Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 April 2002

26 contributions from 20 members. The official report.

Public Petition: Telecommunications Mast at Ballymena Bowling Club

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg leave to present a petition signed by over 500 residents of Ballymena opposing the erection of a telecommunications apparatus in the grounds of Ballymena Bowling Club, adjacent to the People’s Park. The petition cites the controversial scientific evidence regarding health risks, the unsightly blot on the leisure landscape and the distress caused to local residents as good reasons for opposition to the mast. I present the petition to show my concern and to give my support to the residents’ campaign to oppose the telecommunications mast.

Mr Paisley Jnr moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

Assembly: Committee for Employment and Learning

Report of the Committee for the Environment: Inquiry into Transport used for Children Travelling to and from School

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee for the Environment on its Inquiry into Transport used for children travelling to and from school (1/01R) and calls on the Minister of the Environment to ensure urgent evaluation and to take full account of the recommendations.

Some might think that it has taken a long time, or too long, for the motion to come before the House, given that the Committee’s report was published in September 2001. I will deal with the reasons for the delay later.

I acknowledge that a motion on school buses was debated and agreed on 19 February 2002. Although I found parts of that debate interesting — especially the then Minister’s contribution, to which I will refer later — I considered it to be only a preliminary to today’s proceedings. I say that without disrespect to any Member. That debate was important, but my Committee’s recommendations take it a step further.

I will provide a background to the inquiry and an overview of the recommendations, and I will then deal with what has happened, or rather, what has not happened, since. I intend to give an honest, concise and open account so that no one will doubt the integrity and sincerity with which the Committee dealt with the serious issue of safety on school buses.

The matter was first raised with officials from the Department of the Environment in January 2000. In the light of the information that the Committee received about the dangers of overloading school buses, it decided on 8 June 2000 to make that the subject of its first public inquiry.

Following the public announcement of the inquiry, the Committee received 57 written representations. Those were from not only Government Departments and associated bodies, but from parents, a significant number of school principals, and even a school bus driver who had been transferred after questioning the practices of an education and library board.

For the benefit of any Member who questions the seriousness of the situation and the need to take immediate action, I will quote from just two submissions to the Committee, all of which are documented in the report. The first is from the mother of a child who travels from Saintfield to Belfast every day:

"I do find it difficult to believe that my daughter has no rights to travel safely to and from school … she usually does not complain. However, today, when she arrived home bruised, grazed and so sore from being flung against the seat when the bus braked severely … she did tell me. Only three weeks into the term she already dreads the ordeal of the bus."

The second submission is by the principals of two schools in Limavady, which states that some buses are overcrowded:

"Some buses in our area are allocated up to 90 pupils."

In addition, it reports that children have to stand on a crowded bus for journeys of up to 18 miles. The submission also refers to the intimidation of some drivers:

"The task of a school bus driver becomes impossible with 80+ pupils in a 54 seater bus, trying to drive along the Limavady/Derry road at rush hour!"

When the report was published, some accused the Committee of being overemotional about the value of a child’s life. I challenge them to respond to the mother of the schoolchild who came home battered and bruised, or to those principals who have to teach children who have had to stand for long periods on crowded buses before they even get to school.

Some people went as far as to criticise the Committee for using the phrase "a disaster waiting to happen". However, I remind the House that that phrase did not originate with any member of the Committee; it came from evidence presented to the Committee by Ch Insp Hiller of the then RUC traffic branch. I will quote from what he said:

"It would only take one bus jam-packed with about a hundred children colliding with a heavy goods vehicle to make this a major issue. We now see it as a major issue and we hope that the Committee and the Assembly will give us legislation that is workable and enforceable."

The inquiry took some time, but the Committee wanted to give everyone an opportunity to put their point of view. Consequently, in addition to the 57 written submissions that the Committee received, it took oral evidence from 13 different sources, some of whom had to be brought back to give further evidence. When all the evidence was gathered, Committee members sat down with a team of experienced public sector transport specialist consultants, who address similar safety issues day in, day out, and we arrived at our recommendations. The report was published in September 2001 and therefore has already been with the Department of the Environment for nearly seven months.

The Committee made 28 recommendations, many of which Members will note are not only detailed, innovative and challenging but go much further than the limited scope of the so-called school buses debate, which took place on 19 February. I will not go over all the recommendations, but they are grouped under headings such as: the "3 for 2" seating provision; schoolchildren standing on buses; seat belts; arrangements for getting on and off buses; signage; flashing lights; legislation governing the use of minibuses and coaches on organised trips; behaviour and vandalism issues; storage of equipment and baggage; and, not least, road safety education. Almost every aspect of travel to and from school was investigated and reported on in some detail. Unfortunately, time does not afford me the luxury of detailing every recommendation, but I will say that there is not one single recommendation that will not bring about the improved safety of our children travelling to and from school.

