School Transport (Hansard, 16 January 1984)

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the provision of school transport. I am aware that this subject has come before the House on a number of occasions in recent years. However, I shall address myself to the implications for school transport raised by section 6 of the Education Act 1980. That Act, which I wholeheartedly applaud, greatly increased the rights of parents, subject to certain qualifications, to have their children educated in a school of their choice.

My constituents in Teignbridge are concerned because the attitude of the Devon county council in refusing to make free school transport available to the children of parents who exercise their rights under section 6 is having a serious effect on the implementation of this reform.

Devon county council, if it provided free school transport in these circumstances, would be faced with a great increase in costs, and it would be less than honest of me if I did not say that I have some sympathy for its predicament.

For some time past, there has been speculation about precisely what is the obligation of local education authorities in the whole area of school transport. I have no wish to examine that speculation tonight. For the purpose of this debate, I approach the problem from the orthodox view that the combined effect of section 55(1) and (2) and section 39 of the 1944 Act mean, that a local education authority is effectively under a duty to provide free school transport for children who live beyond walking distance to attend the nearest suitable school — "suitable" in this context being taken to mean suitable in terms of age, aptitude and, where appropriate, sex and denomination.

The financial burden that this can impose on a local education authority such as my own will become immediately obvious. Devon is the third largest shire in England. It is third only to north Yorkshire and Cumbria. It covers about 2,500 square miles and has 8,125 miles of roads — twice as much as any other county. It is currently spending about £6.5 million on school transport, which at £57. 30 per pupil per annum is approaching 59 per cent. higher than the shire county average of £36.10.

Because of the area and distances involved, school transport has always been a problem in Devon, although until the 1980 Act it usually presented itself in purely denominational terms.

The Devon county council, and, I dare say, other local authorities as well, has always extended the catchment area — now an unfashionable phrase but a useful shorthand—for parents seeking to educate their children at different schools on the basis of religious denomination. Therefore, a Roman Catholic constituent living at Haytor would be able to send his child to the St. Joseph's primary school in Newton Abbot and have school transport provided. However, if that constituent wants to send that child to Cuthbert Mayne Catholic secondary school in Torbay, the local education authority takes the view that that is too far away.

Until the passing of the 1980 Act, it might have been said that such a constituent was benefiting by way of a concession which should not be pushed too far. Now, 138 section 6 of the 1980 Act gives that person a right, if all the criteria are met, to have the children educated at the Cuthbert Mayne school, although school transport will not be paid for.

I am not talking about small sums of money. To transport children across substantial distances is costly, and, without trying to look for difficulties, one can imagine permutations of residents and schools which would make it almost impossible for public transport to collect and deliver children on time.

There has been compulsory state education in this country for well over a century, and the state's obligation to provide a proper education has complete acceptance across party lines. The importance of the 1980 Act in greatly increasing the powers of parents to choose within the state sector the schools to which their children should go is difficult to exaggerate. It cannot be right that parents are deprived of the exercise of their statutory rights in this way simply because they cannot afford the cost of transport. Taken to its extreme—and I do not suggest that my local education authority is guilty of this—it would in many cases provide a local education authority with a complete veto against the practical exercising of a parent's rights.

The statement of guidance issued by the Department of Education and Science on 15 December 1981 pointed out, among other things, that the law relating to the provision of school transport and the payment of travelling expenses had not been changed. I appreciate that in an Adjournment debate I am not entitled to propose legislation, but I think I can say that clarification of the law can only be to the benefit of all concerned. Section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 imposes a duty on LEAs to make such arrangements for the provision of transport "as they consider necessary" and, as we know, any transport so provided must be free. Have we now come to a situation where there are two classes of schools, those considered by the local authority to be "necessary" and those chosen by parents in exercising their statutory rights under section 6 of the 1980 Act, which in some ways should be considered not "necessary"? I cannot imagine that was ever the intention of Parliament. It was certainly not my intention in 1979 when I campaigned for the implementation of this reform.

A line must be drawn somewhere. If I decide that I shall educate my children in Carlisle on the basis of the very good train service between Teignbridge and Carlisle, I can see no reason why anyone other than me should pick up the bill for the school transport costs. In practice, how many parents would choose to educate their children at a school, if not in their own education authority, certainly no further away than the one adjacent to it?

