1 March 2005

Dear Member,

We are grateful for publication of the Draft Report of the Committee’s Review of School Transport. Stuart’s Campaign broadly welcomes the main conclusions and the recommendations of the report but would make the following comments in the hope of further strengthening the recommendations made.

Strengths of the Report

There are numerous strengths detailed within this report and Stuart’s Campaign warmly applauds the recommendations resulting from it, however, we feel that the guidance document should be more comprehensive. We hope that the Assembly will act quickly to issue guidance to LEAs, bus operators and schools and that such guidance will incorporate the minimum standards set out in the recommendations of this report. In particular we feel that such guidance should cover;

	Use of safety belts.
	Non use of the three for two concession.
	The disuse of double-decker buses, for which a time limit, for example, three years, should be specified.
	Use of CCTV and adult escorts with clarification of legal powers involved.
	Clarification of the legal position of LEAs, schools, bus operators, pupils, and parents.
	Content and annual distribution of codes of practice, preferably as an insert into Schools Admissions Policies.
	Policies for dealing with misconduct involving LEAs and schools, acknowledging that this is a primary function of the LEA and not schools as indicated on page 17 (Recommendation 10).

	More specific pupil-friendly measures to enhance comfort and oblige LEAs to reconsider their obligations under the law as specified in paragraph 1.12.
	The age of buses employed on school contracts. The VOSA research indicates that the limit of 15 years should be written into the guidance, Stuart’s Campaign would agree with this research.
	The length of contracts.
	The quality and monitoring of driver conduct and suitability for employment.
	The use of regional planning and purchase of provision by LEA consortia which might in it self produce cost savings to allow better investment in quality.
	Risk assessments at school and along walking routes considered dangerous by those expected to use it with Estyn and the Health & Safety Executive being involved in monitoring the quality of such assessments.

Our understanding is that the guidance document proposed by the report would not cover all the above issues. We feel that it should do so if effective policy is to be made at this critical point in the development of school transport policies in Wales.

Weaknesses

Stuart’s Campaign would ask the Committee to consider the following weaknesses in the document;

We do not feel that the issue of hybrid buses[1] is treated at all in the report although the unacceptable difference in provision between contract and fare-paying vehicles is partially addressed. Recommendation 21 looks forward to some longer-term reconciliation of standards between contract school buses and fare-paying vehicles. We strongly believe that the use of hybrid vehicles be discontinued until such harmonisation is achieved.

Longer contracts for providers should be met with more severe penalties where operators are found to be consistently in breach of safety and comfort standards. LEAs should require more frequent ad hoc inspections of vehicles than is currently provided for by the vehicle inspectorate.

It is important to consider issues relating to driver conduct and standards along with driver’s CRB records and include this in the guidance.

We understand the necessity to gradually phase-out the use of double-deckers but feel that where LEAs choose, or are forced by supply difficulties, to continue with their use, adult escorts should be a minimum requirement in the tender document and that this should be specified in the guidance.

We also feel that phasing out of double-deckers should be time-stamped. We feel 5 years should be sufficient.

The proposal to stagger school opening times in order to procure more efficient use of scarce school transport resources is most appropriate. As some pilots have shown, this allows LEAs to find savings that could be invested in better quality. However this proposal contradicts activity sponsored by ELWa and LEAs seeking to deliver greater collaboration at 14-19. These proposals rely on agreed common timetables and school days in order to allow shared course provision. Collaboration between a secondary and its primary partners might offer better chance of progress.

The report lets LEAs off lightly by referring to the high cost of specialist vehicles. Assembly members should realise that LEAs and bus operators in more and more areas of England are investing in specialised single vehicles at above £100k a unit with over £130k being invested by one English provider.

We acknowledge the Report’s reference to the pilot schemes envisaged by the forthcoming School Transport Act. However some of the major difficulties encountered in providing safer school transport are ultimately dependent on stronger primary legislation. Whilst we applaud the Assembly’s intention to issue guidance on responsibilities in order to clarify confusing case law, we would urge the Assembly to maintain a dialogue with the UK government in order that new primary legislation might be introduced to clarify responsibilities once and for all.

With these important caveats, Stuart’s Campaign warmly welcomes this document and urges AMs to approve it with suitable amendment to reflect the above. We thank the committee for its interest in the subject and for taking policy forward in an appropriate and well-informed way. Stuart’s Campaign is pleased to acknowledge that AMs have listened to our voice and been receptive to the various recommendations we have supported. However, we cannot stress strongly enough that this is still work in progress and we look forward to continued partnership with the Assembly in taking matters forward for Wales.

[1] Hybrid buses are fare-paying vehicles on which seats are purchased by the LEA in order to provide transport to school for qualifying pupils and a greater volume of business on an otherwise commercially marginal or uneconomic route.