Agenda item

Post 16 Transport Policy Statement 2018 -2019

(To receive a report from David Robinson, Commissioning Manager, Transport and Teri Marshall, Senior Commissioning Officer, Transport Commissioning Team, which invites the Committee to consider the Post 16 Transport Statement 2018-2019, which is due to considered by the Executive Councillor for Adult Care, Health and Children's Services between 23 and 27 April 2018)

Minutes:

The Committee received a report which invited members to consider a report on the Post 16 Transport Policy Statement 2018-19 which was due to be considered by the Executive Councillor for Adult Care, Health and Children's Services between 23 and 27 April 2018.

 

It was reported that the Council provided subsidised transport for learners of sixth form age (extended to age 21 or 25 for learners with Special educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SENDs)) to a school sixth form, college of further education or other approved setting.  This cost the authority around £2m per year (2017/18 forecast), and the authority recovered a proportion of the cost (approximately £1m), through a charge to parents or students which was currently £570 per annum (£579 per annum if paid in instalments).

 

It was clarified that the authority was required to review this Policy annually, and it came to this Committee on an annual basis before going to the Executive Councillor for a decision.  It was noted that the provision of post 16 transport was a non-statutory duty as there had been no change to the school leaving age, which remained at 16.  However, young people were encouraged to participate until the age of 18 in education, or employment with training.  The Council had a statutory duty to provide transport to school for children of school age.

 

In 2008, a new duty was created for young people to participate in education or employment with training until the age of 18.  This was not a raising of the school leaving age.

 

It was noted that the policy proposal was similar to previous years, with the annual charge remaining at £570 per year for a second year, which worked out at approximately £3.20 for a return trip.  Members were advised that a decision had previously been taken to have a flat charge to ensure it was fair to all and that those learners living in rural areas were not disadvantaged as they may have to travel further.

 

Members were informed that some colleges had begun to participate with the County Council, and were providing bursary funds to those learners who may struggle with the transport cost.  Some were even providing their own private travel.

 

In relation to the charge, it was noted that Lincolnshire's charge was in the lower quartile for English counties, and also for shire counties.  It was believed that the policy met its aim of allowing all school leavers reasonable choice when choosing an establishment at the Post 16 phase.

 

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was noted that in relation to Newark College, it was proposed to remove its designated transport area (DTA) as it had recently become a satellite of Lincoln College.  Therefore, the DTA's for Lincoln and Grantham would be extended to cover this geographical area.  It was reported that this would probably cost around an extra £5,000 per year in terms of subsidy.

·         It was noted that the DTA for Newark College was amended as there were concerns that the number of courses offered was fairly limited.

·         It was confirmed that some schools would offer financial support through the bursary fund if students struggled to afford to pay for transport.

·         It was noted that in most areas the LCC pass represented the best value for travel.  One exception was the 7 day mega rider pass for the Lincoln area.  In these cases, this advice would be passed on.

·         It was noted that work had been carried out into setting up the ability for transport to be paid for by direct debit, but this had been limited by the IT processes.  It was noted that this was something that the authority wanted to offer and officers were still investigating this option.

·         It was queried whether it would be possible for the admin fee to be waived for those families on low incomes as some families found it very difficult to make the payments.  Members were advised that it was the checking whether families were low income families that took the capacity of staff.

·         In relation to the college bursary funds, it was noted that the colleges had discretion on how they chose to use them, but the funds must be spent to support students.

·         It was also noted that colleges tended to have different criteria in relation to what qualified a family as low income.

·         Some colleges had created a network of buses in order to provide free transport to their students.

·         Members were advised that in order to move to a means tested situation would create a significant amount of work.  Members commented they would like work to take place on the IT system in order to get monthly payments in place.

·         It was acknowledged that there would never be a situation where everyone was happy with this Policy. 

·         Concerns were raised regarding the Louth area and whether the current policy provided young people with sufficient choice, as this policy provided a choice of location rather than a choice of course.  The biggest issue was young people not being able to study the course they wanted to.

·         Concerns were also raised regarding ensuring that some of the operators of more rural routes remained viable, as the loss of services would impact on young people.

