1

Consultation on the Provision of School Transport

by Leicestershire County Council

Jo Miller

Senior Research Officer

Research & Information Team

Chief Executive’s Department

Andy Brown

Corporate Consultation Policy Officer

Corporate Support

Chief Executive’s Department

Introduction

• Consultation period – 2nd March to 4th May 2007

• Publicity

• Consultation questionnaires:

– Web site (731)

– Citizens’ Panel (399 from 590)

• Letters & emails (121)

• Petitions (14)

2

Consultation Questionnaires

• Web Survey (731 respondents)– Better reflects the interest groups involved. High proportions of:

• Parents/carers• Users of current school transport• Women• People aged 35-54• Roman Catholics

• Citizens’ Panel (399 respondents)– More representative of the Leicestershire population.

Results on transport to faith schools proposals

• Support for free transport for families on low income - both the panel (52%) and web (74%)

• The Panel strongly disagreed (80%) to free transport regardless of income/distance– Non-Roman Catholics from the web survey also disagreed (53%) – But Roman Catholics from web survey strongly agreed (81%)

• Support for a contribution from parents of students not entitled to free transport - strong from panel (82%); marginal from web (54%)

3

… continued

• Wide range of views from the panel on the contribution level – Broadly similar proportions of votes for each option– 50% contribution (£290) most favoured (47% agree; 42% disagree)– Some support for 100% contribution (40%)

• Web respondents strongly disagreed with all options– But some support for the 25% contribution (£145) (28%)

Areas of concern:

• Environmental/safety/ congestion

• Perception of discrimination• Many parents already pay a

10% voluntary contribution to Roman Catholic schools

• Affordability – large families• Unfair for current intake• Income threshold too low• Doesn’t support school choice• Lump sum difficult to pay

• Parents who choose another school should contribute

• Unfair for tax payers to subsidize• Contributions should be equal

regardless of faith/non-faith • Promote more walking/cycling• Invest in school transport

standards• Govt should increase funding

But also other comments:

Comments from questionnaires and letters

4

Results on post-16 transport proposals

• Panel strongly disagreed with £0 contribution (73%) and most favoured £180 contribution (44%)

• Web favoured £0 contribution (56%) or the current £60 contribution (53%)

• Panel agreed EMA would make the contribution affordable (58%)

• Web respondents disagreed (53%), many strongly

Results on minimum fare-paying charge

• Strong agreement that spare places should be offered to non-entitled students for a fee – panel (88%); web (72%)

• The panel strongly support introducing a minimum fare-paying charge (82%)

• Web respondents disagreed (51%)– But non-parents/carers and non-Roman Catholics agreed with a

minimum fare-paying charge

5

Other questions general to council spending

• General agreement with Council’s financial strategy– Panel in line with budget consultation findings; web less positive

• Support from panel (59%) and web (53%) for some savings made through charging to be re-invested into school transport

• Some support from panel (43%) for savings to go towards restricting council tax increases

• Web respondents were against this (47%)

Conclusions

• Panel is generally supportive of the proposals

• More concern/opposition from interest groups from the web

• Concerns about:– Impact on the environment/levels of traffic– Impact on large families– Impact on families with children currently in the system