Some recommendations, such as abolishing the "3 for 2" concession, standing on school buses and seat belt provision, have far-reaching implications, including significant resource implications, and the Committee acknowledges that. The Committee makes no apology for this, and if Members read the report carefully, they will see that the Committee accepts fully that all recommendations cannot be implemented overnight. However, that does not mean that they should not be evaluated properly and implemented. I do not accept that nothing can be done unless everything is lumped together.

I now turn my attention to the Department of the Environment’s initial response to the Committee on the key recommendations. Suffice it to say that the recommendations will not be evaluated until much later this year at the earliest, and even that is dependent on resources being secured in a monitoring round bid. By contrast, some other Departments that are involved directly in the report, such as the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Education, have acknowledged readily some time ago that some recommendations can be introduced at a relatively low cost and relatively quickly.

What was the Committee’s approach in making the recommendations? Through extensive research, the Committee has faced up to the real problems with due consideration and pragmatism. For example, when it examined the serious problem of traffic overtaking buses while children are boarding and alighting, it recognised that there could not be a simple approach or solution for every road in Northern Ireland.

That is why the Committee decided that the banning of overtaking may be practical and necessary in some locations and was certainly worthy of further investigation. In tandem with that recommendation, the Committee also recommended that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education should develop and publish a good practice guide in respect of risk surrounding boarding and alighting at, or adjacent to, school premises, to cover issues such as supervision, local traffic-calming measures, hazard signals and school bus signage in general. Are those measures so difficult to implement? Are they so expensive? How long do we have to wait before there is action on the recommendations? I mean action and not a vague commitment to review, with no specific timetable or output.

During the debate on 19 February 2002 some Members expressed disappointment, some of it verging on criticism, that my Committee had not brought the report to the House earlier. Looking back now, I regret to say that my Committee’s trust in the Department of the Environment, with its lead responsibility — I repeat, its lead responsibility — for road safety, and in this case the safety of children on school buses, has proved to be misplaced.

Last September the Committee took a deliberate decision to defer bringing forward the report, so that when it was debated, it would be in an atmosphere of moving forward with the recommendations, together with the Department of the Environment and other Departments, in the most positive and constructive way possible. The price we have paid for our decision is delay and prevarication by the Department of the Environment. It took precisely five months to get an initial response of any substance from the Department of the Environment. The words "initial response" were used by the then Minister of the Environment, and, curiously, that response arrived on 18 February 2002 — the day before the debate on the motion I have already mentioned.

At last week’s Committee meeting, one Committee member wondered whether he was paranoid or whether it was just coincidence that every time the Committee was about to act on something, the Department seemed to be able to produce long-awaited replies at the last minute.

However, I must inform the House that by early December 2001 my Committee had received extensive initial responses from the Department of Education, the Department for Regional Development, the Department for Employment and Learning and even from Translink. It took until late in February 2002 for the Department of the Environment to respond. When that was questioned, the then Minister took umbrage and wondered whether his Department’s efforts had been misplaced. Those efforts primarily included taking more than two months to collate information that the Committee had already received from the three other Departments. I would add that, for the benefit of Members, my Committee has lodged copies of the relevant correspondence with the Assembly Library, so that everyone can see and understand the Committee’s frustration since the report was published last September.

The criticism that my Committee has received from the former Minister of the Environment, and, most recently, from the current Minister, must be addressed. That criticism is centred on two supposed questions in a letter that the then Minister sent to the Committee in December 2001. On two occasions my Committee was specifically accused in the House of failing to give answers. My Committee totally rejects this attempt to divert the focus of attention away from the real issue of school transport.

The two alleged questions were suddenly referred to by the Minister of the Environment on 4 March 2002 during Question Time. One relates to the evidence obtained by the Committee to justify the cost benefits of implementing the recommendations, and the other refers to where the money is to come from. I must say to the Minister that instead of relying on his officials, it would be a great step forward if he were to read the complete report for himself and not just the recommendations. He would then see all the justification he needs.

I will say something about implementation cost projections in a moment. For example, on page 155 in volume 2 of the report there are statistics that have been provided by the police in relation to children who were injured or killed travelling to and from school between 1995 and 1999. During that period, 413 children were injured while travelling on buses, compared with 488 injured while travelling in cars. I will say no more on that subject.

The second supposed question was about where the money was to come from. The former Minister accused me, and consequently my Committee, of resorting to emotive slogans. However, in his December letter, it is he who wrote about making difficult choices between the needs of hospital patients, the elderly, the disabled, the homeless, the unemployed and educational underachievers. In what is clearly a rhetorical question, he asks if the money would be better spent on the Health Service than on implemention of the Committee’s recommendations. What about emotive language?

