Home-to-School Transport

Jen Craft Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this debate. I will focus my remarks on home-to-school transport for SEND children and young people, as I know others will talk about other aspects of the home-to-school transport system.

The home-to-school transport system for SEND children and young people is a good lens through which to view how parts of the SEND system in general do not really communicate with one another. There is currently a statutory duty to provide home-to-school transport for children with additional needs who need to travel to a place of learning that is not within walking distance or is not their local place of education. However, the way that is applied often leads to rather negative outcomes for these children.

There are obviously financial constraints on local authorities, which are obliged to provide home-to-school transport, and that often leads them to going with the lowest possible bid from a company that can provide it. A number of home-to-school transport companies market themselves as “specialists”. In reality, however, their staff have minimal specialist training, which often consists only of how to correctly load and unload a wheelchair, and the vehicles are often highly unsuitable for transporting children with special educational needs—sometimes it might just be a taxi. Obligations are placed on parents, who can be deeply worried about putting their child in a car with an unfamiliar person, particularly if that child is non-verbal or has communication difficulties. Safeguarding concerns often come to the fore.

There also does not appear to be a great deal of monitoring or holding of companies to account for the service that they provide. Parents in my constituency tell me that their home-to-school transport turns up late or fails to turn up at all, and that getting replacement drivers or assistance for their children is a regular occurrence. One parent said that if they were taking their child to school and regularly dropped them off half an hour late, the school would have something to say about it. Indeed, schools quite often like to send messages out to parents—as they should—to remind them of the importance of punctuality and being at school on time. Lateness has a huge knock-on effect for children and young people. Disabled children are often at a disadvantage to their peers to begin with, and if a child needs a routine in their day and to begin their day in a certain way, constantly turning up late to class and having to be signed in at the office can put a real dampener on their day.

The costs of home-to-school transport have been increasing for some time, and I believe it is projected that they will continue to increase. The Minister will probably speak about how the SEND reforms will go some way to address that. The County Councils Network, among others, has called for the Government to consider means-testing home-to-school transport for disabled children. It highlighted cases where councils were sending transport to pick children up to travel sometimes for upwards of an hour and a half each day and claimed that that was unsustainable. To be clear, we do not means- test education for anyone in this country, and I do not believe that parents who happen to have a disabled child should be treated any differently here.

There is a hidden cost of having a disabled child that an income-based means test would not take into account, as has been pointed out by Contact, the charity for disabled children and their families. Often, a child has to travel a long distance to go to a school that meets their needs because the system has catastrophically failed to meet their needs any closer to home. That failure usually lands squarely at the door of the local authority, which attempts to dodge having to pay for it by means-testing and putting the onus back on parents. It is reprehensible that a system that has failed to provide an education, failed to intervene early enough to stop issues escalating, and failed to find somewhere suitable to educate someone close to their home tries to make parents pay for the privilege of sending their child to a special educational needs establishment a long distance away. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that there are no plans to introduce means testing of parents of special educational needs and disabled children for home-to-school transport.

I will touch briefly on another aspect of the system that probably could do with changing. The statutory duty to provide home-to-school transport for children with SEND currently covers those between five and 16 and those between 19 and 25. That leaves ages nought to five not covered—in some cases, children begin school at age four, which leaves a year-long gap during which the parent has to take them to school until the duty kicks in when the child turns five—and a gap between 16 and 19, where it seems that legislation has not kept pace. We acknowledge that some people require additional education until age 25, but we do not have the statutory cover for them to receive transport to get to a place of education.

I will leave it there, as I think I have gone over my six minutes.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing the debate. Members will be pleased to know that my speech will be under six minutes, so we will have brought that time back.

I want to speak about home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities and in particular about Lewis—that is not his real name, but he is a real Eastbourne boy with special educational needs. What happened to Lewis should never happen to any child. Lewis was physically restrained, relentlessly and brutally, by his passenger assistant on his home-to-school transport. His mum only found out when he came home that evening visibly distressed and bruised. She had not been told. That is because, shockingly, there is no statutory requirement to report incidents of physical restraint on home-to-school transport. We only know the specifics of what happened from looking at it, because it was captured on CCTV in the vehicle, and it was only captured because Eastbourne borough council—coincidentally, when I was a councillor—pushed for mandatory CCTV in cabs that facilitate home-to-school transport.

I raised Lewis’s case at Education questions last April and secured a meeting with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who acknowledged that there is a clear gap in regulation. When I raised the issue again at Prime Minister’s questions in November the Prime Minister looked into the eyes of Lewis’s mum, who was in the Public Gallery, and said that the principle of safety and tailored support for every child would be “central” to his SEND reforms. I am asking, and Lewis and his mum are asking, why the issue was not addressed in those reforms. Why was that gap in regulation not filled?

The Challenging Behaviour Foundation, which does lots of amazing work and research in this area, has set out exactly what is needed. It has rightly said that we need national training standards for all staff on home-to-school transport—something that does not exist now but could have helped Lewis. We also need a statutory duty to record and report to parents any use of restraint on home-to-school transport. That duty exists in school settings, but the situation is patchy for home-to-school transport. The Challenging Behaviour Foundation has rightly said that stronger safeguarding guidance, linked to “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, is required.

Those are not complex or costly asks. They are nowhere near as complex or costly on a human level as the trauma that Lewis has experienced and the anguish that his family have been through.

[Jen Craft]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point. I hope he will forgive me for adding another ask to his list. In assistance and drivers for home-to-school transport for disabled children—particularly those who have autism or neurodiversity—consistency is key. Does he agree that best practice guidance, setting out things such as consistency and the three points that he has made, would be very welcome?

[Josh Babarinde]

I completely agree. My little brother is autistic so, as a family, we see up close how important consistency is and how disrupting the consistency of a particular service can be hugely disruptive to the flow of his life. The same goes for many others with special educational needs and disabilities, so I would absolutely add that ask. I hope that the Minister can address it in her winding-up speech.

Those four points are the minimum that Lewis and every SEND child travelling to school deserves. I hope that the Minister will meet me and Lewis’s mum to discuss this issue further—things fell through the cracks with the change of Minister at the last reshuffle—so that we can finally get closer to delivering on the promise that the Prime Minister made.