Written response of the Welsh Assembly Government to the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee’s policy review of School Transport

Recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government


The Assembly Government’s responses to the Report’s recommendations are set out below:

The Committee recommends that:

The legal position regarding who is responsible for safety and security through all aspects of the school journey is unclear.  Apart from relevant statutory regulations, the various responsibilities of schools, LEAs, bus operators, parents and pupils have been determined over the years by case law.  But each case is unique and so the legal position is somewhat hazy.  We recommend that the Assembly Government should issue guidance to clarify current legal responsibilities and liabilities. [2.28]

Accept

Assembly Government officials are in the process of revising existing guidance (Welsh Office Circular 19/95) to LEAs, schools and others on school transport to update it and give it an enhanced focus on safety.  We expect to start consulting on the revised guidance before the summer recess.  The existence and scope of the obligations on schools, LEAs and bus operators  are ultimately matters for the courts to decide; and whether any duty of care imposed at common law has been breached will depend critically on the facts of each case.  We will cover these issues but the guidance can only be a considered expression of the Assembly's view as to the current state of law and an indication of how the Assembly Government considers the law might be applied in such situations.  

Financial Implications

The cost of preparing and issuing the revised guidance will be met from existing budgets for Schools Management Division.

The Committee recommends that:

The Assembly Government, in consultation with LEAs and schools, should issue guidance on preparing codes of conduct for school transport, to include pupil consultation. [2.35]

Accept

A number of authorities already make use of codes of conduct, which can be a useful and low-cost way of helping to improve standards of pupil behaviour on school transport.  Our revised school transport guidance will encourage LEAs to establish codes of conduct for the expected behaviour of pupils when travelling on school transport - linked as appropriate to sanctions when set standards are not met - and will include examples of best practice in terms of format and content.  The guidance will also set out the need for LEAs to consult and involve children and young people in the preparation of their school transport policies.

Financial Implications

See 2.28 above.

The Committee recommends that:

The Assembly Government should review current practice on risk assessment, together with any relevant academic research, and issue guidance to schools and LEAs. [2.48]

Accept

Financial Implications

We estimate a detailed review would cost around £30,000, to be met from existing budgets for the Sustainable Travel Unit in Economic Development and Transport Group. The timing for the review is autumn 2005.  Dissemination of the findings will be considered as part of the project.

The Committee recommends that:
Passes should be issued annually to all children entitled to statutory school transport, possibly linked to the proposed Assembly Government half-fare bus pass scheme for 16 to 18 year olds.  The current all Wales free bus travel scheme for pensioners is partially ‘smart card’ based.  We feel it would be advantageous to base any scheme for 16 to 18-year olds on similar technology.  This would provide an opportunity, at some future date, to introduce a ‘smart card’ based scheme for all secondary school pupils. [3.31]

Reject

Most LEAs already issue annual passes to children entitled to statutory school transport. We recognise, however, that the use of bus passes is not always enforced locally, and that there can be potential for the misuse of school transport by pupils who are not entitled to travel free.  We intend that our revised school transport guidance will give guidance on this issue.

Pilot schemes for half-fare travel by 16-18 year olds on buses will be launched by two local authorities during summer 2005.  These will test the practical and financial issues involved.  However, there is presently no requirement that the pilot schemes should use smartcards.  We are reviewing, with the local authority transport consortia and others, the potential for an ITSO-compliant smartcard system for public transport throughout Wales.  At the same time we are studying the scope for an all-Wales integrated entitlement card.  At this stage, however, it is too early to give any firm commitment about the future use of smartcards for use on school transport.

Financial Implications

Not applicable.

The Committee recommends that:

The School Transport Bill, as amended in the House of Commons, will require the Assembly Government to issue guidance to local authorities, to help them prepare bids for pilot schemes.  We recommend that this should take account of the Committee’s suggestions on the draft Bill, set out in Annex 2.  [2.75]

Accept in principle

The School Transport Bill 2004 did not receive Royal Assent before the UK Parliament was dissolved for the General Election.  No decisions have yet been taken by the UK Government on the future of the Bill.

Financial Implications

None at this stage.


Recommendations for other bodies

UK Government

The Committee recommends that:
The ‘three for two’ concession should be withdrawn. [2.14]

The ‘three for two’ concession enables three children up to the age of 14 to share a double seat and applies to all public service buses with bench type seating - whether used for school transport or for scheduled services.  Where school vehicles are fitted with seatbelts, the concession does not apply.  Results from a survey of local authority transport arrangements undertaken by the Assembly Government in late 2003 indicate that few authorities in Wales use the concession.

The Committee acknowledge that this is a matter for the Department for Transport.  Although at present the UK Government does not have any plans to change the legislation relating to ‘three for two’, we will write to DfT Ministers to bring the Committee’s recommendation to their attention.