The Committee’s terms of reference focused the report on school bus safety. The Committee was not in the business of prioritising the Department’s budget, nor any other Department’s budget, to deal with the costs of implementing the report’s recommendations.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Is it not correct that the 400-odd children who are injured will take up valuable time, surgical and nursing care, and beds in hospitals, if this is allowed to continue?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I accept the position outlined by the hon Member, but my Committee’s responsibility was to investigate the safety of our children travelling to and from school, not to allocate the Budget; that is the responsibility of the Executive and the Departments. We were simply and directly dealing with a specific issue in our investigation. In brief, our concern in this report was to bring out the evidence that was given to us and to develop recommendations to improve the safety of our children. Is that not a laudable position for any Committee to hold? Hard decisions must be made, but at least let us make those decisions based on the facts. The investigation was all about facts such as those documented in the Committee’s report — not side issues. We did not make the evidence; we simply took the evidence.

Road safety, and therefore the safety of our children travelling to and from school in buses, is the Minister of the Environment’s responsibility. Therefore, the Department of the Environment is responsible for ensuring full evaluation of all of the recommendations within this report and the co-ordination, monitoring and reporting of subsequent follow-up implementations, as appropriate.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

The Department of the Environment’s response in February promised regulatory impact assessment; reviews; research; and further research — without any reporting timescales. There has been no sign of action. As things stand, the regulatory impact assessment on the Committee’s key recommendations will not be completed by the end of this year. That is why the motion not only seeks the Assembly’s approval of the report, but calls specifically on the Minister of the Environment to ensure proper evaluation and to take full account of its recommendations.

I thank all of those who contributed to the report. I particularly acknowledge the perseverance and tolerance of my fellow Committee members, including those members who have moved on this since the report was completed. I also pay tribute to the Committee’s secretariat for its industry and attention to detail in the report’s preparation and delivery. I have great pleasure in commending the report to the House today. Rarely will we have a more serious issue before us than this one, and I ask the Members of the House to give their wholehearted support to the motion.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. I hope that the personal safety of all children while travelling on school buses, particularly when getting on and alighting from them, is a matter of concern to every Member of the House and to members of the Committee for Education.

The issue has been raised at several meetings of the Committee for Education, and I am pleased that both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Education are here today.

The Education Committee welcomed the publication of the report on 13 September 2001 and acknowledges the Committee for the Environment’s detailed consideration of the matter. This debate is long overdue.

One of the most dangerous parts of the journey to school is when pupils board or alight from buses. On 19 February the Assembly endorsed my motion noting the number of children who have been killed while getting on and alighting from school buses by motorists and called on the Executive to conduct an urgent investigation of measures to protect the welfare of children when using school buses, taking account of the relevant laws introduced in the United States of America.

In recognition of that, I urged the Executive to put in place pilot schemes in rural and urban areas of Northern Ireland to assess the impact of preventing motorists from overtaking school buses when children are getting on or alighting, and to see whether regulation through legislation, as applied in the United States of America, could be implemented here.

My motion recognised that school transport is a cross-cutting issue and is not the sole responsibility of any one Minister. Therefore, I am using this opportunity to urge the Executive to take a co-ordinated and cohesive approach involving the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Education and the Minister for Regional Development to ensure that progress is made.

The importance of pupil safety cannot be overemphasised, and full consideration must be given to measures aimed at enhancing the care and protection of children being transported to and from school. While the Department of the Environment provides advice on the safety of pupils travelling on school buses, the Department of Education is responsible for policy on home-to-school transport, and services are arranged by the education and library boards.

Many of the recommendations in the Committee for the Environment’s report will, if implemented, have a major impact on the education and library boards, and the Committee for Education has sought their views and those of the Department of Education.

Some of the recommendations could improve safety while not requiring major expenditure. Those include involving a means of communication for bus drivers and taxi drivers. The report also recommends the development of a code of conduct for everyone involved in home-to-school transport and the publication of a good practice guide on arrangements for getting on and off buses. The Committee for Education has been informed that the Department of Education and the education and library boards are taking appropriate action on those issues, and we look forward to progress on the matter.

It is also clear that some of the key recommendations, if implemented, will involve significant costs. Those include the abolition of the "3 for 2" seating arrangements, the provision of new seat belts and the prohibition of standing on school buses.

Examples of the estimated costs include an additional capital amount of approximately £41 million and an extra £22·5 million a year for additional running costs if the recommendations to abolish the "3 for 2" seating arrangement and standing on buses are implemented. Although that is largely a matter for Translink, the additional cost would undoubtedly be passed on to the education and library boards. Provision of new seat belts would require a large capital investment by the education and library boards of approximately £15 million, and ensuring that pupils complied with the legislation and wore the seat belts would present a practical problem.

Implementation of the recommendations would have an important impact on the already critical financial situation in education. The Committee for Education does not wish to see funds taken from the classroom, as schools already exist on limited resources. Every Member is aware of the poor standard of accommodation in the schools estate. Therefore, the Executive would have to provide extra funding. I seek assurances from the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and the Minister that any financial bid made by the Department of Education or the Committee for Education will receive the full backing of the Committee for the Environment.

Given the heavy cost of implementing several of the Committee for the Environment’s recommendations, it is important that a cost-benefit analysis be carried out as quickly as possible. The next step, therefore, must be a clear evaluation of the recommendations so that long-term decisions can be properly made.

