Effects of scrapping bus travel for 16-18 year-olds in Rutland to be examined

A review in Rutland will look at the impact of axing cheap bus travel for 16 to 18 year olds.

Families are now face paying up to £1000 pounds a year to get teens to college or sixth form.

Councillors want to know if this has led to financial hardship or more car journeys, with a survey for families set to launch next month.

A new panel will investigate the effect of scrapping cheap bus travel for 16 to 18-year-olds in Rutland.

Last year Rutland County Council axed a subsidy meaning families faced forking out £1,000 a year for public transport to get their teenagers to a college or sixth form.

Subsidised bus passes had cost £650, meaning there has been a 50% hike in charges for this academic year.

Now a group of councillors will look at how the policy is affecting students and their parents.

The Post 16 Transport Evidence Panel will rule on whether the policy has created ‘unintended consequences’ such as financial hardship, reduced school attendance, or increased car-use.

A scoping document setting out how the panel will investigate the issue was approved by the council’s scrutiny committee last week.

Tory leader Lucy Stephenson will chair the cross-party panel. Other councillors on the group are Liberal Democrats Raymond Payne, Linda Chatfield and Mark Chatfield, Independents Kevin Corby and Samantha Harvey, and Ramsay Ross (Labour).

The document states: “Anecdotally this decision has placed some households under increased financial pressure and has limited choices for our post-16s when choosing their next educational step.

“Young people post-16 are statutorily obliged to be in education or training until they are 18. It is essential the council understands the impact of this policy decision with data-based evidence.

“While it is understood there will be a full review of the changes to our transport offer, this specific change to the policy warrants focused attention to ensure the policy is not inadvertently creating a barrier to key aims within our corporate strategy.

“Has this policy resulted in impacting working households? For example, by reducing hours of work in order to get children to school, so reducing overall household income, resulting in families meeting thresholds to receive additional or increased benefits?”

The policy will save the council £175,000 but the panel will investigate whether other costs have been generated elsewhere, such as increased benefits uptake or increased demand for the household support fund.

The panel will ask council officers for data to answer some of their questions. There will also be a survey published on the council’s website in April asking for feedback from families on the policy.