School Transport (Hansard, 5 April 1984)

§ Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford)

I welcome the opportunity of raising the subject of school transport in rural areas and I would like to review the existing law on statutory provision of school transport, look at some of the shortcomings of the law and illustrate them by examples from my constituency, Rochford.

Section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 puts a duty on local education authorities to make such arrangements for the provision of transport … as they consider necessary", and the transport provided must be free. The word "necessary" is not defined, but it is quite common for authorities, when deciding what arrangements to make, to take into account the law relating to school attendance as set out in section 39 of the 1944 Act—namely, that parents have a duty to secure the attendance of their children of compulsory school age. I will come back later to that word "necessary".

The duty to which I have just referred does not apply if a school is not within walking distance unless suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for the pupils' transport to and from the appropriate school. The walking distance referred to was set in 1870 as three miles. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall that 1870 was the time of the Franco-Prussian war, when railways were comparatively new, the internal combustion engine had not been developed and the attitude to walking was very different from the attitude to walking now.

The walking distance of three miles was confirmed in the 1944 Act and, as well as confirming that distance for children over 8 years of age, it set a new walking distance of two miles for children below the age of 8. However, in 1973 the Department of Education and Science report on school transport acknowledged that there had been a change in people's habits with the extension of ownership of the motorcar and public transport. Thus, it pointed out that in normal life children aged 8 or less simply do not walk two miles these days, and are not expected to do so. Similarly, older children are not expected to walk and do not walk regularly three miles or more two or four times a day, as they would have to if they went to and from a school and home for their lunch.

This situation had already been recognised in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953, section 12, which empowers local education authorities to fill any vacant seats in transport provided for the eligible children with ineligible pupils, charging a "reasonable" fare. So that Act accepted that it was not reasonable to expect all children to walk 2.8 or 2.9 miles, and that if there were places available on buses they should be given to the ineligible children at a reasonable rate.

No mention has been made so far of safety, and as motor traffic has increased in volume sixfold since 1944, safety is obviously an important factor. In 1954, in Shaxted v. Ward, it was ruled that distance, not danger, was the overriding factor in determining statutory requirements for free transport. That a way of saying that the shortest distance, regardless of whether it was safe or unsafe in the eyes of the parents, the children or the authority, had to be measures and that if that turned out to be less than three miles, free transport would not be 1249 provided. It did not say whether safety should be taken into account in considering the word "necessary", to which I referred, when it was said that transport should be provided if the education authority thought it necessary.

I submit that safety is a factor that should be taken into account in determining the word "necessary" in any situation. In 1965, the then Minister, in a circular letter, urged local education authorities to use their discretion more often with regard to dangerous routes. It would appear that the Minister was mindful of the safety aspect in relation to the 1944 Act in considering what was "necessary."

I will illustrate the effect that the law has on the lives and safety of children in Hullbridge, in my constituency, who travel to Park school in Rayleigh, and I submit that in this case transport is necessary. Hullbridge is a community of about 7,000 people. A school was built to serve that community in 1975, but it was sited by Essex education authority 2.8 miles from the centre of Hullbridge in the town of Rayleigh, which already had two large secondary schools.

It was unfortunate, in my view and that of the people of Hullbridge, that the school was sited in a town which was 2.8 miles distant. Essex county council probably recognised that, and, as a sweetener to Hullbridge parents, decided to provide concessionary transport for all the children from Hullbridge to Park school.

Today, the school roll at Park school is 1,160, of whom 299 come from beyond Hullbridge and pass through Hullbridge on their way to Park school; 600 come from Hullbridge itself, and of that 600, only 10 are entitled to statutory free transport to go from that school and from that town to the school in Rayleigh; and 590, and the 600 from Hullbridge, have concessionary transport.

Essex county council has, however, notified parents of children in Hullbridge that that concessionary transport will be withdrawn after this Easter holiday. That means that after Easter, 590 pupils who have in the past travelled by coach and bus will have to find their own way to Park school in Rayleigh.

The route from Hullbridge to Rayleigh is, as I said, 2.8 miles long, and it is dangerous. Pupils will have to cross three busy roads, one of which is designated the main link road between Hullbridge and Chelmsford, and they will have to negotiate a junction with a traffic volume between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning of over 1,000 vehicles per hour, which is one vehicle every four seconds, making it difficult for them to find a gap in the vehicles to cross the road. They will have to walk the majority of the way along the footpaths which are immediately adjacent to the main roads, with no hedge, kerb or fence to act as a barrier. The traffice is busy, heavy and fast-moving.