I endorse the motion in general and welcome this important debate. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members including those who are members of the Committee for Education. I especially look forward to contributions from the Minister of the Environment and other relevant Ministers.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the motion and commend the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment for moving it. The Committee has looked at all the key school transport issues. I agree with the Committee Chairperson: although this is a complicated issue, and progress is not a simple matter, that should not be a reason to delay the implementation of simple measures, some of which have been mentioned, to make boarding and alighting from school buses safer. I remind Members that the facts show that most fatal accidents happen when children are boarding or alighting from school transport.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment referred to the Department for Regional Development. However, the matter poses challenges for several Departments, including the Department of Education. It is important that the Committee’s report signals the need for those Departments to co-operate in the development of a strategy to tackle the issues that have been identified. An end to overcrowding on school buses would be most welcome.

We need to keep in mind the safety of all schoolchildren. While the priority is school transport, some children travel to school on foot or on bicycles, and there are dangers for them. In that regard, I want to talk about ending the "3 for 2" seating arrangement rule. While it appears to be a measure that can be implemented and, at face value, it appears to be fairly straightforward, the impact in rural areas must be carefully assessed, as there are cost implications. The Chairperson of the Committee for Education covered that ground, and he clarified the main points to everyone.

However, there are entitlements to school transport, and there is a qualifying distance. As Members know from their constituents, the practicalities are that, where possible, education boards allow children who live within walking distance of their schools to travel on the school bus if it can take them. If a family has two children, and one child is at secondary school and the other child is at primary school, the secondary school child may qualify for school transport because he has to travel a greater distance. The parents may send the younger child to school with the older child, and it is difficult for the education board to instruct the school driver to pick up the older member of the family and not to take on board the younger member, who may be a four- or six-year-old.

If we end the "3 for 2" arrangements, the qualifying limit will be applied very strictly. That will mean that more children will walk to school. As Members who represent rural constituencies know, that is a problem. It is also a problem in urban areas, and it will cause a great deal of worry for parents. Children who walk to school have to negotiate road junctions and cross busy roads — even in rural areas — and that throws up dangers. While the ending of the "3 for 2" rule will help to alleviate the pressure on the school transport system and reduce overcrowding, more children will walk to school, because many families do not have access to school transport, and they cannot take their children to school. We have to keep the safety of all children in mind.

With regard to the Department for Regional Development, I emphasise the recommendation in the report about the need to bring all school bus routes into the winter gritting system. People who live in rural areas, quite rightly, claim that there are inconsistencies and inequalities in the system. It is difficult to disagree with those concerns, and improvements should be phased in before next winter. That would be consistent with what the Chairperson said about the key Departments moving now to advance the strategy and improve safety. As I said in a previous debate, the Department of Education should recommend that particular attention be paid in schools to the personal safety of all children who rely on school transport and use it daily.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

As a member of the Committee for the Environment, I support the motion. Given that the Minister has not implemented the ‘Report on the Inquiry into Transport used for Children Travelling to and from School’, which involved months of hard work, his commitment to the road safety of schoolchildren leaves a good deal to be desired. I take on board the fact that the Minister is new to the post; however, his Department shows a lack of interest in implementing the Committee’s recommendation that legislation be introduced to set minimum safety standards for vehicles that transport schoolchildren. I appeal to all the Departments involved to play a constructive role in implementing the report.

I recognise the significant cost involved in implementing the Committee’s recommendation; however, what price can we put on a child’s life? That strong principle emerged from the evidence that the Committee received. No cost can justify the death or serious injury of any child travelling to or from school. Every Member has a copy of the report, which details fully the Committee’s recommendations, and I appeal to everyone to approve it. It is time to evaluate the 57 written representations to the Committee from service providers and other witnesses. In addition, I call on the Minister of the Environment to put into action the Committee’s recommendations.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I support the motion, and I record the Alliance Party’s thanks for the Committee’s hard work on this serious subject. I welcome the report. However, it was produced in September, and I am disappointed that it has taken seven months for it to reach the Floor. How long will it take to implement the important recommendations, or is it a question of how many more schoolchildren will be killed before action is taken?

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment has already covered every aspect of this important subject, but I will mention a few of the main concerns and recommendations. Standing on school buses should be a thing of the past. On the Ards Peninsula, in my constituency of Strangford, particularly in September, it is almost a matter of how many youngsters can be squeezed onto a bus, and I am sure that that unacceptable practice is replicated throughout Northern Ireland.

I have seen schoolchildren standing against the door at the front of a bus. I pay tribute to bus drivers for keeping their buses on the roads in such circumstances. The A20 from Portaferry to Newtownards, for example, is a winding road that runs adjacent to Strangford Lough. If a school bus were to collide or swerve anywhere on that road — and coastal erosion can happen in that area — the bus would topple into the lough, resulting in many young casualties. That could occur in many places in Northern Ireland, so standing on school buses must be done away with as soon as possible.

