To date I have received two replies. One out of office reply from Leighton Andrews and a very positive response from Chris Bryant.
It's a long letter! Try and read it all the way through as there are some newly released road safety statistics guaranteed to make your blood boil. To skip straight to it simply scroll down the page. You can't miss it!
"Your decision to uphold RCTCBC’s proposal to close Pentre
Primary School Wales .
You may think I am over-reacting? After all, what is the
significance of the closure of one more school among the many that have already
been forced to close their doors for good? I would suggest it is huge. Your response to
our objection, and lack of any meaningful engagement with the community of
Pentre, has been such that the Welsh Government might just as well be sitting
in Moscow .
Your failure to respond in full to our detailed legal
objection to the consultation process is particularly disturbing. It is clear
from the evidence we presented to you that RCTCBC has violated the principles
of consultation as established in case law referred to as the Gunning
Principles. These principles you acknowledge in the recent School Organisation Code as having been already established. In fact the consultation process contained in
the new Code is based upon that very
law. In effect the actions of RCTCBC can be proved to be unlawful. The Gunning
principles outline a meaningful process of consultation not merely the
completion of a ‘template’. In this respect QC Jerry Heap was particularly
scathing regarding the behaviour of senior decision makers.
Your silence on this particular point is deafening. The only
conclusion we can make is that you chose to ignore this objection because it is
legally indefensible. Perhaps you conclude that we do not have the resources to
mount a legal challenge in the courts. It would appear that justice and fair
play comes at too high a price for the parents and community of Pentre. After
all we are merely the ‘little people’, easily brushed aside.
At least we have been more fortunate than some schools in
our position whose AM’s refused even to meet with them to discuss their
concerns. Everyone should be in no doubt regarding the implication of your
response. A dangerous precedent is being
set where the will of the Welsh Government is elevated above established case
law. Westminster does not seem so
far away any more.
Your actions in this respect are tantamount to bullying. The
law says we have been unjustly treated but it if the Welsh Government chooses
to ride roughshod over our rights as established in the courts there is little
we can do because we lack the resources to challenge your decision. When our AM
attempted to champion our cause he was subjected to a personal attack from
opposition parties and forced to tender his resignation. As someone who lived
within the locality Mr Andrews was acutely aware of the dangers facing children
who will now have to walk a considerable distance along a congested main road
to get to school. What moral authority does the Welsh Government have to
condemn bullying in schools and the workplace when it behaves in such a manner?
Shouldn’t the key priority of any government be to protect
the most vulnerable within society? For example, “reducing child poverty” as
“a fundamental element of its social justice agenda and also part of its key
priorities. . . in helping to reduce poverty, particularly in the areas of
improving health, education and economic outcomes for children in low-income
families . . ..”
Your words not mine Minister. This directive was also
issued:
“In recognition of the
key role played by other partners in the shared fight against child poverty the
Measure made action to eradicate child poverty a statutory requirement across
local authorities.”
If you have actually read any of the numerous objections
written by members of the community you will be in no doubt that low-income families
within Pentre will suffer increased financial hardship as a direct consequence
of your decision. This will inevitably increase levels of child poverty within
a community desperately in need of regeneration and investment. Many of the
letters of objection written by parents and grandparents provide graphic detail
of the financial and social difficulties they will encounter as a consequence
of your decision
Isn’t the eradication of child poverty supposedly a
fundamental strategy of the Welsh Government? I also refer you to the
‘Foreward’ of ‘The Children and Young People’s Plan Rhondda
Cynon Taff 2011- 2014’ in which Chairman Ellis Williams states:
“Our new Plan gives us
greater focus on attacking poverty amongst our communities, our families, our
young people and our children. Child poverty infects our communities and we
need to root this out and defeat it. We know we can only achieve this by working
together and remaining child focused in all that we do.
We must remain
ambitious for ourselves, the organisations we work in and the communities we
live in. We owe that to our children and young people and to future generations
in Rhondda Cynon Taf.”
