Clause
68
Provision
of transport etc for persons of sixth form age: duty to consider
journey
times
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 114, in
clause 68, page 38, line 35, at
end add—
‘(2) The Secretary
of State shall commission an independent report into the funding
requirements necessary to enable local authorities to provide transport
to enable pupils or students to access the entitlement to participate
in the diploma
programme.’.
Clause
68 requires local authorities, when they are drawing up their school
transport policy for young people of sixth form age, to take into
account journey times as well as journey costs and distance. There can
be no quibble about that. The real concern is the statement in the
impact assessment that says, on page 34, paragraph
6.10:
“We do
not expect this change to place any additional cost burdens on local
authorities.”
The Government’s argument is that
local authorities already spend about £900 million a year on
educational transport, funded by the formula grant from central
Government and through the council tax. To quote from the impact
assessment:
“councils are
free to use the funding in line with the wishes of their electorate and
taking into account their statutory
responsibilities.”
However,
the Bill increases those very statutory duties and responsibilities,
and it does not appear that the Government have
matched those increased responsibilities with increased funding. The
Local Government Association has expressed its concern and said in its
briefing to the
Committee:
“This
is a case where we remain unconvinced of estimated costs to implement
sufficient provision given the nature of
14-19”
education. The LGA
points out that many young people of sixth form age, studying for a
vocational qualification, might need to travel to different
sites.
Interestingly,
the Government’s Green Paper sets out their original thinking on
the transport implications of raising the participation age to 18 in
paragraph 5.17,
stating:
“Currently,
in relation to pre-16 education, the local authority is required to
provide free home-to-school transport for young people where it
considers this necessary to facilitate the young person’s
attendance...From September 2008 young people from low-income
families will be entitled to free travel to one of their three nearest
schools, where this is between two and six miles from their
home”.
We dealt with that
in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The next paragraph of the
Green Paper, 5.18, goes
on:
“As part of
these proposals to introduce compulsory participation, we will consider
whether changes to the post-16 transport policy would be required,
including meeting the cost of any new burdens on local authorities. We
will consider and consult on, for example, whether to extend and adapt
the current pre-16 school transport regulations, and could also
investigate the feasibility of providing subsidised transport to 16-18
year olds who are in education or
training”.
However, when
one looks at the Government’s paper “Raising
Expectations: staying in education and training post-16: From policy to
legislation”, which is in effect the White Paper leading to the
Bill, one sees that the only reference to transport is in paragraph 5.6
on page 26, which
mentions:
“A
clarification of local authorities’ existing duties in relation
to transport, ensuring that, in devising their transport policies for
16 - 18 year olds, they consider travelling
time.”
That is all that
is said. No mention is made of meeting the costs of any new burden on
local authorities or of investigating the feasibility of providing
subsidised transport for 15 to 18-year-olds, which is why the impact
assessment shows no additional costs to be incurred by local
authorities.
That is
also why the Association of Colleges has expressed its disappointment
that the Bill
“does not
strengthen the obligation on local authorities to ensure that
affordable transport is
available.”
The AOC feels
strongly
that:
“The
provision of affordable transport is vital to assist young people in
accessing the right course and in exercising informed
choice, which may require study at more than one
institution...Local authorities need to take action to ensure that
transport is affordable, reliable and convenient for all 16 — 18
year olds.”
The Association of School and College
Leaders has also raised concerns about transport, saying
that:
“That
issue of transport is crucial to all options becoming available to all
students...The whole issue of 14 - 19 transport needs to be
reviewed, properly managed and funded, not least in relation to its
increasingly large carbon footprint. Funding for transport must not be
taken from the existing education budget.”
Amendment No. 114
would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent
report into the genuine funding requirements that will enable local
authorities to provide the transport that will be needed if students
are to access the entitlement to vocational
education.
Stephen
Williams:
I rise to support the aim of the amendment,
which is the same as that of amendment No. 158, which we shall come to
shortly, although perhaps from a slightly different direction. I think
that the Government have massively underestimated the funding that will
be necessary to ensure that transport is in place so that the roll-out
of diplomas and meaningful choice at 16 will be available to everyone
across this country.