I agree that the "3 for 2" seating policy for children should be a thing of the past. Every pupil should be entitled to a seat, and a seat belt should be available. I understand that seat belts are already compulsory on many buses and coaches — private operators have accepted that policy. They must feel aggrieved that the public operators can get away without that safety provision. What is good for the private operator must be good for the public one.

Front and rear signage on school buses must be of paramount importance. Members of the Portaferry Women’s Institute suggested to the Environment Committee the possibility of enacting legislation to have traffic stop to the front and rear of school buses when children are alighting. The Chairperson of the Environment Committee and the Chairperson of the Education Committee also mentioned that. That idea was prompted by the unfortunate death of a pupil who had alighted from his school bus and crossed the busy road between Kircubbin and Portaferry. There are other sad instances. If young lives are to be saved, all proposals must be investigated as quickly as possible.

There are many recommendations in the report, such as codes of conduct for all concerned; good practice guides for getting on and off school buses; and a reduction in vandalism, bullying, and so on. It is imperative for all the proper authorities to come together to grasp the nettle and put into practice actions that will mean that schoolchildren can travel to school in safety, even if those actions are implemented over a number of years. Costs will play a large part in the implementation of the Committee’s many recommendations. The question is: what price a child’s life?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I join the other Members who welcomed the report. It was enlightening to hear how the inquiry was conducted and to be aware of the delays, and I too must express my disappointment about that. It is not before time that the report has come out.

Many of the 28 recommendations on child safety are extremely important, and the Women’s Coalition supports the motion’s call to deal with them as a matter of urgency.

I will deal with some of the recommendations, but in reverse order. There are some valuable points in the report that have not been touched upon. First, I welcome recommendations 16 and 20 that propose a strategy to deal with bullying, vandalism and bad behaviour. I assume that that would also include intimidation. The Committee’s recommendation that an action plan be drawn up to deal with these problems is a valuable one, as is the idea of setting up a telephone hotline to deal with incidents on school transport.

The report mentions the amount of baggage that children must carry to school, and, as a mother, I am very aware of that. It is a difficult problem to deal with. Perhaps the Minister of Education could take on board the need to provide facilities in schools for storing books and equipment so that children would have less baggage to carry. In that context, space to store pupils’ bags should also be provided on school buses.

I also welcome the idea of using yellow buses. There was an opportunity to examine how that system was introduced into the USA. According to recommendation 12, research into the yellow school bus system will be valuable with a view to possibly adopting it in Northern Ireland. The system seems to work well in many American states. Other recommendations with regard to the use of flashing lights, signage and road safety education are important.

As is my wont, I started with the soft issues, and I will move on to the difficult issues. The Committee’s proposals for dealing with standing on buses and seat belts are too lenient. It is inappropriate that timescales have been set for the introduction of seat belts, for example, over the short, medium and long terms. Seat belts for school buses should have been introduced yesterday. They should not be phased in.

Members understand the Department’s concerns and its need to prioritise. There is a question about whether money should be given to the Health Service or to education. I was impressed by Mr McCartney’s point that a reduction in the number of accidents involving school buses would reduce pressure on the Health Service. The argument about where money should go does not stand up in that case.

Standing on buses should also have been dealt with yesterday. Parent-teacher associations have addressed the need for safety on school buses. Serious pressure should be applied to speed up the implementation of the report’s recommendations, if not yesterday, at least tomorrow.

The Committee’s remit concerned the specific issue of safety on buses. However, the debate must be broadened to include safer routes to school, whether children travel on foot, by bicycle or by bus. For example, approximately 2% of children in the UK cycle to school, compared with 60% in Denmark. That is understandable, because a cyclist is 12 times more likely to be injured or killed in Northern Ireland than in Denmark.

We could also discuss children walking to school to avoid rush-hour traffic. However, that may be outside the remit of the debate. Perhaps the best example of a school bus is the "walking" bus, which is a pilot system that is being operated in north Down. There is no need for seat belts, because all the children walk to school. However, only children who live in close proximity to the schools can do that.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

This is an important debate. We must help two sections of the community to the best of our ability — the aged and the young. The motion deals with the children of Northern Ireland.

As I understand it, at present a 53-seater bus can carry 101 children. That will not make them safe — just think of 101 children crammed into a 53-seater bus.

Something must be done as soon as possible. Otherwise, we are waiting for a calamity to happen. If a calamity happens, every voice will be raised. Every voice and every hand will be raised in horror that the Assembly tolerated such a system. The finances of the situation, as the Chairperson said, are not the responsibility of the Committee for the Environment. That matter will arise when the Budget is being distributed and when cries are being made for certain amounts of money to be put to certain good causes.

