Examination of Witnesses (Questions 187
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY 2004
5 MAY 2004 MS
KATHRYN JAMES,
DR CHRIS
HOWARD, MRS
DOROTHY ELLIOTT,
MR MARTIN
WARD AND
MR TONY
NEAL
Q187 Chairman: Thank you very much
for your attendance. I am going to ask the same question to start
with but you have all had the advantage of cribbing from the first
session of evidence. Why on earth this Bill? Why do we want it?
What is the use of it? You have heard the previous witnesses say
they were really struggling to find the reasons why the Government
has introduced this. They seem to be doing innovative and interesting
things without it.
Dr Howard: I will give you one
outstanding reason and that is you have listened to best practice
providers and there clearly are not enough of them and my experience
is that authorities which equate efficiency with low cost do not
provide at that level. They neither invest in the services they
are providing nor do they invest in the kind of research and officer
support for the system that these authorities that you have heard
have provided. The reality then is that practice discourages the
use of public transport, it does not promote cycling or walking
effectively, and the identification of safer routes is determined,
in my particular example as a parent again, by the issues regarding
saving cost rather than promoting an effective alternative for
parents.
Mr Neal: I think our answer would
be that we do need a Bill but it is not this Bill.
Q188 Chairman: What sort of Bill
should we be having?
Mr Neal: We obviously support
many of the intentions that are encompassed in all the accompanying
documentation to the Bill and we can talk about that and there
were some very interesting things said in earlier evidence about
that. Fundamentally the Bill does not impact directly on that.
The substantive change which the Bill produces is the ability
to charge and we do believe that although a lot has been said
about those people who live less than three miles from school,
very little has been said about those who live more than three
miles from school. Three miles might not be the right cut-off,
that might be out-of-date, but fundamentally we believe there
should be a safeguard by which free transport is guaranteed to
the parents of all pupils who do not have a school within x miles
of them; and x may have to be less than three.
Mrs Elliott: The current legislation,
as everyone said, is outdated, it needs to be re-looked at. The
needs of children and the needs of schools have changed and we
have got to look at all the current needs of pupils and of parents
because many parents are working now, they did not work as much,
40 or 50 years ago, so all these things have changed and legislation
has to change to meet these needs.
Q189 Chairman: But you have not said
what you think of the Bill.
Mrs Elliott: I think we do need
a Bill because we do need to bring some consistency into the area
of school transport, whether we go down the route of charging
and whether we have to change the two and three miles limit.
Q190 Chairman: What would you say
to critics then that say on the one hand the Bill will give the
ability to charge but this might have the unintended consequence
of getting more people into private cars and not on buses?
Mrs Elliott: If the Bill gets
it right and gets the charging right and the LEAs get the charging
right, then it should not.
Q191 Chairman: Kathryn?
Ms James: I think yes we do need
a Bill. I agree with Chris, it is an essential thing. What I would
say is I do not think it really goes far enough. I think we need
to see elements built in, particularly with regard to safety,
and that is a huge issue. I think there is outdated legislation
that needs to be addressed. What also concerns me is the lack
of evaluation of the potential pilots because if we are going
to use pilots then we must evaluate them effectively. We must
know exactly what the results of these are and so I would wish
to see more in the Bill but, yes, we do need the Bill.
Q192 Paul Holmes: Could I first of
all pick up on that last point in terms of the evaluation of pilots.
What do you think should be the main criteria for evaluation?
Ms James: We have a particular
concern within the Association about the levels of safety. We
heard previous witnesses talk about health and safety and dependence
and I think that those are the areas that specifically need to
be addressed. We have a particular concern with regard to the
use of school buses and the supervision on the buses. Parents
are not going to allow their children to use school buses if they
are not guaranteed as far as possible to be a safe form of transport.
If you allow the facility to charge that has got to be made attractive
enough within a safe enough environment for parents to consider
that it is worth spending the money rather than using their own
cars to transport.
Q193 Mr Chaytor: But in terms of
the safety dimension, both safety and order and behaviour and
comfort within the bus and road safety once they are off the bus,
what criteria do you use to evaluate that? Is it totally the children's
perception of how safe it is or is it the number of casualties
in road accidents?
Ms James: I think there have got
to be clear criteria for when potential incidents may occur. We
have already cited in our evidence an example of a serious incident
that occurred which I know Chris would be able to give more details
of.
Q194 Mr Chaytor: Is that an incident
on a bus?
Ms James: Yes and there are lots
of issues in terms of behavioural issues that may occur and we
need to have a reporting mechanism and an evaluation of whether
having somebody like an escort on the bus would mean that they
were able to diffuse the situation or whether in fact in some
cases they may exacerbate a situation, which of course happens,
and unless we know the incidence and have some rule or some guide
to actually work out whether this is being appreciated by the
people providing the transport and providing the escorts, we are
never going to get to a system where parents are going to be content
that their children are safe within that environment.