LEAs/Schools/Regional Transport Consortia

The majority of the Committee's remaining recommendations relate to LEAs - who have statutory responsibility for home to school transport - or to schools.  The Assembly Government cannot commit LEAs or schools to accepting the recommendations, nor can it compel implementation.  Many LEAs have introduced initiatives recently  to improve the safety of school transport.  The Assembly Government welcomes and supports those efforts, and we are committed to working with LEAs, schools and transport operators to see what more can be done.  We will therefore draw the recommendations to the attention of LEAs and schools, and officials will consult them, and other interested bodies, on their merits and feasibility.  The following are the Assembly Government's initial views of the recommendations, prior to those discussions taking place.


Local education authorities

The Committee recommends that:

Contracts for school buses should generally specify an age limit of 15 years. [2.12]

The ELL report acknowledges the evidence of the Traffic Commissioner and the Vehicle Operator and Standards Agency that school transport buses in Wales are generally in sound mechanical condition and regularly maintained.  Nonetheless, we agree it is important that LEAs consider the age of vehicles when contracting for home to school transport and we will highlight this in our revised school transport guidance.


The Committee recommends that:

All children on a contract school bus should be provided with a safety belt. [2.13]

At present, safely anchored seat belts must be fitted on all minibuses (irrespective of age) and coaches first used from 1 October 1988; and on all new coaches, minibuses and certain types of bus carrying children built after October 2001, whether used for school children or other passengers.  However, different regulations apply to ‘urban’ buses, whether operating under contract to a LEA, or operating on a public bus route.  In general, these are buses designed to carry standing passengers and travel at slower speeds with frequent stops where the use of seat belts is less practical.    The types of seating on such buses often cannot be fitted with seat belts.

At present, there is no legal requirement for children on buses to wear a seat belt, even where one is provided, although an EU Directive is likely to change this.  We recognise that this makes it difficult for drivers to compel children (particularly secondary age pupils) to wear seat belts.  However, the use of codes of conduct, and continued efforts to raise pupil awareness of bus safety, can go some way towards improving the situation.  

Operators consider the use of seat belts on vehicles used to operate commercial services to be impractical for a number of reasons.  It could result in insufficient seating capacity, particularly where there are variable loadings, leading to  the possibility that some non-statutory school transport provision might be withdrawn.  It is also the case that one defect on a seat belt makes it illegal to use the vehicle, again with potential impact on the availability of non-statutory school transport.  We will need to discuss the issues in more detail with operators and LEAs.  In the meantime, our revised school transport guidance will clarify the types of vehicle which should be fitted with seat belts and also highlight that LEAs should consider the use of seat belts when contracting for other types of vehicle.


The Committee recommends that:

Full size buses used on school contracts should be fitted with closed circuit television cameras. [2.19]

We agree that the use of CCTV on school buses can be a useful mechanism to deter pupil misbehaviour and to identify those responsible for incidents.  The Vale of Glamorgan has successfully piloted CCTV on 7 vehicles on routes where pupil behaviour was an issue.  Our revised school transport guidance will encourage LEAs to consider the use of CCTV on vehicles where appropriate and feasible.


The Committee recommends that:

The use of double deck buses on school contracts should gradually be phased out and replaced with single deck coaches, or specialist school vehicles.  This should be achieved by 2010.  We realise that this policy would entail additional costs for operators and LEAs.  However, we consider this extra cost could be mitigated by more effective use of vehicles. [2.22]

We understand the thinking behind the Committee's recommendation.  However, we know there are concerns among operators that phasing out of double deckers could result in problems with the supply of drivers - driver shortages are already an issue in most parts of Wales.  Some authorities have also indicated that some local operators do not currently have the capacity to supply single deck vehicles only.  The Assembly Government has no powers to compel the phasing out of double deckers, which would be a contractual matter for LEAs.  However, we will discuss the recommendation, including the financial implications, with LEAs and operators.  


The Committee recommends that:

Adult escorts may be required on some routes and for all contracts involving children under 8-years old. [2.25]


The Committee recommends that:

More use should be made of adult escorts on buses carrying secondary school pupils. [2.26]

At present, most LEAs use escorts on vehicles carrying primary age children and some use them on buses carrying secondary pupils, particularly on known problem routes. We agree there is a clear role for escorts on certain buses, particularly to help control unruly behaviour. We know that LEAs and operators face issues around the recruitment and retention of escorts, but we will discuss with LEAs and operators how those might be addressed.