We have already seen, with the
welcome introduction of free bus travel for those of
pensionable age, that that has unforeseen cost consequences for many
local authorities in different parts of the country—for example,
seaside towns and cities that are tourist attractions, such as my
constituency in Bristol. The funding that is in place for that is not
adequate, despite what the Government said when they introduced the
concessionary bus travel scheme. In those circumstances, we do not want
to see a further cost burden on local government.
Despite what the Government say
in their regulatory impact assessment, people do travel across
boundaries to go from one college to another and they do live and study
in different authority areas. We do not want to find that certain local
authorities are placed under much heavier cost burdens than others in
2013. I broadly support what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton argued, but I will stop my remarks there as I have more
to say when I speak to the next amendment.
Angela
Watkinson:
I support of the amendment, as I feel that it
is essential that the Secretary of State should commission an
independent report to establish the funding requirements for the
provision of transport. I speak as a former chairman of the school
transport sub-committee of Essex county council, in my days as a county
councillor. Our job was to establish the statutory entitlement of
applicants to free transport. Once a month, the sub-committee used to
get in a minibus and be driven around the county to the homes of the
families that were applying for free transport. We often walked from
the home to the school to see whether it was feasible and a safe
walking distance and whether entitlement to free transport
could be established. Elements such as distance and the
existence of lighting and footpaths came into our discussions, and we
frequently crossed railway lines and farmyards to establish that the
route from home to school was not suitable to be walked by a
child.
If 16 and
17-year-olds are to be entitled to free transport, there will be a huge
additional cost. The cost of transport to education authorities is
already
enormous. If older children are to be included, the cost will be much
higher. The provisions of the Bill also encompass special needs
children, including those with mobility problems. Education authority
budgets will not be sufficient to take that additional burden. For that
reason, I strongly support the amendment. An independent report is
needed to establish the real cost of free school
transport.
Jim
Knight:
As we heard, the amendment would
require the Secretary of State to commission an
independent report on the funding requirements necessary to enable
local authorities to provide transport so that pupils or students could
access their entitlement to participate in the diploma programme. In
many ways, I entirely agree with its aim. In fact, I agree so much that
I am pleased to inform the Committee that we have already commissioned
York Consulting to undertake research into transport needs stemming
from the introduction of the 14-to-19 reforms, including diplomas. That
report, due to be published in June, will consider a range of transport
factors, including the funding costs of transport available to local
authorities, in order to ensure access.
We agree with
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton so much that not
only have we commissioned a report from York Consulting, but we are
also conducting research on the delivery of the diploma in rural areas.
It is in rural areas, of course, that transport issues feature more
prominently. An interim report was published last November, and we plan
to publish the final report shortly.
Jim
Knight:
I give way to the hon. Member for Upminster, who
so assiduously performed her duties on the transport sub-committee of
Essex county council.
Angela
Watkinson:
I thank the Minister for allowing me to
intervene. One thing that often surprised us in testing whether
children were entitled to free transport was that in many cases there
would be an adult at home all day and several cars on the
driveway—but it did not affect their entitlement. Will the
Minister say whether that will be taken into consideration when
assessing entitlement under the Bill?
Jim
Knight:
The matters that will be
assessed in respect of the amendments are set out in the clause. The
only change that we are making is to do with journey time. Other
issues, such as distance, will be included, but I doubt whether the
number of cars in the drive will be taken into account.
The reports on diploma delivery
in rural areas, to be publishing shortly, will show that it is
important to consider access in a wider context than simple transport
solutions. For instance, e-learning, common timetabling, peripatetic
teaching and mobile provision are existing ways to ensure access to
provision without asking young people to travel long distances.
However, I have sympathy with the idea of free or subsidised transport
for young learners. Some local authorities already provide it, which is
another reason for it being quite difficult, in the relatively early
days of diploma delivery, to make blanket
announcements.
Jim
Knight:
I shall give way in a moment. I am aware that some
authorities, such as Cumbria, already provide free transport for
post-16 learners in rural areas.
