Agenda item

The Director of SEND and Education submits a report setting out the approach that the Council would adopt during the 2025-2026 academic year to the provision of transport assistance to certain individuals who attend schools, colleges or certain other institutions.

The Director of SEND and Education submitted a report setting out the approach that the Council would adopt during the 2025-2026 academic year to the provision of transport assistance to certain individuals who attend schools, colleges or certain other institutions.

The Assistant City Mayor for Children and Young People thanked everyone in attendance for their contributions. It was explained that whilst it was compulsory for all young people to remain in education, employment or training until the age of 18/19 years, there was not a statutory duty to provide Post 16 SEND School Transport. A change in legislation was recommended, to allow funding for said transport. A letter had been sent to the Secretary of State for Education and City MPs were urged to lobby on the issue.   

The Chair noted that questions had been received from members of the public after the deadline for submitting questions. The Chair agreed for the questions to be received, exercising her discretion. A detailed statement from STILL SEND 16+ was taken as read and had been distributed to committee members. A response would be provided by The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education gave an overview of the prospective Post-16 SEND Home to School Transport policy. Key points to note were as follows:

• The decision was still pending, allowing due scrutiny.
• A formal decision had been made recently to accept the budget proposals for the upcoming year.  
• There was a savings target of half a million pounds for Children and Young People’s services, but this paper did not include a savings proposal.
• Funds normally taken for discretionary provision, could now be utilized for statutory school age transport arrangements.
• Pressures on SEND school transport had increased with the numbers of Education and Health Care Plans (EHCPs), rising National Insurance costs for transport providers, fuel costs and enhanced National Living wage.
• The budget could no longer cover discretionary travel for Post 16 SEND students.
• Efforts had been made to provide clear policy proposals, despite the complexity of legislation.

The Chair invited The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education to provide a response to the statement submitted by STILL SEND 16+ (attached). It was advised that the report covered the areas raised, but the statement could be taken for reflection when forming the final decision.

The Chair took questions submitted by the public as follows:

Question:

Given that it is recognised that the proposed changes are likely to be significantly disadvantageous for affected young people and young adults (and their families), and that all consultation responses opposed the changes, why have you failed to propose an option which makes a serious attempt to mitigate this?

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education responded:

• The consultation responses had been analysed and the strength of feeling was recognised and was unsurprising. It was clear that there would be young people and parents whose lives would be more complicated as a result of this change.
• There would be some young people and parents who would ultimately benefit from the autonomy of learning to travel independently although the stresses in making that transition were understood.
• It had been reflected a change had been suggested to the policy based on the feedback and within what we believe is affordable.
• It remains the case that the local authority would wish to make the discretionary provision of transport for young people with SEND to attend education but cannot afford to do so.
• A change in the law would be welcomed to make this statutory, which would also make government funding available to support such a duty on the local authority, freedom of choice and local options.

In response to a supplementary question regarding whether it was understood that the issue was about some of the most vulnerable young people in the city, it was recognised that there would be a significant impact on children and families.

Question:

In the Transport Policy, officials suggest that young people simply need to “choose” a provision in the city. Are you aware that within the council there is an education team which – under significant scrutiny and cost pressure – ensures young people are attending the nearest suitable provision and this is often in the county or even beyond?

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education responded:

·       The report laid out the considerations that need to be taken into account when making a decision.

·       There was no suggestion that young people and parents must choose a provision in the city.

·       The policy dealt with exceptions for placements at considerable distance where there were not transport links and where public transport and family circumstance make attendance exceptionally difficult.

·       It was recognised that this means change for both young people and parents and that the provision of bespoke travel training was necessary.

Responding to a supplementary question, the Strategic Director of Social Care and Education advised that he would be happy to look at proposed policy wording regarding parents and young people being able to choose provision.

Other representations from the public:

A 60 working day appeals process is far too long when it comes to making decisions on disabled young people's transport. Decisions that you have admitted will have a significantly disadvantageous effect for young people and their families. Can you reduce this timeframe to reduce uncertainty and anxiety for families and young people?

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education responded:

• The two-stage review and appeals process was in line with Department for Education guidance.
• A stage one complaint would be dealt with within 20 working days.
• Only if the matter escalated to a stage two complaint would a further 40 working days be required and that would include the convening of an independent panel at a suitable time for all parties.
• Complaints would be sought to be resolved as quickly as possible.
• The process would be opened well in advance of the start of term, with sufficient time to undertake appeals. Those seeking transport assistance would always be urged to do so as early as possible.