From the statement of guidance to which I have referred, the DES seems to have sought to encourage LEAs to continue free school transport arrangements even if parents choose schools which are not the nearest. Whatever is happening elsewhere in the country, that is clearly not happening in Devon. Devon county council's interpretation of the law 'I think' is correct. The situation—and I put it in the most neutral way—is anomalous, and that situation cannot be one that the Department welcomes. If on the other hand there is a new obligation on local authorities to meet extra transport costs, perhaps it might be said that they are entitled to additional funding to meet an additional obligation.

139 I have never been one to deny that local authorities should be looking to their own practices to achieve maximum efficiency and maximum value for money. My position on the rating votes, I think, will show that. A new obligation may suggest a new method of funding, and I put it no more strongly than that. It might even be that we should be thinking of a radical revision in the matter of school transport.

Means tests to benefits have always had a bad press, and I sometimes wonder why, because my income tax is means-tested, although whether that is a benefit is arguable. We may be approaching a time when we shall have to consider realistic charging right across the board as a way of assisting in school transport fares in the light of the 1980 Act. Whether that is so I cannot say.

Perhaps I might remind my hon. Friend the Minister of his eloquently succinct reply to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 29 June 1983. That question asked merely about any proposed changes in legislation and therefore it admitted of a concise reply. All I hope is that, from the way I have presented the argument to the Minister, he might feel able to give a slightly more elaborate reply than he did on that occasion.

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

I should like to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate. I also welcome the presence in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) because I know that he shares concern about the provision of school transport.

I listened with great care to the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge made on this important topic, and I will endeavour, in the time available to me, to answer fully the points which he made. In doing so, I will cover the law on school transport the new provisions on parental preference for schools and explain how we see the interrelationship of the two.

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 eight 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 140 whole or part of the fares of pupils 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.

My hon. Friend will see therefore that LEAs have considerable freedom, within the law, to deal with the question of 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 the distance between home and school, the age and health of a particular pupil, the availability of other means of transport, the availability of other appropriate schools, and, of course, safety.

My hon. Friend will know of the Government's commitment to extending the rights of parents to have their children educated at the school of their choice. One of our first acts when we took office in 1979 was to propose legislation on this topic in what became the Education Act 1980.

That Act gave parents the right, for the first time, to express a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated. Except in certain specified circumstances, it is the duty of the local education authority to comply with this preference. The 1980 Act also introduced a local independent appeals machinery in order to hear appeals from parents who were dissatisfied with the schools allocated to their children.

The signs are that these new admission arrangements are working well. An informal survey of LEAs about admissions in 1982 found that there had been nearly 9,000 appeals, of which about one third were decided in parents' favour. A similar survey conducted in 1983 showed that of about 10,000 appeals about 3,500 had been successful.

In order that parents can make an informed choice of school for their child, the 1980 Act and regulations made under it stipulated certain minimum information which LEAs and schools should publish. This includes, inter alia, information about admissions arrangements, the curriculum and arrangements for school transport.

The contribution of the 1980 Act to making choice of school more of a reality for parents should not be underestimated. It was a major step forward. Absolute satisfaction of all choices cannot, in the nature of things, be guaranteed; geography, the size of schools and their relative popularity prevent that. The 1980 Act, as I say, took us a long way. But we continue to search for ways that will enhance parental choice and influence.

I now turn to perhaps the major concern of my hon. Friend—the linkage between the right of parents to ask that their children are educated at the school of their choice and the provision of transport. If I may paraphrase his argument, it is that the absence of transport provision by LEAs in some cases can present a barrier to the full exercise of choice.

That was a concern expressed during the passage of the 1980 Act and my right hon. Friend's predecessor agreed to issue a statement to LEAs of his views. That was issued to LEAs on 15 December 1981 by the present Secretary of State following extensive consultation with a number of bodies including those representing the local authorities and the churches. The letter does not purport to be a definitive interpretation of the law because, of course, that is the job of the courts.

141 The letter acknowledged that the need for LEAs to make expenditure savings meant that LEAs were scrutinising all aspects of their provision and, further, that as circumstances of LEAs vary widely it must be a matter for each authority to decide what policies to adopt in respect of travel to and from school. After rehearsing the statutory provisions for school transport and parental choice — to which I have already referred —the letter then dealt with my right hon. Friend's views on the provision of transport to meet parental choice. He expressed the hope that local education authorities would think it right not to disturb well-established arrangements for transport, some of which had been associated with a local agreement or understanding about the siting of voluntary schools. He stressed the importance which he attaches to the preservation of the opportunity to choose a school in accordance with religious convictions which is provided by the presence of voluntary schools in the maintained system of education.

