The next item relates to the school transport guidelines and is a hangover from the previous committee.
I advise the committee that I have been asked by the Presiding Officer to serve on the panel for the selection of the children's commissioner. I have been advised by the clerks that there is no conflict of interests, but I thought that the committee should be aware of the fact and I wished to put it on the record.
I, too, will be sitting on that panel.
I think that, as the convener of the committee, I will be on it as well. Are there any other confessions to be made on the matter? As Lord James says, the declaration is not necessary but it makes the matter public.
I should perhaps also put on record the fact that Graham Donaldson, the senior chief inspector for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, is my brother-in-law. I will give him a really hard time when he comes here.
Thank you for that.
I am sure that the officials are aware of the two petitions on school transport that were submitted during the previous session of Parliament. Our predecessor committee wrote to the Executive, asking it to produce new guidelines. I notice that, in paragraph 20 of the guidelines, you acknowledge the need for councils to be more flexible in taking into consideration increases in the volume of traffic and in ensuring the provision of sufficient pavements, footpaths and other safety measures. Are there any cost implications to that? Will the Executive provide more support to enable local authorities to be more flexible in addressing personal safety issues?
In the Executive's view, it is for the local authorities to decide how much money they assign to school transport issues. I do not think that the possibility of more money for more flexibility was raised with us.
The guidelines are welcome in that they make some movement towards recognising the need for more flexibility. Volume of traffic is an issue; in the past, many rural areas might not have had the volumes of traffic that they have now. We know that there has been a big increase in the volume of traffic, which has expenditure implications. We cannot put a value on safety—children are either safe or unsafe. Do you think that the guidelines have cost implications for local authorities?
If local authorities feel that there are implications, they will let us know. I cannot offer any advice or guidance on whether further funding will be available.
I will give you a practical example from my area. In the Lothians, up to 15,000 houses will be built in the near future and in certain areas—in Livingston, for example—major new build happens on a regular basis. That means that there are safety issues in getting to school. Although the problems might not be permanent, the guidelines might have to address safety issues to do with major traffic that are arising here and now. In such a situation, do you envisage that local authorities will be a bit more flexible on their strict miles guidelines by indicating that a certain route will not be safe for a certain period, because of building-site work, for example?
The guidelines encourage local authorities to be flexible and to take into account local circumstances when deciding on their transport provision. We would expect local authorities to examine individual circumstances and to reach decisions in accordance with their assessment of those circumstances.
The funding is not earmarked in any specific way.
The Scottish Executive provides annual funding to assist local authorities in meeting their statutory duty to provide school transport, but it is for each authority to determine the amount of funding that it wishes to allocate to school transport.
Your response made me slightly concerned that there might be a lack of a systematic approach to the issue and that, as a result, we might get some variation in interpretation across the country. Should a risk assessment procedure that can be activated in response to parents' or public concerns be established or should local authorities assess each transport route as a matter of routine—annually, for example—to take account of changing circumstances? The same could be said in relation to supervision on bus routes and the extent to which circumstances change over time after incidents. Do local authority processes incorporate a way of doing that systematically?
I cannot answer questions about local authority processes.
Is there a role for the Executive to lay down such a system for local authorities?
Our approach has been to encourage local authorities to be flexible in interpreting what they consider to be the major issues, rather than to try to prescribe what they should do. The Education Department suggested, when it wrote to the Education Committee's predecessor committee about safety last year, that trying to circumscribe the factors that local authorities could take into account might narrow their interpretation of such matters. I do not know whether either of my transport colleagues wants to add anything on that.
Adam Ingram asked about further guidance. Am I right in thinking that there is a duty to provide transport under the 2 and 3-mile limits, but a power to provide it in addition to that if a local authority sees fit?
There is a duty to provide school transport. The 2 and 3-mile stipulations relate to attendance at school and the distance beyond which parents might argue that it was not reasonable for their children to attend a school. Most authorities use those parameters when deciding whether to provide free school transport.
I am interested in what guidance comes from the Executive. Local authorities are required to produce green transport plans when there is new build. For example, when a new school is built, a local authority must produce a green transport plan. Is not that the case?
I am not aware of a green transport plan being required.
I could check on that. It might be something that comes from planning.
My understanding is that the requirements are not as prescriptive as Rhona Brankin suggests. For example, there can be a desire or pressure to have transport provision for a hospital, but I do not think that there are any statutory requirements.
I want to clarify whether there is any such requirement within planning provision.
Do you want officials to come back on that point or do you want to pursue it yourself?
Could the officials do that? It would be interesting to find out about that issue.
They can do so.
My question refers to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which prescribes the 2 and 3-mile limits. In 2003, probably not many eight-year-olds will walk 2.95 miles through pouring rain in the pitch black of the middle of winter. Have local authorities raised with you or has the Executive considered the issue of changing the basis on which school transport is provided? For example, there could be a scheme that, like school meals, is based on the ability to pay. Some children would get free transport but the parents who could afford to pay would, for example, buy a bus pass for a term for their children.
I am not quite sure that I understand your point.
What I am asking is whether the Executive or local authorities have raised the possibility of changing the legislative basis on which school transport is provided.