6.45
pm
Mr.
Heald
:
I was going to ask the Minister about
that.
Jim
Knight:
I am delighted to have anticipated the
intervention from the hon. Member for North-East
Hertfordshire.
Of my
two concerns about requiring all areas to have free or subsidised
transport for young learners, one is that it may not fulfil its purpose
in helping the young people who most need help. Making transport free
is fine, as long as there is provision for them to use it. However, if
the bus does not travel through their village or does not travel at a
time that allows them to access education, it is not necessarily the
answer. We may need to be slightly more sophisticated than merely
allowing for free provision, attractive though the headlines might
be.
Also, local
authorities are currently responsible for transport for 16 to
19-year-old learners, and it is important that they retain some
discretion in how they spend and target their funding. As the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, we would need
proper consultation on the proposals might be brought forward as a
result of the various reports and pieces of research that we have
commissioned to inform our policy as we roll out diplomas and tackle
transport concerns. I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for
Broxbourne.
Mr.
Walker:
The Minister is a real gent. Would free travel
extend, in more urban and suburban seats, to rail and
tube links, for example? I know that, in my constituency, youngsters go
out of Enfield, into Cheshunt, and back to Enfield using train
routes.
Jim
Knight:
I want to make it clear that the hon. Gentleman
has not heard me say that I am committing to free transport. I have
said that I have some sympathy with the idea of free or subsidised
transport. That is something that the Youth Parliament campaigns on
strongly. I have held meetings with its members, and, as with other
matters that they raise, such as sexual relationship education, it is
important that we listen carefully to what they have to say. On whether
the proposals on transport will apply in suburban areas, we will have
to have a model ensuring that every young person has good access to the
range of provision that they need to fulfil their duties in part 1, and
therefore to the range of diplomas to which they will be entitled from
2013.
In the light of
the fact that we are doing what the amendment asks us to do, I hope
that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will be happy
to withdraw
it.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am slightly encouraged. The amendment goes to the
root of the policy of raising participation to 18, particularly in
rural areas. It is disappointing that
the final “Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural
Areas” report, which is due shortly, was not available before
this debate. I hope that it will be available before Report, so that it
can inform the House about the precise implications of the duty on
transport to and from the various colleges and sixth form settings for
young people to whom the new duty will
apply.
It is also
strange that although the Green Paper, “Raising
Expectations”, stated that
“we will consider whether changes
to the post-16 transport policy would be required, including meeting
the cost of any new burdens on local authorities...We will
consider and
consult”,
that
phrasing and statement of intention is missing from the White Paper.
That is a major gap in the cohesiveness of the
policy.
I am
semi-assured by the Minister’s response and I
look forward to seeing the report from York
Consulting and the “Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural
Areas” report. I hope that they will lead to a policy that will
enable the new duty to be a reality on the
ground.
Angela
Watkinson:
Perhaps it should be drawn to the
Committee’s attention that special needs students, particularly
those with mobility problems, will not be able to use public transport
and will need door-to-door transport. That involves a huge
cost.
Mr.
Gibb:
As always, my hon. Friend is a champion of young
people with special needs. She makes a valid point again on this
occasion.
In view of
the Minister’s response to the debate, we will not press the
amendment to a Division. We have had a good debate and the matter has
been aired. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Williams:
I beg to move amendment No. 158, in
clause 68, page 38, line 36, at
end
insert—
‘(ii)
(a) delete subsection (3)(d),
and
(b)
insert—
|
“(8)
|
in
preparing a statement under that section a local education authority
has a duty to ensure affordable
transport.”’.
|
We
have just considered the affordability for local authorities of the
changes that will be brought about if the Bill is enacted. The purpose
of the amendment is to consider their affordability for the individual
student. We have spent much time this afternoon discussing the
importance of independent advice and guidance for young people to make
sure that the Bill is successful. Transport and its adequacy and
affordability are also essential if this brave new educational world
which we are being invited to enter is to
succeed.
