Scrutiny Committee - Friday 22 August 2025, 10:30am - West Yorkshire Combined Authority Webcasting

Scrutiny Committee
Friday, 22nd August 2025 at 10:30am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  2. Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council)
  3. Peter Hunt
  4. Julie Craig
  5. Jason Rose
  6. Cllr James Homewood
  7. Andy Rontree
  8. Katie Haigh
  9. Paul Godwin
  10. Cllr Mark Thompson
  11. Cllr Bob Felstead
  12. Matt Edwards
  13. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  14. Peter Carlill
  15. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  16. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  17. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  18. Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  19. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Matt Edwards
  2. Cllr Bob Felstead
  3. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  4. Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council)
  5. Matt Edwards
  6. Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  7. Paul Godwin
  8. Cllr Bob Felstead
  9. Jason Rose
  10. Matt Edwards
  11. Katie Haigh
  12. Cllr Bob Felstead
  13. Katie Haigh
  14. Cllr Bob Felstead
  15. Matt Edwards
  16. Katie Haigh
  17. Matt Edwards
  18. Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  19. Andy Rontree
  20. Matt Edwards
  21. Andy Rontree
  22. Cllr Bob Felstead
  23. Andy Rontree
  24. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  25. Matt Edwards
  26. Cllr Bob Felstead
  27. Paul Godwin
  28. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  29. Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council)
  30. Peter Carlill
  31. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  32. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  33. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  34. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  35. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  36. Cllr Betty Rhodes
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  2. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  3. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  4. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  5. Peter Carlill
  6. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  7. Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council)
  8. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  9. Andy Rontree
  10. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  11. Peter Carlill
  12. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  13. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  14. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  15. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  16. Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council)
  17. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  18. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  19. Katie Haigh
  20. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  21. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  22. Jason Rose
  23. John Lawson
  24. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  25. Peter Carlill
  26. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  27. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  28. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  29. Peter Carlill
  30. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  31. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  32. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  33. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  34. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  35. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  36. Matt Edwards
  37. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  38. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  39. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  40. Matt Edwards
  41. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  42. Matt Edwards
  43. Peter Carlill
  44. Cllr Bob Felstead
  45. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  46. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  47. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  48. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  49. Cllr Bob Felstead
  50. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  51. Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council)
  52. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  53. Peter Carlill
  54. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  55. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  56. Cllr James Homewood
  57. Cllr James Rose
  58. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  59. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  60. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  61. Cllr James Rose
  62. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  63. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  64. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  65. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  66. Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council)
  67. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  68. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  69. Cllr James Rose
  70. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  71. Peter Carlill
  72. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  73. Peter Carlill
  74. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  75. Cllr James Rose
  76. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  77. Katie Haigh
  78. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  79. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  80. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  81. Katie Haigh
  82. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  83. Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council)
  84. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  85. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  86. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  87. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  88. Peter Carlill
  89. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  90. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  91. Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  92. Peter Carlill
  93. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  94. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  95. Peter Carlill
  96. Peter Carlill
  97. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  98. Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  99. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  100. Cllr Bob Felstead
  101. Matt Edwards
  102. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
Share this agenda point
  1. Katie Haigh
  2. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  3. Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  4. Katie Haigh
  5. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  6. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  7. Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  8. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  2. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  3. Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council)
  4. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  5. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  6. Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority)
  7. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
  8. Cllr Betty Rhodes
  9. Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair)
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 0:00:00
normal standard scrutiny meeting but today it's been converted into a Colin
a unique occasion this is the first ever Colin that anybody can recollect in
Wicca. The rest of us who are from local authorities are used to Collins
they're used for many and varied methods and purposes in authorities and
everybody's a different way of doing it so we'll have to just learn today how
this process goes and we will then meet outside of this meeting to refine it so
that we get it correct in the future so to the officers present yes we we are

1 Apologies for Absence

intent and probably using the calling process again if we get it refined so
let's start off the meeting formally so apologies for absence
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 0:00:51
Thank you and can I formally thank Councillor Thompson for associating today and also Councillor
Craig and Councillor Rose and also to welcome Councillor Rose. I don't think we've ever
met before. It's my first meeting. So welcome. Right, what I want to do, what I'm going to do is
what I'll go around and everybody would to introduce themselves. I'm going to get
the members of the scrutiny board to introduce themselves first. Then I will
ask the WICA members who are effectively our guests today to
introduce themselves and then we will introduce the WICA officers so that
knows who they are and where what everybody's role is so
For I'm councillor Barry Anderson come from Leeds City Council
But I am the chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority scrutiny board. Yes, sir. Thompson
Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council) - 0:02:07
Yes, I'm comes to Thompson from Calderdale one of the two representatives
Peter Hunt - 0:02:15
My name is councillor Peter hunt representing Ellen Ward in Corderdale Council, thank you
Julie Craig - 0:02:23
and I'm Councillor Julie Craig representing Wakefield Council I'm deputising for Richard Forster
Jason Rose - 0:02:36
Councillor John Lawson from Kirklees
Jason Rose, Councillor from York
Cllr James Homewood - 0:02:42
Councillor Harry McCarthy from Kirklees
Good morning everyone.
Andy Rontree - 0:02:49
Councillor Andy Rontree from Kirkstall Ward in Leeds.
Councillor Kate Haig from Farney Wortley Ward in Leeds.
Katie Haigh - 0:02:55
Paul Godwin - 0:02:59
Paul Godwin from Keatley West in the Bradford section.
Cllr Mark Thompson - 0:03:06
Councillor Mark Thompson from Kirklees, deputised for Richard Smith who's on holiday.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:03:14
Councillor Bob Felstedt from Bradford Council.
Matt Edwards - 0:03:19
Councillor Matt Edwards, Bradford Council. I'm also Vice Chair.
Good morning everybody, I'm Councillor James Lewis.
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:03:31
I am here as a substitute for the Mayor and I'm leader of Leeds City Council and therefore a member of the Combined Authority
So one of the members have voted on the paper that's been called in
Hello comes to Peter Carlisle
Peter Carlill - 0:03:47
I'm a counsellor in Leeds
But I'm here as the deputy for comes for Susan Hinchcliffe in my role as deputy chair of the Transport Committee
And in that role I've responsibility for bus services across West Yorkshire
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:04:04
Morning everyone, I'm Ben still chief exec of West Yorkshire component authority
the floor.
Good morning everyone.
Tim Taylor, director of transport services here at the command authority.
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:04:11
Good morning again members and officer colleagues.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 0:04:16
Satinder Zohouta, assistant director of legal and governance and monitoring officer.
Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:04:19
Right.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 0:04:21
Have we got any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest?
None.

2 Declaration of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

If anything occurs throughout the meeting just let us know.

3 Possible Exclusion of the Press and Public

Possible exclusions of the press are public.
I don't think there's any reason that there should be.

4 Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2025

The minutes of the meeting held on the 18th of July are they a true and accurate record for those that were present? Yep