The letter also makes clear that parents have reasons other than religious convictions for preferring a school which is not the nearest to their home, but their choice may in practice be restricted unless some assistance is given with transport. This applies especially where travelling costs to the preferred school would involve the parent in serious financial hardship. The letter suggested that although in such cases an authority may consider that arrangements for free transport are not necessary under section 55(1) of the 1944 Act, it may be possible to meet the need by the use of the other powers which LEAs possess. Furthermore, it suggested that there would also be cases where the authority would be ready to meet the cost of travel to the school nearest to the pupil's home which it considered suitable for the pupil but where the parent chose a more distant school. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State hoped that the authority would consider meeting part of the travelling expenses to the extent, if any, that the child's attendance at the chosen school might otherwise enable the authority to reduce its expenditure on school travel.

The Secretary of State recognised that there would be cases in which a parent expressed a preference for a school in circumstances where the authority felt that it would not be justified in assisting with the travelling arrangements. The authority may, for example, consider that the distance or duration of travel involved may conflict with the child's ability to profit educationally from attendance at the preferred school.

It might be helpful if I turn now to Devon's policy on the provision of school transport. I understand that the authority's general policy is to provide free transport in accordance with the statutory walking distances as laid down in section 39 of the 1944 Act—to which I have already referred — where pupils live more than these distances from the nearest appropriate school. There are a few exceptions made in individual cases, for example, where there is a medical problem. On denominational schools there is little problem with the provision of transport to those serving the Church of England community, because those schools tend to be treated as neighbourhood schools. There are, however, only three Roman Catholic secondary schools in the county. Each of these has a designated catchment area which has been drawn up in consultation with the Roman Catholic 142 authorities. Pupils attending the appropriate Catholic secondary school are, I understand, provided with transport if their journey exceeds the walking distance.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the specific case of a constituent living in Haytor whose children are not eligible for free transport to the Cuthbert Mayne ecumenical school in Torquay. As he knows, this family lives outside the designated area which is recognised by the Devon authority for free transport to Cuthbert Mayne. But while they are not entitled to such provision under the authority's policy, I understand that the children may take advantage of concessionary arrangements where these can be made. Indeed, I am told that the older boy already has a concessionary place on a local education authority contract vehicle for the second stage of his journey from Newton Abbot to Cuthbert Mayne school. My hon. Friend will know that the boy was not able to travel to Newton Abbot on the vehicle which transports his sister to primary school because of timing difficulties. Additionally, I understand that the authority has received a number of complaints about the effect of its transport policy on choice of school where parents opt for a more distant school. I also understand that in those cases where parental choice has been met, the authority has made clear to parents the position on transport. Where possible, however, the authority is prepared to offer seats on existing vehicles where available.

On the basis of the information that I have, I should tell my hon. Friend that in our view the authority is not in breach of its duty under the Education Acts, nor is it acting unreasonably within the limited meaning of that word ascribed to it by the courts of law. Either or both of these conditions would need to prevail before my right hon. Friend could intervene. If, however, my hon. Friend wishes to draw any particular cases to my attention, I shall certainly consider them fully if he cares to write to me.

We remain dissatisfied with the present law on school transport. Hon. Members will recall that as part of our proposals for what became the 1980 Act 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 where there was financial hardship. This would, we believe, have produced a more just system and allowed LEAs to secure useful savings and would have given them room to introduce a degree of flexibility in providing free or subsidised fares on public transport. It is a matter of history that these 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 carefully.

My hon. Friend referred to Devon's expenditure on school transport. To put his point another way, in 1982–83 total LEA expenditure on school transport in England represented 1.6 per cent. of schools' expenditure. In Devon, the proportion was 3.7 per cent. —almost two and a half times the national average. This reflects the largely rural character of the county.

The authority has established a school transport working party which is charged with the task of reducing transport costs whenever and however possible, and this inevitably means that some discretionary arrangements will have to be withdrawn. The authority is not, however, unsympathetic to the fact that anomalies can arise. To deal 143 with these, it has established a school transport panel to which parents, via their councillor, can appeal. I am sure this flexible approach to particular problems is to be welcomed.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge commenced his remarks he observed that this topic had been brought before the House on a number of occasions.

144 It is true that I have re-offered departmental policy on what is a vexed issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter because it again offers me the opportunity to place on record our attitude towards policy on transport to and from school.