Appendix 5: Draft School Transport Bill
Letter from Stephen Twigg MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Schools, Department for Education and Skills
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has taken a close
interest in the draft School Transport Bill, asking us to produce
expanded guidance, both in correspondence and in its Seventh Progress
Report.
In our forthcoming response to the Education and
Skills Select Committee on their report on pre-legislative scrutiny
of the School Transport Bill, we will undertake to expand the
ECHR guidance in the prospectus for LEAs which accompanies the
Bill. As we hope that the Bill will be introduced at the earliest
possible opportunity, we enclose a revised prospectus for the
Committee's consideration.
I hope that this document goes some way towards meeting
the Committee's concerns.
6 September 2004
DfES response to Seventeenth Report of Session,
Joint Committee on Human Rights
4.22 We remain of the view expressed in our letter,
that there is a clear need for Departmental guidance making the
human rights position clear, for at least three main reasons.
4.23 We therefore urge the Government to give
serious consideration to following the example of the National
Assembly for Wales by issuing new general guidance for LEAs including
specific guidance on how to avoid discriminating in the provision
of transport. We do not consider this to be giving 'legal advice'
to LEAs, but providing guidance on the implementation of an important
obligation not to discriminate. Such guidance to LEAs, explaining
what the law requires and how to avoid the risk of behaving unlawfully,
is a standard function of central government guidance and we find
it difficult to understand the Government's reluctance.
Our general approach to guidance for LEAs and schools
is to provide guidance relating to specific areas—admissions,
school organisation and governance, for example. We integrate
advice on human rights issues into our guidance, such as the School
Admissions Code of Practice, the Governors' Guide to the Law,
guidance produced in 2001 on inclusive schooling for children
with SEN, guidance to decision makers on school organisation,
and guidance to schools on school uniform. We think this is the
most helpful approach for LEAs and others as decision makers and
individual members of staff administering specific policies will
use the guidance.
On school transport, we have already undertaken to
expand the guidance contained in the draft prospectus, and we
have sent a revised document to the Committee for clearance.
* * * * *
School Travel Schemes — Prospectus
Background
1. Travelling to School: an action plan, sets
out a series of measures for schools, local authorities and central
government in England to take, which are intended to reduce car
use on the school run. Most do not require legislation, and we
have put in place a network of school travel advisors to help
schools, local education and transport authorities to work together
to promote walking and cycling for pupils wherever these are safe,
realistic options for travelling to school. Similar initiatives
are underway in Wales.
2. Many people have highlighted the problems faced
by pupils who live just inside the statutory walking distances—say
between one and three miles from school. It may be too far or
impractical to walk to school—particularly for primary age
children or older children carrying heavy bags. The walking route
may be unsafe for unaccompanied children. In many places there
are no bus services, or no services that are tailored to the needs
of children and young people, leaving parents and pupils with
no realistic alternative to the family car. Any local strategy
for reducing car use on the school run must cater for pupils who
cannot realistically walk to school, but for whom there is no
bus service available.
3. We expect LEAs applying to run school travel schemes
to consider the needs of all pupils in their area. They
must produce local travel schemes which the Secretary of State
or Welsh Assembly will approve, underpinned by a comprehensive
and coherent strategy which identifies and meets the travel needs
of all pupils. This will include pupils who walk and cycle to
school, as well as those who catch the bus or travel by car. Successful
applicants will have built strong relationships with transport
authorities who will work with LEAs and schools on all aspects
of sustainable school travel. They will also have a sound strategy
for working with bus operators, to secure appropriate provision
of commercial and subsidised bus services serving school pupils
and other users of publicly funded transport provision. This will
allow them to show that public spend on bus services produces
gains for all users. Each school travel scheme will be tailored
to address local needs and priorities. Schemes will focus on measures
that meet the needs of LEAs in a range of circumstances.
4. This document explains the approach we expect
LEAs to adopt in drawing up school travel schemes, and explains
how the approval process will work.
Number and duration of schemes
5. We will initially approve up to 20 English LEAs,
and up to 6 areas in Wales, but if demand is high, we can expand
the number of schemes by changing our secondary legislation. Schemes
may cover all or part of an individual LEA, or else two or more
LEAs may collaborate to run a joint scheme. Where LEAs collaborate,
each must have a separate application independently approved by
the Secretary of State or the Assembly Government. We hope that
as many schemes as possible will start in September 2006, running
until the end of July 2010 or a later agreed date. However, we
will continue to approve good schemes during 2007 and beyond as
DfES, the Assembly and LEAs learn from the experience of the first
few pilots, and keep the number of pilots under review if the
schemes are successful. We are seeking a balanced mix of schemes
embracing rural and urban areas and focusing on a range of local
priorities.