5 Call In - Procedure

We approved right fine, right. So the Colin procedure which is in
paragraph on pages 5 to 8
You've had a chance to
Read through it. I will take you to paragraph 11. So
we are only going to be looking at inquiry specific to the decision under
Colin. Occasionally Mr. Tinder might elbow me and tell me that's not within the remit
so I'll then intervene and say that's not within the remit. So if somebody
starts wandering off I may have to pull you back again. What we'll do is
Councillor Edwards will present on behalf of those that called it in and then Councillor
Felstead will then have a chance to add anything further.
Then members of the scrutiny board will then have a chance to question those two people
on any of them they want clarified.
Then we will invite Councillor Lewis, Councillor Carlisle and the two WICA officers to present
why this they feel that this was the correct decision it's been done properly
and all governance procedures have been properly followed etc that will then be
open to us to then question them on anything that's happening then I will
invite Councillor Lewis and or Councillor Carroll doesn't matter which
one to give the final views from Wacker's perspective and then Councillor Edwards
will sum up from the people who called it in and we will then make a decision whether
or not to release the decision, release the decision but we may be making some further
recommendations or whether we want to go for option two which is invite the combined authority
to look again at the decision to see if they in the light of what's been said today or
lessons that they may have learned since the decision was made because when you look at
evidence that's been put in by the combined authority today I think they just clarified
what was meant at the combined authority so as a result of that we need to make a judgement
on it.
So that's basically the process that we're going to follow so hopefully it runs smoothly.
So to start then, the decision will call in when it came from the combined authority on
24th of July and it was all about the scrutiny process right so I'm just give
you some context I can get my computer open as to what it is we're actually
looking at today
right so this is a call -in of the combined authority decision on the 24th
on travelling to school consultation and policy update.
We need, our job today is we need to ascertain did the report reach its objectives?
Are we satisfied? Was the report, personally I think we need to try and find out what was behind the report?
Was it to make cost savings? Was it the equalisation of services?
Was it for efficiency gains? Or was it another step down to bus franchising
It's something that needed to be put in place to enable bus franchising to be a success
We need to ask ourselves
Do we understand the next steps and the father consultations that will take place and who will be consulted?
And where were the final policy change go for sign off?
We need to look into the case for change was was it generally supported? However, most responded
Respondents didn't support the option for which was the one that was chosen
Most people chose option one, which was no change, and then after that they chose option
three, which was retaining the existing guidelines with revised funding arrangements.
What was the logic?
Why it was felt that we needed to overrule the responses that we got.
We also need to look into where the number of consultation responses mathematically significant.
Was that good was it a good number of responses that they got?
Does it give you a good picture the number of responses that we got are we satisfied or is there any need to do more?
consultation
Should this report have gone to the Transport Committee to be adopted as their recommended way forward or not?
and the reasons why it wasn't and then
Certainly, I can't remember whether everybody else we give I've certainly been given an explanation as to why the Transport Committee didn't
take it so that can come out. Was the consultation extensive enough? Were all
relevant partners given the opportunity to contribute even though they may have
chosen not to respond? Are there any wider concerns or policy issues that
need to be addressed as well? Does option four address the safeguarding mayoral
pledge to deliver through a child first lens? What are the risks of
the proposals clearly set out? Do we know what they are? And are the mitigation measures
to resolve those risks clearly set out? Are you happy that the governance guidelines have
been correctly followed in everything that we've done? And are you happy to release the
decision? Now, you should have, this is to members, you should have an evidence statement
from Councillor Don Seery who is a Councillor from Pudsey who is mainly
concerned around provision for Catholic schools. You should have a paper from
Councillor Geraldine Carter from Calderdale that those two you we got the
Geraldine Carter one early this morning and then when you arrived in the
building today you'd be given a copy of the Don Seery one. You should already
Have been sent a copy of the submission by councillor Debbie Davis from Bradford City Council building ward
You should also have received a submission by Wicca
Late yesterday afternoon to explain some of the points raised and why in the call and request and asked and also
Clarifying some of the points and misunderstandings that may or may not have occurred. So has everybody got those documents?
because we
we'll see we can formally put those on the records that we've now got them so
we from that point so on that basis Councillor Edwards can I ask you to
briefly set out the case so and behind the submission I submitted could so
Matt Edwards - 0:11:50
three submissions there are three broad three themes to ask why that I made the
request, the process, how the decision was made, the wording of the final decision, the
actual case for change, as presented in the consultation documents.
So with relation to the process, as it sets out in the document sent from WICA, it was
agreed at the Combined Authority meeting on 3rd April to initiate the consultation and
it was also agreed for that recommendation to be brought back to the July Combined Authority
meeting.
The word of that consultation, the wording of the decision made
in the April meeting doesn't suggest very,
I think there's room for interpretation
that specific proposals to cut services will also be
put forward.
It just states that the policy will be brought forward.
The consultation itself only finished on the 11th of June.
That means the transport services team will have only had
from the 11th of June to the date the paper was published,
which I think was the 11th of July, to do all of the work
to digest that feedback from the consultation. There were over 3 ,000 responses and bring
forward a revised policy taking that into account and then implement and then present
a statement in terms of how that policy could be implemented in relation to the services.
There are quite a lot of services across West Yorkshire. That's a lot of work and that's
not giving much room to cheque and go through the detail and to actually have member input.
So just taking one example of the policy, faith schools, there are significant equality
concerns linked to faith schools.
I know there was some public concern with this and some of that particularly came from
Bradford.
We've also had a representation of Councillor Siri on this topic.
In Bradford there was a high number of responses about access to faith -based schools and that's
no doubt linked to specific issues in Bradford linked to St Bede and St Joseph's and the
proposal linked to that school made by Bradford Council.
The new policy doesn't guarantee dedicated faith transport
to faith schools unless it's the nearest suitable school.
There is talk about an appeals process,
but again, that hasn't really been tested
in terms of what that means.
There's been no member -led discussion in the public realm
in terms of what that means.
It's also notable that in Bradford,
there were a significant proportion of Christian
respondents and they were notably less supportive of the case for change.
The policy, the new policy also states services can move in and out of policy but there's
no clear measure as to what that means, how that will be presented, how the process will
work.
None of those issues were discussed in the 20 minutes of the combined authority meeting
where this decision was made.
In fact, there was very little discussion of the actual policy at the Combined Authority
meeting.
It was primarily focused on the implementation aspects.
So can we honestly say that this policy that's been brought forward is the best and have
assurance that this is the right way of doing things?
In my view, we can't.
The next area I want to focus on is the decision -making principles used, specifically the wording
of 2 .2 in the final decision.
Towards the end of the meeting Mr. Seals summed up the next steps and I'm gonna
quote you unfortunately. What happened with it what's happening with the six
schools is then an issue of how the poll has the policy been correctly
applied for these schools and for those six services in particular and great and
the problem is that is not what the decision says. The decision and that's
not what the meeting agreed to. It agreed to engage with affected schools to plan
for proposed changes.
The reading of that is that this is a done deal.
In the meeting, Councillor Lamb made perfectly sensible
changing to the wording, and he had a very reasoned discussion
about the gunning principles.
Engaged with is a very imprecise term.
That was dismissed in the meeting,
and the meeting went ahead and adopted the proposals
as they were set out.
Officers have since, in their doctor submission,
said the wording could have been better and that is actually the whole point of
this. This was rushed through without an amendment. This has been rushed. The
wording as it stands now looks like the decision has already been made. Some of
what has been said in the meeting this implies that decision has already been
made. In fact the rationale in the briefing notice to why the whole
consultation is happening so quickly is because it has implications for the
franchising tender process. Presumably you need to know what busses to go
forward in the tender, if that's the case,
that implies the decision has already been made.
That is all does mean raise a lot of questions in terms
of has this consultation happened
or will the future consultation happen in compliance
with the governing principles.
If that's not the case, there is combined authorities
exposing itself to a legal challenge.
And our job as councillors is to make sure public money is
being used effectively.
And the final concern then, the case for changes
that's been presented.
There are some very valid arguments in the case
to change, and I had a good conversation
with Tim in my role as vice chair and transport lead
on the case to change.
The problem is there's been no real public member -led
discussion on this.
The only discussion at the combined authority meeting
was limited to a very specific section of that, specifically
the inconsistencies between how the policy is implemented
across the different areas.
That was quite a limited discussion.
There was some, Councillor Galton's question didn't really get the adequate answer in my
view and there's still a lot of room for interpretation with that and that is another reason why I
feel that this needs ultimately scrutiny and involvement and actually going, trying to
get some better answers for this.
There were other aspects of the case to change that I could highlight that didn't, that would
warrant further questioning.
And so just to summarise then and in my view there has been an inadequate public scooting on this policy
The time window that we've gone through this. It's been too short in my view. It's been rushed and
The final decision is not robust enough. It does not commit to a proper consultation on the proposed cuts to services and
And we also need to know what it looks like how this policy is going to be room to implemented going forward
and I'm gonna park it there and let
Councillor Felstead make his comments.
I'll keep it brief because I think everybody's touched
on most of the points I'd like to raise.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:18:25
I'm perhaps in a unique position because I've already seen
this change happen locally in my ward.
And one of the questions raised earlier today was
no mention of it within the actual consultation papers,
which I'm really surprised to see.
And from that particular change in transports
to Oakley Grammar by the way, just in case you're wondering.
There was no constructive dialogue with school.
In fact, I actually had to go and see the head of the school
three days before the decision were made
to make arrangements for the following year.
So that's the first floor.
The second floor, and I'm presuming that
the Transport Committee have looked through the papers
and have been provided with all the evidence,
three thousand seven hundred and seventy two respondents but what is the actual size or the head count of parents at the schools because we need to give that figure some context.
If there's twenty thousand parents or twenty thousand pupils conversely it's a small percentage if there are twelve thousand it's a little more significant.
So are we looking at big picture, are we looking at tiny picture with the Transport Committee privy to that detail before they considered making the decisions.
I then started working right away through the consultation and obviously there's a few things that stand out like a sore thumb.
So there's a safeguarding issue for kids who might be displaced from a school bus service
to whatever they're going to use and it's two fold. The Mayor has actually promised
that she's going to do something to tackle serious violence on the streets with a child
first lens. That doesn't appear anywhere in the reports.
Then the second point stemming from that is the kids that aren't going to be put on a
school bus service, how are they going to get to school? And this is a real issue that's
not drawn out within the report. I'm in a situation now where 12 months after the implementation
of a similar policy in Ilkley and Wharfedale, parents can't get the kids to school on time
because bus services don't run at the appropriate time of day. So we've got two choices locally
and it's been raised with the CA for a number of months and we're looking at it and all sorts.
So kids can choose to catch a bus that departs at 7 .15 in the morning, gets them into Ilkley
at 7 .25 and then they have to wait for an hour. There's a safeguarding issue there, if they take
the following bus they get in after school opening time in which case it's a mark against the
attendance record. So a couple of serious concerns there. Do we know where lots of these
children live? Is there a bus service? What if there isn't a bus service? How do they
get to a bus service? Some people in my ward live 2km from the closest bus stop and there
isn't a frequent service. Does it come at the right time? No idea. None of this is detailed
within the report. Now I do note that the bus is coming back under public control and
the Mayor's made a commitment to bring them back under public control but I recall sitting
in this very committee when the Mayor actually said to us bus services that aren't adequately
patronised will be withdrawn. Now the issue here with some of these schools is they're
So if there's a bus service that's going to run to begin with, is it going to run afterwards?
Or is it going to be booked? Which will disadvantage not a great deal of children, but it will certainly disadvantage a few of them.
So there's lots of questions coming out of this. The statistics are absolutely fabulous but meaningless.
Because we don't know what the actual size is, we don't know who the reach is, there's no schooling put here.
And if you go and talk to a school and I did a very lengthy response to the
withdrawal school bus services in Ilkley and Wharfedale with the school and we looked at
various things so walking distances 700 metres is what the National Planning Policy Framework
allows, and that's a 10 to 15 minute walk. If you actually overlay a 700 metre rule on
a map you'll find that lots of kids fall outside that area. So what's the impact on the health?
They're going to be getting up earlier to catch a bus, to get to school, it's going
to extend the day at both ends of the day so is their performance going to deteriorate
cost of this. No idea again. And then the flip side of the coin is, lots of people used
to use the bus service, there are now pupils who used to use the bus service who have been
forced to go on the train and that's caused some issues with send and EHCP. So one of
the things I'm keen to understand is, what's the impact of that versus the cost saving
because obviously it's a lot more expensive to get a kid to school who's got an EHCP or
SEND than it is to get a normal kid to school. Currently what I'm experiencing in Wharfedale
and Hillcly is a shift from public transport to private transport but we live in a wealthy
area, lots of people driving to school which kind of defeats the object of the walking,
cycling wheeling so lots of questions for you guys that's why before we get to
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 0:24:23
the responses members of the scrutiny of you any questions to ask of Councillor
Edwards or Councillor fell said that you'd like them to clarify or any other
points you would like to meet to ask what their views on those were yes