The Committee recommends that:

Codes of conduct seeks to clarify the day-to-day responsibilities of pupils, their parents, contractors and their staff, and schools, to ensure the smooth operation of school transport services.  The WLGA/ NFER study reported that such codes of practice were generally successful in raising awareness in pupils and drivers of the standards of behaviour expected.  We consider that such guidelines should be issued by all LEAs.  [2.29]

See 2.35 above.

The Committee recommends that:

We support the recommendations of the CPT/ATCO report regarding security.  CRB checks should be carried out on all staff employed on school transport services, including those working on buses carrying fare paying pupils.  Checks should be carried out at the enhanced level and repeated every three years.  Identity badges should be issued to all staff approved for employment on school transport services, with expiry to coincide with the three year validity of the CRB checks.  [2.39]

The Committee recommends that:

There should be closer liaison between departments within individual local authorities with regards to CRB checks, to avoid duplication.  National standard criteria need to be developed for assessing information revealed in the CRB checks on school transport staff, to ensure consistency.  We recommend that local authorities should collaborate on a regional basis to agree consistent standards and to establish and maintain a database of approved staff.  [2.40]

It is essential that appropriate CRB checks are carried out on all staff employed on school transport services who meet the definition of 'regulated person' under the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2002.  The definition includes people working in a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole supervision of children. The definition would apply to drivers on school contract services but  is unlikely to apply to drivers of commercial services carrying school pupils because they would not be in 'sole supervision' of pupils travelling on such a bus.  Operators as employers would need to discuss  the feasibility of extending the definition of 'regulated position' to public service drivers with the CRB, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, in the first instance.  We will be covering issues relating CRB checks on drivers and escorts in our revised school transport guidance.  We will also discuss with LEAs and operators how to ensure closer liaison between departments within individual local authorities, and the feasibility of developing co-ordinated arrangements.  


The Committee recommends that:

Each local authority should set up a ‘one stop shop’ with a single telephone number and staff trained to deal sympathetically with such queries.  This service should be widely publicised to schools, bus operators and the general public. [2.42]

Some local authorities already offer a co-ordinated service for school transport, operating within either the education or transport department.  We welcome those developments and support authorities' efforts to further improve LEA/parent/school/operator liaison, whether through a ‘one stop shop’ or similar arrangements.  We will offer suggestions on such arrangements, and examples of best practice, in our revised school transport guidance.

The Committee recommends that:

We consider that LEAs should specify that risk assessments are carried out by all operators, prior to operating school transport contracts.  These assessments should be updated regularly, at least every three years.  Operators should keep a record to show what action has been taken to minimise the risks identified, which might entail amending the route; either temporarily or permanently. [2.45]

We agree such risk assessments could be useful but consider that they need to be proportionate to the route and type of vehicle involved.  The Assembly Government's review of current practice on risk assessment (see 2.48 above) will help to identify best practice in this area.

The Committee recommends that:

Risk assessments should also be used in situations where the pupil lives within statutory walking distance of the school, but there are doubts as to its safety, to determine whether the pupil is entitled to free school transport.  Consistent methodology and criteria should be established by LEAs to assist in making these decisions, which we would recommend bearing in mind the huge increase in traffic since the statutory walking distance was first laid down.  This methodology should describe means of estimating the relative safety of alternative walking routes, taking account of the age of children using them, the proximity and volume of vehicular traffic and any specific hazards; such as reduced visibility at bends and the availability of safe pedestrian crossing points on busy roads and other circumstances that could put children at risk. [2.47]  

In terms of risk assessment of the walking route, LEAs should already ensure that the route is safe for the pupil to walk along, accompanied as necessary by a responsible adult.  Where such routes are deemed not to be safe, and there is no alternative safe walking route within statutory walking distance, the pupil should be provided with free school transport.  We will make this clear in our revised school transport guidance.  We will also point out that the methodology and criteria used by LEAs should include the factors suggested by the ELL Committee.  


The Committee recommends that:

Local authorities should adopt standard conditions of contract and endorse the model set out in Annex A of the CPT/ATCO report.  The items previously discussed should be incorporated as standard; such as age and condition of vehicle, CCTV, seatbelts and suitable storage space and statutory testing and certification of vehicles.  Other items could be specified for particular routes: for example, escorts and audio/visual equipment for entertainment. [2.51]

The Committee recommends that:

The period for school transport contracts should be between five to seven years, to allow operators to make a reasonable return on their investment in modern vehicles, maintenance, staff training and management.  In the case of new vehicles, we consider that up to ten years would be appropriate. [2.52]

The Committee recommends that:

Local authorities should collaborate to agree common evaluation criteria and recognise that the lowest tender does not necessarily represent the best value for money.  Other factors such as the quality of vehicles, maintenance, staff training and accident records should be taken into account.  There should also be an agreed method for adjusting contract costs annually, applied consistently by all local authorities in Wales. [2.53]