I trust that the Minister will not try to defend a 53-seater bus carrying 101 children, that he will admit that that cannot be tolerated and that he is prepared to do his best to remedy the situation. Some of the recommendations would take little or no money to put into operation. Why can the Minister not say, as an act of good faith, that he is going to seek the immediate implementation of that which does not put strain on his present budget? That would be an assurance to children, and to their parents, that a start was being made.

Seat belts are important. It is preached every night on television that not wearing a seat belt endangers not only oneself but others as well. However, the Assembly is prepared to tolerate a situation with school buses which completely ignores the facts that are being presented. The Minister can take a positive step forward by telling the House that, although finance is an issue, there are recommendations that do not demand large amounts of money — and perhaps some that do not require any — and that he is prepared to take steps to implement those immediately and progress to those others that are important. However, the Assembly must face up to the glaring fact that money will have to be spent on the problem. That cannot be avoided.

My Friend, the Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, who presented the report, and the other Committee members must be congratulated on it. They have faced up to the situation. The hon Member for North Down, Ms Morrice, is not happy about parts of the report. She thinks that parts of it should have been implemented yesterday. I agree with that. The Assembly should never have let the situation get so far. However, we must face the facts.

I have told the Minister that he can start his tenure well by assuring parents and children that he will do all that he can in the circumstances. There must be movement on this, and that movement must then be carried to a successful conclusion. The Minister will receive the plaudits of the people if he pursues that path. However, telling the Assembly that that is not possible because of finance and other things that need to be done is simply putting it off. I hope that the Minister will not put it off, but will announce that this is the day when action will be taken to address this serious problem.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

The fundamental point of principle in the debate is that nothing exceeds the value of human life. Indeed, the existence of the Assembly is based on the sanctity of human life after a 30-year war that saw the loss of so many innocent lives.

For that reason alone, we should place the protection of lives, especially young lives, at the top of our agenda.

In December 2001, two children were knocked down while alighting from school buses; both were young teenagers. Many lives have been blighted as a result of such accidents. Indeed, over many years, a series of such awful incidents have resulted in the loss of young lives. The tragedy is that they are all avoidable. The creation and enforcement of a simple set of traffic rules would considerably reduce the risk of such incidents recurring.

I recently visited the United States, where I went to a school to observe how the authorities deal with what is a universal problem. In many states, school buses are painted yellow and are easily visible. They are fitted with bright flashing lights that operate when the vehicle is stationary. When those lights are flashing, no traffic is allowed to overtake the bus. That dramatically reduces the risk of child being hit by a car when alighting. Such lights are easily fitted and are already present on many vehicles. Furthermore, the expense is not extraordinary.

An extendable arm is another device used in the United States that significantly reduces the risk to children alighting from school buses. Normally forming part of the front bumper, the arm extends outwards, parallel to the footpath or roadside. It causes children to walk a considerable distance from the bus and reduces the opportunity for them to dash or walk out unwarily on to the road. Again, that measure is simple and easily fitted. Importantly, it could save lives.

I do not accept that the risk of greater traffic congestion as a result of these measures is an acceptable reason for doing nothing. Frankly, that argument belongs to the Stone Age. On balance, to save one human life is worth whatever minor traffic delay is caused. One would have to be a cynical, uncaring person to recommend inaction, simply because the measures might delay traffic somewhat.

In continental cities, vehicles automatically stop to allow a person to alight from, or board, a tram. Why could traffic here not automatically stop to allow children to enter or exit a school bus?

In America, mirrors on school buses that allow drivers to see children who are close to either the front or rear wheels are fitted extensively. That again reduces the risk at the point where children have lost their lives in the past.

The case appears clear-cut and simple. As an Assembly, we have reaffirmed the protection and preservation of human life as a paramount consideration. Therefore, we should recommend the adoption of the measures that I have outlined: brightly painted buses; buses with flashing lights that operate automatically when stopped; a ban on cars passing stationary buses when those lights are flashing; and an extendable arm fitted to bus bumpers to prevent children crossing close to the vehicle. That is a raft of simple measures, but they would go a long way to reducing what is currently an unacceptable risk.

Recommendations 9, 12, 13 and 14 of the report go some way to highlighting the facts that I have mentioned. Recommendation 14 deals with the supervision, scheduling, queuing and signing systems, design of drop-off and pickup points, and local traffic calming. All those aspects are vital to create a mindset that this is a central issue that must be addressed by everyone: schools; transport companies; parents; and drivers of all other road vehicles. I am sorry to say that we are currently very glib in our approach to road safety. Recommendation 14 focuses the attention of all who have a part to play in reducing what is a serious problem.

I wish to draw attention to recommendation 19 in the Committee’s report, which returns us to the core of the matter. Many incidents and accidents go unreported. The Committee’s recommendation that there should be a formal system of reporting such incidents and accidents is positive. That can better inform our way of addressing them within the schools, when parents come to collect their children, when children are about to cross the road and when other vehicles come upon a school bus.

I commend the report, and I congratulate the Committee and the Chairperson on their detailed and necessary work. We now rely upon the Minister and his officials to take the recommendations forward and build them into legislation.

I remind Members that a former Government Minister in this Building dared to be different in the past. He introduced the R-plate system specifically to address the problems that Northern Ireland’s newly qualified drivers were causing. I hope that the Minister today will follow that lead.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

With his fixed, nice-guy smile and his anxious eyes, Tony Blair said "education, education, education". I was quite impressed, even though it was election time, when dramatic slogans are highly valued and sometimes quite effective. Then I began to wonder — why education times three? Why not just education? Education is education. That is it. Then I wondered a bit more. Perhaps the champion of new Labour meant that there are three educations — education for the privileged, education for the ordinary and education for the underprivileged. If that was what he meant, he would be very much in tune with some people in this enlightened little place. However, I am sure that he did not mean that. I hope he did not mean that, although much of what he has done about education since he uttered that rousing call has been alarming.

You might ask what that has to do with the motion. It is simple. Like every other aspect of education, this is an issue of equality and human rights. All children have the right to an appropriate education, and I do not mean that it should be appropriate to their parents’ bank balances or their social standing. It follows that people who have a duty to provide education have a duty to ensure that children arrive safely, and in reasonable comfort, at their places of education — hence the great effort put into this inquiry by the Committee for the Environment. All the report’s recommendations are reasonable and achievable. There are cost implications, and we appreciate that there is competition with other areas of great need. However, a start must be made immediately, and much can be done at no great cost if the will is there.

I must emphasise that the inquiry deals with proposals to change transport arrangements that serve an education system which itself is in need of reform — a system which is in many ways an affront to equality and children’s rights. There are proposals to improve the system. Whatever comes from those proposals, the results must be far-reaching and right. If we mess it up — and I fear that we will — I will be long gone before there is another chance. Members might say that that will be no great loss. However, they and their children will also be gone.

I do not stray from the motion, for if we get the system right there will be bonuses with regard to school transport. For example, it is daft for hordes of children to travel 10 to 20 miles to school in one direction, meeting hordes of other children travelling in the opposite direction. Before anyone sneers about "postcode schooling", I know that if neighbourhood schools are to be the norm, those schools must all be excellent, and every neighbourhood must be made tolerable. That is not the case at the moment, and that must be put right.

"The rich man in his castle; the poor man at his gate God made them, high and lowly; and ordered their estate."

Sadly, that mentality still haunts us. It must be changed, and we must change it.

The principals of Limavady High School and St Mary’s provided the Committee with oral evidence. I know both gentlemen and their schools well. At paragraphs 551 and 554, Vol 2, Appendix 4 of the report, Mr Bradley told the Committee that

"In Limavady, we have pupils from a largely rural community travelling anything up to 18 miles - the distance from Strathfoyle to Limavady. It can be a long and arduous journey, taking 35 to 40 minutes, during the morning rush hour and, again, between 3.30 pm and 4.00 pm. Having 22 or 23 young people standing for that time will lead to problems. In my paper, I mentioned misbehaviour, bullying, vandalism, and sectarian taunts and fights. In that respect, Limavady is no different from any other area. I stress that 95% or more of the pupils travelling on those buses are well behaved, but a small minority takes up an inordinate amount of our time and that of Translink."

"The first housing estate in Ballykelly is King’s Lane. The distance has been measured by Translink and the estate was found to be within the three-mile limit for Limavady High School and St Mary’s. The children do not get a free pass, and their parents must pay. Fortunately for those who attend Limavady Grammar School, which is slightly further up the road from us, the distance from King’s Lane to school exceeds the three-mile limit and children get a free pass."

Those are just two examples of situations that are strangers to the concepts of equality and children’s rights and are far removed from the acceptable standards of safe and comfortable travel. The report is full of such examples. I recommend that it be carefully studied. I support the motion.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the report, and I commend the work that has brought it to completion. I also support the comments of the other Members who spoke about the delay of seven months during which nothing has happened. These recommendations that are not too costly should have been implemented, and all Members would like to see the full implementation of all the recommendations.

The issues and the terms of reference that the Committee considered are accurate, and all Members agree with them. The groups that considered the key issues are listed in the report. The fact that so many people contributed to the report must not be ignored. We must not ignore the safety of children travelling to and from school; it is the most important element of the debate.

I notice that my Colleague from the Committee for Education cannot resist the opportunity to mention the last 30 years. However, I can mention the last 70 years of underfunding and discrimination in the part of Ireland that I come from, west of the Bann. No one has a monopoly on that. Whether children cycle to school or travel by bus or on foot, their safety is of paramount importantance to all of us.

I agree with the recommendations, but I wish to highlight recommendation 1, which refers to the "3 for 2" rule, and recommendations 2, 3 and 4, which refer to schoolchildren standing on buses. To allow buses with seating for 53 children to carry up to 100 children is a serious issue that must be addressed. That difficult situation should not be allowed to continue.

