Agenda item

(Item B1)

Mr Craig Chapman (Interim Assistant Director of SEND Processes and Head of Fair Access), Mr Rory Love OBE (Cabinet Member for Education and Skills) and Ms Chrstine McInnes (Director of Education and SEN) were in attendance for this item.

1. Mr Brady stated that he had called-in the decision for three reasons. Firstly, no risk analysis had been undertaken to fully understand the impacts that removing free transport would have on young people with SEND who wished to access further education and training. Secondly, very little financial detail had been provided to outline what support would be offered to those families on low incomes who currently utilised the free transport. Thirdly, the decision was not in line with the policy framework. He felt that the Scrutiny Committee needed to consider the financial pressures that would be placed on vulnerable families and needed to listen to parents, of whom the majority did not agree with the proposal. Mr Lehmann added that he had called-in the decision due to the lack of risk assessment surrounding the decision and the need to further understand its implications, as well as to consider any alternative proposals which had been presented, including alternative methods of commissioning home to school transport such as an in-house KCC bus service.

2. Mr Love OBE replied and explained that KCC provided a generous offer for young persons’ transport compared to other local authorities, but authorities were not legally obliged to provide any support for post-16 transport. Due to the Council’s current financial position discretionary spending had to be reviewed, particularly in regard to the overspend of the home to school transport budget. The Kent travel saver card could be used if the young person was of sixth form age, and support was in place for those on low incomes such as a pay by instalment scheme and discounts. The team had considered an in-house KCC bus scheme some years ago, but this had not been viable, so were now considering education providers running transport although this was in a very early stage.

3. Members asked the following questions and made comments to Mr Love and Mr Chapman:

a)    A Member raised a concern regarding the cost of transport for parents and requested additional figures outlining the potential cost.

b)    A Member raised a concern regarding the social impact of removing free transport for young people with SEND, as it could have an impact on their social development and independence, and asked for a social impact study. Mr Love OBE explained that as the policy would be phased in from September 2024 it would be difficult to understand the social impacts of the decision as there were many influencing variables, and many families had not yet decided on their preferred course of action. Mr Chapman added that a mitigation analysis had been included in the original papers, and the consultation document included a mitigation section.

c)    A number of Members asked for figures regarding the number of people who would be affected by the proposal.

d)    A Member stated that the Kent travel-saver card was only available to people aged 19 and under, and asked if the Cabinet Member would consider extending the travel-saver to people aged up to 25 if they had SEND needs. Mr Chapman explained that part of the proposal could be to continue providing transport for those young people with SEND needs up to age 25 if they remained in progressive education, although this was not a statutory duty.

e)    A Member requested a thorough financial assessment of the financial risk and knock-on costs if young people with SEND needs dropped out of further education due to transport costs, as this could increase spending in other areas such as Adult Social Care. Had these impacts been modelled?

f)     A Member raised a concern as the removal of free transport could increase costs for low-income families and could affect young people with SEND who might no longer be able to access after school provisions.

g)    A Member agreed with the Cabinet Member that discretionary spending needed be controlled very firmly to ensure Kent County Council did not issue a S114 notice.

h)    A Member asked if a means-tested policy could be implemented, to ensure those on low incomes continued to receive support for transport costs. Mr Chapman explained that a 50% subsidy would be provided to low-income families who utilised the post-16 mainstream travel saver and SEND would replicate the low-income family process and instalment plan currently being offered to those with young people in mainstream education. An appeals process was also available whereby an independent panel could decide the level of support.

i)     A Member questioned the budget for home to school transport and requested a paper regarding the work being undertaken to reduce this budget. Mr Love OBE replied that the overspend for home to school transport was £13.6million but would circulate the outlined budget to Committee Members after the meeting.

4. Mr Brady summarised the points raised and highlighted that up to 1100 young people could be affected by the proposal. He felt that £500,000 was a substantial saving but would be offset by increased costs to other areas of the Council. He asked that the Scrutiny Committee relook at the decision once more information had been provided.

5. Mr Love OBE summarised that it was a parent’s responsibility to get their child to school or college once they reached the age of 16, but KCC provided a generous support package. He felt that adequate time would be given to parents before the decision was implemented in September 2024.

6. The Committee discussed the recommendations but felt that more information and robust figures regarding the financial cost, number of young people impacted, and the potential social cost, were necessary. The Committee requested an extraordinary meeting or briefing session be held before the next Cabinet meeting to receive additional information.

RESOLVED: that the Committee agreed with recommendation C as outlined in the report and reproduced below (in accordance with 17.72c of the Constitution).

c) require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending reconsideration of the matter by the decision-maker in light of the Committee’s comments.

The Committee requested an extraordinary meeting or briefing session be held before the Cabinet meeting to outline additional information and figures regarding the financial cost, number of young people impacted, and the potential social cost.