THE EXTENDED FREE TRANSPORT ENTITLEMENT
27. The extended entitlement to free transport for
children from low income families relies on two methods of defining
low income families. One is children in receipt of free school
meals and the other is children from families in receipt of the
maximum level of working tax credit. Sian Thornthwaite, a consultant
specialising in school travel, noted that there were problems
with the way entitlement to free school meals was assessed and
using this "as a gateway to an additional benefit of free
transport" could mean that some of those who the extended
school transport entitlement was meant to help were further disadvantaged.[22]
The other way of identifying children from low income families
entitled to free transport under the Act was those from a household
in receipt of the maximum amount of working tax credit. However,
it was not possible for education authorities to access HMRC records
and ensure that those children who were eligible were aware of
the entitlement.[23]
28. Ms Thornthwaite was also sceptical about the
extended entitlement having the desired effect, arguing that for
distances of 2-6 miles there are often choices in urban or suburban
areas but this is usually not the case in rural areas. In order
to offer a real choice in rural areas the upper distance for extended
free school transport, currently six miles, or in cases where
the choice is due to religion or belief fifteen miles, would have
to be increased.
29. Evidence from David Brown, South Yorkshire Strategic
Education Transport Group supported the view that it is difficult
for Local Authorities to identify children entitled to free transport
under the new arrangements. He told us that in South Yorkshire
the local authority had been able to access the national database
of children in receipt of free school meals and advise those families
of the extended transport entitlements but had been unable to
do so for families in receipt of working tax credits.[24]
30. It is possible that confusion about entitlement
and the difficulties Local Authorities face in identifying eligible
children and informing parents of the entitlement have led to
a lower take-up of free transport than may otherwise have been
the case. In written evidence the Department for Children, Schools
and Families and the Department for Transport estimated that "around
30% of newly entitled pupils will take advantage of the new offer".[25]
However, the Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State for Schools and Learners
told that Committee, in November 2008, that there had not been
a great take-up but that was not necessarily out of line with
expectations "because very often their
local school is the school people want to go to".[26]
31. The mechanisms which Local Authorities are
using to identify children who are eligible for the extended entitlement
to free school transport are not sufficiently robust. We recommend
that the Government put in place mechanisms to help local authorities
identify pupils who are eligible for the new entitlement. The
Government and local authorities should also ensure that parents
and pupils are aware of the new entitlement.
32. We welcome the extension of provision of free
school transport for pupils from low income families. We are,
however, concerned that the maximum travel distance of six miles
does not allow for a choice of schools in rural areas. We recommend
that the Government should establish how many eligible pupils
in rural areas have more than one school within a six mile radius
of their home. The Government needs to establish whether allowing
pupils from low income families to receive free transport within
a six mile radius, even if they do not attend their closest school,
has had a positive impact on the availability of a choice of schools
for those pupils.
33. Although we accept that the aim of ensuring
young people from low income families are not educationally disadvantaged
by the cost of travel is important, we are concerned that several
witnesses suggested that there has been a reduction in the discretionary
school transport provided by Local Authorities.[27]
Ian Gwenlan of the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers
suggested that this was partly a result of increased statutory
duties on local authorities in respect of school transport.[28]
We recommend that the Government should establish to what extent
Local Authorities have removed discretionary provisions since
the extended statutory duties came into force.
34. In November 2008 the Local Transport Act received
Royal Assent. The Department for Transport claimed that the Act
would:
- Give local authorities the
right mix of powers to improve the quality of local bus services,
as proposed in Putting Passengers First in December 2006
following an extensive bus policy review;
- Allow for the creation of an influential new
bus passenger champion to represent the interests of bus passengers,
and
- Give local authorities the power to review and
propose their own arrangements for local transport governance
to support more coherent planning and delivery of local transport.[29]
35. Witnesses were cautious in predicting the success
of the Act in promoting a more integrated approach to school travel
planning as part of a wider transport network. Les Warneford of
Stagecoach when asked in October 2008 if the Local Transport Bill
would improve the working relationship between travel operators
and Local Authorities, told us that "I think it is silent
on that matter".[30]
However, Mark Hudson, 14-19 Rural Access to Learning Groups told
us that he was hopeful that "the arrangements in the Local
Transport Bill will help us towards ticketing and integrated fares".[31]
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport was more
positive still, saying that the Act:
would actually allow passenger transport executives
and authorities to become integrated transport authorities, so
taking responsibility across the board for transport requirements,
and would actually help to have a far better joined-up view of
the delivery.[32]
36. Some witnesses were critical of the lack of impact
of the last piece of legislation which affected school travel,
the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Modeshift felt it had
done little to promote sustainable travel, saying, "There
appears to be little evidence that the Education and Inspections
[Act] has yet significantly changed activity in terms of implementation
of measures."[33]
We would welcome a more joined-up approach to school travel
but it remains to be seen if the Local Transport Act will achieve
this.