I was a witness on two days when the pupils boycotted the buses and walked along that road to demonstrate what it would be like after Easter when the coaches were withdrawn. What I saw was disturbing. About 590 children crowded onto a narrow footpath, part of which was built especially to accommodate them when the coaches were withdrawn. In the four or five monthe during which that footpath has been in existence it has witnessed four accidents. On one occasion a car careered across the road, on two occasions lamp standards on the footpath have been knocked down, and on another a fence behind the footpath was knocked down. Fortunately, on all four 1250 occasions no children were walking to school and nobody was injured. But after Easter that footpath will have up to 590 children on it twice, possibly four times, a day.

I saw the children walking in the road because the footpath was not wide enough. I saw normal boisterous horseplay. There was nothing wrong with that, but when children pushed and shoved and finished up in the road it was dangerous. I saw lorries swerving to miss the children. On one occasion two young girls took a short cut through lanes and woodland that were unlit and dangerous and a possible haunt for molesters. Some children arrived by car, but the congestion at Park school, which is built on the brow of a hill with double white lines on the road and zero visibility over the hill, was such that the police would not allow parents to stop in case they caused an accident.

As a consequence of that trial or demonstration—call it what one will—traffic lights will now be erected at the major junction; some roads in Rayleigh, 2.8 miles away from Hullbridge, will be turned into one-way streets to try to reduce the congestion at the particular junction; and the police are still considering how to deal with the extra road traffic that is bound to result from the children either walking, cycling or being taken to and from school. As the police will not allow parents to stop outside the school to drop the children off and as they will not allow the cars to go into the school in case there is a tail-back on to the dangerous main road, there is still a problem of how parents who wish to take their children to school by car will be able to get them out of the car and into the school.

All this that I have described is to try to provide some measure of protection to the children and other road users. The traffic lights, the one-way system and the police attempts to sort out the traffic chaos are the consequence of the withdrawal of concessionary transport to 590 children who will have to walk 2.8 miles.

I make it abundantly clear that I know that Essex county council is acting within the law. But it is not taking the advice contained in the 1965 letter from the Minister asking it to use discretion more often with regard to dangerous routes. Nor is Essex county council following the spirit of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science dated 15 December 1981 when he expressed the view that local education authorities should think it right not to disturb well-established arrangements for transport, some of which have been associated with a local agreement or understanding about the siting of schools.

Admittedly the Secretary of State was talking about voluntary schools where there is parental choice, but how much more important it is to retain local agreements on transport to state schools in a catchment area with little or no choice. Indeed, if choice were exercised at all in that particular case it would involve children travelling more than three miles in any case. The arrangements that are now being withdrawn were certainly well-established. They have been established for nine years from 1975 to 1984.

I know that the Secretary of State would not normally intervene in matters which legitimately fall in the local authority's jurisdiction. However, the safety hazard here is of such severity, the number of children on a single road so large, and the need for transport so inescapable, that the withdrawal of transport is unreasonable in the strict legal 1251 sense. I think, therefore, that the authority should think again about the word "necessary" and should consider that transport is necessary in this case.

In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to two other points. They are important points, even though I have only a little time to devote to them.

In 1973 the working party of the Department of Education and Science, in addition to its unease about the danger, pointed to the abrupt cut-off of free transport at three miles and the provision of consessionary transport after a school closure.

On the latter point, I fear that if Sutton school near Rochford is closed consessionary transport may be offered in order to pacify the parents, and withdrawn by Essex county council at a later date because the children are travelling less than two miles. The distance will be 1.8 miles.

School closures create a need for school transport. If some of the village schools were kept open, there would be no need for transport. Many of the teachers in those schools are excellent, and the schools are worthy of being kept open.

On the point about the abrupt cut-off, there are many examples of children who live next door to each other being treated differently because one is within the three-mile limit and the other outside it. The children may use the same bus-stop to get to school, one paying and the other travelling free. This is the situation in Lodge road, Bicknacre, with children travelling to South Woodham Ferrers. Until recently they all travelled four miles to Wickford, but with educational progress a new school has been built at South Woodham Ferrers. Some children travel free to that school and others, living 2.99 miles away, have to pay. Progress in this case is expensive for the parents and the 10 yards that separates two houses may be a very expensive 10 yards.

The current situation on the provision of school transport is not satisfactory. I would agree with the resolution adopted by Essex county council in 1982: That this Council requests the Association of County Councils to seek amendment to the 1944 Education Act so that, in future assessments for school transport provision, personal risk, traffic and road safety criteria must be taken fully into account and that present distance requirements from home to school be reviewed as a matter of urgency. I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise these points. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that he will explain his thinking on school transport, particularly with regard to the safety of children.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)

I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on his success in obtaining this debate. His remarks suggest that he has done some outstanding historical research, and I know that his constituents will approve of his efforts in bringing a number of points to my attention tonight.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech on the problems faced by his constituents in relation to school transport. He has made his points clearly and I will attempt to answer him in the same way. I will do so by setting out the law on school transport as it stands at present, refer to our attempt to change it and then deal with the particular problems he has raised.

