Meeting documents

The Council Executive is asked to:

(ii) £45 a term (approximately £1.50 a day)

(iii) £60 a term (approximately £2 a day)

For families with more than one child the second and third child would pay 50% of the cost up to a maximum of 3 children. [see paragraph 4.7.6]. To be reviewed annually in line with other Local Authority charging policies.

[iv] We currently transport approx 2700 pupils to mainstream schools at an annual cost of £2 million mainly on statutory distance and hazardous route grounds. Pupils can be transported by coach, minibus, taxi or provided with a bus pass for public transport. The average cost per pupil per annum is approx £750.

4.6.1The provision of denominational transport is governed by the Education Act 1996 (which supersedes the 1944 Act referred to by many of the consultees). Section 509 of the 1996 Act confirms that the Council is under a duty to provide free transport where it considers the provision of transport "necessary". The Council has been providing free transport on denominational grounds to date. Before it would be able to impose any charge for the transport, the Council would have to implement and justify a policy change, confirming that it no longer considers the provision of denominational transport to be "necessary".

4.6.2 When deciding whether transport is necessary, the local authority must take into consideration any wish of a child's parents for him or her to be provided with education at a school in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which his/her parent adheres. Although the denomination of the school is an important consideration, it is not the only consideration which can be taken into account by the Council in its consideration of whether denominational transport continues to be necessary. Resource considerations, such as those set out at section 3 above, are also important.

4.6.3 Once it has made a decision that denominational transport is no longer considered necessary, the Council potentially has two powers under the legislation to take on partial responsibility for the cost of any transport arrangements for denominational pupils. Firstly, section 509(3) of the 1996 Act, allows an LEA to make contributions towards the travelling expenses of any school pupils. It is unlikely that this section would allow the Council to continue to arrange the transport and ask for contributions. Secondly, section 455(1)(c) arguably permits the imposition of charges for denominational transport to and from school. Although the use of this provision has not been authoritatively determined, other local authorities are charging for denominational transport provided by them as set out in paragraph 4.5.6.

4.6.4 The Department of Schools and Colleges of the Diocese of Clifton have instructed Counsel to reply to the consultation on their behalf. Counsel's opinion is attached as Appendix A.

4.6.5 Counsel for the Diocese argues that it is essential to consider the proportionality of the proposed change. The advice taken by this Council plays down the importance of the proportionality argument. However, in terms of the resources issues set out in section 3, this Council should be able to justify the charge. It would still be essential to ensure that any proposal to introduce charges would only be applied to new pupils in respect of whom parental preference had not yet been exercised. In this way, the education of children who are already in attendance at a particular school will not be affected. In addition, it would be essential to ensure there were proper arrangements in place for exempting low income families from the charge.

4.6.6 Many consultees were also concerned that a number of fundamental rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 would also be breached by any proposed charge for denominational transport. However, the advice taken by this Council indicates that, as long as some exceptions are made for low income families, there will be no substantial infringement of any of the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act arising from the charge. Although the charge may make attendance of pupils at denominational schools more difficult, it will not make the child's attendance at the school impossible. Accordingly the imposition of the charge is not a sufficiently significant limit on any of the Human Rights Acts to amount to contravention of the Act. The only recent case considering this issue concerning Leeds Council confirms that human rights of the individual pupils or their parents were unlikely to be breached by the Leeds decision to refuse the free denominational school transport requested.

4.6.7 One concern was raised in the legal advice sought by the Council that the questions asked in the consultation had centred on whether a charge should be imposed rather than on the key question of whether or not denominational school transport should still be considered necessary by the Council. Irrespective of the questions asked in the consultation, it is arguable that the responses address the relevant question, with the consultees confirming the ways in which they believed the transport was still required to allow them to continue to send their children to a Catholic school. However, should there be a challenge to any decision, the consultation process may form part of that challenge.

4.6.8 The Diocese has two options if they wish to challenge any decision made by the Council to impose charges on denominational transport. They can apply to the Secretary of State, presumably acting through the DFES, to make a direction to the Council to continue its provision of free school transport on denominational grounds. The likelihood of the Secretary of State making such direction is probably quite low. It would be a politically contentious decision and would not fit easily with the provisions of the new Education Bill which is currently before Parliament. The Bill indicates that all disadvantaged families (in financial terms) are to be given free transport to a limited number of preferred schools, not just on denominational grounds.

4.6.9 Alternatively, the Diocese could also ask for a judicial review of the decision. The fact that Counsel's opinion has already been taken might indicate that they would be prepared to do this. However, the Council should bear in mind that there has been no judicial review of the decision of any of the other local authorities who have introduced charging for denominational transport, despite the fact that the Diocese in some of those cases had taken legal advice. The risk of a judicial review might be lessened by the fact that, if the issue was authoritatively determined in this Council's favour, this would provoke a substantial number of other authorities to introduce the same policy change.

4.6.10 If a decision is to be made to impose charges on denominational transport, the decision must address a number of essential considerations. Firstly, the basis of the decision will need to be that the Council no longer considers it necessary to make arrangements for the provision of transport to denominational schools for the reasons set out at section 3. Secondly, the decision should also show that the responses to the consultation have been taken into account. The decision should address the main points which have arisen during that consultation process, as set out at section 8.

