To receive any questions of which Members of the Council have given notice.

Deadline for notification: 5.00pm on 15 July 2016

Councillor Roger Evans asked the following question and the written response was tabled.

“In 2014 the then Cabinet Member decided to implement a policy of charging for issuing travel passes to post 16 students. These to be used for travelling to college and sixth forms. The Cabinet Member at that time decided to delegate this to the appropriate Director with the expectation that increases would be applied yearly from that September for 3 years. The last of these is due to commence this coming September.

For those students who are on defined benefits the increase means that the travel pass will now cost £142.50 per academic year. For students not on defined benefits the cost will be increased to £875.00. This is a huge amount of money for parents living in rural areas, areas where walking to the appropriate education establishment is too far and is unsafe.

The corresponding amount charged from September 2015 was £105.00 and £766.00. Those students on defined benefit therefore will have an increase of over 35%. Those whose parents earn in excess of the £16,190 threshold will have an increase of 14% imposed on them, is this fair?

According to information supplied by officers the total number of students using the service is reducing. 915 students applied for a pass in September 2014. This had fallen to 432 in February 2016. This is partly due to bus operators marketing their own bus passes which are more cost effective to the student and offer greater enhancements.

Can the present Cabinet Member inform us whether he supports this policy or will he revisit it and look to see if a better value option can be made available.”

Response:

The Post/16 transport contribution scheme for those Post/16 students entitled to transport assistance commenced in September 1995.  It is perhaps helpful to note that Post/16 transport is a discretionary area and this policy is supported by the Cabinet Member with Portfolio for Highways and Transport Services. At the same time it does need to address the disparity between the cost of Post/16 travel and the contributions received towards this.

Following formal consultation in 2014, it was agreed to adjust the Post/16 contribution levels (over a 3 year period) from £550 to £875 and from £30 to £142.50 for those families in receipt of defined benefits, with the upcoming 2016/17 academic year being the final year of this.  The 2016/17 contribution level compared to that in 2015/16 represents 11 pence per journey for those students on defined benefits and 30 pence per journey for others.

There are currently 395 entitled students accessing this scheme, of which 125 pay the full contribution and 270 who pay the reduced level though their entitlement to benefits.   The reduction in numbers accessing the Council’s scheme is mainly through students going to bus operators to purchase tickets directly, such as the 24/7 bus pass offered by Arriva at its current cost of £485 pa.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Roger Evans commented that Shropshire Council was charging over £800 for a bus pass compared to Arriva who were charging just over £400 and which represented greater value for money.  He questioned if Shropshire Council could make better use of this and also asked if there was anything more that could be done for those students with no access to Arriva buses.

In response the Director of Children’s Services explained that Post/16 transport was a discretionary area and did not have to be supported in quite the same way as for statutory school age children.  Officers in Integrated Transport had worked extremely hard with Arriva and other operators to secure a reduced season ticket cost.  However, this was only available to those children where there was a commercial route available.

Shropshire Council was making savings and these savings represented a reduction compared to what we would be paying if the packages were not in place and we were having to pay commercial prices. 

Shropshire Council’s provision post 16 contribution scheme did compare favourably with other authorities. 

In conclusion, she commented that although Councillor David Minnery was not the Portfolio Holder at the time the policy had been agreed and implemented, he was very supportive of it and at this point in time did not propose to put it forward for review.  

A Member questioned what months the figures covered and questioned whether the figures would change if based upon the academic year or financial year. 

AGREED: That a written response to Councillor Roger Evans’s supplementary question be provided.