The Bill as
drafted would add time to the existing provisions in local authority
transport plans, which already include cost, distance and the need to
ensure that there is choice in educational provision. However, it does
not specifically deal with affordability. That is quite different
because bus fares, train fares or whatever vary enormously around the
country, as do individual incomes. The affordability as well as the
cost of fares needs to be borne in mind.
Mr.
Hayes:
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Those worst affected
are likely to be in places that are very rural and sparsely populated
and where average incomes are low—areas with low-skill, low-wage
economies such as Lincolnshire and South Holland and The Deepings. The
difficulty is that to access opportunity, people have to travel long
distances and often cannot afford to do
so.
Stephen
Williams:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
He makes an entirely valid point. Movements between different parts of
cities are another factor. I do not represent the area, but south
Bristol has pockets of extreme poverty and many of the educational and
employment opportunities are in the north or on the north-west rim of
the city at the M4-M5 interchange. Bristol has the most expensive
public transport bus fares in the country. So there are cost barriers
within urban areas
too.
Once the full
roll-out of diplomas has taken place in 2013, it is quite obvious that
14, 15 and 16-year-olds will travel around much more than they do under
the existing educational offer. For the purposes of the Bill we are
considering provision beyond the age of 16. When compulsion is
introduced, many more people will be travelling, whether they are doing
the advanced diploma, A-levels, apprenticeships or work-based training.
The unavailability of public transport will be a source of constant
frustration to many people around the
country.
I have
mentioned before the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member
for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the nearest further
education college to Berwick-upon-Tweed is 50 miles away. Transport
will clearly be a consideration in his area. Although the Bill
considers time, or adds time to the existing list of considerations
that local authorities will bear in mind, that might be regarded as
somewhat ironic in many parts of the country. I have already mentioned
Bristol where, ironically, it can probably take longer to travel from
one side of the city to the other than it may take to travel from
Berwick to Alnwick or any other part of Northumberland. Time is not the
same in all parts of the country, whatever the laws of physics say. It
is certainly not the same when it comes to public
transport.
It would be
a shame if people’s choice was limited by the public transport
offer available to them, such that choice was only able to be
meaningfully exercised by those who have access to a car. One of the
unforeseen consequences of the Bill might be to encourage more
17-year-olds to put pressure on their parents to let them learn to
drive at perhaps too young an age, which could lead to other
unfortunate consequences.
During the evidence-taking
session at the start of the proceedings, and in subsequent information
given to me, the Association of Colleges said that 87 per cent. of
further education colleges currently already feel that they must
subsidise their students to ensure that they can travel to the courses
offered by those colleges. The provision currently available from local
authorities or from the pockets of individuals is not sufficient to
meet the current requirements of further education. The average cost
per further education college is a staggering
£305,000—that is the average cost out of the existing
budget that a college needs to find to subsidise its students’
travel plans.
Various solutions have been put
in place in some parts of the country. In my own area, across the old
county of Avon and Somerset, local authorities and the local bus
companies have put together a youth rover ticket, which costs
£420 a year. In London, public transport is to some extent
subsidised for younger people.
Nia
Griffith:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in
the number of people that we are talking about participating under the
Bill is a very small percentage of the whole number of young people in
the cohort? Any additional expenditure will be a very small percentage
of what he describes.
Stephen
Williams:
The percentage of the cohort not in education,
employment or training, at whom the Bill is largely directed,
is—depending on who you believe—somewhere between 10 and
15 per cent. That is not an insignificant increase in the number of
people who may be travelling around. However, not only will more people
be caught directly by the provisions of the Bill, but the educational
landscape will change considerably over the next few years as diplomas
are rolled out. That change in the underlying structure of the courses
that people have access to will, in itself, cause many more people than
that 15 per cent. to travel around.
I, the hon. Lady and the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who often says this, all
want the diplomas to be a success, but if they are a success, more
young people will travel about the country than is currently the case.
It is not just about a narrow number, whether that is the 10 or 15 per
cent. of the current cohort; it is that many more additional journeys
will be made in the next few years, irrespective of what happens under
the Bill.