What is the point of enshrining these laudable ideals in
legislative and policy documents at local and national level? Is it merely a cosmetic exercise to salve the
communal political conscience because they do not appear to have any relevance
to our situation? They are just words on paper. If a government at local or
national level cannot protect its children is it really worthy of the name? For
example, to blandly state that Treorchy also has a breakfast club that children
from Pentre can access is ignoring the fact that many of those children face a
long walk in frequent inclement weather to access that provision. In winter
they will have to leave home while it is still dark. How will this improve the
quality of their educational experience?
It is obvious that financial considerations have taken
precedence over every other consideration. The current mantra, “because of the
austerity measures of the Tory government,” is beginning to wear thin. When,
because of decades of lack of investment, lack of vision and lack of meaningful
engagement with the community, RCTCBC finds itself teetering on the edge of a
financial precipice it has little justification in pointing a finger of blame
at a Tory government in Westminster .
Sadly for Pentre this familiar cycle is being repeated in the way the proposed
closure of the school has been handled.
RCTCBC has palpably failed to engage with the community
during the so called process of consultation. The Director of Education did not
even deem it necessary to carry out a safe route to school survey before
bringing the proposal to cabinet. It appears you are satisfied with their
declaration that should the closure proceed they will then undertake a more
detailed survey. That is akin to me as a head teacher undertaking a safety assessment
after an educational trip has taken place rather then before it, clearly a
nonsensical and irresponsible stance. Shouldn’t the safety of children in his
and your care be paramount? Has anyone
from the Welsh Government undertaken an independent safe routes survey given
the level of concern expressed by parents and our local AM Leighton Andrews?
The proposed construction of a new Tesco store along the route not only gives
cause for concern but further exemplifies the lack of vision and planning.
Here was a site that could have ideally housed a brand new
school incorporating Treorchy and Pentre but that would have constituted
foresight and strategic planning on behalf of RCTCBC. It is interesting to note
that two schools, Aberllechau and Caegarw, were both saved from closure
primarily because of the safe routes issue. Why is Pentre different? Am I
becoming too cynical or does the fact that both those schools were served by
Labour Ward Councillors whereas Pentre is served by two Plaid Cymru Councillors
have any bearing on the issue? If not would some one please explain where the
difference lies? It is said, “By their fruit you shall know them.” Well, from
where I’m standing the political fruit looks pretty rotten at the moment.
I assume it was the issue of Caegarw
Primary School
“My biggest concern
was the location and journey to the secondary school.
"It’s safe
for savvy teens to negotiate the roads, but the A4059 is a very busy road
for parents with one, two or maybe more little ones.”
It’s interesting to note that Mr Morgan refers to the
difference situation with regard to oversubscription and surplus places but concedes
the biggest issue for all concerned was the safe route to school.
I repeat, why then is Pentre Primary any different? What is
more important over subscription/surplus places or the safety of children in
your care? The route Pentre children will have to take is every bit as
hazardous as those the children of Caegarw would have had to negotiate. It is
not just the distance but the nature of the route that has yet to be adequately
assessed by RCTCBC. Although, I note the Director of Education concedes there
is no safe cycle route or ever likely to be one. Whatever other considerations
there may be the safety of children has to be absolutely paramount whether they
live in Caegarw or Pentre.
The Director of Education’s reference to an assessment
undertaken “in accordance with the
nationally recognised Road Safety GB framework, criteria and guidelines”
is, in our opinion at best a totally inadequate response, and at worst a
complete abdication of responsibility. Your
position on this particular point seems a little ambiguous given your
expectation that you expect the local authority to honour their commitment “to look again at the route in the event
that the proposal were to proceed.” Does this indicate you are not entirely
satisfied with the local authority’s initial assessment especially when
considered against the ambitious targets set by the new Road Safety Framework
for Wales :
The Welsh Government’s
vision, expressed in the Framework, is “a continued reduction in the number of
people killed and seriously injured on Welsh roads, with the ultimate
aspiration of no fatalities”.
The Framework also
includes a commitment to “understanding the links between road casualties and
social deprivation, and seeking to address this”.
