed by road users, they should be reported to the police.
On a named vote, the motion was lost.
Those voting in favour were:
Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells (14)
Those voting against were:
Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Ms T L Onslow, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr C B Taylor, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale. (36)
Those abstaining were:
Dr C Hotham, Mr R P Tomlinson, (2)