Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400
- 419)
THURSDAY 13 MAY 2004
MR MIKE
HIRST, MR
STEVE BROACH,
MR DAVID
CONGDON, MS
JILL HARRISON
AND MR
DAVID BUTLER
Q400 Mr Chaytor: Mr Butler, your
Confederation has taken an interest in this issue for some time
and you have given examples of some documents you produced but
in terms of the typical PTA is the question of transport something
that preoccupies them greatly? Is there any evidence that they
are involved in the planning process locally? That is to say do
local authorities tend to consult PTAs about the transport arrangements
that they are planning?
Mr Butler: That is a multiple
question. First of all, let me deal with the issue of do PTAs
have an interest in these things and what do they do about them.
The answer to that one is yes they do. There are a number of examples
of walking buses in a variety of schools and quite often the PTA
is centrally involved in that walking bus. You also have the situation
where PTAs take an interest in school transport from the point
of view that many will work together to try and fund a school
minibus for a variety of educational purposes throughout the day.
Yes, they are interested and there are examples of those that
have done work in this area. I think the consultation process
varies. My experience is that that consultation will be more at
school level necessarily than LEA level. You do have some LEAs,
and again we come back to the point that has about been made this
morning about the variation across the country where some LEAs
go out of their way to set up mechanisms whereby they can consult
with parents, but it is variable.
Q401 Mr Chaytor: And do you issue
any guidance or do you try to disseminate best practice to your
constituent PTAs? What I am trying to get at is is there a stronger
role for the Confederation in raising awareness and understanding
and can you give any examples of best practice?
Mr Butler: As the work of the
School Travel Advisory Group progressed, yes, we did take the
opportunity to make our members aware of that. I think that is
why we see some interest here and there in walking buses. There
is one issue with walking buses that has taxed us and that is
the insurance arrangements. In this day and age there is obviously
great concern as to whether various activities are adequately
insured because of the liability which may ensue. We have now
had to make some special arrangements to ensure that the insurance
facilities we can provide to our members can also cater for the
requirements of a walking bus. I wish we did not have to do that,
it would be much more attractive to us if the local authority
took on that issue.
Q402 Mr Chaytor: In respect of the
current Draft School Transport Bill have you consulted specifically
your members about the provisions of the Bill and invited their
comments on it?
Mr Butler: We invite our members'
comments on all of the consultations that we deal with so yes.
Q403 Mr Chaytor: Can you tell the
Committee what you think should be the basic eligibility for school
transport in terms of the choice of school? That is to say what
should be the core of the responsibility of the local authority?
Is it simply to provide transport to the nearest school or to
the school that the parent chooses to send their children to?
Mr Butler: Utopia says that the
local authority provides transport to whatever school the parents
would like to see their children attend, but there are economic
criteria to be met here and it would be totally uneconomic for
that Utopia to exist, therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere
and the line usually is that it will be the nearest appropriate
school. Where you do have difficulty in that situation is what
do you do about those parents whose home falls on the margin?
What do you do, for example, about someone who may fall outside
any supporting provision you make and they just fall on the edge?
Do you take into account in that situation that they may have
the number of children that Mr Pollard does and therefore does
that in itself bring an issue which has to be brought to bear
and considered?
Q404 Mr Chaytor: How can somebody
fall on the edge if it is the nearest suitable or appropriate
school?
Mr Butler: You have got the situation
at the moment of the three-mile limit. That is a line, if you
like, drawn in the sand.
Q405 Mr Chaytor: Within the Bill—
Mr Butler:—If you happen
to be at 2.9 miles that is great, if you are at 3.01—
Mr Chaytor: Yes, but that will go if
the Bill goes through as currently drafted.
Chairman: You are lucky if you are 3.1,
not if you are 2.9, are you not?
Q406 Mr Chaytor: Yes.
Mr Butler: I think I would answer
that question again. One of the things that I find not as clear
as I would like is just what the Bill does propose to do with
that particular situation because the way I read it, and I come
back to my earlier statement I am not a lawyer so please forgive
me if I have misinterpreted, I do not think that point is particularly
clear. I hope if this draft Bill becomes a Bill that that particular
issue can be made much clearer.
Q407 Mr Chaytor: How would you like
it clarified? Do you see in 2004 that there is still a case for
a three-mile walking limit?
Mr Butler: To come back to the
point that was made earlier, parent have to deal with many things
and their child's transport to school is but one, so if there
are going to be systems which are available then please make them
as transparent and as clear as possible so that people can actually
understand the situation that they are dealing with.
Q408 Mr Chaytor: But that does not
answer the question. The question is does your organisation think
there is a case for having a statutory walking limit?
