Norwich Liberal Democrats Online

Tory consultation a sham as transport price hike for students agreed

Reacting to a decision to approve a controversial rise in college bus fares, a Norwich -based Norfolk County Councillor has claimed that the local consultation process amounts to little more than a 'tick-box exercise'.

Liberal Democrat spokesman for Children's Services, Mervyn Scutter, won applause from students when he challenged the Conservative decision-makers' support for proposals that 'ignored the views of the general public, those most affected by the decision and the opinions of informed professionals'.

The fact that the decision taken by members of Norfolk County Council's cabinet to agree to the rise in transport charges was made despite an earlier protest march from 200 local students appeared to add further fuel to Cllr Scutter's heated condemnation of the consultation exercise:

'To me it is beyond belief that this decision has been made in spite of obvious public resistance. What is even more absurd is the suggestion in council papers that there is little opposition to these changes when, in fact, research by the Liberal Democrats has shown that 83% of consultation respondents disagreed with the key proposals.'

Referring to a recent decision taken by the same Conservative group to sell off land at the Blackdale school, which was approved despite 91% of consultation respondents declaring their opposition to the scheme, Mr. Scutter commented:

'What is the point of consultation if the final decision does not reflect the majority feeling?'

Though the green light has now been given for the proposed transport charge increases to be implemented Cllr. Scutter will continue to ask the ruling group if it will consider adjusting charges for students again in the future if participation rates appear to have suffered.

The Liberal Democrats undertook further analysis of the consultation results that formed the basis of the decision taken to increase charges for students. The following is a summary of their findings. All calculations are based on information provided at an official briefing by NCC officers on the consultation results (28/09/06).

In this report, the consultation results presented make a convincing case for accepting the proposals outlined since it appears that public opposition is limited. The consultation results which were NOT presented to Cabinet seem to tell a different story, however:

What the paper says about proposal 1:

50% of respondents agree that students should pay 50% of the average annual cost of mainstream transport.

What the paper does not say about proposal 1:

• If the views of students had been singled out this would have revealed that a mere 14% supported proposal 1

• When asked what proportion of the cost they thought students should contribute to the average transport costs, 83% of respondents thought students should pay less than the suggested 50% (i.e. disagreed with the proposal).

What the paper says about proposal 3:

50% of respondents agree that students from low income families should be charged 25% of the actual costs of transport (half the standard charge).

What the paper does not say about proposal 3:

• If the views of students had been singled out this would have revealed that only 29% supported proposal 3.

• When asked what concession rate students from low income families should get 83% of respondents thought it should be higher than the suggested 25% (ie disagreed with the proposal).

• 55 % of all respondents thought that the concession rate should stay the same for low income families.

What the paper says about proposal 4:

There is strong majority support for this proposal.

What the paper does not say about proposal 4:

• If the views of students had been singled out this would have revealed that the view was split with only 48% supporting proposal 4 .

• When asked if they thought the current arrangement for students with learning difficulties should remain 74% of all respondents said yes.

Other comments:

This paper says:

An analysis of 27 other local authorities has been carried out and in terms of the overall level of charge, Norfolk's proposed policy for 07/08 lies around the midpoint.

This paper does not say:

That however comparable the proposed post 16 transport charges may be, Norfolk has the lowest participation rates of the other local authorities analysed and, therefore, should arguably be more cautious than the others about any price rises.

This paper says:

No connection can be made between transport costs and participation rates.

This paper does not say:

The consultant commissioned by NCC reported evidence from Great Yarmouth that providing free transport has contributed to an increase in participation rates of 5% within 2 years .