Education Committee, 20 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

School Transport

Agenda item 6 is on school transport, an issue that, as members will recall, we have considered a number of times before. We have a paper from the clerks, together with responses from local authorities and the large document by the Scottish Consumer Council, "A Review of School Transport Contracts in Scotland". The question is what further work we want to do on the matter, with ministers or with others.

My understanding is that there is no statutory requirement on local authorities to provide school transport. That came as a surprise when we first considered the matter and discussed it with the Executive. There is a statutory duty on parents, unless their children live more than a certain distance from the school. There is also a statutory duty on local authorities to provide education for everyone. The common understanding is that there is a statutory requirement on local authorities to provide school transport, but the issue is not as simple as that.

Paragraph 4 of the clerk's paper states:

"Local authorities commented on the statutory requirement that they should make arrangements to provide free transport or transport facilities for children who live outwith the statutory walking distance from school."

However, that is not your understanding of what was said.

No. That is what local authorities think that they have to do, although the effect is the same; I am just nit-picking a little. The other thing that struck me when I read "A Review of School Transport Contracts in Scotland" is that pupil behaviour on school transport is often a problem. Obviously, that is connected with safety. One of the recommendations in the report is:

"National and local strategies relating to positive pupil behaviour should also embrace behaviour on school transport."

The problem is that bus drivers are often left to enforce the behaviour policy, which can be difficult.

Yes—that can be an issue. There is a good comment in the letter from Barnardo's on the need to consult children. It states:

"They knew the dangerous places. They knew where they and their friends wanted to play".

That is a fairly obvious issue, which is sometimes breached rather than honoured, as it were.

I am pleased that we have received the responses. It is clear that things have moved on since the legislation on school transport was passed. Experience across the country varies, but there are common themes. I am interested in the response from Aberdeenshire Council, which was mentioned in one of the petitions on school transport that were referred to us. The issue was the criteria relating to walking distances—because of severe financial constraints, the council had cut its provision. The other petition came from West Lothian; it is interesting that in that area provision of free transport is more enhanced. The two local authorities that were mentioned in the petitions are going in opposite directions, with one increasing its mileage and one decreasing it. However, there is still a problem.

One of the things that we can usefully do is to engage with the Minister for Education and Young People on the matter. The issue is not about the guidance being reviewed; I think that there are difficulties with the statutes. We have not had a response from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department yet and we should remember that Rhona Brankin was keen on pursuing the matter as well. There is a question about what we are doing to encourage joined-up thinking. In Edinburgh, we have just been through the referendum on the congestion charging scheme, the aim of which was to reduce traffic to the levels that occur during the summer holidays, when there is no school run. Obviously, placing requests also have implications, because they lead to more traffic movement.

There are also issues about local authorities managing their own budgets and the constraints that they face, but cutting across that is the issue of universalism. Originally, concerns about the provision of school transport related to distance and cost, but now the drivers for school transport policy—and that means legislation—should be safety, the environment and health. If we go back to first principles and try to engage with the minister, we can perhaps come up with provisions that will guide not only legislation but the budget provision of local authorities.

Councils have different concerns; Angus Council says that it is "bemused" by the apportionment of funding for school transport. There are also cross-cutting issues about rural schools, rural school closures and repopulation in certain areas, which we are trying to encourage. The school transport agenda has moved on so far that it might be helpful to go back to basics.

Can someone remind me whether people who place their children at a greater distance are entitled to transport if they are over the two-mile limit?

No.

I go back to additional support for learning and the papers from organisations that are involved with children with special needs. The committee expressed concern that, if there was movement on the transport issue, there had to be support for children with special needs. In our consideration of the Gaelic (Scotland) Bill, we found that the experience in Glasgow was different from that in Edinburgh. If we as a committee want to encourage people to take up Gaelic-medium education and we agree to a bill that states that all local authorities will be expected to provide access to Gaelic education in their own area or elsewhere—we might debate that matter tomorrow—we must accept that that will raise transportation issues. Perhaps we have to identify the core issues that should be driving school transport policy and see whether they match. If they do not, we will have to tell the minister that it is time for a reappraisal.