4.7 DENOMINATIONAL TRANSPORT - OPTIONS FOR CHARGING

Full cost recovery

4.7.1The main advantage of charging full cost for this element of education transport would be an annual saving. In recovering the complete cost of denominational transport this would when fully implemented be an annual saving of £300,000 per annum.

4.7.2 The disadvantage would be that some families may find the cost prohibitive and stop using the transport. This would then increase the costs for the remaining users and would also lead to an increase in traffic congestion as more pupils are taken to school by private car. Some families may not be able to send their children to their preferred denominational school.

Charging for part of the cost of the transport

4.7.3 The main advantage in asking for a contribution for denominational transport would be an eventual annual income figure of between £50,000 and £100,000 per annum depending on the level of charge.

4.7.4 The main disadvantage would again be that some families may stop using the transport and the resulting increase in traffic congestion. However, as only a contribution not the full cost is considered under this option fewer families might consider stopping using the transport provided. Some families may feel they are not able to send their children to their preferred denominational school.

When might any changes happen?

4.7.5 If a decision is made in July 2006, the earliest any change to the current policy could be made is for the 2007-08 academic year. Any changes would only apply to new pupils from the start of the 2007 academic year and would not be applied to pupils already in receipt of the service unless they change schools. No charges are being considered for pupils in receipt of free school meals, income support, working tax credit etc or those who receive free transport on distance grounds to their nearest school, hazardous route grounds or special educational needs reasons.

What level of charging might be applied?

4.7.6 Given the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and all the evidence available in the report including potential income generation the possibility that as a result of charging some parents may choose to use private transport instead of buses and the possibility that charging may result in some parents choosing not to send their to their preferred denominational school the following possible charging patterns are suggested:-

(i) £30 a term (approximately £1 a day)

(ii) £45 a term (approximately £1.50 a day)

(iv) £60 a term (approximately £2 a day)

For families with more than one child the second and third child would pay 50% of the cost up to a maximum of 3 children. To be reviewed annually in line with other Local Authority charging policies.

No charge for low income families [to include those in receipt of Free School Meals, Income support, Working Tax credit etc].

4.8 EDUCATION AND INSPECTIONS BILL

4.8.1 The Education and Inspections Bill is currently progressing through Parliament. Part 6 of the Bill refers specifically to school travel and amends the Education Act 1996 to introduce a new duty on Local authorities to promote sustainable transport.

4.8.2 The key proposals are as follows:-

·LAs will be required to prepare and publish an annual sustainable school transport strategy, to include arrangements for children of all ages up to 19 attending nursery, school or FE college (with LSC).

·School travel schemes will be piloted in 20 areas with limits on the number of other schemes in force whist this takes place and evaluated before 2012.

·Children who are disadvantaged (includes SEN, disability/mobility, Free School Meals and parents receiving maximum rate Working Tax Credit) will be entitled to free transport to any one of three secondary schools closest to their home where those schools are 2-6 miles away (Primary - nearest school more than 2 miles away).

·There is flexibility for discretionary provision for non-eligible children, for which a charge may be levied.

A risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations has been undertaken, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.

6.1On the 15th May 2006 the EYCL OSP recommended that a charging policy should be introduced for the provision of denominational transport and that that officers start to develop plans to establish a sustainable school transport strategy in response to the current `Education and Inspections Bill.

The responses were from Clifton Diocese, Catholic Schools, individuals and in addition responses made at the EYCL Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 15th May 2006. They stressed:-

(i)The partnership between Local Authorities and Church Schools which is the basis of the 1944 Education Act, in order to enable children to attend their nearest Church school where parents wish to make this choice and to receive free transport to do so if they live outside statutory walking distance.

The policy for denominational transport is set out in paragraph 4.5.2 and provided charging is introduced which protects low income families as in 4.7.6 parents will still be able to exercise their choice for their children to attend their nearest Church School.

(ii)The impact of the introduction of any charges on the ability of parents who are furthest away from the nearest Catholic school to be able to afford to pay for transport, thus disadvantaging those in rural areas.

The majority of parents who qualify for free transport to Church Schools in Bath and North East Somerset live outside of the city of Bath, in Keynsham; Midsomer Norton/Radstock and the surrounding villages. If charges are introduced they will affect all these children and therefore the largest proportion will be from outside Bath. All children (except those from low income families) including those from more rural areas would be provided with transport as now, but they would be required to contribute to the cost of this transport.

(iii)The fact that if charges are introduced parents may choose to drive their children to school rather than pay for bus travel thus adding to congestion.

If charges are introduced parents may choose not to use the transport provided and therefore this may result in additional car journeys to schools and loss of potential income. However, this is an important consideration in setting the level of charges as outlined in 4.7.6.

