West Lothian school transport cost prompts question over free bus pass use
The council pays £1, 245 per pupil to provide 'free' school transport - but with the Scottish Government also providing free bus passes to under 22s, one councillor questioned why pupils were not being asked to use normal buses.
Pupils in West Lothian could be asked to use public bus routes to get to school, after questions were raised over the cost of providing special transport.
The council pays £1, 245 per pupil to provide 'free' school transport - but with the Scottish Government also providing free bus passes to under 22s, one councillor questioned why pupils were not being asked to use normal buses.
And the council has confirmed they are looking at 'crossover' areas where normal public transport may be a suitable alternative.
The cost to the council for school transport in the last year was more than £3m - but the 'use the bus pass' option is not the simple answer it might appear.
Conservative councillor Alison Adamson, speaking at a recent Environment Policy Development Scrutiny Panel meeting, said: 'I hate using the expression free transport.It costs the council £1,245 to take each child to schools. That's not free in anyone's language.'
'I don't understand the Scottish Government saying that anyone up to a certain age gets free transport, but we have to find the money for school children to get to school so my question is. Can we find a way of tapping into free transport budget.?
'Why is that free but councils have to find funding to get children to get to school. I find that very difficult to understand. A lot of people would too? Given how much money it costs I find it very very difficult to swallow.'
Chairing the meeting Labour's Tom Conn said 'I think the answer will be that the council is obliged to take pupils to school. We have a responsibility under legislation to support that, but I take your point.'
He added that school contract buses 'take children from A to B', directly to schools, whereas commercial networks don't.
In East Lothian a proposal in this year's budget by the ruling Labour group to encourage schoolchildren who have nationally funded under-22 free bus passes to stop using school passes was challenged by opposition groups.
Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, the council has a statutory responsibility to provide school transport for those pupils living over the qualifying distance for home to school transport.
Section 42 (4) of the Act clarifies that the statutory walking distance is two miles for any pupil under the age of eight, and three miles for any other pupil where attending their catchment school.
The council can discharge this duty through contracted school transport, using council owned vehicles, utilising the commercial bus network or even through mileage payments to parents for self-travel.
The council will consider a number of factors when considering which transport option is most appropriate including available resources, the needs of pupils and the suitability and availability of the bus network.
The total 2024/25 cost for school buses was £3,194,373.
A West Lothian council spokesperson said: 'Although commercial bus routes may exist they may not provide sufficient connection to meet the council's statutory obligations for school transport.
'West Lothian Council has a generous home to school policy which provides transport for secondary pupils living 2 or more miles from their catchment school and 1.5 miles for primary pupils.
'However, work is ongoing to assess the crossover between the school network and the local bus network to identify if there are any opportunities to enhance and supplement the options for transport for school pupils in the future.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
29 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will Scots Labour MPs be Starmer's lapdogs over Palestine?