6. DIES and the Welsh Assembly Government will evaluate
the schemes each year, making the results available to other interested
LEAs to encourage more applications for local travel schemes.
They will separately decide by 31 July 2011 at the latest whether
or not the local scheme approach should continue and/or be extended
to more LEAs, although we hope that demand to run schemes will
increase steadily once the benefits of the early schemes become
clear. We will also keep the evaluation data under review end
consider that further steps need to be taken to facilitate successful
pilot projects If either DfES or the Welsh Assembly decides to
return to the old regime, scheme authorities will be able to terminate
their schemes over a period of time by mutual agreement.
Objectives of schemes
7. The main purpose of school travel has always been,
and will continue to be, to enable pupils to attend school. Most
pupils, particularly of primary age, walk to school and we want
travel schemes to ensure that wherever possible the modal share
of walking and cycling increases, because of the health and social
benefits. Since September 2003, all local authorities have produced
strategies showing how they will draw on the full range of local
resources to support sustainable travel to school, and we expect
scheme applicants to build on these strategies in putting together
their scheme proposals. It is important that scheme proposals
set out what is being done to boost walking and cycling, perhaps
working with primary care trusts. as well as improvements to bus
provision. Schemes must demonstrate that there is a comprehensive,
workable strategy to improve health and the environment, rather
than simply expanding bus use.
8. Wherever pupils live beyond the current statutory
walking distances, or cannot walk to school because of mobility
difficulties, LEAs will have to continue to make arrangements
for them to travel to school. However, we want scheme areas to
go well beyond this minimum, and use the new legislation to support
arrangements that offer a range of good quality, cost effective
alternatives to the family car on the home to school journey.
Schemes do not have to enhance bus travel: they could focus in
whole or in part on increasing cycling, car sharing or walking.
9. All schemes must aim to cut car use on the home
to school journey. Beyond that, they must focus on local priorities
and may improve provision for one or more of:
pupils travelling to schools preferred on religious
or philosophical grounds;
pupils in predominantly English speaking areas of
Wales travelling to Welsh medium schools;
pupils travelling along routes that parents consider
unsafe;
pupils participating in extracurricular activities,
on or off school premises.
They might also trial:
innovative purchasing arrangements, particularly
in collaboration with other forms of publicly funded transport
provision;
modem technology in route planning, fare collection
and scheme management;
closer links with post-16 transport policies leading
to more consistent provision for older pupils;
wider use of staggered school opening hours, introduced
through collaboration with schools;
new approaches to transport safety issues;
transport solutions tailored to rural schools and
their communities.
This list is not exhaustive, and we recognise that
there could be compelling local circumstances which suggest that
an LEA should adopt different priorities: we will take a flexible
approach provided applicants provide a reasoned explanation of
how schemes meet local needs.
Assessing the transport needs of pupils
10. In 'Making the Connexions', published in February
2003. the Social Exclusion Unit encouraged local authorities to
undertake 'accessibility planning'. This is the process of identifying
where people live, and where they need to travel to. and using
public subsidies to support services which take people where they
want to travel as quickly and cheaply as possible.
11. Some LEAs are beginning to use modem technology
to assess pupils' travel patterns. In Somerset, for example, the
LEA uses the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) to identify
pupils' home to school travel patterns, allowing them to design
more appropriate bus services and/or interventions which minimise
short car journeys. LEAs that have the capacity to plan transport
provision strategically, on the basis of a careful analysis of
pupils' needs, are likely to have the most persuasive proposals
and the most carefully thought out monitoring and evaluation strategies.
Recent research published by DfES has confirmed that high quality
communication and information provision is an effective tool in
changing travel behaviour: applicants should set out what they
have done to date to exploit the 'soft factors' that affect travel
decisions.
12. We expect LEAs to consider travel patterns of
pupils in independent schools in their area to examine whether
there is any scope for making joint arrangements that benefit
pupils in both sectors.
Local consultation
13. Local travel schemes must meet local needs and
aspirations. Before making a formal application, an LEA must consult
school governors, parents and prospective parents. transport operators,
FE institutions and any other partners with a material interest
in school travel schemes. Parents and pupils, schools and further
education colleges, must be committed to local travel schemes
and able to provide practical help in scheme design and in communicating
scheme strategies to pupils and parents.