I do not think that the legislation prescribes particular methods of providing transport.
The legislation places a statutory duty, based on the 2 and 3-mile limits, on local authorities to provide transport. At the moment, a local authority could argue that it is appropriate for an eight-year-old to walk almost 3 miles to school in poor weather in the middle of winter. What I am saying to you is that the current legislation does not help to cut down the amount of car transport that goes backward and forward to schools.
The 2 or 3 miles relate to school attendance; it is a different provision from the transport one. Those are the parameters that local authorities generally adopt when planning free school transport. However, the authorities are not required to stick to that. They can, if they wish, adopt a more generous parameter.
I am aware that Strathclyde Region did so for a long time. Education Department circular 7/2003 refers to
That relates to attendance issues, which is the point that Ann Scott made. It is a sort of sideways way of coming at the subject. Am I right in thinking that the overriding duty is to make reasonable provision as the authority sees fit within what are, effectively, guidelines?
That is correct.
The point remains that there are currently no moves on the part of the Executive to make changes to that broad provision, other than what is contained in the guidelines. Is that right?
Yes, that is correct.
Before making my main point, I remark in passing that greater transparency might be needed. Everybody thinks that the provisions relating to walking distances of 2 and 3 miles are statutory. Clearly, however, they are not.
That was not put in the guidance, but a policy is in place to reduce the amount of traffic around schools through a number of initiatives, one of which resulted from the Scottish school travel advisory group's report that was published in February this year. We then undertook to fund local authority school travel co-ordinator posts—every authority in Scotland has taken up that offer. One of the duties of the people who hold those posts will be to consider the effect that authorities' policies could have in reducing the number of cars on school runs. Obviously, that will affect the level of congestion, the environment around schools and the health of pupils.
I am encouraged to hear about that. However, I am surprised that there is not more about those matters in the guidelines, given that they clearly relate to a general policy objective of the Government. You might not be able to tell us more about that, but it seems like a bit of departmentalitis—or whatever we might call it—if, despite the fact that the transport division is pushing a set of policies, those policies are not being reflected in a document concerning education. This might be a question for the minister, but why is there not more in the guidelines about the need to reduce traffic congestion, particularly around the times when people arrive at and leave school?
We try to strike a balance and to avoid overburdening authorities with long sets of guidance. We cannot include absolutely everything, as that would result in a very long document. We left out things that we would expect to be known about. Perhaps the committee feels that that was not the right decision, but that is the one that we took.
I do not wish to put questions to you that perhaps ought to be put instead to a minister but, to pursue the point, would it not be worth incentivising local authorities on such matters? It would make sense for the Government to encourage local authorities to be more supportive of measures that get more children on to school transport or on to public transport in general, which would reduce congestion at peak times. It would be desirable if we could financially incentivise that. Are either the Education Department or the transport division thinking along those lines or discussing those issues?
I should explain that, although the circular containing the guidelines is under an Education Department logo, it resulted from a joint exercise, involving both the Education Department and the Development Department. I would not like members to think that no consultation goes on and that we did not discuss the balance of different elements in the guidelines. I will take your points back with me, but I cannot offer a satisfactory answer.
Inspectors have a role in examining education in schools, but is there also a role for inspectors or a comparable body to consider school transport to find out whether provision is consistent and to ensure that high safety standards are in place? Has that matter been considered?
I do not feel that I can answer a question on the details of the role of school inspectors.
Is that issue part of inspectors' duties?
To be honest, I cannot answer that.
The Scottish school travel advisory group has been established, but it appears that it is merely advisory and has no powers to introduce mandatory measures. I wondered whether Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education might have a role, but it seems that you have not formulated a view on that.
I do not think so.
I have a question about charging and undue hardship. The guidance appears to contain no examples of what would constitute undue hardship. Does the guidance have enough clarity in that respect? Is there a danger of inconsistency of approach?
The question refers to an amendment to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 that was introduced by the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. Local authorities are expected to take circumstances into account when deciding whether or how much to charge for vacant places.
Are authorities expected to make public the availability of vacant places and offer those places at a charge to parents?
The authorities are expected to make vacant places on school transport available to pupils who are not entitled to free transport. I understand that some authorities may make such places available for no cost, whereas others will charge for the places. The 2003 act stipulates that, in setting charges, authorities should take into account parental hardship.
If, after due consideration of the matter, you wish to give the committee further information, will you write to us?
I will try to give in writing any further advice that the committee would like me to give.
Are you saying that no central examples are kept and that the matter is one for local authority experience?
Yes.
I am not sure what information you want, Lord James. I wonder what additional information the officials can give us on the issue.
If guidance is being given and if it is considered desirable to have consistency throughout Scotland, should not the guidelines be stronger? That is the root of my question.
There is a tension between circumscribing what local authorities can do and encouraging them to respond flexibly to local circumstances, which we cannot necessarily predict.