Councillor Thomson.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council) - 0:24:43
For either of you, I was just curious around, you know, referring to the paragraph 2 .2 in the meeting of the Combine Authority where they're talking about members endorse the need to engage in the kind of the adjustment of wording to say undertake further consultation.
Now, my interpretation of undertaking federal consultation to plan for proposed changes
still sounds, and I'm not sure if that's how it sounded to you, but it still sort of sounds
like it's consultation about planning for something that's going to happen as opposed
to, you know, under the gunning principles when they should be of view that we could
change it.
I just wanted to cheque your interpretation of that wording was that it felt like it was
a decision that was going to happen and that there was no kind of in that sentence, it
doesn't read like the decision could be changed.
Matt Edwards - 0:25:45
I'm not 100 % sure I fully understand it, the wording as it stood, my interpretation of
it and I'm not sure if this answers the question, was that the wording as it stood and as it
was passed by the Combined Authority meeting was very imprecise and proposal
was made, half proposal was made to change to tighten the wording to commit to a
full consultation on proposed changes as you would do with changing any bus
service and there is room for doing that and actually that's again as a
proposed alternative wording I mean I still have comments on the proposed
alternative wording but it was linked to that and I think from my view as a
Councillor, papers that we bring and get voted on as members need to be the best that they
can, the decisions need to be, we need to remove the wiggle room for interpretation
because once, it just protects the decision making process and the whole point of using
members is just to have a precise wording. That's my view.
Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:27:00
Thank you, Chair, and I raise this at this moment in time and I'm conscious it's before
points have been raised from the elected member who will call inside and before officers have
spoken as well, but I raise it because I wouldn't want committee members or officers to dwell
on this point too much without the aid of clarity. So the first gunning principle states
Yes, consultation under the label of formative stage.
Consultation must occur when the proposal is still being developed and before a final
decision has been made.
The decision makers should be open to changing their minds based on the consultation feedback.
I'm going to pause there for a moment and just read out that second sentence again for
the benefits of officers and members. The decision makers should be open to changing
their minds based on the consultation feedback. Having said that, there is further case law
because the gunning principles derived from a 1985 case that was decided in 2011 and this
is a court of appeal case and forgive me for sounding incredibly nerdy or boring but that's
part of my role. There was another case involving the London Borough of Brent Council and that
Court of Appeal case states the first gunning principle, by way of reminder the formative
stage, does not preclude consultations taking place on preferred options or a decision in
change. So the key I imagine if I were to step into your shoes members is for you to
determine as a committee to what extent officers can satisfy and assure you that their decision -making
minds remain open to change. I hope that helps committee members and officers.
Thank you. Right, so I've got Councillor Godwin.
Yes, just a quick question too.
Paul Godwin - 0:29:20
Obviously, most people consulted are going to object to anything
which increase cost to them individually.
So, even though it's almost certainly a necessity,
the second element is that the school population changes year
on year.
And while you may have a child that's
in a particular circumstance this year,
next year they might have left school
and that circumstance doesn't exist at all.
And I wonder to what extent you feel the decision -making process is at fault
because it doesn't go down to the granular level
of considering individual children, which is going to change year on year.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:30:03
You're correct, however, having looked at the stats for schools across the whole of
West Yorkshire, the figures remain fairly constant. There is a bit of decline in births
at the minute in certain areas, but that will be reflected in the current stats because
were already in that reduced birth, deaths, whatever cycle. So it will have a tiny insignificant impact.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you, Satinder, for that clarification.
The Gunning principles are very useful.
Thank you.
Jason Rose - 0:30:56
I think my question is, I like to that,
is kind of adjacent to that.
I'd ask Councillors Felstedt,
Felstedt and Edwards, thanks very much
for your representations, again, very clear,
very concise and to the point.
What I would ask is, in the process,
and it is particularly about the process,
are we given an opportunity to discuss our misgivings
about a decision with officers and try and come to a solution or a resolution before
calling, is that part of the process and is that taking place at this point?
Matt Edwards - 0:31:46
I mean my involvement in the process was a very hastily arranged meeting with Tim which
I don't think was ideal for either of us. I was in a service station, he just got to
and getting ready for a consultation event.
And that was, it was either the day before or the day after the papers had already been produced.
I feel with this particular thing and we're talking about policy, there are,
there should be better processes for the combined authority to get member involvement.
And again, I think that's the kind of the question, the answer, were there opportunities?
No. The answer was no, there weren't really because you can't discuss something you're
not really aware of until it's about to happen. Could there have been, in my view, yes? And
that's what we need to get to the bottom of because we've discussed in the committee meeting
several times about the need to get into a point where we're doing pre -scrutiny. The
combined authorities it stands now doesn't seem to like the Scrutiny Committee doing
pre -scrutiny. That's my opinion. And we're now in this situation where if pre -scrutiny
had happened on this, we would have been in this situation.
the policy.
Thank you.
Katie Haigh - 0:33:07
Councillor, you gave quite extensive evidence about existing changes to services. Were they
under the current policy rather than the proposed policy? And secondly, I would just like an
we should be supporting parental preference rather than availability of local schools.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:33:39
Sorry I didn't catch your first question, can you just refresh my memory?
Katie Haigh - 0:33:45
It was the evidence you gave relating to the current policy and its effect on the crime.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:33:51
Right, so in my mind, currently some of these areas might not be served by busses, so that's current policy.
The mayor has made a commitment to reinstate busses once they're under public control.
The caveat to all of that is subject to them being patronised.
So if they're not patronised and you've got a student living in an isolated community, how is he going to get to school?
So that's the first question.
The second question?
Is that a subsidy for any students?
Right, schools, I've always believed you're in a catchment area and you are allowed to choose your preferences.
Normally that works on straight line distance to your closest school, so your closest school might not be your preferred school.
I don't see anything wrong with the current system. If you live in the school's catchment area, you should be a priority in that area.
it shouldn't be, if a parent's electing to take their child out of a local school
to a school that's ten miles away, then that's their decision to make, but they have to live with the consequences, is my opinion.
Matt Edwards - 0:35:06
I'm slightly different, so I think really only the second part applies to me and that relates to what weighting we should be given to parental preference.
I mean, ultimately, I don't think the role of scrutiny
is to go into that kind of policy level decision.
My view is making sure that the policy that's brought forward
is the best that it is, as per the mayor who
is the elected person in this.
I think there's room for us to disagree and not
disagree with policy.
That's politics.
But our role in this capacity of scrutiny
isn't to be bringing that to here.
It's making sure that the policy, as it's written,
there aren't issues with it and that could lead it up for interpretation and problems
later down the line and that's kind of where my objection is focused on.
Katie Haigh - 0:35:57
So is your contention there's a conflict between the Mayor's state of policy and what this
policy will introduce?
Matt Edwards - 0:36:06
No, my view is that the policy is quite a big piece of work and it's been done quite
quickly with it needs to make sure that there aren't we've all seen it where
things or policies were the ring the wording of thing is imprecise and it
leads to interpretation and that's the kind of that's ultimately our job as
scrutiny it's not glamorous
Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:36:33
so this decision that has been subject to call in by members of this committee
is in relation to a combined authority policy not a mayor's policy or the mayor's policy.
Andy Rontree - 0:36:58
Thank you chair. Actually Councillor Haig's question and Councillor Edwards' response has helped me a bit.
But something I was going to ask and can I just make sure understand clearly what?
What you're seeking here councillor Edwards is it?
ultimately, is it a better implementation of the policy and
Is that this and how how do you envisage the the mechanism of the call in as I doubt that the?
An instruction to think again if you like what's your it was a sunny day scenario for?
the perfect outcome and following that,
he thinking again, what would you like to happen?
Thank you.
I think to some extent we need to see what happens
in this meeting just before I really formulate that.
Matt Edwards - 0:37:46
I think it's already worth saying that we've been talking
about this policy for nearly an hour,
which is three times more than the only public discussion
of that and that was a driver behind us doing this
was to make sure that as members who represent
the public, the public can have confidence that councillors are, are, are, are, are actually
just basically representing their views, um, and representing their best interests, um,
which is what we have achieved today to some extent. What I was looking to achieve has
been done. We're here talking about a very important policy. Um, as in terms of what
the recommendations look like, um, we'll have to let the combined authority representatives
to respond and then we can take that from there.
Could you add to that?
Andy Rontree - 0:38:40
Right, so for me this is about process and protocol.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:38:43
So the calling is about revisiting the data, talking to school and getting some lessons learned from school
that's already gone through this process.
None of it is in here.
And I think we're making a decision without understanding the pitfalls.
Thank you, Chair.
Andy Rontree - 0:39:10
Thank you for your presentations.
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 0:39:14
They were well founded and well presented.
And the information you've given us has actually added to the bulk that we've got here today.
I want to go back in terms of the consultation process, if I may, because I think I can see
here from the consultation process, and I had already identified, Zitinder, the formative
stage that you brought to our attention here today, and basically the wording of it is
something that I believe is the basis of any decision -making policy.
I wonder, and I've looked through the papers and I've looked at the percentage of respondents,
what are your views and are you satisfied with the format of the consultation that's
taking place?
Secondly, within the numbers that are within the report, and I haven't seen it and do forgive
me if it's there, what was the indicative percentage of expectation of respondents?
because normally consultations and surveys do put out a basic expectation of replies.
And when I look at page 30 of the table 1 of survey respondents, in total as mentioned
it was 3 ,722. Now I imagine that's got to be put aside, the normal and the amount again
as Bob has mentioned, of the places where the consultation took place.
I haven't seen here, do forgive me again, normally in consultation process,
and conducted through major organisations as well,
we have an identity of where the consultations took place,
Were they places where people, parents could get to, to be informed of it?
And again, typical of what we expect these days in terms of people being able to reply,
it's all about reply to a survey.
Have you a view in terms of where the consultation would have been better in terms of informing the parents
and those who are guardians of children for taking to school,
that that would have enabled more discussion to take place.
And lastly, in terms of the changes that are proposed and again within the document we
are speaking about busses and you both mentioned children with difficult conditions, shall
we say, such as send, et cetera.
Was there any consideration taken in, in your view, of where that need is in demand, may
be affected and has the consultation or any information that you have got, which seems
to be very quick and sudden, looked at any other transport arrangements, i .e. local contracts,
minibusses, et cetera, to help those kind of children?
Thank you, Chair.
There are excellent questions.
I would say that would be, I think the fact that those questions exist demonstrates why
Matt Edwards - 0:42:33
this needs more member involvement.
I'm not saying that that hasn't happened and those questions haven't asked, but they've
not happened and been asked in the public realm.
And I think that's again why we need to fight what we need to use this as an
Example as to why the process as to why how policy is being formulated isn't in my view working at the moment
Because those questions if we've not been here today
Those questions wouldn't have been asked by a counsellor before that policy was implemented and they're good questions
In fact, I don't think it's really fair for me
well
I don't want to go into the level of that detail because again
I think that's the questions that really we should have had the opportunity to talk to
officers about and that's the whole point of this.
So thank you for just illustrating some of the questions that councillors should be asking
on this.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 0:43:29
Yeah, I think you should have come to us all in the first instance, to be honest with you
Betty, so that we've got a chance to feed it out to communities to actually get the
number of respondents up.
I mean stats are great when you're presented with them like this.
I'll give you a great example of a stat I've been working on for some time.
So in the state of the region report produced by these guys, it said GVA in
West Yorkshire went up by 13 .6 % compared to the UK's 11.
Sounds fantastic, doesn't it?
The key bit of information missing is what is the value of GVA per region?
you actually find out it's 23 .7 less than the rest of the UK so one figure paints a
picture and another figure paints a different picture. And I think at the heart of this,
I'll come back to it, it is about respondents, it is about getting it into schools at the
first stage that they've got an opportunity to communicate this to parents and I think
that is a fundamental issue. The first place we should go to with engagement is the affected
school, hospital, whatever it is, so they can disseminate that information to the cohort
of people who actually use the facilities so that it gives maximum exposure to what's
going on. Putting it out online and saying oh this is going on that, I mean I don't know
how they've advertised this but I look at CA polls quite frequently because I'm included
in the emails and I look at the number of respondents and I think is that statistically
significance and that's why I come back to this figure of 3722 people of how many is
the fundamental thing for me because I've worked in, well not marketing, I've worked
in software but marketing is part of what I used to do and you can present it with figures
and you can make some horrible decisions based on a really tiny percentage so for me it's
It's kind of flawed at first stage and that echoes precisely what it went through with Oakley -Grenner.
They knew nothing about it, so...
Well, in terms of Godwin, Paul Gee, the opposite of the other way...
Paul Godwin - 0:45:46
Yes, I just want to be slightly devil's advocate on that remark from Bob.
The trouble with the consultation process is that most people aren't interested.
Most people don't participate, even if it affects them.
And I think that's our general experience of consultations.
Secondly, this is very much limited
to the people who have children who might avail themselves
of a bus, which is itself limited, again.
And thirdly, this is dominated by support for Christianity.
So you're limiting, again, to people who are Christians