You have listed many, if not most, of the matters that we want to address. The issue is what we do. The committee has touched on school transport issues on and off for a while, but we might wish to hold a formal inquiry and produce a report—we can consider that when we examine the forward work programme for the autumn. We could do something that is joined-up and innovative. In the short term, we might wish to ask for ministerial comments on the broader issues.

I agree with much of what Fiona Hyslop said, although I take a slightly more positive view. It is clear from submissions that recent investment in school transport is making a difference. Clearly, there are disparities in the country, some of which are unfair and some of which just reflect local priorities. There is no central solution.

Fiona Hyslop is right to mention the importance of other criteria—health and safety and the environment in particular—and not just basic statutory distances. Many families of pupils in rural schools would not object to walking long distances to school, whereas many families in urban environments would object to walking short distances to school, mainly because in urban areas traffic is busy, which makes it dangerous. In urban areas, a bus service or some other safe route to school is needed. In rural environments, there are fewer cars on the road and people may be used to walking many miles to school, even if there are no pavements.

It does not bother me that Aberdeenshire and West Lothian are going in different directions, because ultimately that is a local decision. We should be cautious about thinking that we can come up with one solution. However, I am conscious of the fact that the funding formulas should be fair. I agree that we need to examine the funding for people who go to Gaelic schools or who require additional support for learning, but the issues are tricky. It is not a question of giving absolute rights in each case. For example, do all children who have been the subject of a placing request have an absolute right?

That applies to specialist schools of other kinds.

Exactly. There are a number of issues. All I am saying is that there is no clear solution. The money that was spent recently to enable local authorities to look into the issues has produced dividends and has made a difference in certain areas.

Paragraph 23 of the paper refers to the School Transport Bill, which was going through the House of Commons. It might be useful to gain information on that, because it could assist us. Apparently, in England and Wales, private schemes would have been introduced initially. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills will know the reasons behind the bill and will know the experience of the pilot schemes. She will be able to describe the problems in Wales as well as in England; she will be able to say how great the pressure was for the bill and whether it has any relevance for us.

We can only scratch the surface of some of the more complex issues, but other issues—such as transport to rural schools, which we discussed initially—are narrower. Do committee members feel that we need a more detailed examination of the issues? Should we do more research, or should we limit ourselves to writing to the minister about certain aspects?

This is a fairly major piece of work, which is outstanding from the work of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in the previous session of Parliament. I would like this work to run alongside our other work.

There is clearly disparity between legislation and practice. If anything, local authority practice always seems to be ahead of statute. Some innovative things are taking place—although I dare not mention Ken Macintosh's walking bus.

It has dominated the affairs of this committee.

There are a lot of good policies, but there is a mismatch between legislation and practice. We have a great opportunity for joined-up thinking—even if it is just to tidy up some of the legislation or just to provide some more policy guidance on the funding formulas that Ken Macintosh mentioned.

Information from officials demonstrated a silo mentality—people were not aware of, or involved in, wider issues.

In many ways, local authorities have long been ahead of the legislative position. For example, Strathclyde Regional Council had a one-mile service for primary schools and a two-mile service for secondary schools throughout the region. However, after local government reorganisation, some authorities felt that they could not afford to continue that level of service. In some areas, services reduced after reorganisation, but there is a long history in local authorities of trying to provide more than is required in statute.

I suggest that we should first write to the minister. The Scottish Consumer Council report makes a lot of recommendations, covering issues such as attendance on buses. It would be worth hearing the minister's response on those issues and on the broader issues that Fiona Hyslop and others have mentioned. We will then be able to consider whether we should do more detailed work. We could do that when we consider our future work programme at our away day during the summer. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

I might pass round a draft copy of the letter to the minister, to allow members to offer any thoughts about issues that they want to be considered.