The draft School Transport Bill was published on 8 March 2004. It proposes to set up a number of 'school travel schemes' in local education authority areas. The schemes would enable local authorities to pilot new approaches to school transport, with the stated aim of reducing road congestion caused by the increasing proportion of children who are being driven to school by car each day rather than walking, cycling or going by bus.
The draft Bill would allow local authorities to charge for transport as part of these schemes. At present, transport must be provided free of charge to those pupils who live beyond the 'statutory walking distances' (three miles from school, or two miles for under eights). Under the terms of the Bill, transport will still have to be provided to these pupils, but a charge may be levied. A category of 'protected children', equivalent to those whose family income entitles them to free school meals, would be exempt from charges.
The Government introduced the draft School Transport Bill in response to a vocal lobby from local government and other public bodies. School transport legislation largely dates back to 1944 and is widely perceived as unsuited to the twenty-first century. Our inquiry has confirmed that home to school transport is clearly in need of attention. The increasing number of children who are driven to school each day causes traffic congestion and pollution and endangers children's health. Our aim in undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of this draft Bill was therefore to make a positive contribution to policy in this area and to improve the Bill, ensuring that when it returns to Parliament in its final form it represents an adequate and effective response to the situation.
We are surprised that more has not been made of this opportunity to legislate. The Government seems confused as to the objectives of its draft Bill. The Secretary of State has said that it will encourage more children to walk or cycle to their local school, yet this does not sit easily with Government policies to increase diversity in schools and to allow for the expression of parental preference: an approach that encourages greater mobility. Pilot schemes are required to reduce congestion, but this target is not quantified and no mention is made of the significant health, environmental and educational benefits that improved home to school transport could bring.
In addition, we have found no evidence that reliable monitoring and evaluation systems are in place to assess the results of the pilots. The Government must now decide what its objectives are, how success will be measured and who will be responsible for carrying out the assessment. All this must be clearly stated in the Bill when it returns to Parliament in its final form.
In monitoring school travel schemes, the Department for Education and Skills will need to be alert to the possibility of unintended consequences. Our report identifies some of these, particularly in regard to pupils with special educational needs (SEN). The DfES must ensure that SEN pupils are not adversely affected by the reorganisation of home to school transport and that the system of SEN statements, by which pupils are guaranteed free transport in line with their level of need, is adapted alongside the transport reforms.
In its present state, the draft Bill does little to encourage those LEAs who are not tackling the issue of school transport to initiate new schemes, whilst unduly limiting the freedom and resources available to those areas that are already innovating. Specifically, we are concerned that pilot schemes will not attract additional funding. We find the Government's claim that travel schemes will be 'cost-neutral' ill-founded. At least in the early stages, pilots will incur consultation and set-up costs that cannot immediately be covered by greater efficiencies or an increase in revenue.
The proposal to charge for transport more widely is likely to encounter opposition from many quarters and may bring legal challenges. At present, guidance issued to LEAs on their legal obligations is insufficient. In this context, we have found many local authorities to be unenthusiastic about piloting new charging arrangements. In addition, we have serious doubts that charging regimes will create significant revenue if charges are limited to what most families would consider an acceptable level.
The draft Bill's proposal to pilot schemes tailored to local circumstances, which may include charging, is sound, but it must be accompanied by a more radical overhaul of legislation, which would allow schemes to adapt school transport strategies to today's social and technological context. If the draft School Transport Bill fails to be effective in encouraging schoolchildren to use a sustainable means of transport, or worse, if schemes drive children away from shared transport (for example, by pitching charges at too high a level), the use of private cars on the school run will increase. This would run exactly counter to the stated aim of the draft Bill. We therefore urge the Government to consider carefully our report as well as those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of the Transport Select Committee when deciding which amendments to make to the draft Bill before it comes to Parliament in its final form.
| 
