Sixth-formers attending special schools will be asked to pay 5 per cent of their transport costs after councillors backed the move which is intended to save money for the council.
Parent Carers’ Council (PaCC) representative Pippa Hodge told a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting that it was “a disability toll”.
She said that the families of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) did not have the money to spare for travel costs.
But the council’s Children, Families and Schools Committee voted to bring in the charge of £547 a year towards the cost of taxis and minibuses for 16 to 19-year-olds.
Ms Hodge said that, within the SEND community, families were struggling with the “cost of living crisis” and the costs of raising young people with additional needs.
She said: “We would dearly love our children and young people to be able to go to their closest school for their sixth form studies.
“We’d love them to be able to walk with their mates. We’d love them to jump on a bike or get a little moped and tootle off to their local college. But they can’t.
“They can’t because they have a severely complex set of circumstances – be that disabilities, social, emotional, mental health behaviour, because they’re not safe on public transport or because the setting they go to is much further away.”
She said providing a “pass” to families on low income was too simplistic because no families in the SEND community could find £60 a month.
Labour councillor Jacob Taylor said that councillors understood how parents of children with special educational needs spent their whole lives fighting to get what they need.
But Councillor Taylor, who co-chairs the Children, Families and Schools Committee, said that the cost of home to school transport was “very large” for many councils and not funded by the government.
He said that the council was currently facing a serious financial situation this year and next, with a £25 million gap in the budget that had to be addressed.
He said: “We don’t have a heap of nice choices to make on this one. In future, if a Labour government starts to properly fund local government and some of these services, this might be something we need to look at.
“For now, we have relatively few options to try to bring this budget more under control.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks said: “The national government expects young people to stay on in education post 16 and yet they’re not prepared to pay for transport for that for anybody.
“It would seem to me that really this is a government decision that we ought to be arguing about. To say you’ve got to stay on at school but we’re not prepared to fund your transport seems wrong to me.”
The council’s assistant director of education and skills Jo Lyons told councillors that there was no legal requirement for the council to provide free or subsidised travel for 16 to 19-year-olds.
Brighton and Hove was an outlier compared with other councils nationally – and 79 per cent of unitary authorities did not provide transport.
She said that those on low incomes and young people who had complex needs or who had to travel with medical specialists or equipment would not face a charge.
The budget for home to school transport for young people with SEND from 5 to 16 was almost £3.5 million and was expected to be overspent by £518,000 in this financial year. The budget for 16 to 18-year-olds was £918,000.
Seven Labour councillors voted for the proposals. Two Greens voted against while the single Conservative on the 10-strong committee abstained.
Now the council are picking on vulnerable children to try and screw every penny out of us
No one is out of reach of these people. Why don’t they focus on there own inefficiency and stop wasting our money on ridiculous vanity projects like the I360 etc etc.
The i360 was committed to years ago under a different council. The current council has to find £25m to fulfill its statutory (required by law) responsibilities. Express your dissatisfaction to the Tory government that underfunds local councils, especially if they’re Labour-controlled.
You simply don’t get it, they are all the same. USELESS!!! Waste money,make promises they can’t keep or have never intended to keep, come up with ridiculous schemes and plans that piss our hard earned money up the wall.
They don’t fix the roads, keep the city clean ….etc.The common denominator are people in authority who are simply not up to the job no matter what political colour.
Jen Murray
This has nothing to do with Tory shortfalls, this is a Transport matter.
People are quick to moan about Government ‘shortfalls’ when the whole picture is never explained. If you recall, councils took over responsibility for parking from police and therefore retain all revenue from fees and fines and this money, has to be ring fenced for TRANSPORT projects meaning they no longer receive funding from central Government.
Question we should be asking is ‘What’s happened to the £20 million surplus record by BHCC earlier this year’ that should be used on a priority scheme like this?
Wasted on more vanity projects no doubt like the £13million on those bike hubs for instance.
