Education Committee, 08 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 8, 2003

Official Report 279KB pdf

---

School Transport Guidelines

We return to the Scottish Executive's revised school transport guidelines. We have already had a fairly thorough discussion of some of the issues. I invite Fiona Hyslop to kick off.

I am conscious that the guidelines were produced in response to our predecessor committee's inquiry on the matter. That followed two petitions, which were specifically about issues of personal safety and the volume of cars on rural roads. The paper that we received at our previous meeting covers the issues to an extent. It focuses on the need for more flexibility, but that is an issue of common sense. It emerged from the guidelines and from speaking to officials that there is no funding mechanism or additional funding to help to improve school transport. All that has really happened is that guidelines have been updated with that suggestion of more flexibility.

I was struck by the contributions of colleagues, and it is clear that there is more to the issue than simply personal safety. The question is whether we keep a watching brief or whether we might want to examine the matter with regard to legislation. The committee should either stick to the traditional view, which involves 1-mile, 2-mile and 3-mile radiuses governing access to school transport, or it should take a more holistic view, together with colleagues on the Local Government and Transport Committee.

We should perhaps consider whether school transport in modern times is a wider issue. The situation has changed so considerably since the first pieces of legislation in the area were put together that we should take a wider look at the matter. We should consider how people live their lives and what current school transport arrangements are. In Glasgow, the number of schools is being rationalised considerably, which will perhaps have an impact. Rhona Brankin spoke about green schools and yellow-bus piloting. I think that we need to keep a watching brief on such issues, although it will be up to colleagues how far we pursue them. The guidelines have addressed my concerns on the matter of personal safety, even if they are not as strong as I would like them to be.

Our previous discussion demonstrated that there is more to the matter than the simple updating of guidelines. There are more fundamental issues at stake. Should the committee appoint a reporter on the subject? Should we monitor it? Should we take a stand on it? If the committee could tackle school transport, that would be a major contribution to both education and the environment.

There was a clear perception of departmentalitis last week. There seemed to be no appreciation, at least on the part of the officials from whom we heard, about the interrelation with transport for disabled people or with green transport plans, for example. We could well pursue the issue.

The issue is extremely important. Anything to do with the safety of children has to be given top priority. I wonder whether it might be appropriate for us to make decisions on the matter once we have received the answers that we requested from the Executive. The Executive was going to write to us on a number of issues. I wonder if the clerk could send a gentle reminder that we are awaiting the Executive's further evidence. There were some questions that the Executive was not able to answer when we discussed the subject previously.

Ken Macintosh has had to leave the meeting, but he left me a note that, in many ways, echoes some of Lord James's concerns. Among other things, he asks whether the guidelines can be amended to take account of and provide an incentive for local authorities to reduce the volume of school-run traffic. He also mentions a need for greater transparency in the guidelines and for greater equity and fairness across Scotland on charging.

The issue also links into planning. It will be difficult to change things, but it seems that there has not been the cross-cutting thinking that is required. The committee could try to tie things together in a more holistic way.

Would it reasonable if I, as convener, were to write to the Executive on the matter, referring to our meeting today and drawing some of the issues to its attention? I could ask the Executive whether it is investigating the issues further. We will see whether a response can be brought to the committee later. Some of the issues are narrow, but some of them are broader and on-going. Clearly, we should move away from what could be described as the traditional, fairly narrow approach if we are to take some of the issues that have been raised into account. I dare say that the ministers are aware of many of those matters, but it would be helpful to know what their thinking is in that context.

We should also seek clarification on the statutory requirement on local authorities to provide transport, as last week's evidence was unclear. The officials seemed to think that the 2-mile and 3-mile limits relate only to attendance, not to the provision of transport.

The officials made it clear that that is the case.

All the local authorities with which I have dealt believe that the limits are a statutory requirement.

The guidance is reasonably clear that the limits are not statutory.

Local authorities do not seem to understand that.

They use the limits as the basis for providing transport; I do not think that the issue is important practically. Certainly, the limits were arrived at as a by-blow from the attendance issue, rather than from a direct view about school transport requirements.

I am not sure what local authorities are required to do. Is legislative change necessary or can the basis on which transport is provided be changed through alternative guidance?

Do members want to write formally to the minister on some of those issues? The Executive officials took away issues that we wanted to know more about, but there are also issues about targets and reducing the clutter of vehicles at school gates. Rhona Brankin's point about yellow buses was also relevant. The clerk, Martin Verity, has a note of most of the issues that we have raised and we have the Official Report of the previous meeting. We will pursue the matter and decide what to do when we receive a reply, which could conceivably come at the end of the month.

I presume that, if the minister sends a comprehensive reply, it will include the replies that the officials would wish to give.

That is right.

Could we include a question on whether transport plans are required when new schools are built?

The letter will include issues that were raised in members' questions at the previous meeting, which were pretty thorough.

I assume that the letter will ask the minister about his policy and aims on the issue and whether the guidelines are a holding measure or the end of the review. If they were the end of the review, we would be concerned; if they were part of an on-going process, we would be happier.

I will circulate to members a draft letter to ensure that all members' interests are comprehended in it.

We should say that we welcome the Executive's response, but that we felt that it raised wider issues.

We will draw attention to the fact that the issue has perhaps not received a broad examination for a while. Do members agree that we should write such a letter?

Members indicated agreement.

Once Martin Verity has put his letter-writing skills to good effect, we will circulate the letter.

Following the decision made earlier, we now move into private session to consider agenda item 5, which is on the committee's response to the budget.

Meeting continued in private until 12:33.