Agenda item

This report considers the management actions being taken to reduce the pressure on the Special Educational Needs transport budget in light of the statutory duties, demographic pressures and providers’ increased running costs.

Discussion:

The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture introduced the report which had been provided in the context of a projected overspend of £1.1 million on the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Transport budget for 2013/14. He highlighted the Council’s statutory duties in respect of transport and SEN and the factors generating rising costs which included demographic pressures, the number of pupils moving into Medway and rising contractors’ costs.

The Committee was advised of measures being taken to limit and bring down overall SEN Transport costs which included learning from other Councils and seeking information from all English Unitary Authorities on their SEN transport costs, changes to commissioning and procurement arrangements in Medway and a planned pilot with a group of three schools. This pilot due to be trialed in April 2014 had been the subject of a tender exercise with a target of 15% savings on current spend with prices fixed and a 25% variation in activity contingency. An exercise had also been undertaken to contact all parents in receipt of SEN home to school transport to invite them to consider moving to a personal budget. 38 families were currently in receipt of personal budgets; 72 more families had decided to move to personal budgets as a consequence of this recent exercise and 118 had asked for more information.

Members then raised a number of issues and questions including:

• Whether the move to educational health care plans for some young people up to age 25 would impact upon the SEN transport budget. Officers advised that the statutory duty to provide SEN home to school transport would continue to apply in these circumstances for some young people but not all; principally for those attending full time education establishments.

• Whether there could be an increase in SEN home to school transport appeals as a result of demographic pressures. Officers advised that the eligibility criteria in the Council’s SEN home to school transport policy was very clear and consistent with statutory requirements making it unlikely that there would be a significant number of appeals.

• Whether the cost of transport to respite care would increase given the closure of Preston Skreens and expression of parental preferences. Officers advised that although some SEN children using respite care now had increased transport requirements, others had less distance to travel.

• Members debated the issues relating to personal budgets and questioned whether they were a cost-effective alternative to home to school transport provision. Officers advised that a minority of families were likely to take up personal budgets and that they could only be used if they provided value for money with no detrimental impact on the public purse. They also advised that personal budgets had to be outcomes based and kept under continuous review. Members were informed of the scope provided by personal budgets for innovative solutions by some families, such as providing driving lessons to enable another member of the family to help with transporting children.

• Members asked about safeguarding and whether all SEN transport drivers were subject to criminal record checks under the disclosure and barring service (DBS).  Officers confirmed that all providers commissioned by the Council must only use DBS compliant drivers and that families opting for personal budgets received support from the Council’s self directed support team to establish expected outcomes and ensure that any people employed to provide support/transport had complied with the appropriate checking procedures.

• Members questioned whether families who were already in receipt of disability living allowance were also entitled to SEN home to school transport and were advised that the duty to provide SEN home to school transport still applied where children met the appropriate criteria.

• Members debated potential cost savings that could be achieved through competitive procurement and asked whether ARRIVA had been approached to vary and provide more flexible bus routes in Medway. Officers confirmed that ARRIVA had indicated that SEN transport was not the type of transport they currently provide. Officers also advised they expected that competition would generate significant cost savings and that the Council was committed to supporting Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s) in Medway through the recently agreed Procurement Strategy

• Finally, the Committee asked for assurances that the level of unexpected overspend experienced in this financial year would not occur in future years. Officers advised that the 2013/14 pressures and growth had been factored into the budget assumptions for 2014/15.

Decision:

a)     The Committee noted the actions being taken to reduce the pressure on the SEN transport budget in the light of the statutory duties, demographic pressures and providers’ increased running costs.

b)     The Committee requested further information on the outcome of the survey of spend on SEN Transport by other Unitary Councils and details of any cost-saving initiatives that those authorities have put in place.