·         Concerns were also raised regarding the impact of paying for travel where there were two siblings both of sixth form age, and it was queried whether there was any possibility of offering discounts for siblings.  It was noted that the policy could be adapted and changed but this would require an admin fee to implement.  This approach was also hindered by the existing IT systems which were currently in use.

·         It was commented that it was thought that the approach of having a blanket fee regardless of where a learner lived in the county was the correct one.

·         It was also commented that the current approach to learners who attended out of county colleges was correct.

·         It was noted that all of the transport providers were private providers, although some did receive support in the form of a subsidy from LCC to operate.  However, it was acknowledged that the authority had not renewed some contracts as the providers were asking for much higher levels of funding to run a particular route.  It was important to work with providers, and the authority wanted them to be successful and make a profit, but value for money was important.  Work was undertaken with the transport providers to ensure that routes could continue.

·         It was queried how much more it would cost to offer transport by a choice of course rather than by location, as the policy was in 2010.  Members were advised that reverting back to this version of the policy would cost an additional £1.5-2m.  However, it was also noted that this could also impact on the existing transport network by adversely affecting some vulnerable routes.

·         It was queried whether the issue of costs for siblings could be raised with colleges, and officers agreed to pass these comments on.

·         It was clarified that under the legislation, the Local Authority only had a duty to ensure access.  Some authorities did this by signposting students to the transport network, and others, like Lincolnshire provided subsidised transport.

·         It was confirmed that Looked After Children received free post-16 transport.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee support the recommendations to the Executive Councillor for Adult Care, Health and Children's Services as set out in the report.

2.    That the additional comments be passed to the Executive Councillor for Adult Care, Health and Children's Services in relation to this item:

·         It was queried whether parents and carers could get funding from schools and colleges if they could not afford to pay the £570 charge. It was confirmed that sixth form schools and colleges receive bursary funding from government and up to three quarters of this funding was being spent on transport by some colleges. It was at the discretion of sixth form schools and colleges as to how they used their bursary funding but it had to be spent on the students.

·         It was questioned whether parents and carers could spread their payments further over several months by direct debit. Officers reported that this was being looked into but unfortunately the current IT systems hindered this as they cannot handle receiving payments that way. It was confirmed that looking into arrangements for monthly direct debit payments was a priority. The Committee strongly supported officers investigating further the possibility of monthly payments by parents and carers.

·         It was queried whether the charge could be waived or lower payments could be made by means testing parents. It was highlighted that this would require a policy change and an unintended consequence of this would be higher administration costs.

·         It was suggested whether there could be a discount for siblings to help reduce the costs for parents and carers with more than one child in post 16 education, or whether sixth form schools and colleges could use some of the bursary funding to help families. Officers confirmed that, although this would incur an administration charge, they had looked at a sibling discount but this could not be done on the current IT system. It was noted that officers were looking at different IT systems currently and this could be explored as part of the process. This would also require a policy change. Officers reported that they would raise the possibility of using bursary funding for siblings with sixth form schools and colleges.

·         Concerns were raised that this policy provided choice of location rather than choice of courses. As a result, some students, such as those in the Louth area, would not be able to do the courses they wanted to do. It was queried how much it would cost to provide choice of courses rather than location. It was highlighted that the policy was changed in 2010 to provide transport to the nearest sixth form school or college, rather than to the nearest course provided. Officers confirmed that it would cost approximately an additional £1.5M to fund a choice of courses in further distant establishments. This figure is derived from the savings achieved from the changes made to the policy to remove this provision 7 years ago. Re-establishing this entitlement could lead to a larger uptake of the Council's transport offer and could lead to further costs in excess of £1.5M.

·         Concerns were raised about the vulnerability of commercial transport providers and it was queried what the Council could do to ensure their viability. It was reported that the Council worked with all transport providers especially in areas where no one else would provide a service. However, the Council had terminated some contracts in the past due to the extortionate amounts asked for to run them. It was highlighted that while the Council wanted the providers to be successful, it still needed value for money from the contracts as well. Officers were investigating what could be done to support providers.

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: