Cabinet considered proposals to change the Home to School Transport policy. The Lead Member explained that the council had a statutory duty to provide a certain level of provision, as detailed in table 1 of the report. Like other local authorities, the council offered additional discretionary help as detailed in table 2. The cost in 2010/11 had been £1.8m, rising to £2.2m in 2015/16. These budget pressures were mirrored across the country. With current trends, the cost would rise to £3.2m in 2019/20. This would result in funding being taken from other service areas unless an alternative policy was put in place.

The Lead Member explained that the proposals would be put in place from September 2017 for new or revised travel arrangements. The proposals would not affect existing provision. There were no proposals to change provision under statutory duties. All proposals were being made to make the system more fair and equitable and to manage future costs growth. The Lead Member referred to an inaccurate article in the Maidenhead Advertiser that had claimed a father would have to pay £750 for his younger child to use the same bus as her older sibling. The Lead Member confirmed that the proposals had been extended so that siblings were not penalised.

The Chairman highlighted that the proposals did not result in a cost saving, they were being put forward to be fair to all council taxpayers.

The Deputy Lead Member for Ascot Regeneration commented that fairness lay at the heart of the proposals, to create a balance between discretionary provision and the interests of the council taxpayer. It had been good to see support in the consultation for independent travel training. Individual transport budgets would be a worthwhile addition to the options for residents. The proposals also took into account the uniqueness of some areas of the borough, such as Eton Wick.

The Lead Member for Adult Services and Health commented that for many years the Bray councillors had fought to keep a special deal for residents. He was now of the opinion that this position was not tenable as fairness was needed across the borough. The proposals ensured families were not disadvantaged in the short term and could plan for the future.

The Lead Member for Finance commented that when the public sector provided services to a range of residents, some of whom were in significant need through to modest need, this would always be fraught with complexities. The capacity for spend to balloon over time was clear, as the quantum of users increased. Unfortunately there would be some with modest needs who would be accustomed to being part of such a support network that would no longer exist. With a high degree of care and equity the council was seeking to  adjust and redirect money spent so those in significant need or vulnerability were those to whom the greater proportion of a complex budget would be directed. There would be some who felt aggrieved but the council had taken huge care over the transition arrangements so that they did not cause disparity in some families or localities.

The Managing Director confirmed that the reference to ‘low income’ in the recommendations related to those families eligible for free school meals. The Chairman requested this wording be added in parenthesis at the end of the introduction to recommendation i).

It was confirmed that if a child could not access a place at their local school, even if they wanted to, they would be eligible for free transport.

RECOMMENDATION: That Cabinet:

i.              Approves changes to the Royal Borough’s home to school transport policy as set out below so that it better reflects statutory guidance and is fairer to all residents and supports those with a low income (eligible for free school meals).

Authorises the Lead Member for Children’s Services and Managing Director & Strategic Director of Adult, Children and Health Services to agree the final wording of the home to school transport policy, for publication in September 2016, in line with the changes agreed by Cabinet.