Funding
Table 1: Cost of, and funding for,
school travel programmes
37. Funding for school transport comes primarily
from the Revenue Support Grant from central government to local
authorities and through income generated by local councils. The
grant is not ring-fenced for particular services. As long as they
meet their statutory duties, councils have the discretion to use
their funding as they see fit. There is also funding for specific
initiatives, as outlined in Table 1 above. The Department for
Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Transport
have jointly provided £140 million for the Travelling
to School initiative. The Department of Health also funds,
or partly funds, some initiatives, such as a contribution towards
Cycling England and funding for Healthy Towns which, while
not aimed exclusively at school travel, may contribute to supporting
sustainable travel in general.
Figure 1: School travel expenditure
of Local Authorities
Source: Department for Children, Schools and Families,
Benchmarking tables of LA planned expenditure 2008-09
38. As Figure 1 above shows, the amount of expenditure
for school transport has increased significantly since 2000. Total
spending has risen by nearly £379 million comprising a £141
million rise for secondary school transport, a £111 million
increase for primary school transport and a £132 million
rise in expenditure on school transport for pupils with special
educational needs. Despite accounting for over one-third of the
total increase in school transport expenditure, SEN pupils make
up only 2.8 per cent of all pupils across England.[34]
39. Pupils with special educational needs are one
of the groups given specific entitlement to free school transport
under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. We heard that "Support
for Special Educational Needs students to access learning opportunities
represents a relatively small percentage of students but a significant
proportion of overall expenditure".[35]
40. Some witnesses have argued that the relative
difficulty in obtaining revenue funding compared to capital funding
means that it is not necessarily the most effective measures that
are implemented. [36]
[37] First Group echoed
this and said that:
a problem is that school transport initiatives
require both capital and revenue funding. In transportation the
availability of central Government grants or permission to borrow
for capital expenditure means that physical elements of school
plans have a higher chance of implementation e.g. local traffic
management schemes around schools while other, potentially higher
value measures (school bus improvements, travel behaviour initiatives)
do not because they require ongoing revenue funding which is generally
scarce.[38]
41. There is also competition for funding, not just
from other transport or education initiatives but from all services
provided by local councils. On average, money for school transport
makes up 0.5% of local authority budgets. Councillor Lawrence
emphasised that school travel was only one of many competing priorities:
"If an authority was asked to provide more money to facilitate
the safeguarding of children as against the provision of support
for travel plans, I do not think it would be difficult to see
in which direction additional money would go."[39]
42. There are many suggestions for improving school
travel but a limited amount of funding. Given the current economic
climate, it is unlikely that large additional sums will become
available for school travel initiatives in the short term. It
is therefore all the more important that the Government ensures
that money is spent in the most efficient way possible. We are
concerned at the suggestion that some relatively inexpensive but
effective projects that involve walking, for example the Walk
Once a Week scheme that rewards children for walking to school
with a sticker, are viewed less favourably, when it comes to funding,
than other projects.[40]
Given budget pressures and the importance of spending
public money wisely and efficiently, we urge the Government to
work with Local Authorities to see how low cost projects requiring
revenue funding can be supported effectively.
43. We recognise that the Department for Transport
and the Department for Children, Schools and Families are working
together to fund school travel initiatives. The Department
for Transport must make effective use of all possibilities to
fund projects jointly with other Departments, for example drawing
on Department of Health Healthy Towns funding towards infrastructure
improvements to encourage cycling and walking.
16 Q 220 [Dr Thornthwaite] Back
17
Q 383 Back
18
Q 110 Back
19
Q 402 Back
20
Ev 74 Back
21
Ev 129 Back
22
Ev 166 Back
23
ibid Back
24
Q 47 Back
25
Ev 74 Back
26
Q 403 Back
27
Q 233 [Dr Thornthwaite], Q 286 [Ms Roche] Back
28
Q 351 Back
29
"Bus passengers to benefit from local transport bill - New
passenger champion to be created", Department for Transport
press release, 8 November 2007 Back
30
Q 212 Back
31
Q 272 Back
32
Q 408 Back
33
Ev 137 Back
34
Department for Children, Schools and Families, Statistical First
Release 15/2008, Special Educational Needs in England, January
2008 Back
35
Ev 93 [South Yorkshire Strategic Education Transport Group] Back
36
Capital funding is provided for expenditure which will have a
long term (and usually tangible) benefit. Revenue funding relates
to running expenses and is funding which needs to be renewed for
benefits to continue. For example, purchasing a bike shed would
be a capital cost but annual bike safety training would be a revenue
cost. Back
37
Ev 92 Back
38
Ev 151 Back
39
Q 353 Back
40
Ev 125 [Living Streets] Back