The Committee recommends that:

Specialist school vehicles should be used more widely throughout Wales.  Operators should be given incentives to invest in such vehicles, including longer contracts, the opportunity to use the vehicles in the off-peak period (for school trips to sports or educational facilities) and possibly ‘double-tripping’ in the peak periods. [2.62]

The above recommendations relate to procurement and contract issues and are the responsibility of LEAs.  At least two authorities (Wrexham and Denbighshire) have introduced specialist vehicles as part of their school transport contracts, and one operator (Newport Transport) has purchased a purpose-built yellow bus as a commercial decision.  The use of specialist vehicles is to be welcomed but we recognise that their more general introduction would have significant funding implications for LEAs.




The Committee recommends that:

Assuming codes of conduct become more widely used by schools, the Committee considers that local authorities should arrange professional training courses for drivers and escorts, prior to the start of each school year. [2.66]

We agree that it is important that drivers have suitable experience and/or training in working with children: it can make all the difference if they have to deal with pupil behaviour issues on buses.  We have no particular view on whether training should be provided by local authorities or operators, but we would expect them to work together at LEA level to ensure that training provided was of a consistent quality and standard.

The Committee recommends that:

There is scope for better co-ordination of existing transport and safety initiatives by LEAs to systematically review safety and school transport on an area basis. [2.73]

We support improved co-ordination and will discuss with LEAs and others how this might best be achieved.

Local education authorities and schools

The Committee recommends that:

As well as being safe, the journey to and from school should be comfortable.  We recommend that more thought should be given to practical issues, such as storage space for school bags, sports bags and musical instruments.  Buses could be fitted with entertainment systems, at relatively low cost.  We feel that playing music might help to calm pupils and reduce misbehaviour.  We would not presume to recommend a particular type of music; pupils should be consulted on what they would prefer. [2.36]

In making transport provision, LEAs should already ensure that pupils travel in reasonable safety and comfort.  Nonetheless, we agree that more could be done to improve the quality of the journey to and from school in terms of storage space, fitting of entertainment systems etc.  Again, we will highlight in our revised school transport guidance that LEAs should consider these issues when contracting for school transport.    

The Committee recommends that:

More schools should collaborate in staggering start and finish times, to facilitate more efficient use of school buses.  We feel that LEAs should take the lead in identifying clusters of schools where such collaboration would be effective.  It would then be a matter for school governing bodies to agree, in consultation with teachers and parents.  In some cases, adjusting the start and finishing times by as little as 15 minutes would allow operators to use the same vehicle for two trips in both the morning and evening peak periods, with significant cost savings. [2.36]

We agree that staggering school times could have the potential to make more efficient use of school transport and also improve safety if the efficiency savings were re-invested.  We would encourage LEAs to explore the possibilities on an area basis, recognising that there are various practical issues that would need to be addressed, particularly for parents who may have children at different schools.  Ultimately decisions on school start and finish times are the responsibility of governing bodies, who must consult on any changes.

Schools

The Committee recommends that:

Schools should provide supervision of areas within the school grounds, or in the immediate vicinity, where pupils congregate before embarking for the journey home in the afternoon, or after disembarking in the morning.  Such congregation areas should be clearly marked and be kept clear of obstructions, including parked vehicles. [2.27]

As identified earlier (see 2.28), we will offer some general guidance on good practice in supervision of congregation areas in our revised school transport guidance.


The Committee recommends that:

Schools should produce a clear policy for dealing with misconduct on school buses, with a graduated series of penalties proportionate to the incident.  This policy should be set out in the code of conduct.  Disciplinary procedures should be implemented swiftly and consistently and should form part of a contract between school, pupil, parent and bus company. [2.34]

See 2.35 above.

The Committee recommends that:

Schools should carry out a risk assessment of the areas where vehicles park or manoeuvre and pupils congregate before embarkation or after disembarkation.  These assessments should be subject to inspection on request by parents and pupils, and inspected by Estyn as part of their routine school inspection cycle [2.46].

We agree that where pupil embarkation or disembarkation takes place within school premises, schools should carry out a risk assessment as part of their responsibility for health and safety on school premises.  Where it takes place off school premises the lead should be taken by the local authority in its capacity as the highway authority with road safety responsibilities.  We will cover the issues in our forthcoming school transport guidance.

Local education authorities and Regional Transport Consortia

The Committee recommends that:

We agree with the CPT/ATCO and WLGA/NFER reports that, in the longer term, local authorities should aim to eliminate differences between conditions of contracts for school services and local services.  We also agree that the regional transport consortia should be asked to investigate the best means of implementing this reform [2.54].

This is a matter for local authorities to pursue in the context of their responsibilities as education and local transport authorities.