14. Local transport plans, bus policies and post-16
policy statements should all support school pupils and provide
straightforward and fair pricing and ticketing strategies. as
well as a network that takes pupils to school by direct, economic
routes. Applications should set out details of the consultation
process that has taken place, together with the main findings,
and action that has been taken to address concerns.
Integration with other forms of public transport
15. School transport is provided in many different
ways. Pupils may travel on public buses with a mix of other passengers,
or on public buses that cater predominantly for schoolchildren.
LEAs or schools may provide dedicated school buses, and a small
number of authorities have found ways to integrate social services
and/or health service transport with school transport.
16. We estimate that over £2 billion is spent
by central and local government, and the health service, on supporting
school, health, social services and public transport each year.
Yet there is little integration, with LEAs and others citing barriers
such as vehicle design, service schedules, and custom and practice.
We hope that some schemes will explore the scope for closer integration,
providing a better service not only for children, but for adults
who depend on public transport to access employment, healthcare,
day care and leisure activities. This approach may be particularly
relevant for rural areas where there is less public transport
provision.
Cost effective, high quality provision
17. In February 2004 DfES and ConfEd published a
joint survey of the cost of school transport in England. It showed
sharp differences between LEAs in overtly similar circumstances,
reflecting differing local practices, particularly the availability
of concessionary fares. It also showed that authorities with a
well developed system of staggered school start times (thereby
allowing the same bus to serve two or three rather than just one
school) had cost effective provision.
18. The Welsh Assembly Government has recently collated
the results of a survey of school transport in Wales. The survey,
which predominantly focused on LEA contract services, highlighted
the differences between LEAs in terms of criteria for awarding
free transport, numbers of children using home to school transport,
contract terms, and application of safety initiatives.
19. In the USA and Canada schools collaborate closely
over start and finish times, allowing them to run their distinctive
'yellow bus' networks cost effectively. We do not envisage that
the North American approach—which can lead some pupils to
start school very early in the morning—is appropriate in
England and Wales. However, we think that some authorities could
explore with their schools whether there is scope for shifting
start and finish times by 10 or 15 minutes. Some authorities have
found that these small differences enable buses to make more than
one journey, reducing costs and opening up buses to many more
pupils. We expect scheme authorities to investigate thoroughly
the costs and benefits of multiple journeys with their schools,
bearing in mind the pressures on parents who may have to take
children to two or more different schools before going to work,
as well as on school staff (who may be parents themselves).
20. We sometimes receive complaints from parents
about the quality of school transport, and from bus operators
about the behaviour of children which may intimidate drivers,
cause criminal damage, and compromise safety. We do not accept
that poor behaviour is inevitable. Neither do we accept that it
is uneconomic or undesirable to invest in school buses. We think
that parents, schools, LEAs and bus operators can together—do
a lot more to set high expectations for pupil behaviour. and tackle
poor pupil behaviour consistently and effectively both through
technology such as CCTV and through safety and driver training.
We expect scheme authorities to set out their strategy for securing
consistently good behaviour on school buses, including their track
record of working with schools and bus operators
21. Scheme applications should also explain what
LEAs and local transport authorities are doing to ensure that
good quality, well maintained vehicles, appropriate for school
use, are used for school transport. Parents and pupils should
be treated as customers, and their views sought and taken into
account in designing and developing school services.
22. Parents are often concerned about the safety
of their child's journey to school, whether they are walking,
cycling, or taking the bus They may be concerned about traffic
danger, petty crime and bullying, or more serious violent assaults.
Parents may be worried about the safety of buses, which they may
consider overcrowded or insufficiently monitored by adults. We
expect scheme authorities to outline their approach to safety
for all pupils on the home to school journey, as this is a key
area for school travel plans.
Extended school day
23. Extended schools provide services and activities
to children, young people, their families and their local communities
during the school day, before and after school hours, at weekends
and during school holidays. These services might include health
and social services. childcare, adult and lifelong learning, sports
and arts facilities, breakfast and after school clubs including
homework clubs, parenting support and opening up facilities for
community use.
24. It is important that school transport is planned
so that children and young people can take advantage of, and benefit
from extended services offered by schools outside standard school
hours, as we know that they can generate a range of positive outcomes.
