Meeting documents

Apologies were received from Mary Baldwin, Dev Dhillon, Carl Etholen and Michael Moore.

Trevor Egleton, Mike Appleyard and Noel Brown (from 11.20am) attended as substitutes.

Bruce Allen declared a personal interest as he is a Member of the National Autistic Society.  He attended a meeting recently in London.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2010 to be agreed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2010 were agreed as a correct record.

An overview of the current policy for safeguarding children in client transport will be   presented to the review panel. Members will also have the opportunity to discuss the draft behaviour protocol that is under consideration for implementation.

Stephen Bagnall Divisional Manager (Joint Commissioning) Children's Services

The Chairman welcomed Stephen Bagnall, Divisional Manager (Joint Commissioning) for Children’s Services.  He attended the meeting to provide Members with an overview of the current policy for safeguarding children in client transport.  Mr Bagnall explained that for Children & Young People’s Services, the core issue is the policy framework within which transport is provided.  He went on to say that following the 2006 Inspectors Act, there have been a few changes to the policy.  It is primarily about eligibility but safety is also an important consideration.  Mr Bagnall said that eligibility for transport is considered by the Children and Young People portfolio and not by Amey.  He said that it would be wrong for Amey to deal with this as there are still a number of judgement calls to be made when looking at eligibility.

Mr Bagnall said that when the contract was put out to tender, it highlighted the fact that the existing policy was open to misinterpretation.  There was a very loose set of criteria used to qualify for home to school transport and some children were receiving it when they should not really have done.  As a result the service area is putting a stricter interpretation on the policy.  He explained that as well as applying for mainstream home to school transport, there are also exceptional circumstances.  He went on to say that he chairs monthly meetings with Amey which focus on monitoring the day to day successful operation of the policy framework.  He said that the revision of the Behaviour protocol was as a result of discussions at these meetings.  At these meetings, Amey is asked to produce statistics on various aspects of the service delivery which Mr Bagnall said he finds very useful.

During discussion the following issues were raised and Members asked a number of questions.

A Member asked Mr Bagnall how Amey are briefed to deal with a child who forgets their bus pass.  Should they leave a child at a bus stop?

Mr Bagnall responded by saying that there is a strict rule of "no pass, no travel".  He went on to cite an example of a 60 seater bus which picks up 58 pupils but by the end of the trip there are 6 children standing on the bus.  He said that if there was an accident, there would be serious implications in terms of health and safety.  He admitted that further clarity is required on this issue as it is not acceptable to leave a child at a bus stop although he said he would welcome Members views on this.  He said it comes down to either not allowing a child without a bus pass to travel versus overcrowding.

A Member asked whether a system similar to the "oyster" cards used in London would prevent people mis-using the current system.

Mr Bagnall said that he did not disagree with an oyster-style system but he said the cost of implementing the system would be very high.

A Member asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The adult social care lead for transport will brief the panel on how the safeguarding concerns for vulnerable adults are represented in current policy and how this is reflected in the contract. The biggest users of transport within the service area are people with learning disabilities and members will hear of the day opportunities for users of the service, how this is risk assessed and how any concerns are managed.

Caroline Penfold Manager Learning Disability Internal Provision Adults and Family Wellbeing

The Chairman introduced Caroline Penfold who explained her areas of responsibility which includes Lead for Transportation within Adults and Family Wellbeing.  Ms Penfold went on to say that she was part of the evaluation team at the time of the tendering process and has stayed involved with the process since Amey were appointed.

Ms Penfold took Members through the process by which an adult is assessed in terms of their transport needs.  She said that a care manager does the assessment as an integral part of their initial assessment and they will check to see whether a person can get to the place where their assessed care needs can be met, for example, respite centres and day services.  She emphasised that the information gathering and communication process is key.  The care manager will then make a referral to Amey along with key information to ensure that the right transport is made available (i.e. any behaviour issues, mobility issues, assessment of the property and next of kin).  Amey will then allocate the most suitable transport based on the persons needs and available capacity.  It would be either a Swan Rider vehicle, other tail-lift transport vehicle or a taxi.  Ms Penfold stressed that it is determined by individual needs and if a person had behavioural issues, a risk assessment may determine that they would need to normally travel on their own.  The risk assessment would also determine whether a person needed a passenger assistant.

Ms Penfold said that Amey is responsible for the quality of transport which includes CRB checks for the drivers and passenger assistants, vehicle checks and the end of the day routine to ensure the person is delivered safely to their home.