and who may wish to send their children to these schools
and use busses in this way.
because obviously Asian people underrepresented who probably
don't, but may well use Christian schools.
And it's, again, people who may need to send their children out
of the area and don't avail themselves
of the religious schools in the area, such as the case
in Keithley, for example.
So you've got a very selected minority in the first place.
And I don't think you can criticise the fact
that it's underrepresented.
The second thing is I don't think
it's the responsibility of a scrutiny committee
to take that opportunity, which is what you seem to imply.
That's the job of the councils who
are represented in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority
to sort that out.
And this has been, I would have said,
given maximum publicity in Bradford.
Everybody's aware about the changes in the busses
because it's been in the news forever,
due to maybe a clumsy decision -making process
in Bradford.
So I think it's unfair to complain
complain about consultations when it's extremely difficult to get consultation responses anyway, but that's just the point I'd like to make.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:47:51
I'll make a start and thank you everybody for the presentation and questions so far.
I know school transport is a really powerful issue for a lot of people.
I think my first bit of council of casework when I was elected in
2003 was school transport issue, so I know
The impact it has
Nobody knows anything about where my ward is
But it is a rural area just have a lot of school transport issues and there's a lot of issues here that I've engaged with
Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council) - 0:48:26
Over the years and I think as well in that recognising that the school transport is a complex picture in that some
Some services are provided under the framework of the combined authority.
Some are provided by schools themselves.
Some are provided with funding from local authorities.
Often as we've talked about the number of children in an area, it's often when there's
been a particularly high number of children in an area.
So it is a complex picture and one that we do a lot of work on.
And also, another thing as well is a big advocate
for public transport.
I think if children and young people
have a good experience of their bus to school,
it may make people more likely to catch busses in later life.
If people have a poor experience,
then again it might cloud people's view of public transport.
And I think so far there's been pretty much a consensus
that we do want public transport to be better
and better used in West Yorkshire.
So turning to the, I think I will,
so we're not all repeating ourselves on the top table
and to get through the meeting.
I think there's a few points I'd like to make,
particularly around the combined authority decision -making
and I can say when I briefly introduced myself earlier,
I was a member of the Combined Authority
and I checked I was at both the meetings
that the initial call for consultation in April 2000,
April the third, and then the meeting
that decision's been called in on July the 24th.
I think there's a couple of things
I think's really important around the process.
And I'll take it that the whole committee's read,
not just the papers for this meeting, but the April 3 paper, which is a relatively short
paper, and then the July 24 paper.
I do think it's important on the clarity of timescale that when we, as a combined authority,
started out on this process, there's a number of things.
First of all, we recognise the policy hadn't been updated since 2019.
Obviously there's been a lot of changes in the world since 2019.
It was important that the policy was reviewed.
Clearly we go into that when we review a policy we are always aware that an outcome is it
could change.
We don't review a policy knowing it's not going to change and that was recognised when
we went into it.
In terms of some of the more detailed questions about timescales again it is
When we took that decision to consult on the policy and on April the third this year
We were taking that decision mindful that the paper committed to
Changes that could come from reviewing that policy could start in September
2026 so we did we were fully mindful in that process
that it was setting in process a sequence of events
that would come back with a revised policy
and any recommendations for change in that policy
could be implemented from September 2026.
So I don't think there's any question
that the timetable of how changes would be brought forward
was unclear moving through that policy.
And again, clearly, there was always,
Right from the start there was a possibility there would be changes because when like I say when you revise a policy you don't go
Into it thinking over that our revision is going to be agreeing
It's right all along and the case for change was set out then I think that brings us forward to the July
24th paper which wasn't a decision around individual services. There are some services in there that
It recommends are looked at and I'm sure Tim in particular or maybe councillor Carlisle will pick that up
But I do think the process has been clear in terms of right
from instigating the review of the policy,
recognising that changes could come in from September 2026,
that that sequence has been very clear
and in the minds of combined authority members
right from the very start.
And I think that, again, people looking at the process will have understood that timescale there.
So I don't think there's been, as has been suggested, it has been a process that is not being clear around the timescales.
As we've already discussed, so I won't cover it again, we've gone into it with a view that the consultation was important on the policy.
But the policy determining the policy is different from looking about how that applies to different
Individual services and the decision we took on July the 24th was revising the policy with some consequential decisions
With it, we know some consequential
Services that will be looked at again in light of that policy, but the fact that those services were there was clearly
Indicated right at the start because it did recognise some of the changes could come in in September
I will leave my comments there.
Thank you.
Peter Carlill - 0:53:59
I will come in if you don't mind,
with a few more,
and then others will pick up
the specific points.
I will echo Councillor Lewis' point.
We have been very clear through this
that school transport is a very emotive topic.
I was very aware,
and I know there will be a number of concerns
around how the policy has gone,
there are a number of concerns
around the consultation.
I received many from my own community,
as well as those wider from other councillors around the city and from residents around the city.
Just a little bit around why I think we started.
Well, there's one thing I think I do want us to remember through this.
Many, in fact the majority of children, do walk, cycle or use public transport to get to school.
We're looking at those that have a specific school bus provided by the combined authority here.
Not every child has that and the main reason for bringing forward the review of the policy is that inconsistency across West Yorkshire
That's come from a range of things
inheriting services from different local authority policies that they had originally a different geography of local authorities and
Services brought in when national guidance was at a different position than it is now. It's left us with services that
Aren't a consistent picture across West Yorkshire that the that is clearly recognised. I think by
by most members and by people in the consultation.
The policy review, therefore, was to ensure that consistent
and equitable approach across West Yorkshire,
which is something that I think we want to go forward
into franchising with, a consistent and equitable
bus service for everywhere, including then
the public transport service.
And through the consultation, there was clear support
for the objectives that we laid out that we'd like to see
around school busses in West Yorkshire.
I will just point to Councillor Felstead's point.
We did contact all elected members in West Yorkshire
around the consultation,
as well as every single school was contacted
that currently has a school bus, I should qualify,
and all the school bus pass holders,
so all of those that are provided with a school bus pass,
were contacted as well.
So I think what is a benefit here is,
unlike a very public consultation, we do have a quite engaged set of people that we have the contact details of.
I can think of many West Yorkshire -wide or Leeds City -wide consultations that have been appropriate for everyone,
where we've had fewer than 3 ,700 respondents. So I'm in fact very happy with the level of response we've had over this.
There were a number of options that were close in terms of when you look at the preferred options people had chosen of the four we put out.
However, then when you looked at the feedback, as I did very delicately in looking through the recommendation that was given to the CA,
it was clear that the
Separate comments that people have provided
Gave more clarity to why they had put a particular option through and were able to be used to separate those out a little bit
Hence the recommendation to the CA was there to ensure we had a policy at white at West Yorkshire that was fit for purpose
We absolutely recognised the need to consult with schools where a specific arrangement may not
continue in the same way it has previously.
And I think that clarification in the report provides
a view of where I always knew we were.
Any school service that will change
will be consulted with that school.
We review school services every year anyway
as part of the standard policy that's been in place
for a long time and they are reviewed consistently.
But every school will be contacted in terms of that.
And just to clarify, the policy that the CA made the decision to go forward
guarantees that every child will have an option to get to their nearest suitable school.
Either by walking, cycling, public transport or by a dedicated school bus as an option.
If they can use those three methods first, we would prefer them to walk, cycle or use public transport
rather than the dedicated school bus provided as many other young people across West Yorkshire already do
and find it easy to in many ways.
I will just make, just as a final comment, one separate point.
This doesn't affect local authorities' requirements to provide free transport to a number of young people,
many of whom have provided a bus pass on the public transport network.
That isn't part of this decision. This is around which school busses the CA provide.
And it doesn't affect local authorities' policies around SEMS transport.
That is a separate policy that local authorities have.
sometimes the combined authority may in fact contract that on their behalf or
manage that on behalf of a local authority but they are requirements
local authorities make. They're not I don't think for the discussion today
here. Okay. Thank you chair just a few more points for me to build on some of
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 0:59:03
the points that have been made. I think if we start just to re -emphasise the
point that what we're doing here is reviewing and considering through the
policy decision that went to the CA,
what has been a very long and evolving change of policy
in terms of the configuration of school busses over time
and how they've evolved over time.
And to some extent, those then were inherited
by the combined authority as a result of changes
in constitution arrangements.
Absolutely appropriate to do that in light of both
the changes subsequent from COVID,
changes in travel habits,
but also in terms of a proprietary need to make sure
that we were consistent going into bus franchising
to make sure that we've got a set of arrangements which are consistent from a policy both from
a school point of view and from a general public transport point of view as well.
So it is really important that we give ourselves the time to do that.
In my briefing notes, again, just to re -emphasise another point in the original 2 .2 recommendation,
again, I would question it is often difficult to differentiate between consultation and
engagement but for point of clarification and to recognise the fact that there may have
misinterpretation of that it is for me important to make clear that what we
absolutely are doing through the paper that went in July is seeking request to
implement a new policy and in doing so the paper then highlighted schools which
are by the application of that policy out of policy and therefore subject to
further consultation to ensure the application of the policy has been taken
and interpreted correctly. The paper the briefing paper also sets out in
Section 7 a really detailed timeline which again I hope gives committee members comfort that there is a detailed and
very well considered process that we would then follow to make sure that
That schools have the opportunity to ensure that the application of the policy has been properly interpreted
So for example, if our expectation is that there is a safe walking route and in fact
There is not a safe walking route
Then obviously we will reconsider the application of of that policy on a case -by -case basis
As council Carlisle has made clear, you know throughout this process we've done really detailed engagements with schools
ahead of both the consultation starting as a consequence of the consultation completing and ahead of the paper
Publication that took place in July as well. So all of those things, you know have both been done
But will continue throughout this process
So there is you know, no shortage of of good quality engagement and consultation taking place with schools across the board
I will stop there, Chair, and perhaps welcome some comments.
For Balsam Barrow.
You wouldn't say you would, would you?
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:01:50
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:01:52
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:01:54
I would just make a very few comments, Chair, because the comments that I would have made
have been ticked off my list by the contributions of others.
I think the first thing I would say is that we have had a very internal and robust process
within the organisation
Specifically to address many of the issues that have been flagged by members of the scrutiny committee as you would expect
We know we we do challenge the processes that we put ourselves through to make sure that they are fair and equitable
Second thing is that as as Councillor Lewis has said
The core purpose here was to create a policy framework that was holistic,
that did think about the needs of school children in the round
across West Yorkshire on a fair and equitable basis.
And it's important, I think, not to lose sight of that objective.
The third point I was going to make is on consultation.
Tim has outlined the specifics there.
But the point I would make is that we typically run consultations
that are by necessity a survey because you want to ask everybody the same questions and
make that accessible to all, but we then follow that up with a process of more in -depth targeted
engagement.
Now, I think the use of the term engagement is what has caused the challenge, an issue
of clarification here.
We tend to see engagement as that kind of next level of engaging with people to help
them complete the questions in the survey so that we've got that in -depth knowledge
particularly from affected groups and that was done in this case too.
The next thing I'd say is that in terms of the relationship between Transport Committee
and the Combined Authority in terms of what decisions are taken where it is important
I think to remember that the committees, the subcommittees are just that.
The combined authority is the decision -making body.
It determines what it delegates down to other committees
and what views it takes into account.
And as the paper set out both in April and then in July,
all local authority members were approached.
But on this occasion, the combined authority
took the decision, which of an issue of this magnitude,
I think is right and proper that the combined authority
felt that was not something that could be delegated.
But members were involved, and the presence here
of Councillor Carlu demonstrates that.
The final point I'd make is the issue of,
was this rushed through, the issue of pace?
The core timeline, as Tim has set out,
was worked out many, many, many months before,
because this process went through a long process
of calibration.
The key thing was to ensure that decisions weren't taken at a point in the annual cycle
that would leave parents making choices for systems that are then changed or schools in
adequate time to prepare parents for what was coming.
So the July decision was giving enough time for any schools to be engaged with before
any changes that would not, as the paper has clearly set out, would not come into effect
before the start of the school year is September 2026.
So this process has been carefully thought through
to minimise any short -term impacts of any policies.
And finally, of course, as others have said,
and it's really important to hold in mind,
this, the July decision was about the adoption of a policy,
not about the agreement to any impact
on any individual school.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:05:40
Who would like to start asking questions of our guests?
Yes, Councillor Rhodes.