By 2006 all LEAs will receive extended schools funding, and LEAs
and schools will decide how best to use it to enable them to provide
extended services on school site. This could include using some
of the funding to organise transport to support children and young
people attending extended services in schools. It is essential
that school transport is integrated in the local planning of children's
services and local authorities will want to consider how school
transport can support extended schools that are working in clusters
to provide a wide range of services to communities.
25. Pilot applications must set out how extended
school provision is included in pilot proposals.
Charging
26. Scheme applications must set out local charging
policies, making it clear how many pupils wilt be charged, and
the level of any proposed charges. Detailed proposals must be
included in local consultations. Any charges must be affordable
and pitched at a level that does not produce an increase in car
journeys to school. Our legislation will protect children from
low income families who attend their nearest suitable school,
but LEAs must ensure that their charging policies comply with
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
27. The legislation prevents scheme authorities charging
in respect of children from low income families. In England pupils
eligible for free school meals will be protected from charges.
The legislation allows the National Assembly to use a different
definition for low income families if it chooses to do so. We
are concerned that charges could be particularly burdensome for
families with incomes that fall just above the free school meal
eligibility level, for large families, and possibly for those
that have to travel long distances to school in rural areas. We
expect scheme LEAs to explain how they propose to manage a charging
regime cost effectively, taking into account the needs of low
income and large families. LEAs must also explain why they are
confident that charging will not increase car use.
28. Charges may have a differential geographic impact
within scheme areas. Some areas may be net losers of public funding,
with others gaining overall. Authorities' proposals must provide
transparent information about any imbalances between areas generating
and absorbing charges.
Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disabilities
29. Scheme applicants must describe how their proposals
cater for pupils with SEN (with and without statements of SEN),
disabled pupils and pupils with medical conditions. Our presumption
is that wherever possible pupils with SEN or disabilities will
share transport with their peers, but that where this is not possible
LEAs will make every effort to identify ways to combine journeys
and—if possible—share vehicles and schedules with
social services or health service transport. Where a disabled
child is unable to walk the statutory walking distance the LEA
will be under a duty to make transport arrangements for them (see
para 34 below).
Non-discrimination
30. LEAs and their legal advisors will be aware that
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and other
non discrimination provisions, provide that school travel schemes
may not operate in such a way as to discriminate against pupils
or parents in the enjoyment of the following rights: (a) a child's
right to education and (b) a parent's right to have their child
educated in accordance with their own religious or philosophical
convictions, unless such discrimination can be objectively and
reasonably justified.
31. The Secretary of State, and the National Assembly
for Wales, will not approve school travel schemes which they consider
to be incompatible with the Convention. LEAs are therefore urged
to give careful consideration to discrimination issues, and to
seek legal opinion if they are unsure about the effect of their
proposals, before submitting their schemes for approval.
32. In most circumstances parents send their children
to the nearest school, as it caters for their children's needs
and for their family's religious or philosophical beliefs, or
linguistic preferences. However, there are circumstances where
parents will choose a different school, or where pupils with mobility
or other difficulties may need additional help in getting to school.
It is important that LEAs consider whether or not their schemes
discriminate against these categories of families or pupils, and
that any discrimination can be objectively justified.
33. Some parents choose to send their children to
schools with a particular ethos because they adhere to a particular
faith or philosophy, or as a result of a linguistic preference.
In many cases these schools may not be the nearest school, and
parents may meet substantial transport costs in sending their
children to these schools. LEAs should pay careful attention to
the impact of any charges on low income families whose parents
adhere to a particular faith or philosophy, and who have expressed
a preference for a particular school as a result of the religious
or their philosophical beliefs (or in Wales because of the language
of instruction). In our view, it is possible that these categories
of pupils may be discriminated against if they are treated differently
from other pupils from low income families, unless the different
treatment can be objectively justified, for example on grounds
of excessive journey length, having a detrimental impact on the
child's education, or reasonable cost. The obligation not to discriminate
in Article 14 ECHR requires that where transport provision is
made for pupils travelling to denominational schools it must also
be made for pupils travelling to non-denominational schools to
be educated in accordance with their parents' secular convictions,
and vice versa. Similarly, an LEA which provides free transport
to an English speaking school where the school nearer to the child's
home is a Welsh speaking school, must also provide free transport
to a Welsh speaking school for children who wish to attend such
a school. We think that wherever possible, LEAs should ensure
that transport arrangements support the religious, philosophical
or linguistic preference parents express.