Ms Penfold cited an example where a taxi driver had become involved in safeguarding issues as they helped to highlight an abusive issue at home.  She stressed that it is important that drivers can report their concerns through appropriate channels.  There is a new protocol which provides greater guidance to Amey and drivers/passenger assistants when reporting concerns.  Ms Penfold explained that there are around 790 journeys per day.

During discussion the following points were raised and questions asked.

A Member congratulated Ms Penfold on the very clear transport policy document.

A Member asked for clarification about the average journey time for adults.

Ms Penfold responded by saying that the maximum journey time is 60 minutes but it would be less for people who suffer with certain conditions, for example, epilepsy or poor health.  Epilepsy sufferers would not spend more than 20 minutes in the car.

A Member asked whether adults are required to have pass. 

Ms Penfold said that they do not have passes so most of the transport is regular and there is a lot more verbal communication between the day services and the adult requiring transport.

A Member asked how many complaints they receive in a year. 

Ms Penfold did not have the exact figures to hand but explained that there were very few  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To resolve to exclude the press and public as the following item is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

RESOLVED

That the press and public be excluded for the following item which is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

Members will receive verbal and written evidence from parents,

school governors and representatives from groups with special

needs regarding their experiences.

The parent partnership group provides impartial information,

advice and support to parents and carers of children with special

educational needs. This group has particular interest in the

subject of the review and will inform the review panel of their

current concerns around safeguarding issues for children in

client transport.

Contributors

ZanaBayley Parent participation worker

Penni ThorneBucks Vision

Ruth Goodmanmember of the public

Simone and Paul Monkmembers of the public

Andrew Walkerparent governor

Members received verbal and written evidence from parents, school governors and representatives from groups with special needs regarding their experiences.

The Local Authority Designated Officers (LADO) for child protection will provide an overview of the procedures for compliance with safeguarding requirements. The officers will also provide information as to how allegations relating to child protection are investigated.

This item was discussed after lunch rather than before as stated on the agenda.  Start time: 1.20pm.

The Chairman introduced Bridget Day who manages the Safeguarding in Education Team for the County Council and also holds the role of Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection (LADO) for education-related cases.  Ms Day explained that 15 cases were referred to the LADOs last year of which 12 were school related and 3 involved transportation of children in care.  Ms Day emphasised that children should be safe and treated appropriately and drivers and passenger assistants are in positions of trust.  She said that there is still a big gap between what is expected from school transportation and what is expected in other areas.  Ms Day said that she has been worried about follow-up but they are developing clearer protocols with Amey so she is hopeful that this area will improve.  She said there are specific skills required in dealing with difficult children and that Team Teach training was not enough in these situations.

During discussion, the following points were made.

A Member said that they had heard a lot of people concerned about the vehicles but had Amey received any actual complaints.  The Member felt that some parents could be putting up with vehicles turning up late and language problems and not reporting them.  Ms Day explained that the state of the vehicles and lateness of vehicles would not be reported to her but any incidences of leaving a child or inappropriate behaviour towards a child would be referred to her.  Ms Day felt that there needs to be a better understanding of what drivers and passenger assistants should know.  She gave an example of recently interviewing a passenger assistant who could not speak any English.

A Member asked what would happen in a situation where it was deemed as inappropriate behaviour. 

Ms Day explained that the case would be referred to a strategy meeting and if there was enough evidence, then a social worker and/or the police would get involved.

A Member made an observation that the Adult Social Care protocol, which includes "greeting the adult with a smile" was very basic and yet very effective in maintaining a good relationship and felt that there should be a similar protocol for children.

Ms Day said that communication is very important and drivers need to be confident that what they are doing is correct, especially in terms of how to handle a child.

A Member asked Ms Day whether she was happy with the existing inspection regime and asked whether she had any influence over inspecting the drivers/passenger assistants. 

She responded by saying that she could not comment on the inspection regime.  She said that some schools do influence the transport decisions, in terms of the bundling of children and who should travel together.

Ms Day showed Members a leaflet entitled "Child Protection Advice" which is handed out to contractors who deal with transporting children to and from school.  She explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

There will be a half hour break for lunch

The afternoon session will provide the opportunity for members of the review panel to assess both the written and verbal evidence, discuss next steps and outline recommendations. If Members discuss the exempt appendices there will be a need to exclude the press and public.

The Chairman explained that this session is for Members to assess both the written and verbal evidence and to discuss the next steps and outline recommendations.  Due to the fact that Members were referring to exempt appendices in this session, there was a need to exclude the press and public.