I see that
the clock is crunching down on me, but the main purpose of the
amendment is to ensure that when York Consulting provides its
independent report on transport plans to the Government, it will look
at affordability as well as the other factors currently within local
authority transport plans. I hope that the Minister will give the same
assurance to me as he gave the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton on a previous
amendment.
Jim
Knight:
I have enjoyed the debate. Time is not the same in
all parts of the country—certainly, those listening to our
debate this afternoon may have agreed with that sentiment. I was
reminded of a previous Public Bill Committee where another
representative of the Liberal Democrats told me that in part of Devon,
the sun rises in the south. That was equally bizarre.
To get to the point, I agree
with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that access to timely and
affordable transport is integral to helping young people to access
education and training, but I do not believe that the amendment is the
answer to those challenges. Local authorities already have a duty to
draw up a transport policy statement under section 509(1) of the
Education Act 1996. The policy statements relate to young people
travelling to school or college. The statement must set out the
provision of transport that they consider necessary to facilitate the
attendance of people of sixth form age in
education.
7 pm
In
preparing the statements, local authorities must take a number of
factors into account: cost is one, but the distance between home and
school and the need to ensure choice in education are equally
important. Local authorities must also consider the needs of students
who would not be able to attend a particular education or training
establishment without help or support—the hon. Member for
Upminster mentioned that. Finally, the transport policy statement must
set out any arrangements for help with travel expenses that the
authority considers necessary. Those duties should already ensure that
transport costs do not prevent young people from attending school or
college.
Accepting the
amendment would not solve the problem of the absence of transport
infrastructure. That is important to ensure that people access
education provision, which we are all seeking to do. Cost is not the
only factor that we should bear in mind. Beyond the reassurances that I
gave on the previous amendment on the work that we are already doing to
inform policy on the matter, let me say that affordability and cost are
factors in the work that York Consulting is carrying out. I shall not
dwell on the technical issues raised by the amendment about how to
define affordable transport.
The Learning and Skills Council
makes £32 million available through learner support hardship
funds to colleges and school sixth forms for that age group. Around 35
per cent.—more than a third—of that funding is used to
help individual students who have particular difficulty meeting the
cost of transport. The LSC also offers, as we know, support to that age
group through the education maintenance allowance. That is not
specifically aimed at transport—far from it—but
households and students can receive up to £30 a week from the
EMA. An element of that might be used toward transport costs, but it
would not be reasonable to expect a young person to use all of it for
those costs. It is certainly worth bearing in mind that important
Government
innovation.
Stephen
Williams:
I certainly supported the introduction of the
EMA but, as I understand it, it was meant to be an incentive to people
to participate in education rather than to meet transport costs. If the
Minister thinks that everything is okay at the moment and that no
further work needs to be done, why does he think that 87 per cent. of
colleges feel the need to subsidise their students’
transportation
costs?
Jim
Knight:
I am not necessarily saying that everything is
completely rosy and we have commissioned further work on the matter.
Various obligations and duties are placed on local authorities by the
Education Act 1996 and others in respect of learner support, as I said,
so that people can access transport. Those powers will be used, but we
clearly have more work to do on cost levels, what is affordable, and
what is the right form of transport, if we are going to succeed in the
policy aim of raising participation. The crucial thing is the powers,
which are set out in the 1996 Act, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman
will withdraw the amendment.
Stephen
Williams:
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to
say. I am not sure what my unspecified hon. Friend meant when he said
that the sun sets or rises or whatever it was in the south. That seems
to be rather a bizarre statement.
I said that
time and distance were not the same. We cannot have an exact equation
in all parts of the country because travelling a short distance in the
city of Bristol may take longer than travelling a long distance in a
rural area. Those things are not as simple as they
seem.
I am not
particularly reassured that the Minister takes on board fully the fact
that affordability is a major factor for some people. That is why
colleges must spend on average £305,000 out of their budgets,
which is intended for other purposes, on transportation costs. None the
less, we eagerly await the findings of York Consulting. I am sure that
we will have to return to this topic at a later date when we have read
the report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
68
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