34. Our other area of concern is for pupils with
mobility difficulties, or other forms of SEN, where the minimum
obligation to provide transport is not sufficient to meet their
needs Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Bill requires LEAs to
make appropriate travel arrangements for children, and we are
clear that a child with mobility or other difficulties who is
unable to walk 2 or 3 miles would have to be provided with transport
or other assistance. However, LEAs have considerable discretion
in making these arrangements and may take into account other forms
of help for these categories of pupils, such as the mobility allowance,
and provision of a 'motability' car.
35. Finally LEAS must provide a thorough analysis
of the impact of charging on different groups of pupils, particularly
the groups outlined above, to clarify the net impact of any scheme
on different segments of the pupil population.
Transition arrangements
36. Parents need time to adjust their arrangements
where local travel schemes change travel options for their children.
Scheme proposals should set out the strategy that LEAs will use
to publicise new arrangements, and demonstrate that they have
the support of governing bodies and headteachers who will probably
be the first point of contact for parents uncertain, worried or
confused about new arrangements. Scheme proposals must set out
with care how they will introduce new arrangements.
Capacity
37. Applicants should set out their track record
in improving sustainable school travel in recent years. A track
record of productive collaboration between LEAs and local transport
services is essential. There must be realistic plans for acquiring
expertise, particularly where new technology is trialled. Applicants
must be able to show that they have a strong team with the right
skills mix to tackle the cultural challenges that piloting will
bring.
Application and approval process
38. We hope to be in a position to seek expressions
of interest by July 2005 and would encourage local authorities
seeking exploratory discussions to contact us as soon as possible.
Formal applications should be set out in accordance with the attached
annex, and submitted by [DEPENDS ON PARLIAMENTARY TIMETABLEJ for
schemes with planned start dates of September 2006. The Secretary
of State can approve up to 20 LEAs to run schemes in England,
and the limit for Wales, where schemes are approved by the National
Assembly, is six. If LEAs need more time to put together pilot
packages, DfES or the National Assembly may approve a second tranche
of schemes starting in September 2007. If schemes are successful,
the programme may be expanded to meet demand before the initial
pilot phase ends.
39. In deciding which schemes to approve, we will
consider the overall balance. so that in each country schemes
cover a range of geographic and socio-economic circumstances;
local partnerships; pupil age ranges and circumstances; scheme
objectives and funding arrangements.
Freedom of Information
40. DfES adheres to the UK Government's Code of Practice
on Access to Government Information, commonly known as Open Government..
The National Assembly also has a Code of Practice on Public Access
to Information. LEAs running schemes must be willing to provide
information—including financial information—about
their schemes, which will be published as part of the evaluation.
Funding
41. LEAs are expected to fund schemes from resources
already committed to funding school transport, together with any
charges levied on pupils. Existing funds must continue to support
school travel, with budgets uprated each year in line with comparable
LEAs. All fare income must be invested in improved services.
Evaluation and monitoring
42. Our primary concern will be to achieve a good
spread of schemes. However, in evaluating individual schemes,
as well as the criteria set out in this prospectus. DfES and the
National Assembly will also consider: the applicant's capability
of running a scheme; the quality of partnerships and local support
for plans; the extent to which the LEA is successful in identifying
additional funding to support schemes; its plans for managing
the scheme; the quality of the proposed services; and value for
money.
43. LEAs with approved schemes will be required to
produce an annual report for DfES or the National Assembly as
appropriate, which contains statistics on home to school travel,
analysing the effect that schemes have had in reducing car use
on the school run. It should contain an account of what has gone
well and badly, and the views of key partners. It must also contain
financial annexes, detailing the economics of schemes
44. We expect pilot authorities to put in place reliable
systems for monitoring travel to school patterns so that we can
make a thorough assessment of the overall impact of the school
travel scheme on all modes of pupil travel by category (Walk,
Cycle, Bus, Car/van, Car share, Rail, Other). They must also assess
the impact of their schemes on vulnerable groups (low income families,
specific ethnic groups, pupils with SEN and disabilities). One
option could be to use the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC)
as this could offers the most flexible approach to monitoring,
as it is comprehensive and links travel modes with home address.
45. DfES will commission an independent evaluation
of English schemes which will draw together an analysis of each
scheme, and provide evidence for the decision about whether or
not to roll out the school travel scheme approach. Pilot authorities
must agree to cooperate fully with the independent evaluation,
so that it provides the greatest benefits possible to all local
authorities.
| 