Labour MP Richard Burgon said this was 'truly sickening, especially given the genocide being carried out' in Gaza. It's also a flagrant violation of international law. The International Court of Justice has been totally clear that all states must stop any co-operation that aids Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine'. So not only are we supplying Israel with weapons: we are also, quite disgracefully, training their soldiers on UK soil. It is surely now imperative that we have a full, independent public inquiry into the UK's role in the slaughter in Gaza as quickly as possible. This new development must, inevitably, only add to the suffering already being endured by the Palestinian people. It will be interesting to see if any Scottish Labour MPs will protest about it or whether they will continue to act as if they were the Prime Minister's lapdogs and remain silent. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. A simple question for the taxman The reason that all pensioners should receive the winter fuel payment is the same reason that all children should be eligible for primary education, free school meals, free nursery places and for child benefit, and why the state pension should not be means-tested. We should never have a system where someone earning one extra pound is worse off than those without it when they were below a threshold. There should be no cliff edges. If we decide that someone should only keep 45p of that extra pound (the Universal Credit taper for someone below the tax threshold), 32p (the taper combined with basic rate income tax and national insurance), 50p (the top rate of income tax and national insurance above £125,140, and also between £43,663 and £50,000), 79p (the intermediate tax rate for a pensioner), or 91.25p (basic rate dividend tax), or all of it, then that should be a simple question for the tax system. The tax system will also collect more of whatever you do keep if you spend it on cigarettes instead of on food or children's clothes, or other zero-VAT items. If we decide that pensioners need some extra cash to heat their homes during the winter, as we don't expect them to be at school or at work during the day, we should give them all the extra cash, and expect them all to contribute towards it with the same rates of taxation that everyone else pays. While Brian Wilson ('A universal truth: not all pensioners deserve the winter fuel allowance. But U-turn is welcome', June 12) might complain that a pensioner in Scotland receives £100 more in their winter fuel payment, those with incomes above the £35,000 threshold are paying most of it back in extra tax compared to England, and those above £40,000 will be paying all of it back. Will Mr Wilson stick to his newly revealed principles and argue in a future column that parents above a certain income threshold should pay for primary school education? Or will he return to the old-fashioned Labour principle of universalism? Alan Ritchie, Glasgow. Turning a defeat into near-victory I see that SNP MP Pete Wishart is bigging himself up on social media, telling us how long he's served as an MP and informing us that he's one of the separatist politicians who 'almost won an independence referendum'. So, in SNP la la land, must we assume clearly that losing means almost winning? Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire. Russia's military incompetence Britain was spending about 7% of GDP on defence in the 1950s. This has now shrunk to little more than 2%, less if we remove service pensions from the calculation. This makes us as one of the top spenders in Western Europe. The USA spends 3.19%. Russia is spending 6.3%. I suggest it is a little fanciful for George Morton (letters, June 8) to claim that Nato was gearing up for any sort of conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia. When the Ukraine war began, Germany offered Zelenskyy 7,000 helmets. That's how war-like they were. Russia has a long history of extreme military incompetence. They keep attacking smaller neighbours and either get beaten (Japan 1904) or do badly initially, but grind on and eventually extract some territorial concessions as they did with Finland in the Winter War (1939-40) or Poland (c 1920-21). Ukraine seems to be an example of the latter situation. Russia's position would be much worse if Nato had made a serious attempt to supply arms before and after the invasion. If Russia is being attacked every day, as Mr Morton suggests, it is only because, in the words of Donald Trump, they are 'bombing the hell out of Ukraine'. Russia bombs hospitals, schools and apartment blocks. Ukraine shoots up some warplanes. Putin denounces this as terrorism and bombs some more civilians. Nato did take action over Kosovo to prevent the Serbs massacring the Kosovars as they had the Bosniaks. The UN should have done it but Russia would have vetoed any such move. Mr Morton's view on EU democracy seems to come directly from the Putin/Trump/Farage book of propaganda. The EU Commission is accountable to the directly elected European Parliament. Each EU member sends a commissioner, chosen by their elected government. The commission, like the US presidency, is therefore an example of indirect democracy, which is a whole lot more democracy than Putin is willing to tolerate. We live in dark times but the darkest hour is just before the dawn. Ronald Cameron, Banavie. Why we need a Scottish Trump Every day under the SNP administration we hear of more Scottish companies closing down in Scotland. The latest news this week concerns yet another two companies – bus maker Alexander Dennis and the Scotbeef abattoir. This leaves me to believe that we need a Scottish Donald Trump to save our Scottish industries. The SNP's banning of fracking led to the closure of Grangemouth refinery and they are intent in closing down the entire North Sea operation to keep the Green party happy. Perhaps it is time to give Nigel Farage and Reform a chance to show how they can save Scottish industries instead of running them down. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Bucksburn, Aberdeen. Medicine demands world leadership Robert Kennedy Jr, as US health secretary, has appointed eight replacement vaccine advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel since he fired all of the previous scientific experts. Is this a misnomer, as many of them could be considered anti-vaccine and their scientific expertise could be questioned? For the US, the recent measles outbreaks provide evidence for the need for more vaccines. Measles is not just annoying spots: it can kill. For the rest of the world the danger is in both the possible spread of diseases and more in the lack of support for the development of further vaccines by American scientists. The world needs leadership in medicine and medical research. Dennis Fitzgerald, Melbourne, Australia. Joined-up thinking must be a priority We welcome the Chancellor's announcement of £2.6 billion to decarbonise the UK's transport system. The commitment to electric vehicles, particularly vans and HGVs, is a vital step towards a lower-emission future. It's especially encouraging to see £400 million ringfenced for the rollout of charging infrastructure. This investment must be focused on delivering a public charging network that is reliable, accessible, and fit for commercial vehicle use. The commercial vehicle sector is responsible for 10% of UK emissions but decarbonising it at scale means creating confidence in infrastructure, not just vehicles. Infrastructure developers are already making progress, but a joined-up approach between government, developers and fleet operators will be key to accelerating the transition. Michael Shaw, CEO, Aegis Energy, Wakefield.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
It's time for a national ban on smartphones in schools
Across the developed world, countries are waking up to an uncomfortable truth: smartphones are harming childhood, disrupting children's education, and distorting adolescence. Their unchecked presence in schools has gone from a novelty to a serious problem. It is one that demands a coherent, national response. This is not theoretical. In the past fortnight, I have visited schools in both New Zealand and the United States – two countries that have acted decisively to remove smartphones from classrooms. The impact has been transformative. In New Zealand, where a national ban on mobile phones during the school day was introduced just over a year ago, heads report higher academic attainment, calmer lessons, and more sociable pupils. In one Auckland school, exam scores rose by nearly 20 per cent. Teachers who were once sceptical now say they would not go back. At a school I visited, in a disadvantaged part of New York City, that had banned phones during the school day, social interaction between pupils and between pupils and teachers created a friendly atmosphere of commitment to a joint endeavour of hard work and educational attainment. What these schools understand, and what we in England are still debating, is that smartphones are not a neutral presence in a child's life. They fragment attention, fuel anxiety, and crowd out the face-to-face interaction that both education and friendship depend on. A particularly stark reminder came in a recent report in this newspaper: a ten-year-old boy in Bristol who received over 9,000 WhatsApp messages in a single evening. His school, Blackhorse Primary School, responded with admirable clarity by banning phones entirely. But we should not be relying on the courage or discretion of individual headteachers to confront what is, increasingly, a public health issue. By contrast, in the United States nearly all States have either passed or proposed phone-free school policies. This is not about ideology. It is a response to overwhelming evidence from schools, parents, and researchers that smartphones are compromising education and child development. This is not technophobia. Educational technology, properly used, can enrich an education. But the presence of personal smartphones in classrooms does the opposite. It undermines concentration, interrupts teaching, and increases incidents of bullying and online harm. The case for national action is now beyond dispute. It is also a matter of equity. During my time as schools minister, I visited more than a thousand schools and saw firsthand how the presence of smartphones disproportionately harms disadvantaged pupils. These are the children who most need structure, focus and stability. For them, a phone-free school day is not a luxury. It is a lifeline. Yet in England, we continue to rely on inconsistent, school-by-school policies. Some local areas such as St Albans and parts of Berkshire are beginning to act. In Southwark, school leaders have written to parents urging them to reduce phone use. These grassroots efforts are admirable but piecemeal. What is needed now is national leadership. Jonathan Haidt's recent book, The Anxious Generation, should serve as a warning. He documents the collapse in adolescent mental health since the widespread adoption of smartphones. Rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness among teenagers, particularly girls, have soared. This is not a passing concern. It is the defining public health issue of this generation. Polling supports this. A recent survey found that 72 per cent of teachers say phone use is a problem in their school. A third report that it contributes directly to poor behaviour. Meanwhile, 84 per cent of parents believe smartphones are causing serious issues at school. They want action. Unfortunately, the government's response has been timid, and it's hard not to conclude that the UK government is asleep at the wheel. While the Education Secretary has acknowledged the problem, recognition is not enough. We need a national ban on smartphones during the school day. Whether in leafy suburbs or inner cities, every child deserves the same interruption-free education. This is not about rolling back progress. It is about restoring the conditions in which children can be children and flourish. A phone-free school is not a punitive environment. It is one in which teachers can teach, pupils can learn, and friendships can be built without digital distortion. England is behind. New Zealand, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and most of the United States are years ahead in addressing this challenge. We must catch up. A national ban on smartphones in schools is not anti-technology. It is pro-learning, pro-childhood and pro-mental health. The international evidence is clear. The public support is there. All that remains is for policymakers and ministers to wake up and act. The Rt Hon Sir Nick Gibb was Minister of State at the Department for Education between 2022 and 2023. He was previously Minister of State (Minister for School Standards) at the Department for Education between 2014 and 2021
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Thousands of UK drivers face huge speed limit change under new road rules – is your route affected?
