Conclusions and recommendations
The state of school transport
1. We
are convinced that action is urgently needed to improve home to
school transport, which suffers from outdated legislation, spiralling
costs and a worrying trend towards the use of individual private
cars, presenting risks to the environment and to children's health
and wellbeing. We also note that asking parents to express a preference
as to which school their child should attend becomes a redundant
exercise if suitable transport is not available to enable children
to attend the chosen school. We have therefore sought to scrutinise
the draft Bill in order to determine whether or not it presents
an appropriate response to the rapidly worsening situation. (Paragraph
28)
Pilots
2. We
recommend that the Government places an expectation on all local
authorities, not just pilot authorities, to promote walking and
cycling to school. (Paragraph 32)
3. Local authorities
should be required to include the promotion of walking and cycling
to school as part of their travel scheme proposals. (Paragraph
33)
4. If basic entitlements
to transport are to be retained on the grounds of distance, income
or special educational needs, this must be clearly and explicitly
written into the Bill. This would allow local authorities to conduct
experimental pilot schemes whilst meeting their obligations to
particularly vulnerable groups. (Paragraph 36)
Funding of pilots
5. It
may be possible to use existing transport resources more economically
through integration and rationalisation, but the Government's
raw figure of £2 billion is highly misleading and should
not be quoted as a measure of the funding available to local authorities
for school travel schemes. (Paragraph 38)
6. Compared to the
large Government subsidy given to some transport schemes, the
request from local authorities for £100,000 of pump-priming
funding for the life of a scheme seems miserly. (Paragraph 42)
7. We believe that
there is a good case for pump-priming funding to be provided in
some form to school travel schemes approved under the terms of
the Bill. (Paragraph 44)
8. Evidence from all
sides has shown us that the draft Bill is not currently perceived
as a cost-cutting measure, but as a genuine opportunity to develop
alternative approaches to home to school transport. If the Government
wishes to perpetuate this perception, it should seriously consider
providing funding to the schemes. (Paragraph 44)
Monitoring and evaluation
9. The
DfES has told us on numerous occasions that it adopts an evidence-based
approach to the development of policy. The draft School Transport
Bill offers an ideal opportunity for the Department to demonstrate
its commitment to this approach. (Paragraph 46)
10. The draft Prospectus
states that all schemes must aim to 'cut car use' on the school
run. This target is unhelpful: the removal of a single car from
the road would technically fulfil this criterion, yet few would
judge this a successful result. This imprecision also makes local
authorities' task of preparing applications for pilot schemes
harder than it need be. (Paragraph 47)
11. We would urge
the Department to consider the viability of setting targets for
the evaluation of school travel schemes using relative measures,
such as a percentage decrease in congestion near schools or in
the number of children travelling to school by car. (Paragraph
48)
12. In the light of
the wide range of potential benefits to be gained from improved
home to school transport, the stated prime criterion of reducing
car use seems too narrow in scope. (Paragraph 50)
13. School travel
schemes should be required to measure their impact on low income
families and on disabled pupils and pupils with special educational
needs. This requirement should be explicitly spelt out on in the
Bill's Prospectus and in guidance given to LEAs. (Paragraph 51)
14. The Government
must first decide exactly what it is attempting to achieve by
means of the draft Bill and then establish a rigorous monitoring
and evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of pilot
schemes in achieving those objectives. Schemes that begin without
proper monitoring systems in place will not produce reliable results
and will jeopardise the credibility of the project as a whole.
(Paragraph 55)
The Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment
15. The
draft Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment is a significant weakness
of the draft Bill as it stands. The purpose of a Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA) is to provide "an assessment of the impact
of policy options in terms of the costs, benefits and risks of
a proposal". A partial RIA should have worked-up options,
developed thinking on compliance and monitoring and refined cost
and benefit estimates. The draft School Transport Bill's Partial
RIA does not fulfil this function and does not currently provide
an adequate basis for pre-legislative scrutiny. (Paragraph 56)
16. There is much
work to be done to produce a robust Final Regulatory Impact Assessment
that will accompany any School Transport Bill presented to Parliament.