Question:

A journey time of 75 minutes, by public transport, each way may be reasonable for a non-disabled young person over the age of 16 to travel independently, but many SEND young people need to be accompanied by an adult daily to and from education. This would entail up to 300 minutes per day providing transport. Do you consider this to be a "reasonably practicable" solution to transport in line with statutory guidance?

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education responded:

• This was set within the policy, based on statutory guidance for younger children with SEND.
• It was recognised that this may impact on choice of placement and family life.
• Post 16 SEND school transport provision was not a statutory provision, and it was hoped that local government would make this a duty with funding to deliver it.
• Ultimately reasonableness if challenged would be decided though the Courts.

Question:

You suggest young people should remain in city provision. However, page 11 of the Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training: Statutory guidance for local authorities, states that “we would expect reasonable choice to include enabling young people to choose courses outside their home local authority boundaries if it makes sense for them to do so.” 

As an example of this, there are no horse care courses in the city boundary. How do you propose a SEND young adult who is travel trained and able to use public transport, but where there is no provision to their course location would be able to complete the course of study they have already embarked upon?

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education responded:

• There was a specific exception in the policy to cover circumstances where:

The Chair welcomed questions from members. Responses to note were as follows:

• It was clear from the Equality and Impact assessment that challenging outcomes were expected.
• Changes to discretionary services were necessary due to budgetary constraints.
• Central government statutory policy and guidance did not tend to lend itself well to Post-16 SEND requirements.
• Officers would consider best ways to enable as many young people as possible to remain in relevant educational institutions.
• Considerations would include continued suitable education provision for young people for as long as possible.
• Other methods of support for Post 16 SEND School Transport were available, including bursaries. Healthcare needs were recognised on EHCPs and associated costs were managed by the Health department.
• Legal compliance had been ensured, but a judicial review could come.
• Supplementary finances allocated to SEND from central government were utilised within the Dedicated Schools Grant High Needs Block. There were strict terms attached to spending, which did not include provision for school transport.
• Appeals processes had been improved upon and there was a robust system in place to manage any increases in appeals following changes to policy.
• Future impact tracking information could be supplied to the Commission.
• For Looked After Children, the Council as Corporate Parent, was responsible to meet the needs of school transport assistance, inclusive of SEND school transport provision. 
• Since the 2014 SEND reforms, there had been a significant rise in those requiring SEND provision. Funding received from Central Government had not kept pace with increasing demands.
• Phrasing of the report, particularly section 4.4.35, could be re-examined to ensure wording accurately reflected children’s behavioural evaluations and subsequent impact on school transport assistance.
• Continuity of care was inherently problematic due to educational placements tending to change at the age of 16. There was more sixth-form provision available within SEND schools as compared to Mainstream Schools. Where transitions occurred, considerations were in place to make changes as smooth as possible.
• Travel Training was a nationally applied initiative and data reporting could come to scrutiny.
• Costing forecasts could be re-examined, but this did not guarantee a more favourable outcome.
• School transport administration costs were minimal.
• Benchmarking had taken place against other local authorities and options such as allowing parents to buy services had been considered, but costs were prohibitive.
• Solo taxi journeys tended to incur the highest costs.
• Insights were gained from complaints and appeals.
• Complex needs were considered case by case under previous policy which did not include an ‘exceptional circumstances’ element. 
• Ringfenced funds could not be transferred to Revenue services such as school transport provision.
• Taxi contract procurements were problematical. Personal transport budgets (PTBs) had previously been encouraged as parents could sometimes secure more reasonable, individual prices.
• Home to School Transport Policies would be published in May 2025, so the decision on Post-16 SEND School Transport would be imminent.
• Exceptional Circumstances evidence could be submitted via the electronic portal.
• Figures for young people Not In Education or Training (NEET) would likely be negatively impacted by the new proposals.
• Due to time constraints, it would not be permissible to form a scrutiny task group examining further options and costings for Post 16 Home to School Transport.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That officers consider the wider implications of the statement from STILL SEND 16+.

3)    That officers re-examine the suggestion that parents and Young People should choose educational institutions closer to home.

4)    That officers consider how to enable as many young people as possible to remain in relevant educational institutions.

5)    That reassurance be given that places are available for young people to continue education for as long as possible in the appropriate educational institution.

6)    That the impact be tracked and reported on to scrutiny.

7)    That wording of 4.4.35 to be considered.

8)    That data be provided on Travel Plans and how they affect families.

9)    That forecasts and assumptions on costs be looked at again.

10) That consideration be given to the need to avoid young people becoming NEET.

11) That a considered response to the STILL SEND 16+ 'Option 4' be given and circulated to members of the Commission.