So, nothing to do with the Greens (with a little Tory help )saddling taxpayers with debt as a result of the disastrous decision to build the i360? There needs to be an enquiry into how this was allowed to go ahead
Explain this local article from 19th January 2023 then.Where is all the money going if disabled kids aren’t a priority?
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23259560.brighton-hove-city-council-makes-20m-surplus-parking/
A quote from the article: By law, any surplus generated by parking fees and charges must be spent on provision of public transport services or on road, air quality or environmental improvements.
I think you’ll find transporting disabled kids IS a public transport service.
As for the ‘law’ on funding pots, that doesn’t stop council transferring parking surplus to their ‘general fund’ to use for —- fill in the blank. They don’t need to waste it on ‘air quality’ improvements. We already have clean sea air, and we’d have free-flowing traffic if it weren’t for the council’s own road obstructing schemes creating unnecessary emissions.
Barry, there is no legal requirement to run this particular service. And the fine print details low income and those with profound needs will not be affected either. This is, in other words, a 95% discounted service for those who can afford it.
If you read the above, the money is there. MILLIONS of parking ‘surplus’, and if it can only be spent on transport, this is transport.
Why would you think the parents of disabled kids have spare cash?
If council can prioritise £13.4m for Beryl bicycles few can afford or use, and £28m for a parking enforcement contract with Marston Holdings, but claim there is nothing left in the kitty for disabled kids transport, that is despicable.
Then get them to get off their backsides and get the bloody roads fix.
Jen Murray
So what is a taxi or minibus taking children to school, oh a TRANSPORT SERVICE.
So the question remains valid, ‘Where has the money gone that should be used to fund this.’
Despite realising the dire financial straits the council is in, I do think it is petty to raise money from the most vulnerable residents. It’s not even raising a huge amount when compared to the Council’s overall budget, but when broken down into charges for individual families, it is a HUGE amount when compared to their overall budgets.
Hmm, on the one hand, another way of saying this is that 95% of costs are covered by the council. I suspect this will be a lot of drama for a few thousand.
I love the constant assumption by Labour Councils that the government has the money to fund councils to the tune they want. Even Starmer won’t commit as he knows that the cupboard is bare. We have the highest levels of debt since the end of WW2. Just printing more cash is one of the drivers for our inflation issues. Money has to be created by work. Councils should be encouraging industry and trade. More wealth = more tax income.
More of Labour shirking their duties?
Wake me up when something new happens 🥱
Ah, a wonderfully disingenuous comment from our resident disingenuous commenter. Welcome back, it’s been a while.
Life’s hard enough for these families without the council putting the boot in. If it was your family you would soon change your tune, you insensitive fool.
I have pragmatic outlook unfortunately. 95% provision for a service that is only paid for the most well off is very reasonable, in my opinion.
I think you work for the council in the “they can do no wrong department” More money down the drain. Never mind vulnerable children can cough up.
Will be interesting to see if Benjamin responds.
Hello.
Captain Disingenuous will be right with you!
We bow to Delenda’s considerable experience on that matter, Charlie!
There’s plenty I criticise the council for. Unlike our resident disingenuous commenter, I actually bring reasoned conversation to the right forum. Making a snide, often inaccurate, and often emotional, comment on a local news website is pretty ineffectual, wouldn’t you say?
I do like to engage with people like our local disingenuous commenter however, because it’s a different point of view to my own, and I can develop a rounded opinion on a subject.
Benjamin is either a councillor or a council officer.
We’re not fooled!
Sorry, neither!
looks like you’ve earned a reputation
He sure has, but not a reputation to be proud of.
Ah, Tack-on Tom! Still tacking onto other people’s threads, I see. Ever since I called you enamored with a councillor a few weeks ago, your ad hominems have been very low quality.
Seems so, Delenda. Yet no-one really engages with my points, rather than to fantastic about my job or makes personal attacks. If the reputation is that hold a valid viewpoint that people struggle to challenge, then I’m not too fussed. I will respectfully debate any topic, I just hope for some salience.