(iv)The fact that the European Convention on Human Rights states that "... the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

The issue of the Human Rights Act 1998 is addressed in section 4.6. Advice taken by the Council indicates that as long as safeguards are put in place for low income families the introduction of charging for transport to Church Schools will not result in substantial infringement of any of the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

(v)The impact on low income families and their ability to be able to pay for transport, thus preventing them from attending a church school.

The proposals in this report (4.7.6) protect low income families by not charging for those families in receipt of Free School Meals, Income Support and Working Tax Credit. In addition it is proposed to limited charges to a maximum of three children per family and for second and third children to be charged at 50% of the cost of the first child.

(vi)The significant contribution that the Catholic community makes to the capital costs of maintaining Aided schools.

The significant contribution that both the Catholic and Church of England communities make to the capital costs of the two Secondary and nine Primary Voluntary Aided Schools is recognised as a very important contribution to Children's Services. This includes not only the provision of land and buildings but also an on-going contribution of 10% of the costs of all capital works.

vii)Timing of the Transport Review in relation to the Secondary Review and also the Education and inspection Bill Currently before Parliament.

The Education and Inspection Bill is progressing through Parliament (currently in House of Lords) and does have sections related to transport. The LA will respond to this Bill if and when it is passed. However, the Bill does not refer specifically to charging for Denominational Transport and it is for the LA to consider possible charging. It does require the LA to produce an Annual sustainable Transport Strategy and of course such a strategy is very much part of why this review was initiated.

The Secondary Area Review begun in 2004 will have a medium to long term impact. No changes are expected for several years; therefore other work such as this review must proceed in the meantime.

(viii)The consultation process was flawed, failing to address the historical background of the current School Transport Policy or the impact that changing the policy would have on families within the LA. In addition the insensitivity of asking parent who will not be affected by a change in Council Policy to comment on proposals that will affect others.

A total of 25,000 copies of the consultation document were circulated and 899 returns received. The document balanced providing sufficient information with ensuring it was accessible to a wide audience. The same questions were asked of all respondents to gain a wide view. The purpose of the consultation was to inform decisions both on whether charging for denominational transport should be made and if so at what level and whether provision of transport should be extended beyond current policy.

·Parents of pupils currently receiving free transport to a Church School [178]

·Parents of pupils attending a Church School but not receiving free transport [321]

·Parents of pupils attending a non Church School [307]

·A Governor member of staff of a Church School [47]

·A Governor/member of staff of a non Church School [46]

Charge for transport to Church Schools [Appendices C table and D graph]

Charge for transport to Non Church Schools where the closest school is a Church School [Appendices C table and E graph]

8.5 Of the responses received from parents of pupils currently receiving free transport to a Church School 21 [11%] indicated a charge should be made. Of the responses received from parents of pupils attending a Church School but not receiving free transport 144 [45%] indicated a charge should be made. Of the responses received from parents of pupils attending a non Church School 205 [67%] indicated a charge should be made. Of the responses received from a governor/member of staff of a Church School 24[51%] indicated a charge should be made. Of the responses received from a governor/member of staff of a non Church School 27[59%] indicated a charge should be made. Overall 47% of the responses received indicated a charge should be made for transport to a non Church School.

Provide transport for all regardless of cost

Level of charge [Appendices C table and F graph]

·9 [45%] opted for 50p per day

. ·4 [20%] opted for £1 per day

·2 [10%] opted for a flat rate per family

·5 [25%] opted for full cost recovery.

8.8 Of the responses received from parents of pupils attending a Church School but not receiving free transport who indicated a level of charge the breakdown was as follows:-

·44 [29%] opted for 50p per day .

·50 [32%] opted for £1 per day

·10 [6%] opted for £1-50 per day

·9 [6%] opted for £2 per day

·7 [5%] opted for a flat rate per family

·34 [22%] opted for full cost recovery

.8.9 Of the responses received from parents of pupils attending a non Church School who indicated a level of charge the breakdown was as follows:-

·46 [19%] opted for 50p per day .

·74 [30%] opted for £1 per day

·19 [8%] opted for £1-50 per day

·25 [10%] opted for £2 per day

·13 [5%] opted for a flat rate per family

·69 [28%] opted for full cost recovery.

8.10 Of the responses received from a governor/member of staff of a Church School who indicated a level of charge the breakdown was as follows:-

·6 [24%] opted for 50p per day

. ·10 [40%] opted for £1 per day

·2 [8%] opted for £1-50 per day

·2 [8%] opted for £2 per day

·1 [4%] opted for a flat rate per family

·4 [16%] opted for full cost recovery.

8.11Of the responses received from a governor/member of staff of a Non Church School who indicated a level of charge the breakdown was as follows:-

·2 [6%] opted for 50p per day .

·8 [23%] opted for £1 per day

·6 [17%] opted for £1-50 per day

·5 [14%] opted for £2 per day

·1 [3%] opted for a flat rate per family

·13 [37%] opted for full cost recovery.

8.12 The overall breakdown of those who indicated a level of charge should be made is as follows:-

·50p per day 107 [22%]

·£1 per day 146 [30%]

·£1-50 per day 37 [8%]

·£2 per day 41 [9%]

·flat rate per family 24 [5%]

·full cost recovery 125 [26%]