Agenda item

(To receive a report from David Robinson, School Services Manager, which summarises the extent and cost of providing discretionary transport support for young learners in Lincolnshire)

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director of Children's Services, which summarised the extent and cost of providing discretionary transport support for young learners in Lincolnshire.

Andrea McLean, Head of Service – Commissioning, introduced the report and advised that the Home to School/College Transport Guidance from the Department for Education (DfE), had been last issued in 2007.  In February 2014 the DfE had issued new guidance on post 16 transport, which meant that the Council had to consult on its post 16 transport policy statement, prior to its publication on 31 May 2014. 

The Committee was invited to comment on the proposed statement which was detailed at Appendix E to the report presented.  It was highlighted that there was no proposals to change the current home to school transport policy.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Ian Widdows, Deputy Head of the Giles Academy, to the meeting and invited him to address the Committee.  He raised concerns that some providers had not been treated fairly under the existing policy, and although the Giles Academy sixth form which offered A-level tuition it had not been classed as being a Dedicated Transport Area (DTA) Sixth Form.  The school currently competed in a market with other sixth forms, providers and colleges, and as such should be treated fairly.  A number of students, who attended the Giles Academy, had to pay for the additional cost of travel themselves.  It was highlighted that it was important to bear in mind that at the end of key stage 4, children were free agents and could choose whatever provider they wanted based on a variety of factors.  Pre-16 and post 16 transport should therefore be dealt with differently, as this was having an effect on the choices for young people.

During discussion, the Committee raised the following issues:-

·         That the lack of flexibility in the post 16 transport policy was having an impact on the young people's first choices;

·         Some members agreed that the policy needed to be made more readable and that different ways of providing transport needed to be investigated.  The policy needed to be fairer and more equitable;

·         Some concern was raised that the post 16 transport policy was making the situation worse for sixth forms.  The description of schools and the Designated Transport Areas needed to be relooked at especially with collaboration;

·         The Committee was advised that the Council did not commission a taxi, but commissioned transport.  Whoever provided the transport would decide on what mode of transport to provide.  Taxis often provided the most cost effective means of transport.  Officers advised that they were not in a position to comment with regard to the cost of taxis overall, as this report related to post 16 provision;

·         It was noted that there were schemes to support children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) to use public transport, which was quite often the most effective means, given the rurality of the County;

·         The Committee was advised further that the Council was not obliged to provide post 16 transport, but it had chosen to do so.  The DTA's had been reviewed, and as a result transport was provided to the nearest school if it was over three miles for post 16.  It was noted that the DTA was not a legal requirement.  It was highlighted that any new policy needed to be affordable;

·         Collaboration between small school sixth forms would be important for future financial viability;

·         The extortionate cost of home to school/college transport to the Council, which amounted to £25m for 2013/14.  Officers advised that the policy had been supported by the Committee and the Leader of the Council who had put additional budget into Children's Services to cover the cost.  Post–16 transport was subsidised but students were expected to contribute £399 to the cost; and

·         That the post 16 transport policy was not fit for purpose.  The Committee supported the key points set out in the statutory guidance in the first paragraph on page 73 of the report.  However, it was felt that the current transport policy did not cover the Local Authority's statutory duty, and that officers should look at the policy again, taking into account the statutory guidance, and the comments raised by the Committee.

RESOLVED

            That the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee did not    support the Post - 16 Transport Statement presented.