As Cabinet Office guidance indicates, RIAs should not be considered
a mere formality, but should provide a thorough cost-benefit analysis
of the Bill's proposals and an assessment of any risks to the
effectiveness of its provisions. (Paragraph59)
Timescale
17. 2011
seems a very long time to wait for a solution to be found to school
transport that can be implemented nationwide. We therefore recommend
that the Department looks into the possibility of running shorter
pilot schemes or of evaluating currently existing initiatives
to determine what works best. This Committee has heard of much
good practice that could already be spread more widely. (Paragraph
61)
18. The conclusion
and evaluation of the school travel schemes should be the occasion
for a report to Parliament. (Paragraph 64)
Charging
19. We
consider that an exemption based on ability to pay is generally
speaking a fairer charging policy than one based on an arbitrary
cut-off distance. But we have serious reservations about the adequacy
of 'free school meals' as a definition for the category of protected
children. (Paragraph 67)
20. We urge the Department
to ensure that the schemes it approves give proper consideration
to income-based eligibility for free transport. It is our view
that a more sophisticated entitlement than 'free school meals'
should be developed using alternative measures such as the working
tax credit. (Paragraph 68)
Special Educational Needs
21. The
shift to 'mainstream' transport for children with special educational
needs should not erode individual provision where it is necessary
for those pupils with severe needs or particular conditions, which
make sharing transport particularly inappropriate. Equally, it
cannot be assumed that pupils can simply be switched from taxis
to public buses overnight—substantial
support must be provided. (Paragraph 72)
22. School
travel schemes may well find that there are savings to be made
through the integration of passenger transport services and by
placing SEN pupils on 'mainstream' transport. These are not 'quick-fix'
solutions or appropriate to all circumstances; these schemes will
require careful development and planning. (Paragraph 74)
23. The provision
of transport for pupils with special educational needs is not
given adequate consideration in the draft School Transport Bill
and its supporting material. SEN transport should be a priority
for school travel schemes set up under the terms of the Bill.
Schemes will have to offer a complex range of transport facilities
to suit the broad spectrum of need covered by the term 'SEN' and
costs will necessarily increase as services get better at providing
for pupils with the highest level of need. (Paragraph 77)
24. Whether guidance
is produced as part of this Bill or in a separate SEN strategy
document, the Government should set out LEAs' responsibilities
in regard to pupils with special educational needs and parents'
entitlement more clearly. (Paragraph 77)
Fairness
25. The
way in which the revenue gained from transport charges is spent
will be specific to a local area. The Department should be alert
to local conditions which may create inequities. (Paragraph 78)
26. We recommend that
the pilot schemes set up under the draft Bill investigate the
setting of local walking distances. At the conclusion of the travel
schemes, the Department should consider the possibility of setting
revised statutory limits, taking into account age, the safety
of the route and the time it would take to walk. (Paragraph 80)
The effect of charging on car use
27. Our
evidence suggests that an improvement in the level and quality
of service is necessary for charging to succeed. A simple overnight
increase in costs is likely to cause unacceptable increases in
car use. Schemes proposing the introduction of charging should
be carefully evaluated and monitored to measure their impact on
car use. (Paragraph 82)
Diversity and mobility policies
28. The
Secretary of State for Education and Skills has said that the
main aim of the draft School Transport Bill 'is the encouragement
of people to go to their local neighbourhood school and, therefore,
to travel less in the whole approach, which is a question of our
other policies on quality of schools'. The Secretary of State's
interpretation of the Bill's objectives seems directly to conflict
with Government policies on diversity of schools and parental
preference, which increase mobility. (Paragraph 85)
29. The draft Bill
makes no legal requirement for children from low-income families
to receive free transport to any school which is not their nearest
school. It is therefore hard to see how the Bill will extend parental
choice to low-income families. (Paragraph 87)
Human rights
30. A
parent who expresses a strong philosophical view that a denominational
education would not be appropriate for their child is in a similar
legal position to one who expresses a strong preference for denominational
education. Guidance issued to LEAs should clarify that different
treatment in this case could amount to discrimination. (Paragraph
95)
31. In order to reduce
the potential for discriminatory practices, and to clarify the
legal situation under the Human Rights Act, guidance to LEAs must
make clear that where transport arrangements exist to support
parents' denominational preferences, they must also cater for
strongly held philosophical preferences. (Paragraph 96)
32. The Government
should investigate the possibility of Human Rights breaches based
on pilots running in a restricted area of a local authority and
issue guidance to LEAs based on its findings. (Paragraph 97)
33. The human rights
implications of school travel schemes are complex and we have
found evidence of existing confusion over legal obligations. In
this context, the guidance given to LEAs in the draft Prospectus
is woefully inadequate. It is unacceptable simply to state that
local authorities should take legal advice before submitting their
applications. The Government should provide clearer guidance to
LEAs on those school transport practices which it considers would
be discriminatory, particularly as the Secretary of State could
be subject to legal action for approving any discriminatory scheme.
The Government should pay heed to the recommendations of the Joint
Committee on Human Rights on the draft Bill when drawing up this
guidance. (Paragraph 99)
Encouraging change
34. We
would like to see more in the draft Bill's prospectus and in guidance
to local authorities encouraging schemes which directly reward
pupils for adopting sustainable and healthy forms of transport
by walking and cycling (e.g. through discounts on local activities,
tokens, etc.). (Paragraph 101)
35. Government plans
to promote the extended school day are a complicating factor when
planning school transport provision. The Secretary of State should
carefully consider the requirements for transport for the extended
school day when assessing applications to run travel schemes.
(Paragraph 102)
36. Travel
schemes will also need to take account of the provision necessitated
by the flexible curriculum. The Government's support for the findings
of the Tomlinson Interim Report suggests that pupils aged 14-19
will increasingly move between institutions in order to receive
specialised instruction, often of a vocational nature. Already,
the increasing number of specialist schools are expected to share
their expertise with other schools in the area. Without a commensurate
enhancement of transport provision, these developments could be
seriously jeopardised. (Paragraph 103)
37. Distance
learning programmes could reduce the need for travel between educational
institutions during the school day and we urge the Government
to promote such programmes through the school travel schemes proposed
in the draft Bill. (Paragraph 104)
38. We see little
evidence that the specific issues surrounding post-16 provision
have been seriously considered in the run-up to the draft Bill
and urge the Government to carry out further work in this area.
(Paragraph 105)
39. We agree with
the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee that safety
should form a prominent part of the Government's school transport
initiatives (Paragraph 106)
40. The Government
should take this opportunity to clarify the legal position of
LEAs who wish to withdraw transport from pupils displaying persistent
poor behaviour on buses. (Paragraph 107)
41. The Government
must issue guidance to LEAs setting out the extent of their responsibilities
and powers in relation to pupil behaviour on buses. The provision
of CCTV or escorts on school buses may be one way to improve behaviour.
Escorts could be provided by schools or by the bus operator, but
must have adequate training and a clear remit in terms of powers.
(Paragraph 108)
42. The Government
should consider the viability of issuing national guidance as
to what constitutes a 'safe walking route', taking into account
elements such as the existence of a continuous pavement, lighting
or pedestrian crossings. (Paragraph 109)
Parents
43. When
assessing scheme applications, the Secretary of State must take
into account not only the scope of transport provision proposed,
but also the ways in which the LEA will attempt to persuade parents
that even if they continue to use their cars in the morning rush
hour, it would be beneficial for their children to travel to school
by a more healthy and sustainable mode of transport. (Paragraph
110)
LEAs and schools
44. Well-run
schemes should be based on wide consultation with schools as well
as other stakeholders and should have secured agreement about
their proposals. If the evaluation of pilots shows that there
are important gains to be made through staggering hours, a process
by which co-operation and coordination can be further encouraged
can then be considered. (Paragraph 112)
Bus operators
45. London's
regulated bus network is a special case, due to the numbers involved,
but we consider that other large cities could benefit from similar
arrangements; we therefore urge the Government to examine a means
of implementing such arrangements more easily in other areas.
(Paragraph 116)
Conclusion
46. 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 draft Bill's central proposal to pilot schemes tailored to
local circumstances, which may include charging, is sound. 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. (Paragraph 118)
| 