Unfortunately the closure of Pentre may help provide the
Welsh Government with a more practical understanding of the links between road
casualties and social deprivation. The Director of Education is technically
correct when he asserts it is not his place, or the place of any officer of RCT
to tell parents how to get children to school. However it is his decision, the
decision of RCTCBC and ultimately the decision of Welsh Government itself that
is directly responsible for placing them in the situation they now find
themselves in. It is our intention to take legal advice with regard to the
culpability of the local authority and Welsh Government should any child be
injured travelling a route that was not adequately assessed according to advice
contained in the new Road Safety Framework for Wales.
". . . research suggests that child pedestrians from the lowest socio-economic groups are over four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the roads. Up to 36% of collisions occurred in the most deprived areas of Wales in 2011." From the Road Safety Framework for Wales 2013
The issue of ‘surplus places’ was persistently trumpeted by
RCTCBC as one of the primary reasons for proposing the closure. Yet the irony
is Pentre is now admitting children from Treorchy Primary and other schools in
the locality who are full to capacity. There will always be the need for some
‘surplus places’. We anticipated a more reasoned and measured response from you
Minister. Here was an opportunity for RCTCBC to display some vision and offer
hope for the future. Former pupil and internationally successful businessman
Professor Roger Willey has that vision. He wrote to you regarding a school
based model for community regeneration he has seen working effectively in Scotland
and Belgium . He
offered to meet with anyone interested in hearing his proposals. He did not
even receive a reply. This is a man with an international reputation who has
acted in an advisory capacity for several governments. Minister, many of our
communities need all the help they can get.
It is also with deep dismay that we read your reasons for
upholding the closure which appears to include an attempt by the Director of
Education to denigrate and demean the sterling work undertaken by the staff of
Pentre Primary over the last eighteen months. A parallel with the tactics used to justify
the cuts in nursery provision is hard to ignore.
Again the evidence base for the educational argument is
somewhat imbalanced. Pentre has been rigorously inspected by Estyn in recent
months and found to be improving significantly. The ‘recent’ evidence provided
for Treorchy was based on an inspection that took place in 2009, hardly recent.
You appear to have taken the Director of Education’s
Statement of Information at face value as, for example, with regard to the comparison
of the physical condition of the two schools. Any independent observation would
almost certainly conclude that Pentre Primary is currently far more ‘fit for
purpose’ than Treorchy Primary. Can I also ask why the under 5’s are still
included in Treorchy’s figures while for Pentre they are omitted?
It is hard to argue
with the conclusion reached by Jerry Heap QC in para 4.5
it is evident that the
Council embarked upon the consultation process at far too late a stage; its
proposal had in effect been finalised before it did so. In short, those who might have wished to
object to the proposed closure of Pentre Primary School
Jerry Heap QC was also scathing regarding the comments made
by Eudine Hannigan, the Cabinet Member for Education who stated openly that “.
. . the shopkeepers and community of Pentre are no concern of ours”. A remark made in full hearing of Council members
and the public and which was reported in the local paper. Jerry Heap concludes
. . .
“. . . the fact that Eudine
Hannigan stated (see sub-paragraph 3.7(ii)(b) above) stated that she was not
concerned in the “shopkeepers and community of Pentre” is indicative of a
member of the Council’s cabinet addressing a decision which she considered had
already in effect been made, because otherwise she would have realised that
community considerations were an important aspect of the matter – and one which
the council had failed to address.”
RCTCBC’s response to this allegation is a damning inditement
of its disdainful attitude towards the community of Pentre and members of the
Pentre Action Group in particular who were prepared to sign an affidavit to
that effect. RCTCBC state that:
“The local authority has no documentary evidence which verifies this at
all.”
This is hardly a denial rather a confession that RCTCBC is
very selective in its recording of Council minutes.
Pentre was once the civic and commercial centre of Rhondda .
It boasts a proud and unique history. Once it embodied what we were. Now,
increasingly derelict and disadvantaged, it is becoming a symbol of what we have
become. “Where there is no vision the people perish”. Tragically while the
community of Pentre has a vision for the future they have no power to implement
that vision. It might be expected that a Westminster
government would have scant regard for the historic significance of a small
valleys community in South Wales but surely we are entitled
to expect more from our own? Apparently not, the cycle of deprivation and decay
continues unabated. What future is there for our children and our community?"
No comments:
Post a Comment