6 Call In - Decision of the Combined Authority on 24 July 2025

Cllr Betty Rhodes - 1:05:54
Thank you all for adding value to this morning's debate as we are having it.
First of all, Tim, and it has been mentioned a few times,
can you determine what a safe route is encapsulating?
What information do you use to call it a safe route?
Because obviously, unfortunately, I'll say these days,
lots of parents are very, very concerned
about what happens on route to schools.
I think that's the first one.
The second one is,
And I'll come back to you, if I may, Peter.
The second one was a comment that you made,
that every school who had this service
was actually contacted.
The school was contacted.
Can you tell me what that contact was?
How was it instructed and delivered
to the parents who were actually involved
in the need of said service, which is very important in terms of redistribution of the
faith, so to speak. And lastly, I think that I felt a little bit aggrieved that we had
to get a lesson in what was the difference between consultation and engagement. I think
those around the table involved in scrutiny are well aware of the difference of it. But
the difference may not have been that open to people out there in understanding the importance
of what a consultation in terms of any priorities is and are and could be for the future. So
I'll leave it at that for the moment, if I may.
Tim, do you want to start?
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:07:55
Yeah, I'll just start picking up on the safe walking route. So the safe walking route has to include footways and footpaths
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:07:56
Which don't require children to walk on main roads or side roads without any provision to them
Safe crossing points need to be included as well and safe step offs across that route
Do you regard should also be given to things like canals and rivers and ditches and also the speed of traffic and field division?
For pedestrians and motorists as well. So it's quite range quite wide ranging guidance, which specifies the precise definition and again
We can happily share that with with members should they need to see the precise wording of that but there is
Legislation which sets out very precisely what that looks like and again, you know to my earlier point chair
If we've misinterpreted what we believe because clearly not every child will take the same route to walk to school
They'll start from a different point of origin as you might well expect making sure that those are you know are
Well considered and we have taken due regard as to what we considered to be safe
The whole point of engaging in consulting with the schools
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:08:52
Do you want to do the letters to the schools because it came from you?
Do you want to do that? Okay, yes. Thanks a lot if you want to come back on that particular point.
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:09:18
I'm sorry, could you just clarify the question, as in when they were last updated for what?
Can you tell me the last time any of these safer routes were actually investigated or
updated in terms of their safety?
They are done on a case -by -case basis but they're only done when it is a decision that
we consider that might be a safe working with.
So what we don't do is routinely go out and survey every safe walking route for every child for every school bus because clearly that would be an impossibility.
Well I appreciate what you've demanded, I think there's a question worth asking in terms of parents.
And lastly, is opportunity?
Peter Carlill - 1:10:08
I'll just add to that one if I can briefly as well, because I interrogated some of this.
So as my role as deputy chair, then I have briefings with Tim very regularly.
And I think what I wanted to do is make sure I was interrogating the recommendation before I went to the CA in that way, really.
I did a couple of things in order to do that.
One is I asked a number of questions about routes in my area so I would understand them.
There's a route I would not consider safe.
And when I questioned it, the reason we provide a school bus in that area is because that route,
which there is a footpath all the way,
but it's along a 40 mile per hour road.
I, as a parent of an 11 year old,
wouldn't allow my child to walk that
and was given the reassurance
that we wouldn't deem that as safe
and hence we provide school bus
for those residents in that area.
There's other routes I would feel were safe
and yet absolutely, the CA felt that.
That will be covered in the consultation
when any decision is taken
to consult with the school over their arrangement.
So if we believe a walking route is an alternative,
then that whole route will be reviewed, but then there will be a consultation of whether parents feel that route is safe or not.
And I'm sure we'll have some really interesting discussions and debates about whether that is safe.
There may be routes which we say, actually that's not safe yet, but maybe it would be if we were able to do some more work as a CA using some of our work we do around schools.
But let's see how that goes as and when individual routes might be looked at.
In terms of the communication to the schools, there was a letter to the head teachers of schools that have dedicated bus services provided by the CA.
I'm sure in the majority of cases, and they were most of the feedback I got came from, that was then shared with parents or put in the school newsletters etc.
We can't guarantee that every school did that, but we did also then write to all school bus pass holders.
So the majority of individuals on these bus routes who get the school bus pass would have then received that information directly
and
It was shared around I think especially those schools where they were most concerned which were a lot of faith schools
I think where where they were aware they weren't necessarily the nearest
School somebody was they've made a choice to go to school some distance away
In terms of that we and as I say, I mean I was very happy with 3 ,700 responses
I think is a very good amount of responses leading through.
There was a lot of detail in that to read through.
And the consultation versus engagement,
I think there's a bit of an aside on this
and some of that's the wording of the report.
What I understood would happen
and I think what CA members understood would happen
is if there was ever a suggestion
that a route wouldn't continue as a dedicated school bus,
that there would be a consultation with the school
and we would take into account any comments people had
around whether the alternative was safe
and or
Whether there were specific needs for that dedicated school bus before making any decision on that service and the same will happen with the six
Schools that have been identified to start that process and ready for September 26. I think that answered all your questions council
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:13:12
Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council) - 1:13:19
Thank you, so council rose didn't direct question we but I do
There was really useful point there Betty around
hopefully not to spend all day arguing about the meaning of the words
consultation engagement I think one thing you've referenced your scrutiny
work in Wakefield I think one of the things you know there's councillors from
six councils sat around in this meeting today I think one of the things that
reading the materials and hearing what members have said already been
absolutely crystal clear about what a consultation is from changes around it
something that the regardless of the outcome of this meeting I do think it is
something that we at the Combined Authority really really really clear
around when we when we say consultation what that means and I do think in terms
of I mean clearly the call in today is on the specific paper around the policy
but in terms of being clear around it is council Carlisle has said around
individual service have been really clear what consultation means I think is something like I say we
It's something we are really rigorous about
We are really rigorous about in Leeds about what consultation is when it starts what's been consulted on when it stops
How the outcome is dealt with and I think that is something
Certainly listening to what people have said today is something that we need to be really clear about the combined authority
As well, like I say, there's probably
Six, like I said, there's six councils sat around the table plus a combined authority says that's seven different organisations
Probably seven slight variants on that
But I do think like I said, it's been really really clear from the combined authority when we say consultation
This is how it works is something
the in this
Landmark first call in is something I think has has has come out of this meeting for me around that
So thank you for raising that
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:15:11
Thank you, right I've got counsellor Rontree then counsellor Thompson then counsellor H
Andy Rontree - 1:15:20
Thank you chair, um, I don't share
counsellor Rose irritation about the definition of
The time is put into defining consultation verse versus in engagement. I think it's although this thing is worth worth spelling that out
I'm thinking from where we are now, we're looking to go to the affected schools for
some detailed and probably difficult discussions in a lot of instances.
And I'm just sort of thinking in the course of these discussions and what comes out of
and
How we what we're left with afterwards may not
mean that the closures in the term of services in the terms that we're thinking of at the moment and
What's?
What does that mean for the financial envelope? So I'm just thinking I don't know if finance is a driver behind this
I don't think it is behind the policy choice, but
Finance always matters if you're not cutting the services
Does that mean there will have to be cuts elsewhere? We got how is that going to be handled? Thank you
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:16:36
He wants to take that one. I can take that one from a political side and then
Peter Carlill - 1:16:43
The finance wasn't the the reason to start this in the first place really because and
The reason to start it is because when you look over it and I've had a list of all services provided
some time ago with all the details, you can very clearly see that there's inconsistent
provision across West Yorkshire. You see that then in the responses to the consultation
which feeds in that, I mean, Wakefield have next to no services provided by the Combined
Authority, they in fact have private school busses provided by Areva, that's something
that we're looking to obviously because we'll take those on under franchising, but it's
very different. Had I looked at it and reviewed the feedback and it had been very different,
I would have had no hesitation in recommending that we triple the amount of services and
giving that as a problem to Ben with his budget to try and find. But that wasn't where the
recommendation came to really when looking at the options. But no, if we end up and six
services here are looked at and it works out that two of those after consultation we don't
agree have a safe alternative then I don't think we're in any concern about
not providing that there we've identified that we'll look at those six
to see whether alternatives are provided and if there is a safe alternative we'll
remove that we then come to the franchising process which gives us an
opportunity to change bus services if we wish to so if there isn't an alternative
we could then look at the bus network over a number of years and decide maybe
there's alternatives we could change in order to provide an alternative for
But that's something we'll have to do obviously over over time
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:18:18
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:18:19
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:18:21
And just just briefly tried for me and you'll see from the paper that came forward actually even if we were to
implement the six schools that have been proposed actually the
Budget savings are really quite modest in the order about two hundred thousand pounds per year relative to a 90 million pound budget
So, you know, I would support council Carlo, you know, this was not born from a process of budget saving
this is a post born from the process of
a
Means to allow us to get to a more consistent and equitable service and its application across the districts
Okay
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:18:48
Councillor Thompson Councillor Hage and Councillor Lawson
Yes, thank you chair
Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council) - 1:18:55
and I'd say the kind of that response that we've just got now is probably more clear than what's been out publicly in terms of
the
future consultation with schools and
Because I was conscious and it's partly why I asked the only question and there was a there's a comment from the chair of the trans
committee that was talking about we will engage
with stakeholders and the parents and carers
of the small number of children affected.
So I think if you're a parent reading that,
you think I will be affected.
And also, it will be engagement, not consultation.
But helpfully, it sounds like that if you go to a school
and counsellor Mrs. Carr will probably shoot me
if I don't mention the C6 bus policy.
If you go across the heap and look at that bus,
and it's determined there's not a safe alternative route,
obviously the option is there to say,
we will continue providing that route,
which is a lot clearer than I think we've had in the past.
I know we're not specifically, it's
nothing to do with the kind of EHCP and that policy
and those individual policies in terms of local government.
But there may be on these services,
if they are pulled and also in the wider
context of this policy, an impact on children with EHCPs.
Now, it's not that individual policy,
but you could end up in a situation say where in an EHCP for example this
specific school is listed as the setting and the bus were pulled and there would
be an impact in terms of potentially that child may need to get homeschool
transport. I know it's not about that policy but was that kind of impact
considered in this because there may be a knock -on in this policy in effect for
send children and those on centre part as well so I just wondered if it was
Considered even though we're not looking at our policy
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:20:35
I think it was considered because again
I think you know
There are inevitably examples of where EHCP children do use general network services or indeed these dedicated school busses
and don't have the need to recourse to
Specific standalone transport arrangements, but again the purposes of
both the
Equality impact assessment that window talk for this for this decision and the subsequent consultation that we saying takes place is to actually allow us
To identify where those instances exist and again
We've already had some correspondence on the school in Bradford to that exact end from from both apparent and award counsellor
So, you know, we are aware of that and that will absolutely be built into the into that consultation that will take place
Council hate then councillor Washington
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:21:23
Katie Haigh - 1:21:27
You have just mentioned the equality impact assessment but it is alleged in the call in
notices that that was not provided or considered as part of this decision. Could you clarify
that please?
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:21:41
Well it was included in the papers and it was part of the decision making process that
was afforded to members to take the decision so I would argue that it was made available
and was part of that decision -making process.
Stan Lawson.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:21:54
Thank you, Jeff.
We've heard today about providing a consistent
and equitable service throughout the Barra,
which is a good aim.
Nobody's gonna deny that.
When we talk about services being withdrawn though,
Are we talking about consistent and equitable alternative?
And I think that was raised in the beginning
representations.
Road safety is mentioned once in the report
that we've got in front of us.
But it seems to be a really big concern
in the open questions that have come
Jason Rose - 1:22:36
through the current consultation.
Now that asked the question,
Should we have a baked in question about road safety and and alternatives?
And not just about road safety but infrastructure about what's happening in your area. There just seems to be a little bit of a
If we're going to look at these alternative routes of walking and infrastructure
After we've made decisions
John Lawson - 1:23:03
It just seems as though that perhaps we should be doing some of that reporting beforehand and that that information should be available to people
before they then go and start thinking about their own alternatives for their child to travel to school.
I can come in on that. I think
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:23:20
really it's focusing on the implementation of this policy and how that will go forward, I think.
Peter Carlill - 1:23:26
The policy says there must be a consistent alternative. Yeah, there must be walking, cycling or a public transport alternative to this.
There will be many views from parents at school in whether that alternative is suitable or not,
and that's something we're going to have to review as we go through.
I think I'll be playing to you when we've done it a number of times.
I'm sure we'll be able to much clearer give you what that feedback is.
At the moment we're only just starting to engage with those schools.
There is a policy around the safety of that, and we will have, you know, 12 months to suggest to people now
what alternative route we think may be possible
for their young people, and then a consideration
to let them know in time of, in September,
what decision we'll be making.
So there will be a period of that.
I think when I was talking about infrastructure
and improvements, let's say we looked at one of these now,
and were of the view that a walking route wasn't suitable.
Then we could maybe think, well, maybe in two,
three years time, a walking route would be suitable.
Let's move that to a later stage in the process in the same way. We could look and say there's no public transport option here
Well, we may look at it now and say well when we're controlling the network
Is there an opportunity here to do something different with the public transport network? So these young people can get to school. I
Am confident through looking at it that
When people have been considering the road safety in a safe route to school the public transport network whether it is safe
whether there is an alternative, whether there is enough space on the bus is something else that has been considered,
that when we are suggesting there's an alternative route for this, a really good review has been done on that.
We will then get feedback from parents of what they think about that and from young people themselves and from the school
and that will be the time I think where we'll be able to see what's there.
But there was clear support for the objectives in this policy that I think are what we will be driven by,
that people do believe young people should be walking, cycling or using public transport to get to school where that is available.
I am sure we will have debate about whether people think that's suitable or not.
But that's for, I guess, the next stage of this and for us to see maybe when the next decision comes forward how that has come about in these different instances.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:25:51
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 1:25:56
I'm a bit concerned that the issue seems to be we will do this after. Has none of this
really, but has none of that been taken into account now when you're looking at a safe
route because you've mentioned the methodology of getting there. So is this an afterthought
or is there information now on those routes? I'm not asking you to go over all Bradford,
Kirklees, Croydon, et cetera. The routes you know now, has there been any update and any
information looked on it in relative to the plan and the proposal because if you're saying
now you might be able to look at this and he said Tim you said look at this six later
on. Now if I've misread or misheard please tell me because I don't want to have the tail
wagging the dog or whether the dog should be wagging the tail here. Clarity please Tim.
Yeah, I can clarify that Tim if you want to come in.
Yeah.
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:27:13
There are suggested alternatives to the routes
Peter Carlill - 1:27:16
that to the school busses that are here.
What we haven't done is engaged to find out
whether people agree that they are alternatives.
So we have suggested alternatives for these six.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have named six schools as possible
to go in.
They have been checked for a number of things.
Maybe Tim can go into detail exactly what they are.
What they haven't been done is tested on the ground with parents.
And that's, I think, why I'm being cautious of those,
because as a parent of a child that goes to secondary school this year myself,
it would be up to me to decide whether I thought that room was safe for my child to walk.
So, CA officers have come up with an alternative.
Forgive me, Peter, a chair.
No, dear, absolutely, yeah.
There are just some niggles that need to be identified.
What were the people that you just mentioned? Who were the people you just mentioned?
In terms of these routes?
In terms of who have identified the routes?
Yeah, you just said that there was a discussion with other people. Who were the other people?
Not sure if I mentioned the word people, but that might be me not remembering exactly what I've worded.
But in terms of it, officers at the CA
have identified possible alternatives
to these bus routes that are there.
That's the one we need further information on, I think,
which would be very helpful, Chair, if you don't mind.
