13. All witnesses agreed that the rigid statutory walking distances, which date from the 1944 Education Act, and the resulting division between free and chargeable transport are no longer appropriate.[16] The Local Government Association (LGA) told us:

"there is widespread agreement that the current requirement to provide free transport for children living a particular distance from school, and the sharp dividing line between free and full cost provision, no longer can be justified in terms of equity efficiency or need."[17]

14. The statutory distances of over three miles for children over eight, and two miles for children under that age, do not distinguish between urban and rural areas and take no account of the nature of the route. As one witness pointed out, "A walk of a mile across a park, as I do in the morning, is one thing; a walk of a mile along an A road without a footway is quite a different thing".[18] Moreover, they were set when car ownership and the level of traffic was far lower than today.[19] Despite the general agreement that the walking distances contained in the Education Act 1996 were no longer appropriate, the draft Bill specifies that "walking distance" has the meaning given by section 444(5) of that Act; this must be readdressed.[20]

15. Some witnesses felt that the limits should be removed entirely for the pilot schemes but that upper limits might need to be retained as a safeguard in the long run.[21] Others felt that abolishing walking distances altogether might send out the wrong message, and it could seem that children were not expected to walk at all.[22] The Committee agrees that in many cases walking to school will be the healthiest and most environmentally friendly option. Setting a limit beyond which free transport will be provided gives a clear signal that below that limit it is reasonable for children to walk. The question is what limit is appropriate.

Legislation in Denmark

16. The Committee was impressed by the system which operates in Denmark, as outlined to us by SUSTRANS. The Danish Government introduced legislation which requires that every child has a safe route to school and gives a firm definition of safe route. If there is no such route, free bus transport must be provided.[23] This legislation means that it is in an authority's interest to invest in a safe route because doing so relieves it of the financial burden of providing free transport. Any new system should ensure that expenditure savings on school transport can be taken into account when investment decisions on infrastructure measures, such as providing safe footpaths or cycle routes, are made.

17. In contrast to the Danish legislation the Education Act does not define "safe route". Moreover a case under the Act, George v Devon County Council, found that it was reasonably practicable for a nine-year-old to be accompanied to school along an unlit rural road with no footpath, used by tractors, milk tankers and cattle trucks.[24] Denmark has an incremental walking and cycling distance based on age: it starts at 1.5 miles for eight years and under and rises to five miles at age 16. Because cycling and walking are both considered suitable ways for children to come to school, the statutory distances are less generous than those in England and Wales. This legislation has led to the provision of safe routes and a high proportion of children walking and cycling: 50% of children cycle to school compared with 2% in Great Britain.

18. Not only has the Danish system increased the number of children walking and cycling but it has also reduced the accident rate. There are indications that if proper infrastructure is provided similar results could be achieved in this country. In York, a city which has invested extensively in cycle routes, there has been both a large increase in children cycling to school and a reduction in accidents.[25] 12% of secondary school children now cycle to school. If people's habits are going to be changed, there must be clear limits to walking distance based on age combined with a legal definition of a safe route which is sufficiently flexible to reflect the range of different conditions that children face on their journey to school. Where there is no safe route, free bus transport should be provided. Ultimately, we hope that more children will walk or cycle to school; that will only happen if their parents are convinced it is safe for them to do so.

17   ST 05 Back

18   Q 47 Back

19   Q 79 Back

20   Draft School Transport Bill, Clause 1.3(3) Back

21   Q 9 Back

22   Q 47 Back

23   ST 04 Back

24   [1988] 3 ALL ER 1002,[1988] 3 WLR 1386, HL Back

25   Travelling to school: an action plan Back