1252 The main provision governing home to school transport is section 55 of the Education Act 1944. Under section 55(1) local education authorities are under a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools. Any arrangements made under this subsection must be free of charge to the parents.

What is necessary for the purpose of section 55(1) is not defined, but it is quite common for authorities, when deciding what arrangements to make, to take into account the law relating to school attendance which is set out in section 39 of the 1944 Act. Under that section, parents have a duty to secure the attendance of their children of compulsory school age. However, the duty does not apply if, among other things, the school at which the child is registered is not within walking distance of the child's home and no suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for his transport to and from school. Walking distance is defined in the Act as two miles for a pupil under 8 years of age and three miles for an older pupil measured by the nearest available route.

Section 55(2) is also relevant. Under this provision, local education authorities have the power to pay the whole or part of the fares of a pupil for whom they have made no arrangements to provide free transport under section 55(1). Where transport is provided under section 55(1), authorities may also make a charge for pupils who, although ineligible for free transport, occupy spare seats on vehicles provided to carry pupils who are eligible. I understand that Essex makes use of this "spare seats" provision and charges parents £20 per term. That compares with an average cost to the authority of £60 per term.

My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that LEAs have considerable freedom, within the law, to deal with school transport. In forming their judgment on what is "necessary", to use the key word in section 55(1), they can take account of many factors, such as distance between home and school, the age and health of a pupil, the availability of other means of transport, the availability of other appropriate schools and safety. The extent to which LEAs have this freedom is shown by the fact that Essex adopts a qualifying distance for free transport of 1.5 miles for pupils under 8 years of age as compared with the two miles referred to in section 39.

I shall elaborate on the issue of safety in view of my hon. Friend's concern— a concern with which I have every sympathy. I understand the natural fears of his constituents. Whilst safety is a factor to which LEAs may address themselves under section 55(1), they are under no compulsion to do so and it does not arise under section 39. As my hon. Friend has already said, in 1954, the courts considered this point in a school attendance case — Shaxted v. Ward—in which the parent claimed that the "nearest available route", which the authority stated his child could walk and which was within the statutory walking distance under section 39, was not "available" because it was unsafe. The parent argued that the alternative route was over the walking distance and that this entitled him to free school transport. The court found against the parent on the grounds that the test to be used in determining the "nearest available route"—the words used in section 39 — was solely one of distance, not safety. I stress that this does not mean that LEAs cannot take safety into account but rather that it is a matter for 1253 their judgment and discretion, under section 55. That illustrates the unsatisfactory and confusing nature of the present law.

I shall now consider our attempts to change the law. My hon. Friend should know that we remain dissatisfied with the present law on school transport. Hon. Members will recall that, as part of our proposals for what became the Education Act 1980, we tried to change the law to provide what, in our view, would have been a fairer system. Under our proposals at that time local authorities would have been able to arrange school transport and charge for it at a flat rate while offering it free when there was financial hardship. That would, we believe, have produced a more just system and allowed LEAs to secure useful savings and given them room to introduce some flexibility in providing free or subsidised fares on public transport. However, those proposals were defeated in another place. Although there is continuing criticism of the current provisions, it remains the case that there is no agreement on the basis for change. We continue, however, to watch the situation closely.

I turn to the issues which my hon. Friend has raised concerning his constituency of Rochford. I appreciate the problems which my hon. Friend has referred to in connection with pupils travelling between Hullbridge and Park school. We have already corresponded on this problem and my hon. Friend has recently forwrded a complaint from some of his constituents under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 alleging that the authority has acted unreasonably. We are investigating that complaint 1254 and I shall write to my hon. Friend when a decision has been taken. I cannot therefore comment at this stage, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the case will be considered most carefully and that I shall take account of the points which he has made tonight.

I am already aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the Essex authority's proposals to cease to maintain Sutton county primary school. There are transport implications here which he has drawn to my attention. I cannot, of course, comment on the proposals or the points made tonight by my hon. Friend because I can say nothing which might be interpreted as prejudicing my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role when considering statutory proposals. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that full accout will be taken of all that he has said before the decision is taken.

I hope that in the short time available to me I have been able to answer the points or some of the points, raised tonight by my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the particular points he has raised on specific matters affecting his constituents will be fully taken into account at the appropriate times. More generally, I will note the dissatisfaction which exists on school transport and the current law. I cannot—as I have already indicated—offer any early prospect of making another attempt to bring proposals before the House.

I should like to finish by again thanking my hon. Friend for bringing these matters to my attention and to that of the House.