But a decision hasn't necessarily
been taken on these six routes.
So I'd come back slightly, maybe, to the decision there.
It is then for a consultation to begin on these six routes
to see whether that alternative is true or not.
What I don't want to do is prejudge
whether that alternative is deemed appropriate
for the parents of that school and the young people
that go to it I guess is why I'm being very careful in my approach and yeah as a parent
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:29:02
myself I wouldn't like the combined authority necessarily telling me it was safe for my
child to walk to school or not at that time.
Appreciate it.
Chair, the last bit of that Tim which I think should knit it all together is what you've
just told us today.
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 1:29:15
Part of a written policy statement in the implementation plan.
Well, anyway, if Tim is going to come in and then Mr. Still is wanting to...
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:29:24
Yeah, just to add to Peter's point.
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 1:29:29
So not only have we assessed whether we think there is a reasonable alternative, either
be that public transport or through a safe walking route, because the vast majority of
pupils that use these services are registered users.
We know where they live and we've looked at individual places of residence relative to
the school and plotted what we think would be the most reasonable and intuitive walking
route or their walking route to the nearest bus stop to catch an alternative bus or public
transport option as well. So that has already been done on a case by case basis.
I agree. Tim, can I just interject? Do forgive me, Chair. We're not getting the clarity here.
I've heard that and I appreciate that. But my point is this. You've got down here on
chronology that you have worked through and on the 24th of July it actually mentions the
proposed policy and the implementation plan. That's good. The second part of my question
is you have just identified that there may be a situation where the routes that you have
looked at now may have to come for further consideration. Is that part of the written
implementation plan.
Yeah, it's included in the briefing notes.
The word and I've just said is imposed in the implementation plan.
So the implementation plan for the next phase of the process is the
detailed table set out in section 7, I believe it is.
I appreciate that I've seen it. My question still needs to be answered. Is the information we've been given today
about
the safe travel that we just want to get clarified.
Is the future in terms of that plan here implementation?
Does that actually mention there that if any of the routes
that are identified within the schools affected
are not classified as safe enough,
that then they will be revisited and reviewed?
Yeah, so there's a stage in there which is described as evaluate results and make recommendations
and what you're describing is contained within that task.
Okay, we just needed to be sure it was written in.
Thank you, Tim.
Thank you, Philip.
Peter.
Thank you, Chair.
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:31:48
I think that Tim has picked up the point I was going to make, which is just this clarification
again that the discussion here is about the policy and the adoption of the policy by the
combined authority in July, no decisions, I can be a bit bolder than Councillor Carter,
no decisions have been taken on the implementation of that policy on any specific school.
Those will come forward to a future combined authority for decision.
Thank you.
Right.
I've got Councillor Edwards, then Councillor Palestad, then Councillor Rose.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:32:23
I'm going to ask a question a bit, almost as if I was a different person making this
Matt Edwards - 1:32:30
call and it's more of a general scrutiny question.
In the report 4 .37, it says that, so it relates to the implementation, in September 2026 a
total of six school services have been identified for withdrawal.
I have a couple of questions on that.
One, and that actually immediately feeds into what Ben has just said, should the word potential
have been included in there rather than identified for withdrawal, it's potential withdrawal.
That way the public can have confidence that it's a genuine consultation process.
Two, what did that process look like?
I think that was the kind of the crux of what Councillor Rhodes was saying
And I think there is work potentially for scrutiny to do some greater and more in -depth work on that particular aspect of things and
then three
Were these the only scores that didn't meet the criteria?
Yeah, it said six were have been identified as and that's what you're moving forward with but were any other scores identified
as being potentially borderline or
or
Meeting criteria, but there are other reasons why they're not being considered
Yeah
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:33:46
So I accept the you know, the wording on 4 .37 probably could have been clear in terms of potential or possible inclusion
So I think that's that that's a fair point
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:33:55
But to that point the previous paragraph does make clear that there is
The need to still do that engagement and consultation with their schools ahead of that that change taking place
So I think it is the context of the wider conversation as opposed to the specifics in the paragraph per se
In terms of the application of the policy
there are other schools that don't immediately meet the
Policy are set out the reasons for those not being brought for at the moment is because they're much more complicated and there's much
more complex arrangements in place for those schools and
to counsel Carlisle's point as well the opportunity that
Franchising allows us is to make sure that actually if there are alternatives in place
We have the ability to make those changes ahead of any changes being proposed
So it's a configuration of the network as much as whether or not they meet immediate policy of itself. I
Think it's really important to make the point that just because the school doesn't necessarily meet
Policy doesn't mean that we have a statutory requirement to remove it
At the earliest opportunity the whole point of this process is to bring forward our views on those schools on a case -by -case basis
Relative to the revised policy and make sure that we've understood their application and interpretation correctly
Thanks for the first ed
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:35:08
Yeah, yeah
Just specifically that last point and suggesting that this wiggle room
Matt Edwards - 1:35:17
The my understanding is the whole point of this was to make sure the policy was being implemented consistently
But you're saying that there's now wiggle room and that could be done on a case -by -case
Basis and that kind of is a bit contradictory. Sorry Tim. Well
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:35:36
What I what I'm what I was attempting to articulate was the the application of the policy is a
Process that you a wouldn't do over in one single
exercise because of its scale and complexity but also
Application of the policy over time changes on the nature of the way that the network is configured and again
With the near -term opportunity that franchising allows what we want to make sure is that we use that as an opportunity to make sure that
That schools services have given that you know given that opportunity to
to put in place reasonable alternatives
It's the clarifying question and sorry so if
Matt Edwards - 1:36:12
Some schools are identified
And we're saying that franchising potentially could be a solution, then presumably the combined
authority won't be making decisions about that until franchising is complete.
And which, I mean, I appreciate medium term, but certainly some parts of West Yorkshire
aren't going to be happening for a good, what year are we in?
Three, four years.
And even then there'll be a lot going on.
So I mean, this was, point was made in the meeting that franchising gives us an opportunity.
These changes are going to be implemented before franchising happens.
So I think we need to be really careful about that, saying that.
Peter Carlill - 1:36:53
I'll be a bit clearer on it, really from that.
The schools identified have alternatives.
So the schools that are listed here have alternatives already,
either walking, cycling or public transport routes.
There are some that may not fit the policy that don't have alternatives.
If franchising allows us that alternative,
decisions on those haven't been taken and I guess whether the monetary officer
wants me to answer that question or not is a different point but a point will
come to decisions around those services I would much rather and I think everyone
would much rather we'd make those decisions at the point we've had a chance
to influence that network so there will be a first round of franchising we could
look at some school services after that in order to allow us to provide
alternatives to where is where we're currently providing a school bus at the
We will then continue doing that over a number of years and the implementation plan suggests this will be a number of years
So just to clarify and I'll come to your point slightly
Franchising will be over before this implementation is suggested as being completed
The franchising will be in place everywhere before this implementation is suggested as being completed if it goes ahead of the timeline
However decisions haven't been made on those further steps and they'll come to the CA at the appropriate time
Cllr Bob Felstead - 1:38:16
I think we started.
Thank you, Chair.
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:38:25
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:38:27
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:38:28
Just three points to build on what my colleagues have said.
Firstly, I think we are hearing loud and clear the importance of safe routes and we will
subsequent reports to the CA about individual schools.
Secondly, I would expect and we will make sure that there is a full EQAA for any of
these assessments of individual routes, as you would expect, but I'm just providing it
for clarity just so there's no ‑‑ and the EQAA that Tim has been talking about was
for the policy, not for the application in individual schools.
and then finally I
given given that councillor Carlo has talked about
His child going to second to alter declare that I've also got a child in secondary school in West Yorkshire
And in fact at Oakley Grandin school, so I'm just declaring that conflict even though I don't think it's directly relevant to the discussion this morning
Thank you
Coach a fell state
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:39:24
Yeah, just one final question
Cllr Bob Felstead - 1:39:28
It's in relation to what we've said today. We've said there's an imbalance or disproportionate representation of school transport within the various authorities that make up West Yorkshire.
I'm just wondering how that is affected by population and geography which I presume are two factors which factor into this report that we're not privy to.
and I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of how you've identified the schools.
I know you've dragged out one of the points which is substitute public transport,
but to what extent is there an imbalance across the region based on population stroke geography?
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:40:20
Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council) - 1:40:26
I'll start. So I think, I don't think it's population and geography. I think it's more
history of how, I think it's history of how with different councils, different areas. We've touched
on it earlier around for example Areva in their area they operate in
particularly Wakefield they have in the past just put on a network of school
busses that they have delivered directly whereas in other parts of the county
it's been the local authorities and the combined authority that have organised
those services. So I think it is a there's probably a combination of
factors and I mean we're 10 past 12 having given this is going over so
probably giving a very long history lesson isn't isn't going to be welcomed
by anybody but I do think that's why given as as Peter has said a lot so I'll
try not to repeat it in detail we are going to have a completely different way
of organising busses in West Yorkshire that we are going to bring in over the
four years and I think therefore having a really clear new schools policy with
that in mind around how with the opportunity that hasn't been had in this
County since the early 1980s for the public authority to determine what bus
services are to have a really clear approach to school transport as part of
that is to be welcomed and like I say that's why I think a bit the history
lesson is irrelevant partly because it's probably not very interesting to anybody
else in the room apart from Councillor Carlile but also because like I say the
reasons we've got here are the reasons we've got here will disappear when we
have a franchised public bus network and we do have that control and process of
setting a bus network so I think it is it is an important and you know I don't
Think it's because people in Wakefield are different to people in Leeds, you know, I represent the ward on the border. We do cross the boundary
quite freely
And intermingle quite freely
I like to say I think it is being around, you know different
different bits of history in an environment where busses have been operated in a
fairly freeform fashion over time and like I say
That that bit of history
is going to disappear soon.
That's why I do think it's relevant we do have this policy in place for franchising
and as has been touched on earlier, you know, the process of setting some of that work is
going to start in a few months time.
Do you want to say something Peter?
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:43:12
I'll just very briefly provide one bit of more detail.
Peter Carlill - 1:43:19
Having looked at the entire list of the school busses in every district and how they provide
across West Yorkshire, I can say categorically, they are completely inconsistent with the
population and geography of West Yorkshire and how you'd expect. Some of the most rural
areas have the fewest, some of the most urban areas have the most, they're based on completely
different decisions made by councils over the last 20, 30, 40 years, rather than on
the geography necessitating that level of service. And that's where the inconsistency
stood out emotionally to me. Those areas where you can imagine somebody would need more transport
to get to school are not necessarily and are not consistently where the biggest set of
bus services are provided.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:44:06
Mr Still wants to comment.
Just add to that and that's why the adoption by the combined authority of the policy that
ensures that the provision is calculated on a fair and equitable basis and a consistent
Basis across all the schools in West Yorkshire is absolutely the purpose of it to bring consistency and fairness across West Yorkshire
Okay
Chancellor Rose then Councillor Higg
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:44:30
Thank you, and if you'll indulge me I'll set out where I am from a call -in perspective and my big remaining question
Cllr James Homewood - 1:44:37
I've understood all the papers and conversations today
I don't think the briefing note adds much as the existing papers explain the detail of the decision and actually I think a lot of
today hasn't been calling, so I welcome the suggestion from the chair of a lessons learned
meeting afterwards on the process. On specifics, 4 .37 says the substantive practical changes
come into effect only from September 2026. 4 .32 says the only changes before that already
existed in policy. 4 .30 recognises the mandate for some faith school free transport and send
provision, though as stated that has its limitations. Women, Christians and white people do skew
Cllr James Rose - 1:45:15
the overall consultation results,
but 4 .17 breaks down some of the detail for other groups.
And as you've discussed, there are inherent existing
inequalities this might improve.
I generally agree with the policy's travel hierarchy.
Risks of the policy include grammar school equality,
faith school for non -faith reasons, lower income
households, children with complex needs,
in addition to geographic challenges
around getting to school on time,
long waits during bus changes.
four point fifteen five point one five point two acknowledges equalities negatives and the equality impact assessments
Four point forty explains the care needed for that four point thirty six explains the staggered implementation
Four point thirty nine says changes beyond these six need further detail assessments
Option four wasn't the number one result, but it did have majority support four point forty six four point forty seven explains
Why it was the right one to make a decision and the policy took months
So I feel it was made with understanding and thought
and is made appropriately but I think there are improvements that could be
made and I do think it should have been discussed at Transport Committee even
though it's a combined authority decision regardless of the outcome today
I think there needs to be a proper conversation Transport Committee about
this to help move forwards correctly but going to Transport Committee in the
first place would have avoided this I'm still undecided right now on option 1
option 2 today for one reason because I'm not sure why an organisation with
the concept of transport pre -scrutiny
wouldn't take a travel policy through it.
So I would welcome a bit of light shed
on that specific aspect, if that's possible.
Who wants to clarify that point?
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:46:53
So I think when you say pre -scrutiny,
do you mean a scrutiny of this committee or a transport
committee?
So I just look like a.
Transport is what I meant, but in general.
So it is largely a question of timing
in terms of sequencing of the events that took place.
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:47:06
and again in brief I know it does set out what the process that we've been through.
I accept that whilst it hasn't gone as a standing item to Transport Committee of itself,
there has been very detailed engagement, consultation and dialogue with Transport Committee chairs
and deputy chairs throughout the entirety of that process starting at the start of this year.
But it was done from a timing perspective very much to allow us to get to a point
where a decision was taken ahead of, as I stated earlier, going to the CA in July to allow us to then start to form our views ahead of the franchising process commencing in October of this year.
I accept that had the time allowed it, then we absolutely should have taken it to Transport Committee where the timing allows, but at the moment the timing was not permitted.
In large part because Transport Committee was the day before the CA as well on the 23rd of July.
But it's not there yet.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:48:03
Okay, Councillor Lewis, do you want to come back in again?
Yeah, just very briefly. I appreciate the timing post consultation and pre -authority decision was quite tight.
Cllr James Rose - 1:48:15
But there were several months during the consultation and many months before that where the content of this could have been brought to Transport Committee, right?
And it wasn't because you were waiting for results that you knew wouldn't then have time to discuss before the authority meeting this that fair
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:48:33
And I think that's I accept the point that it could have we could have taken longer to do the process that you described
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:48:35
But you know, this was a formative policy
I I inherited this policy or what was this the change in this policy when I joined the CA in the last year
Recognising that the need we need to do the work
And it took a number of months to get to a point
In ahead of going to the CA in April to allow us to even have something to take to consultation
But I accept again, you know word time permitting then we would have been in a position to do that
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:49:05
Okay, but counts us
Mr. Still and then Councillor Lewis have indicated they would like to come in. I think answer Lewis is coming first
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:49:15
I just want to make one very quick point.
Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council) - 1:49:19
So we have combined authority transport committee,
which is a subcommittee of that, and this group meeting,
which we're all sat at today.
It's a very quick point about our combined authority.
So it used to be the case we were the only combined
authority in the country that had political balance members
on it to ensure it was never dominated
by one political party.
I don't know with the increase in combined authorities
whether that is still the case.
But I just think it's very quickly worth reflecting
that the combined authority is a cross -party meeting and although it is
clearly not a scrutiny committee or the transport committee it does allow
challenge from political parties not other political parties and the one that
the mayor and currently all the leaders and members have as well so I do think
that's just a point around the combined authority it is not it is not a for you
know it is not a rubber stamp.
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:50:13
and the fact that engagement was made with the leadership of the Transport Committee
as well as with every member across West Yorkshire. I think for us though the question is a fair
on and it plays into a bigger question that we are grappling with at the moment
which is with the advent of the English devolution and community empowerment
bill what is both appropriate the appropriate committee structure that the