It’s a really poor decision that saves only £30,000. But when you have someone as nasty as Asst Director Jo Lyons who should be standing up for these pupils, (as well as Georina Clarke Green responsible for SEN provision). I will tell you how to save double that amount restructure the LA and get rid of the Asst Director role – money for old rope.
Agreed!!!
The council waste so much money on “money for old rope” jobs they should be ashamed of themselves, but no, let’s go after the vulnerable children and their families who’s life is difficult enough as it is.
Kick ’em while there down and let’s waste tax payers money on more consultants, PR bullshit, and related nonsense. Once we’ve caused as much distress as possible to this group let’s go back to the motorists and screw them a bit more.
Since this matter affects the youth of the city, I wonder if it’s gone in front of the much trumpeted ‘Youth Council’ to debate. I hear the YC now includes SENS youngsters too, so who better to decide, since Labour are clearly not interested in the views of their voting taxpaying parents?
Charge the 1000’s of students Council tax, even if its only a small amount £100-£200 a year. That would eat into the £25m they need to find.
It seems like councils should be cancelling bus passes for the elderly or looking at reducing the cost of these and also possibly pupil premium kids who in most cases have legs and are capable of walking to school. At 65 we all get these free bus passes and because they are free we will
All use them but how many people really need them and at what cost. As for this travel allowance perhaps it should be scrapped and only allowed on a case by case basis based on parental income and if the requirements to travel across the city are really needed. Can’t this education be done online and maybe there is an argument for turning one sixth form online and allowing access to many home schooling kids and kids that struggle to travel.
SEN education online is impossible for the vast majority of these students. Being part of the college community is a major part of the education.
It is based on financial income. The article states only the most well off families will enjoy the 95% discount, rest have no change in arrangements at 100%
Saving the council tax payers money.
So you want to cancel ‘Free’ bus passes for the elderly.
How mean being they are paid for in part by parking fees and fines, so effectively not paid for from council taxes.
Walking to school is a great idea, but with the catchment areas, not all go to the nearest schools and are sometimes outside the radius of walking or cycling simply due to their locations.
Interesting comment on ‘Free’ bus passes at 65. Yes, of course people will use them, that’s what they are for. How many people need them is irrelevant and the cost is what it is.
As for travel allowance, councils have a duty of care to provide travel for those under 16.
We are talking about disabled, who require special needs and therefore specialised professionals at venues suitable for them and it’s not for us to question any travel needs.
Yes, I’m sure Education could be done on-line, but why treat them differently from everybody else. They too should be free to go to school and mix with others and have a proper life the same as everyone else, they are entitled to be treated equally that the rest of us take for granted without question.
You seem to be very critical of the disabled and elderly and think they are second rate citizens, they are not and are equal to all, and should be shown respect.
The report to committee in January of this year following the failure of this service in 20/21 is useful to understand the situation.
It explains why there is upset. According to that report BHCC spend per pupil is below the average. The increase in costs is not unrelated to the failure of the executive and recovering some of that expense as a tax on disabled families, means tested or not, is a very valid opinion to hold.
My god ! I don’t live anywhere near this council but, I know this council are more worried about stupid bicycle lane’s fgs.
This disgusting vote by councillors to charge for transport is vile. If I lived in this borough I would ask the council for every bit of information re the disgusting dissision, who the councillors are and what their qualifications are in the dissabled world as it were. I suspect this dissision is against disability law and would urge residents to get this checked out. Im watching things like this as a few councils are dipping their toes in to see what they can get away with. All the best.
Not charge, pay less than 100% for, and also this doesn’t won’t affect the vast majority of people.
Far as I’m aware, there isn’t a statutory legal duty here, but I must admit, I haven’t looked into it comprehensively.
Still, looking at every single aspect to cut costs right now is something we were told to expect by the council…I don’t know if this is a step too far. I suspect loads here will think it is.