Mr Butler: We see a number of
our members of our organisation who happily walk their children
to school, we also see a number who would prefer to take a different
route, and therefore I think we would never have a position which
could either fully support one way or fully support the other
way. Remember what I said earlier on that a parent's wish is to
get their child to school in the most effective manner bearing
in mind their local circumstances. We had a situation where the
legislation that was laid down some years ago was fine in terms
of statutory walking distances but society has changed, it has
moved on, and you also have to accept that we live much more frenetic
lives now and therefore all of those factors have to be considered.
Q409 Mr Chaytor: In terms of the
concept of the nearest suitable school or nearest appropriate
school, who should decide that and do you have a view on this
issue of the role of the parents' religious or philosophical views?
You will be aware of the case in Lancashire where a parent who
was adamant they were atheist and wanted their child to go to
a non-faith school is on the way, it seems, to succeeding in getting
the same rights as those who claim they have a deeply held religious
view. What is your Confederation's view on that issue?
Mr Butler: I am back to the issue
that I mentioned earlier that one is looking for a system which
takes into account individual circumstances—
Q410 Mr Chaytor:—So you will
support it?
Mr Butler:—but the issue
of admissions and therefore the issue of what is an appropriate
school is one which is very difficult to deal with. We actually
have a situation in terms of admissions which allows for the expression
of a parental preference, it is not actually a parental choice.
You are always therefore going to have a situation of the local
authority being the person who has to take the ultimate decision
on what is the most appropriate, but I think it is quite right
and it is quite fair that parents can present their views and
they should be consulted as to what is appropriate for their particular
circumstances.
Q411 Mr Chaytor: But in terms of
the question of religion and philosophy, does your Confederation
think that the atheists and agnostics and humanists should have
equal rights with the Catholics, the Anglicans, the Muslims, the
Jews and the Sikhs?
Mr Butler: Do we not now have
a society that requires that sort of equality to be given? I think
if you said that you were not prepared to take those decisions
into account you would have a contravention of some of the human
rights legislation that exists throughout Europe, so I think you
have to support it.
Q412 Mr Chaytor: Could I ask one
other thing and that is on the question of the concept of protected
children in the Bill. It proposes that those on free school meals
should be protected from any future charging regime. Is that an
adequate definition or do you think there are other categories
of children who should be protected from charging?
Mr Butler: I think it is a very
good start because I think if you do have a charging regime, and
having seen the costs of transport and having seen some of the
innovative ideas then the concept of charging for certain aspects
could well be one solution, you must at all times address the
fact that there are certain parts of your society which you must
not disadvantage. What would be interesting is to see if there
is a response from local authorities as to whether they actually
think that particular protection should be widened. I do not at
the moment within the Bill see the opportunity for them to comment
on that. It seems they just have a single statement of protection.
I think it would be interesting to see what comes forward from
that.
Q413 Mr Chaytor: If there is going
to be a charging regime what in your judgment is the sort of figure
that the average parent would be prepared to pay for reliable
and efficient transport to school per day or per week?
Mr Butler: I am sorry to disappoint
you but I do not think I can answer that question because we come
back to this issue of local circumstance. I happen to live in
Kent—
Q414 Mr Chaytor: Fantastic!
Mr Butler:—I am aware that
members of your Committee have such experience as well. The secondary
schools that my children went to were a distance from our home
and if you try and take some sort of economic factor as to what
you would be prepared to contribute towards that journey it would
be a more different decision that you would have to take than
for example if I still lived where I was born, which was in Newcastle,
where you may be much closer to the school. I am sorry; it is
"horses for courses".
Q415 Mr Chaytor: Right, so you are
saying you could not answer that question but, as I see it, you
have answered it by saying there is a case for variable charging
according to the distance.
Mr Butler: There has to be because
it goes back again to my earlier point about local circumstances.
Q416 Chairman: If you send your children
to private education do you think they should have free school
transport on an equal basis? Do you represent the private sector?
Mr Butler: We do have some members
who come from independent schools, yes, that is true.
Q417 Chairman: You could say they
have taken a tremendous load off the state sector because they
do not take advantage of the £45,000 it costs to send a child
to school.
Mr Butler: If you asked the question
of any LEA they know that one of their largest costs is transport
and school transport, and we are back to the issue that a line
again has to be drawn. I think if someone chooses, and no doubt
I could get picked up for this later, to send their children to
an independent school because that is what they want and that
is what they feel they would like to put their own family income
into, it would be a natural extension that that would apply to
their transport policy as well.
Q418 Chairman: Interesting though,
they are saving the state £45,000 over the life of the child
and yet they are not getting free school transport. What about
if a child with a disability goes to a private institution?
Mr Broach: It could well be yes
because the equivalent of a private school would be a non-maintained
special school.
Q419 Chairman: Highfields is in the
private sector.
Mr Hirst: Hollybank.
Mr Broach: If the LEA and parent
agree that that independent school is the nearest most appropriate
provision for the child then the same duty to pay for the provision
of transport would apply.
Chairman: That is different? That is
interesting, thank you. Jonathan?
| 
