School Transport
Item 5 is on school transport. We have a letter from the Minister for Education and Young People in response to issues that the committee raised. Does anyone have any comments?
The correspondence with the minister was useful, if a bit disappointing, although I accept that his letter reflects concerns raised by the local authorities. School transport has been a long-standing issue for the committee following the presentation of two petitions. The matter still comes down to the basic point on page 4 of the letter, which says:
"The statutory walking distance (section 42 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980) refers to a distance beyond which a parent would have a reasonable excuse for keeping a child from school."
The regulations and the law on school transport are nothing to do with school transport; they are to do with the provision of education and excuses for keeping children out of school. That is out of time and out of place.
The minister's letter contains some reasonably positive comments. It notes the Scottish Consumer Council's concerns about the lack of transparency in complaints procedures, which was what led to the petitions being sent to the committee in the first place. The letter reflects on the current Westminster bill and indicates that the Department for Education and Skills retained the current statutory walking distances to ensure that distance is not a barrier to accessing education.
The issue is the extent to which a national Parliament should legislate for local authorities on such matters and how much flexibility can and should be given to local authorities to make decisions. The law is varied but, as we know from the responses from local councils, there are serious concerns about its relevance.
Although legislative change is needed, there is still the issue of risk. We know from our discussions on child protection issues that we have to have a realistic assessment of risk for children. Another factor in the 21st century is that many schools do not start until about 8.40 am, which is relatively late in the morning. For many parents who start work at 9 am, there is no option other than to drive a child to school. That leads to congestion, which is particularly bad in Edinburgh.
Although the Executive has said that it wants joined-up thinking and although there is the let's walk to school initiative and so on, too few children in Scotland are walking to school and far too many people are in cars doing the school run. Many families—I will mention this sensitively—are concerned about protection and risk. There needs to be national leadership from the Executive on the issue. That may or may not lead to legislative change, but so far the Executive's response does not convince me that the key issues are being addressed. We know from our consideration of the original guidelines that there is not joined-up thinking about changing rural communities, where many of the roads that used to be frequented by children are busy and do not have pavements. There is far more car use. There are the environmental issues that I have mentioned, but there is also the safety issue.
We need to elevate the issue of school transport in Scotland because it impacts on the lives of so many families. We could focus on the areas of protection, risk and safety and on the school day, what that means in reality for many parents and whether it represents a disincentive to walking. We could try to establish whether the Executive can do anything to help to address that. We might ask whether it is a matter only for local authorities or whether it can be dealt with centrally. We should ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities whether it considers that it should resolve the issue itself or whether it would be helpful if the committee considered it, too.
I suggest that the local authorities' performance should be monitored in future. I am thinking of the Scottish Consumer Council's recommendations for safety checks, the monitoring of contractors' performance, the lack of transparency in complaints procedures and inconsistencies in staff disclosure checks.
The Executive's updated school transport guidance was issued in 2003 and I understand that further updated guidance is likely to be forthcoming with examples—[Interruption.] Other members seem to think that that is not the case, but I suggest that we ask the question nonetheless. In his letter, the minister suggests that we will see examples of best practice. Towards the end, he says that he and his officials will continue to work
"with a view to ensuring that school transport policy is well integrated with a range of other relevant policies, and to encouraging the dissemination and application of best practice."
It would be helpful if the Executive could give us examples of best practice and continue its dialogue and co-operation with this committee.
It is difficult to look at the issue of walking distance in isolation, as health and safety is also a concern. Some longer walks are safe whereas some shorter walks are pitted with difficulty because children have to cross main roads and so forth. It is difficult to frame the guidelines simply in terms of walking distance.
Local authorities need to know their own areas. I am pleased that walking distance is to be one of the criteria for new-build schools. Where I live, one of the latest schools to be built was constructed with a network of paths to nearby housing areas, which gives the children a safe walk to school. That is a good move; it is what we should be looking for. Some children need to cross main roads to get to school. Safety, not distance, is the main concern in those cases.
The consistency of safety measures and monitoring on school buses are also concerns. Issues such as safety belts and the condition of buses are still not being tackled. In the Borders, for example, old buses are still being used. Safety belts have just been added to them, but the buses are not purpose built for school transport. Small five-year-olds have to sit in seats that are fit for bigger children. The buses are not particularly safe. I would like a legislative route to be taken on safety and supervision issues.
The money that has been put aside both for the safer routes to school initiative and for school travel co-ordinators has made a big difference, which is encouraging. Although there are still areas of concern, the school travel co-ordinators have addressed issues such as distance versus safety and whether children have to cross main roads. It is not all doom and gloom; the situation is improving.
From the discussion, it is obvious that the committee wants to keep the matter open. It is important that we do so. However, we also have to bear in mind that we have a fairly intensive programme over the coming months. Indeed, more legislation appears to be coming our way as a result of the Executive statement this week. We have to ensure that we do not overburden ourselves.
I see no reason why, as a first step, we should not write to COSLA with a copy of the correspondence and the Official Report of the meeting. We can ask whether COSLA has any comment to make on the current guidance and whether it wants more central guidance and control or for the issue to be left to the local authorities.
I also suggest that we get the minister to give us an update on progress. We can consider the matter in a little more detail when we look at our work programme at our next meeting. The minister gives a couple of hints in his letter that the guidance is being looked at, but he gives no timescale for that. He indicates that he thinks that the guidance should be strengthened on a couple of points, but is not more specific. As Lord James said, the letter also mentions best practice. Do members agree that we should invite the minister to attend the committee so that we can ask him about the process and timescale for the review of the guidance?
Members indicated agreement.