combined authority needs going forwards and and and how do we best action that
over the coming year so so it's points really well made and we'll play that
into future thinking as well.
Thank you.
Councillor Rose?
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:51:05
Yeah, let me narrow my point, because I
was going to ask why there wasn't a need for an extraordinary
meeting.
Cllr James Rose - 1:51:12
But actually, my question is, given that 12 .1 of the papers
say that there was a 3rd of April decision to proceed,
and then there was a 16th of April transport committee,
why was it not brought to that transport committee?
That feels like it was within the consultation period,
knowing that there wasn't time for the report,
if that makes sense.
Councillor Carlisle?
Thank you. I'll come in briefly.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:51:33
Peter Carlill - 1:51:36
On the following transport committee after the 3rd of April, I'm pretty sure we did have a paper in that updated members that that decision had been taken.
The CA, coming from a local authority, the CA is always a bit of a conundrum in terms of where certain decisions are made.
Certain decisions about transport projects go to the Combined Authority meeting rather than the Transport Committee
because they may be over a certain value or they may be deemed a budgetary question, in which case the budget is set by the CA, not the Transport Committee.
So there are a number of points where these inconsistencies happen and I'm not 100 % sure that as an organisation the CA has got it right yet in exactly what comes where at the right time.
But we're on the way I think to that it's a it's a lot different than a local authority
which has had a
Whole history of reasons for why particular decisions come to certain meetings and particularly the kids are gifted to meetings
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:52:32
The CA is on the process there. We're very close to being a mayoral one
Peter Carlill - 1:52:38
So I think yeah, I find it quite a tiny final comment. I agree. The decision should be made at the combined authority level
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:52:40
I don't think it should have been a decision at Transport, but it should have been a discussion
Cllr James Rose - 1:52:45
and I can't see in the papers that it was a discussion.
I mean, I wasn't there, somebody else might have been, but that's what feels like a disconnect
for me is that there was the opportunity to know that the consultation results couldn't
be discussed, but at least the consultation contents could have been and it would have
resulted in an opportunity for that to be discussed publicly.
But as I say, I think the decision was made properly.
It just feels like that one bit should have happened and didn't.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:53:13
Katie Haigh - 1:53:20
right. Councillor Heke. Yes, just picking up from that, on the other side of that coin, it was suggested that this should have come to scrutiny in some form before the decision was made.
And in fact, in the papers in front of us today, the press statement proposed, says that scrutiny committees have got the important role to play in ensuring the climate equality.
the very best outcomes for our region's part of our democratic cheques and balances and this call is an opportunity to answer any further questions
but could have been avoided I think if that had been taken up in advance of the decision rather than afterwards.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:53:49
Yeah, valid point. Okay, right, I think we've...
I would like an answer.
Alright, okay, fine
Tim mr. Still
Anyone want to explain why you've said it in your statement why you didn't do it in advance
You've conceded but
So well, I think we do recognise the vote through any committee
But but in doing so in general terms, and I think this was perhaps mentioned at the very start
Not every decision is necessitates
pre -scrutiny in terms of the way that I think is being described so I think you
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:54:23
know we'll reflect on on that view of members but but equally you know we have
to recognise that from a decision -making point of view that isn't a statutory
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:54:35
requirement. Yeah it might be worthwhile. Yeah I think going forward I think
building into the timetable the possibility that you would like to do
Katie Haigh - 1:54:50
pre -decision is really important because having the excuse of we didn't have time
when things are taking months does not seem to sit well with that when we as
someone pointed out earlier meet every month.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:55:02
From my personal point of view you do have regular meetings with Councillor Edwards who is my
deputy and he takes these decisions if you say to him in your briefings that
you've got this decision coming down the line and if he then says to me I think
we should scrutiny have a look at it I think that satisfies my test that I've
asked someone to do it so that's really something we need to just implement
Councillor Joe Thompson (Calderdale Council) - 1:55:29
Mr. Thompson and yeah just on that I mean this is my second meeting of this
committee but the series have been already expressed I know you saying that
and not all decisions need pre decision scrutiny but it seems like the
consensus is there's not really ever any pre decision scrutiny and just in terms
As we were discussing in terms of Transport Committee, I've just got the terms of reference
up and I appreciate this, so I'll be on the call in, but within that I obviously express
is that any direction by the Mayor that a decision goes to combine authority as opposed
to Transport Committee and there's obviously exceptions within and I wonder if just across
the committees when we're moving forward and looking at how those committees function just
more clarity on that would be helpful so it's really clear to members what does and what
doesn't go to Transport Committee which may have helped avoid some of this.
Thank you.
Still I
think both the point about
pre -scrutiny and
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:56:20
almost the question of
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:56:23
the balance of how that gets suggested by who and when and the point about
Transport really well made and we look at take those both take both those things away
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:56:33
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:56:35
Carlo yeah, thank you just for the benefit of members really and you'll know these discussions anyway, Barry
Peter Carlill - 1:56:40
But cancer Edwards and I have had some good conversations around how we improve
scrutiny and how a transport committee a better sharing their
Forward plan and work plan with yourselves and with college support there to make sure you are aware of what reports
We may be looking at when so that if you wish you can suggest an item that
You'd like to see more of in a particular date, you know
You'll know we're looking at the local transport plan in
October and you may say then oh would that be something interesting to bring to the September meeting then so
There's a bit more of that and I think that's something that's taken us a while to get around
Understanding, but hopefully they'll allow for more of this in the future
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 1:57:23
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 1:57:31
I think there are issues that it's not down to the scrutiny to look at the does those decisions
but it's always handy to know what is happening,
to make that definitive choice ourselves,
as is the role and function and the right of scrutiny.
And particularly when you've got sensitive issues,
such as, you know, transport to school.
There are a lot of people dependent on it,
particularly with vulnerable children as well.
But forgive me, I'm going to bring in
the monitoring officer as well, as Ben.
It says under the appeals process,
something that I've left till last,
because I'm used to saying Yorkshire here gobsmacked, I'll apply that. Item 9 on the
appeals process it says a suitable appeals process is currently being
developed. Does that mean that we don't have an appeals process in place at the
moment or does it mean a suitable one because it's something to do with a
definitive items such as transport. I find that really, I can't get my head around why
the combined authority at present, it seems to indicate and it doesn't confirm either
way a suitable appeals process is currently being developed.
Can I clarify, that appeals process is specific to these school busses.
Tim Taylor Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 1:58:58
So the decision was made at the CA to undertake this new policy and then a specific appeals
process will need to be developed if somebody does not agree with one of the implementations
of one of these school busses.
Peter Carlill - 1:59:16
So an appeals process will be created for if we go into schools and consult on a particular
service which we start doing in September and then somebody does not
agree with the outcome of that that they can appeal that decision. We are several
months off any of those decisions being made so it is now the right time for
that appeals process. We wouldn't have needed to create the appeals process
ahead of the decision and I'm sure had we created that appeals process and done
a lot of work that would have seemed like predetermination in many ways but
We now need an appeals process for this policy and that's part of office's work.
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 1:59:55
There again that comes down to how the wording is coming forward in documents and that is a general view here.
That should be specifically identified that this is a process that's specific to this particular topic stroke item.
Because otherwise that's just a generic comment and I'm sorry.
But please can we have that amended somewhere in your reports? That that is the reason why that's there.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm now going to invite one of the four of you, I don't know which one, to basically
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:00:25
bring the conclusions and join together what you've learned, what you're going to change
as a result of this conversation today.
Peter Carlill - 2:00:38
I think I might start us off if that's okay, and there may be some points that Ben might want to come in with
that are wider points, I think, than my role around the place of scrutiny, what decisions should go where,
because that isn't a decision for me to take.
Hopefully what you've seen is we've set out clearly how we consulted on what, completely agree, is a very emotive decision
and we knew that there would be a lot of debate about it.
We have looked in detail at the feedback and the consultation, which I think was well responded to,
and a recommendation was put to the CA that I believe to be the correct one
and I could have at any point suggested a different recommendation to the CA
through that had the consultation come out differently
but I agree with the recommendation that was put to the CA
based on the feedback that was given in that report.
I will focus again that we are looking at those who get a dedicated school bus.
Many children already walk a cycle or get public to Tramport to school
and the consultation showed quite clearly that the majority of people agreed with the objectives
that people should walk, cycle or get public transport to school where they were able to
and dedicated busses should be provided as that final solution.
And also that the policy does guarantee that every young person will have a school bus
or will have transport available to them to their nearest school,
whether that's walking, cycling, the public transport or a school bus.
So I think there were a number of guarantees in there that were provided.
The implementation is over a long period of time.
We would have been very concerned starting a new policy
and then looking at the whole host of school busses at a time.
We have identified some that we believe
alternatives are there for to take the opportunity to go forward.
But I really do think there was a need for a consistent approach to school busses across West Yorkshire
and to get away from where we are which is a
Peter Carlill - 2:02:43
Myriad of approaches that have come forward from a period of time before we were a mayoral combined authority
That there are a lot of learnings. I think here around
scrutiny at the combined authority
And how it can be best done and those of us who've been here a few years and some have been longer
here have seen that that has progressed and scrutiny has changed every single year.
I think I've been at the CA as well as Transport Committee changed slightly every year I've
been at the CA as well.
So it is a progression we're under and I think that's why I'd like Ben really to comment
on some of those bits.
But I welcome the scrutiny and the discussion of it.
I'm quite happy with the decision that's been taken personally and I think it was the best
Decision and reflected on the the feedback that came out the consultation. Thank you
Ben you wanting to clarify. Yes. Thank you
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:03:36
Ben Still, Chief Executive (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 2:03:39
Thank you chair. So what I'll try and do very briefly is just relate
my my
Conclusions to the five questions that were set out
To us from that from the committee
So just turns the first one is around the details of the consultation
which I think we've obviously discussed in depth.
I think the action on us, therefore,
is much more about the application of the policy
to individual schools.
And we've discussed the need for having
the clear appeals process, having the proper EQIA,
having proper regard to safety,
all the things that you would absolutely expect us to do.
And we've been clear that those decisions
will come back to members for those decisions
to be taken in public.
The second topic that you raised was around the governance
pathway and why it didn't go to Transport Committee first.
We've obviously discussed that at some length,
and Tim has set out the rationale
on this particular occasion.
But I think what we've committed to
is that we do need to look at that
in terms of the decision -making processes going forwards.
As Councillor Carluo has said, sometimes it is complicated.
combined authorities are in a very rapidly evolving environment. The
devolution and community empowerment bill gives us now for the first time a
kind of clearer framework through which combined authorities can operate and
we'll be bringing propositions for how to to bring that to improve things given
that increased remit going going forwards. The third point raised by the
committee was around political accountability and I think we've had
clear conversation there.
I think that's where the issue,
not just of political decision making,
but also the role of pre -scrutiny comes in
and we definitely need to give further regard to that.
Fourth issue was around the purpose for the change in policy.
I think we have, in several responses,
been trying to be very clear as to the rationale
for the policy and why those changes were being brought in.
And Councillor Carluz covered those issues really clearly.
And fifthly in the decision -making principles and around concerns around predetermination and I think
Both both councillor Lewis and council car they've been very clear
That they felt they had the full range of decisions and options set out
Before them and there was no
Predetermination so I think that covers and the only other point I just want to make in my closing remarks is we've talked a lot about
terminology
Council has been very clear about the distinction between consultation and engagement.
We will take the lessons away in terms of the language we use in reports going forward
to make sure there is no confusion in future reports.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Edwards.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:06:35
Thank you, chair.
Cllr Bob Felstead - 2:06:41
I am going to use a transport metaphor to illustrate my point.
So my issue wasn't the starting point. My issue wasn't the the decision to move or the final destination. It's the journey
Government needs to get
That's all levels of government including the combined authority need need to get it right how we do things
Our role as councillors on scrutiny and the Transport Committee is to make sure that the journey was done, right?
that's our role in this and
What I wanted out of this, I think I was asked that earlier by Councillor Raunchard, was to have some greater public scrutiny
and I think we've done a lot of that today, so thank you colleagues for being part of that.
To illustrate the point then about getting things right, so Councillor Lewis stated in his comments at the very very beginning
that the process has been quite clear from the start, referring to the decision at the April meeting
The wording on 2 .2 recommendation, again 2 .2 is the recommendation with the issue.
I'll just read it quickly and just to demonstrate the point I'm making.
That members note that the responses and recommendations of that consultation will be brought back to the Combined Authority in July 2025
for consideration alongside any requests for approval for proposed revisions to the Transport Policy
to allow any changes to be incorporated into future service design decisions.
I really can't see how that makes it clear that a list of proposals to close
and to potentially change bus services and withdraw them. I don't feel that is clear.
Imprecise wording leaves room for interpretation. You can quite easily interpret that as that,
but I could quite easily at the time have interpreted it slightly differently.
we need to get wording spot on.
And I think if we need to learn anything from what's happening in other countries,
the US for example, if we have imprecise wording,
we're relying on good faith of the people in charge now,
the decision makers as they are now. We don't know what things are going to be like in the future.
And we do need to really get this right now.
So the crux of my issue is process, and again, Councillor Oost, I'm going to pick on you again, sorry.
And having watched the combined authority meeting it was 20 minutes long the section on school busses
And I'm not sure really how that was a robust
discussion on this policy the only
Too much detail councillor Carlisle has talked about his involvement
And I know he will have been involved and I know it would have been I know how robust he would have been in his
Challenge and I can imagine how in -depth that conversation was
But publicly he wasn't there is no public nothing on public record to document your involvement
and that actually has been changed in this meeting
and you've actually been able to,
the points that you've made have all been really valid
and you've added a lot to this,
you are effectively operating
as a portfolio holder for busses.
But in my view, and I know how the Combined Authority works,
the Combined Authority has a lot of meetings,
they're behind closed doors, they're not on public record
and that is something we need to change
because we need the public to have confidence
that us as councillors, whatever political persuasion we are
are looking out for the public interest and at the moment that's lacking and
So a few of the comments the combined authority that we made that there was a need to
Update the policy. I absolutely agree with that. That's not the point of what I've been trying to make again
It's been focusing on and what's happened
And I mean in terms of documenting how important doing this is
Again, Councillor Colle actually demonstrated in a really, really good way why this is important.
So there have been several comments made about the consultation not being good enough.
Matt Edwards - 2:10:29
No discussion about the Combined Authority meeting.
There has been no public challenge by councillors on that.
That criticism has been levied, specifically the point that councillors and schools weren't
told.
You challenged that and said actually they were.
If that had been done in a normal scrutiny meeting we could have had a more in -depth
conversation on that and looked, or if it had been happened to the transport committee,
we could have had a more in -depth discussion and actually talked about what good enough
was.
At the moment we're talking about whether it actually happened.
Finally, there was a comment made on the timetable on why it was important to do this quickly.
Ultimately, the fact that you didn't do it properly has slowed the process down anyway.
we are here and that has slowed the whole process down by a few weeks.
And process is really important.
So just revisiting the points I made in terms of my rationale,
there was adequate publicly – there wasn't adequate public scrutiny on the policy.
To some extent we have fixed some of that today.
Do I think it's still good enough? Not really.
There's still some detail that I think there is room for discussion on.
The time window was too short and it's been rushed.
No one really has said anything that challenges that.
I still feel it's been rushed.
The decision wasn't robust enough
and it didn't commit to the proper consultation.
It's been argued that combined authority members understood
what was being meant.
In my view, that's not good enough.
Imprecise wording, we need to get the wording right
on recommendations because they give
room for misinterpretation.
And we don't know how the policy is going
to be implemented going forward.
We've had, again, some discussion on that.
I think there's still room for further examination that might be something we can that either transport committee or scrutiny can look at in the future
So I think we'll have the need to be a discussion in terms of the committee members in terms of the next steps
But that's my stance on things as it stands now
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:12:29
Thank you right now before we reach our final decision I'm going to have a five -minute adjournment

