Agenda item

1.    In Mr Love’s opening statement to Cabinet, Members were remined that Post-16 Transport legislation did not include a legal entitlement for transport in the same way that primary and secondary school aged pupils received it. Instead, Councils were required to make arrangements in line with what the Local Authority deemed necessary to facilitate all persons of sixth form age receiving education or training.

Since 2011 Kent County Council (KCC) had provided this support for a vast majority of post-16 learners including those with Special Educational Needs & Disabilities (SEND) who were able to make use of public transport via the provision of the partially subsidised KCC 16+ Travel Saver pass. The pass provided a 40% subsidy towards the average cost of an equivalent annual bus pass. KCC also provided a 100% subsidy for learners with SEND who received a KCC vehicle over the same period.

In line with Securing Kents Future, the Council was required to move its services into a stable and sustainable position. With a 40% increase in demand and an increase in cost to all post-16 travel, Mr Love confirmed that the current position was not sustainable.

The proposal as set out in the Post 16 Transport Policy Statement was to mirror the £500 cost of the KCC 16+ Travel Saver pass (or a half equivalent price for parents qualifying under the low-income criteria). This would account for the 94% to 97% subsidy for SEN transport for which the average cost of SEN transport was £8,100 per pupil per annum.

2.    Mr Love responded to the queries raised at the Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 13^th September (as set out under the summary headings provided by Democratic Services for the Scrutiny Officer Report to Cabinet on 5^th October).

2.1  Concerns that 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

An Equality Impact Assessment was completed as part of the consultation and identified the potential negative impact that would be felt by those affected families.  The proposed changes had been included within the early consultation and mitigations had been introduced as part of the proposed revised Policy due to take effect from September 2024.  The timespan between the taking of the decision and implementing the decision provided sufficient time for families to consider their travel options prior to finalising plans for education.  A higher subsidy option would be made available to families who qualified for low-income support and an instalment plan option would also be provided.  Member-led appeal panels would also be held for exceptional circumstances.

2.2Concerns were raised about the lack of financial detail available to outline what support would be provided to those families on low incomes, other than those who qualify for the reduced price KTS16+ offered to those in receipt of free school meals (FSM), who currently utilised the free transport;

The information was available via the consultation material and Cabinet Committee papers. The Policy would also clearly set out the discretionary support available and ensure parents, carers and young people had the necessary information required to make an informed decision on their education choices.

A comparison was drawn between KCC and what other Councils offered, thus demonstrating the substantial support package offered by our proposed Post-16 Transport Policy.  Analysis has shown that the proposed KCC scheme (at a maximum charge of £500) remains one of the lowest cost transport support schemes offered by local authorities.  Average contributions are at £782 per annum, with individual local authorities charging as much as £990 where distance was not considered, and £1736 per annum where distance is a factor and the distance travelled is over 15 miles

2.3Concerns were raised that the decision was not in line with the Council’s Policy Framework document Framing Kent’s Future. Framing Kent’s Future pledged to ‘work with our partners including schools and with the families of children with SEND to find sustainable solution that provide the tailored support that these children need to access appropriate education and opportunities that will help them lead a good life’. It was considered that this decision went against this pledge.

In line with Securing Kent’s Future, this Policy supported the Councils objective in finding a sustainable solution. KCC would continue to provide a subsidy of 94% of the total cost of transport for all affected pupils and 97% for families from low-income backgrounds.

A comparison was drawn between KCC’s proposed Policy and Birmingham City Councils 16-18 Travel Assistance Policy whereby a vast majority of Young People did not receive nor require travel support from the Council. Those who did qualify were required to pay 56% more towards the cost of their support than KCC have proposed for Kent pupils from September 2024.

2.4Members wanted to further understand the implications of the decision, as well as explore what consideration the Executive had given to any alternative proposals, including alternative methods of commissioning home to school transport such as an in-house KCC bus service, as part of the decision-making process;

Home to School Transport remained one of most scrutinised elements of the Councils spend. There had been numerous examples of internal and commissioned investigations into more cost-effective ways to fulfil KCC’s legal duties, including detailed proposals for KCC to run its own fleet service. However, early analysis had shown that the alternative options were no more cost effective than the systems that KCC currently had in place.

An Internal Short Focused Inquiry on Home to School Transport had also been carried out and failed to find alternative methods of sustainable transport options.

KCC continued to examine measures such as school lead transport, for which an initial trial and early investigation had been carried out, to identify potential improvements of some services and reduce the costs of others.

2.5  Concerns around the cost of transport for parents and Members requested additional figures outlining the potential cost;

The additional financial information sought by Members did not exist beyond what was already available and reported in the Committee papers. Councils did not have the sufficient understanding of the wider financial and personal issues that informed an individual’s financial situation.

2.6Concerns were raised around the social impact of removing free transport for young people with SEND, the impact on their social development and independence and Members requested a social impact study of this decision;

Local authorities do not have a general obligation to provide post 16 travel arrangements that are supported in whole or in part by the council taxpayer, however, did have a duty to prepare and publish an annual transport Policy Statement specifying the arrangements for the provision of transport or other support that the authority considered necessary to facilitate the attendance of all persons of sixth form age receiving education or training.

Taking into account KCC’s obligations under Securing Kent’s Future and thus securing the future of local services and democratically controlled services, KCC needed to remain mindful of its legal responsibilities as well as the discretionary support it would like to be able to provide.

KCC would continue to provide discretionary support under the proposed Policy.

2.7Concerns that this decision could increase costs for low-income families and have a knock-on effect for young people with SEND who might no longer be able to access after school provisions.

It was recognised that the decision would increase cost, however, the correct balance needed to be achieved between the cost that KCC were asking families and Young people to pay, against the cost that KCC was asking the Council Tax payer to pay, who were facing their own transport challenges. The mitigations outlined within the Policy achieved that balance.

2.8The potential cost to parents

The concern around the cost to parents was recognised, however, the parity across all Post-16 transport was considered a fair and sustainable option.

2.9A social impact study of this decision

It was not feasible to justify the amount of officer time that would be consumed in undertaking an exercise for a discretionary service and for which a majority of information would not be available to complete a detailed analysis.

2.10   An assessment of the financial risk and knock-on costs if young people with SEND needs dropped out of further education due to transport costs – costs to Adult Social Care and an increase in benefit payments by central government – modelling of these costs;

The additional financial information sought by Members did not exist beyond what was already available and reported in the Committee papers.

2.11   The cost of the home to school transport budget and further work on how this was being managed.

The additional financial information sought by Members did not exist beyond what was already available and reported in the Committee papers.

3)    In line with Securing Kent’s Future, Mr Love assured Members that the Policy supported the Council’s objective in finding a sustainable solution.

4)    RESOLVED that decision 23/00069 be confirmed, and the Cabinet Member be asked to make a written statement of the reconsidered decision to be sent to all Members of the Council.