My question might be another one that we will have to ask the minister, but my understanding from the reply to a question to the minister with responsibility for transport last year is that a pilot project on yellow bus provision exists. What stage is that project at and have there been any results from it? What lessons can we learn from the pilot? Like Ken Macintosh, I think that it is important to give parents options to reduce the number of car journeys. One feature of the yellow bus system is that the drivers are required to be specially trained. One of the beauties of the scheme is that, although the buses are specifically earmarked for education purposes, authorities and schools can use the buses in other imaginative ways when they are not being used for the school runs.
Your question was about the pilot scheme. There are several yellow bus pilot schemes going on throughout the United Kingdom, one of which is in Aberdeenshire. The Department for Transport is evaluating all the pilot schemes and is in the final stages of preparing its report, which is due to go to the Secretary of State for Transport for approval shortly. We expect that report to be published in the near future.
The schemes are being evaluated at a UK level.
Yes, but the evaluation includes the one Scottish pilot scheme.
The results of that evaluation will be available quite soon.
Yes, although I cannot give you an exact time because that depends on the ministerial approval.
The report could have major implications for how we transport children to school. It could address the environmental concerns about the over-use of cars in the morning. Although the study is being done at a UK level, if the pilot was successful and we wanted to roll out the scheme across Scotland, that could result in another set of amended guidelines with recommendations.
We will have to wait for the result of the evaluation before we can comment on its applicability to Scotland.
The study seems quite important and it might have a lot of implications. Do you know when it will be available?
As I said, the draft report is in its final stages. It is due to go to the Secretary of State for Transport within the next few weeks. I cannot indicate how long it will take for the report to be approved for publication.
That might be something that the committee can look into later.
Another issue is the discretionary powers that local authorities have in relation to transport for pre-school children. Is there any financial recognition of that for local authorities? Have local authorities made representations about the need for some form of reimbursement if they are going to provide such transport? We are expecting local authorities in providing that transport for the majority of parents who want their children to attend pre-school education.
The entitlement to free transport does not apply universally to schoolchildren. The Executive provides annual funding to assist local authorities, but it is for each local authority to determine the amount—
Yes, but financial help is given if the local authority decides that it wants to take up that discretionary power.
I am sorry, but I do not quite understand your point.
You are saying that the Executive assists councils in providing such transport.
I understand that for 2002-03 the total amount spent by local authorities on school transport was almost £100 million, so councils do receive assistance from the Executive.
I have a linked question about special schools and special educational requirements, particularly with regard to the movement away from individual special schools towards more mainstream provision. Has the guidance on transport caught up with that in relation to the ability to transport children with physical difficulties on school buses and the eligibility of children with educational problems who might require more than just the average form of transport? Have those issues been taken into account in the guidance or should the committee come back to them?
The circular does not specifically deal with the needs of disabled children. I could take up that issue with my colleagues.
I had in mind issues such as whether school buses have low-deck access to assist children who have walking difficulties, whether buses have wheelchair access and whether children who live within the 2 or 3-mile zone might require to have special transport needs taken account of. I would have expected, in these days of mainstreaming and inclusion, that those areas might have formed a major part of the guidance.
I am not sure whether those issues would be best addressed in a circular that dealt specifically with transport.
It would be helpful if you could give the committee some indication of how that would be dealt with. Is there guidance, albeit in some other direction? What is the basic provision?
That is not something that I am familiar with, but we can make inquiries and get back to you.
More and more young people from special schools are being placed in mainstream schools, sometimes splitting their time between the special school and the mainstream school. That has huge implications for transport costs, as transport for those young people might have to be provided at times other than the normal bus times and, sometimes, taxis might have to be used. Is funding available to help local authorities to deal with that?
I cannot answer questions about policy and provision for disabled children, but I can make inquiries.
I am conscious of time, as we have yet to speak to the minister. I will allow two further questions.
I am conscious that some of the issues that we are asking about are to do with cost and policy as opposed to guidance. However, the fact that we now make provision for nursery education for three and four-year-olds obviously raises an issue. Guidance is tied to legislation and the legislation is about attendance. Is the fact that it is not compulsory for three or four-year-olds to receive nursery education the reason why the guidance does not cover transport provision for those children? Perhaps some of the points that we are raising are in fact policy and legislation issues as opposed to guidance issues.
I can take that point away with me, but I cannot give you an answer at the moment. To be clear, though, are you saying that you would like there to be guidance specifically on transport provision for three and four-year-olds?
I am talking about guidance on provision for special needs children and three and four-year-olds, because if the Government is pursuing its mainstreaming agenda, there will be implications for those children.
It would be useful if you could give us an indication of the current thinking on that matter.
Will guidance be given to local authorities in that regard? Will that guidance incorporate the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? I am not sure how these things work.
I know from previous posts that I have held that there are codes of practice relating to provision for children, students and adults with disabilities. I cannot answer questions on the Education Department's policy on transporting children with special needs, but I can refer the question to the appropriate people.
I thank our witnesses for their assistance. I am afraid that there are a lot of issues on which you will have to come back to the committee. There seems to be a theme about the extent to which the routine rolling forward of amended guidance takes account of relevant issues in other areas. I am sure that the Executive will take that on board. Rather than holding us up today, I propose to put this item on the agenda for our next meeting so that we can consider whether we want to do anything further. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Previous
Subordinate Legislation