8 Call In - Outcome

one to enable people to
Reflect so that they know precisely what they're wanting to do either releasing the decision for implementation
or releasing it and making some recommendations, which would be a separate part or
Going for the other option which is to refer it back. So it's to give people a chance if they wanted to go for
Release it but maybe with some provisions being added on to it
That gives you a chance to formulate those in your mind
So because what I'll do when we've come back again is I'll firmly ask people
Are we going to have option one or option two?
But those of you who might be tending towards option one, but I've got some
Procedural concerns it's how you're going to work those procedural concerns which will be dealt with after
We've made that decision
So in other words, we are clear -cut
Option one or option two that we can then append
recommendations on to the end of our recommendations from today.
So just so you're clear that that's what we're going to be doing.
So it's now 12 .45, 12 .50 if you can get back in here again.
Yes, Councillor Haig.
Just for clarity, if we choose option one does that take into account the changes that were made in the document we have in front of us?
Katie Haigh - 2:13:59
So the changing of engaged to undertake further, all those that are on this paper here.
Do you want to clarify exactly what that, yeah.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:14:07
Thank you Chair.
Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 2:14:12
So from my perspective, and I think this engages your point, sorry I used the word engage,
forgive me.
It's really important that the minutes of this from my perspective incredibly helpful
and constructive discussion between members and officers are referred to the combined
authority. Irrespective of which decision you take, option 1 or option 2, I think it's
going to be super helpful that the combined authority is aware of the discussion by way
of these minutes once they're produced to be appended to the next agenda item. Does
that help?
Katie Haigh - 2:14:52
My particular point is the changes that have already been suggested that are on the paper
in front of us here, the changes about the wording, talking about the detailed timetable
and consultation timeline, is that included now in what was effective in the original
decision, option one, or do we need to add that all up?
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:15:14
We I was going to deal with it was put that as the recommendations that we've heard
officers have conceded that certain things need to change and so that's one of our
additional recommendations
What that benefits one us from scrutiny because we can then ask for
Consideration and then we hear in six months time. Have you actually done it?
For example, and that gives us some steps so that's the way I was going to do
it was a straight yes or no, an option one, option two, and then come up with a set of
recommendations.
Because my feeling, I might be wrong, I might be wrong, but the way we were going, I can
see us going in one direction, but I want to enable us to reflect back on recommendations
that we would like to put in.
You might prove me wrong, of course, I've been wrong before, because of voting records.
So...
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:16:13
Yes, right. Do you want to just clarify that then?
Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 2:16:21
So just to expand on the point and your helpful point, Councillor, as I understand it, your
concern is does this committee accept or otherwise the additional information provided to it
today. So I think it will be helpful again for the minutes for the committee to come
to that conclusion. So if you like that's the first bit if that helps you.
Okay, right, so it's now 48 minutes, so let's make it

8 Call In - Outcome

Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:16:47
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:16:58
We are right
Okay
Right. So we're now going to decide on option one
And option two and I what I would say is
If we're going for option one and you wanted to go for option one a which is adding some recommendations on
We'll discuss that afterwards. It's a straightforward
Option one or option two now to save going through for a roll call
Which is the way that we usually do it in leads just we'll just go for a straight
Hands show of hands. So those in favour of option one indicate, please
Option one is to release the decision for implementation.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
And those who are going for option two.
One, two, three, four, and then five for me.
So is that right?
Okay. Right.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:18:07
So the option one, so the decision has been released for implementation.
So in terms of option 1A as I called it, that's where we've got some recommendations we'd
like to make as per item 4V11, 3V11, any wider conclusions.
What we're going to do is we've been picking up notes of them as we've been going through.
If anybody's got any additional ones that they would like to be submitted, because some
people have got to go now, so I'm using chair's prerogative to say if you can write in to
me with your views and your thoughts as to what you'd like to have as additional recommendations,
we will then get those formally approved either by using some legal means or necessarily we'll
have to postpone it until the actual next time we meet to officially add those.
Councillor Lewis.
Cllr James Lewis (Leeds City Council) - 2:19:11
Thank you chair. I've noted your point about people wanting to get off very quickly. I've just had a quick consultation with Ben here and and and and I think it's important that this meeting is
The outcome even though the outcome is to release the follow -up comments
Which I think have been really important and we've all acknowledged come to a future combined authority meeting. So we'll certainly
Make sure that happens and I'm saying that now because I think it's important for
members putting their comments forward on the release book comments because I
do think we do need to discuss that at combined authority chair. Thank you so
fine.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:19:38
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:20:13
It is a matter for this committee, option 1A hasn't previously been referred to.
Satinder Sahota, Interim Assistant Director (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) - 2:20:18
There are a number of ways that you can, there are a couple of ways that you can do this
committee members.
you can either request assurance that the minutes of these meeting of this
meeting is put forward to the combined authority as per council Lewis's
suggestion or you can take the more formal route of making an amendment in
meeting to this procedure and how adding that one a the matter is for you as
committee members
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:20:58
I think option 1A is actually been going forward as an option that we haven't discussed in
Cllr Betty Rhodes - 2:21:03
terms of the issues of today's meeting. I think that's something that's got to be
clarified in terms of any significant information that's been given here today from the officers
today on moving forward. And I think there's a time that we ought to have time, and perhaps
No Russian disfills, no Russian clearance, no Russian disfills, and I think that should be the first item on the next meeting
that we look at what option A should be in clarity of the further information that was given today
so we're all clear on what that further information was to be.
Right. Are we meeting before or after the New Age Conveying Authority meeting?
The day after.
Oh for god's sake.
Cllr Barry Anderson (Chair) - 2:21:45
So we are you you're happy for us to do outside the meeting rather than formally
that's good that's good that's fine I just what was worrying me about we're
all meant because we're meant to all be in person when you make decisions
nowadays I accept the government are looking to potentially alter that but
Right, so we will go down that second route. Okay, so that's fine in terms of the work plan
Anybody get any comments on that?

9 Workplan

So the next meeting is on the 19th of September

10 Next meeting date - 19 September 2025

Just say on the back of the agenda all the dates
Forward
Thank you.