Dr Howard: Can I add to that and
amplify. Chairman, as you may know from the biographical details,
my daughter was a passenger on a double decker bus which crashed
100 yards from my house in December 2002 killing my near neighbour,
a 12-year-old boy who was sitting in the front seat on the upper
deck, and injuring 30 other children. There were 71 children on
the double decker bus when it crashed. It was technically not
overloaded although commonly in the three months before the accident
there had been upwards of 85-90 people on the bus—15-20
children had not returned home that night because they were taking
part in games or music lessons. Technically the bus was not overcrowded
but the behaviour patterns of the children reflected the fact
that many children were standing during the normal journey to
school on a double decker bus travelling a rural route to an over-subscribed
comprehensive school. The little boy who died, my near neighbour,
was in no way involved in the misbehaviour that occurred on the
lower deck that the Coroner's Court has heard about and which
caused in some fashion or another one of three or four pupils
to interfere in some fashion or other with the driver thus taking
his hand off the wheel at a critical point and taking the bus
into a field. This absolutely innocent child died on the upper
deck because of misbehaviour on the lower deck. We knew as parents
before that accident, that there were some overall problems with
the route but we had not specifically taken them up with the authority.
Anyway, as a result of the accident, as a result of my own 11-year
experience now in a comprehensive school many of whose children
are bussed in, I am prepared to say for the public record that
I think the system is in crisis in many parts of the country insofar
as the conveyance of children to school by public authorities
is concerned. If the Bill is to have an impact and it is to take
children out of cars and ease congestion at the school gate and
on the way to school, then the Government must take seriously
the fact that it has to improve the quality of vehicles and the
quality of supervision on the buses. On our particular route it
was quite clear that a driver driving a double decker bus down
a rural route could not possibly supervise the behaviour of 70-80
children alongside and behind him. On the particular day in question
once he had identified the difficulty he had only one other stopping
place on the two-mile rural route and that was at the bus stop
100 yards from where he crashed. There is clearly—and I
am glad the Coroner pointed out the fact at this particular hearing—a
need for some other adult supervision on designated school buses
and—because there is another problem with this route, it
was a not a designated school bus it was a public service vehicle
on which the authority had bought 20 places, including my daughter's
because she has a special need—there is a definite need
for authorities to identify those routes, either designated or
fair paying routes, carrying large numbers of pupils to schools,
and then to act as part of a transport plan, in my opinion, in
order to secure some other supervision. There are other issues
that follow then.
Q195 Chairman: That was a terrible
tragedy, I remember it well, and we all regret the accident that
happened and the death of the child.
Dr Howard: Thank you.
Q196 Chairman: But if you evaluate
it, surely the safety of going to school on a bus and the safety
of being driven in individual cars all the time it will throw
up that it is more dangerous to be driven individually in terms
of the statistics than to be on the school bus?
Dr Howard: Yes, I have seen the
statistics, Chairman, and I think you can argue that case. I notice
the Irish Government came to a different conclusion when it was
considering the matter some 18 months ago. I think it is a marginal
case and what matters here is public opinion. My daughter will
not travel by school bus again or will only very reluctantly do
so. Most of the people involved in my village are now going by
car not by bus. The more frightening the stories you get of misbehaviour
on buses—and they are absolutely frightening and they are
daily—it is an obvious disincentive. It is a difficult pill
for local authorities to swallow but I think they must.
Q197 Mr Chaytor: Would you agree
that we do not need an Act of Parliament to deal with the issue
of supervision on school buses and we do not need to wait until
2011 to deal with the issue of supervision on school bus.
Dr Howard: This Bill would not
do it but the evidence at the inquest into this particular affair
has indicated, to me anyway as an observer in the situation, that
there may be a need for the Government to make it a specific offence
under the law for pupils to misbehave on buses and thereby endanger
the other passengers because the police have had difficulty in
bringing anybody to account for what went wrong on that bus. Clearly
something went wrong but at this moment in time no-one has been
found criminally negligent or criminally responsible before the
law.
Q198 Mr Chaytor: That would be a
different Act of Parliament from this one?
Dr Howard: That would be a different
Act of Parliament.
Q199 Mr Chaytor: It is still within
the discretion of LEAs to adjust their policies so there is appropriate
supervision on school buses as things stand now?
Dr Howard: LEAs can do that but
in practice they complain about the pressure on their budgets
and how they will find it difficult to move forward.
Chairman: Can we put safety to one side
for a moment. Valerie Davey?
| 