THOUSANDS of UK drivers will face a huge speed limit change under new road rules - is your route affected? The Welsh Government announced plans to lower the default speed limit from 30mph to 20mph, in 2023. 1 Welsh councils can revert to a 30mph speed limit Credit: Getty The decision sparked major public backlash, with hundreds of thousands of locals signing petitions calling for the rule to be scrapped. It appears residents were heard, as the Government later confirmed that councils could opt out by restoring some roads to the original 30mph limit the following year. This prompted fresh discussions, as local authorities began working with drivers to decide which roads should return to the higher speed limit. Some areas have since reverted to the 30mph limit, while others are still in the process of making the change. At the time, plans to slash the threshold for drivers being fined on 20mph roads have been branded "utter madness" as the Welsh Labour Government continues to develop the controversial policy. Motorists across Wales were still getting used to the 20mph speed limits on restricted roads as the Government worked with local authorities to make necessary changes. Following the heavily criticised rollout, Labour announced it would look to amend the policy so it was more focused on roads that actually need it - instead of it being a blanket measure. To that end, the standard threshold for drivers to be slapped with a speeding fine is 10 per cent plus two miles per hour. This was changed to four miles per hour for the new 20mph roads, as requested by GoSafe, who called on chief police officers to be more lenient on drivers as they adjust to the nationwide proposal. This means that if a driver is caught speeding at 24mph in the 20mph zone, they will not be fined. Major Speed Limit Changes on Scottish Roads However, a penalty charge notice could be issued if they're caught at 26mph. But reports now suggest changes could be introduced to amend this threshold and could see drivers fined if they're travelling at 24mph. According to Wales Online, chief police officers were set to review the policy in March. The former leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew RT Davies MS, Senedd Member for South Wales Central, said: "Dropping this threshold would be utter madness. "The 20mph policy is crackers enough without implementing a low threshold which is hard to match at low speeds. "Labour's failed 20mph experiment should be dropped." In 2024, 48,203 offences were recorded in Mid and South Wales, while 36,710 were given out in North Wales. In total, 84,913 offences were recorded across the country. Average offence speeds peaked in April for Mid and South Wales at 30.4mph, while North Wales saw the average offence speed peak at 32.7mph in May. Throughout 2024, the GoSafe road safety partnership revealed that 13,443 engagement sessions had taken place in which the Welsh Fire and Rescue Services delivered a 10-minute presentation about the speed limit changes. A spokesperson for GoSafe said: "While the public get used to the change in default limit, chief police officers have allowed us to increase this to 10 per cent plus 4mph in 20mph only, meaning we start to prosecute at 26mph in a 20mph limit. "This allows us to concentrate on offences more significantly over the speed limit. "The increased enforcement threshold is scheduled to be reviewed by Chief Officers in March 2025, however, they will continue to monitor it and may review it before this date. Any change will be communicated in advance through official sources."