Overcrowding causes stressful situations and creates risks. For example, overloaded buses must be unstable, especially on bendy, rural roads and in hilly areas of cities. That increases the risk to children getting on and off buses. Children rush to get on to buses so that they will not have to stand or sit on the edge of a seat. They also have to carry very heavy school bags, which slow them as they cross roads. Must children carry so many books? Could that problem be alleviated? Crowded buses also lend themselves to bullying and additional problems that would not occur in a managed situation.

Those problems could be addressed without massive cost. It would be costly to allow only one child per seat, and the provision of seat belts would be even more costly. The cost of providing seat belts would be £41 million initially, and £22 million a year in running costs. It may also be difficult to make children use seat belts. From my experience with my own children, I imagine that the seat belts might never be used.

As the Chairperson of the Committee for Education said, we must consider whether that money might be better spent in the classroom. Members of the Committee for Education can immediately see the benefits of spending money in the classroom, rather than on seat belts, especially given that most fatal accidents happen outside, rather than on, school buses. We should place more emphasis on stopping those accidents. That is a lesson for parents, children and bus drivers, whom I must commend for their tremendous work — they have a tough job. They are all involved in this situation, and they must be involved in the implementation of measures to improve the safety of buses.

The yellow bus system can be commended for many reasons. In particular, it slows traffic. There is an argument that, because of congestion, it would be impossible to completely stop traffic. Nevertheless, there is merit in examining that system and in studying the research on the subject, particularly in America, where the car is king.

In most areas, young people are unable to cycle to school. There are cycle lanes in some towns, and there is a move towards providing more. However, until full provision is made to enable children to walk or cycle to school, such use of the roads will involve a great risk. On most roads, there is just one lane, which gives priority to cars only, without room for anyone else. Until that is changed, the number of people cycling or walking to school will not increase, despite the health benefits of such activity.

One of the benefits of the yellow bus system is that it slows down traffic. I am not sure whether we should stop traffic completely; however, flashing lights and signs could be fixed to the buses that we have already. That would make other road users more aware of school buses. As car use is so prominent here, I am not sure that people actually have the same awareness of, or consideration for, children going to school as they have for everyone else using the road, particularly during rush hour. That is a problem, and we need to make people aware of it.

At this point I appeal to all road users to be more aware of children and school buses, because most of the fatal accidents I know of — certainly the ones in Fermanagh — have been in instances where it is quite difficult for people to distinguish a school bus from other buses. Something that would bring that difference into focus, whether it be flashing lights or something else, would probably save lives, especially in rural areas.

During the rush hour there is speed, intolerance, and lack of consideration on the part of many road users. American research has shown that a considerable number of people — 1·1 million in Georgia — broke the rules and passed school buses regardless of the laws. I feel that it is necessary for us to try and implement that legislation, but I am not sure if it would be entirely correct for us. However, it is certainly a possibility that we should be considering — slowing down traffic and making the situation much safer for young people.

The school crossing code educates young people on the speed of traffic, but you cannot expect young children to know what speed traffic is doing, because they are not drivers. Each morning we can see the rush that occurs. At the time when children are going to school, everyone else is rushing to work. It is a hostile environment for children trying to get to school, whether boarding or alighting from buses.

It has been proved that the key stages for fatal or other injuries are when boarding and alighting. Several issues arise at these points, and there are several things that the Department for Regional Development, which is outside the education budget, could do. Signage could help people focus on the dangers of getting off a bus. It could stop children from single-mindedly heading for the other side of the road, where they happen to live or where there are cars to pick them up.

Much of this subject has actually been covered, but we need to further consider the yellow bus system. We need to see other research from Europe, where more children cycle to school, because it may have much to offer us. Has the research mentioned in some of the recommendations been carried out, and if not, why not? It looks as if some research has not yet been acted on. That is not particularly costly, but it needs to be done. We need to know exactly what the recommendations are going to cost. The costs are considerable, and are, therefore, part of the debate.

Given our present budgets, it does not seem likely that we will be able to implement all of this strategy. We are talking about massive funding. Will money come from the Department of Education’s budget or that of the Department for Regional Development? If we implement this, what will the savings be for health? This is the sort of work I want to see done immediately.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It does not seem that long ago, but it is quite some time since I was getting school buses. I clearly remember standing on the steps of a bus, or leaning against the front window of a bus, as it travelled down a rural road at up to 60 mph. Time has moved on. I now leave my son to the bus, and by the time it gets to school it is overloaded with children. The bus has children standing in it and children sitting "3 for 2", and one wonders what has happened in the intervening period. Why have we not addressed this issue, and why have we not dealt with it?

In Northern Ireland we are fairly stingy when it comes to taking our children to and from school. We spend £381 per child on school transport. Scotland spends £515 and England £542 — £721 in London. We are taking our children to school on the cheap. We must look at that seriously.

Through the Department for Regional Development, Translink bid for £50 million for additional buses over a three-year period; £25 million for the first year and £25 million for the other two years. The bid was rejected by the Executive. Therefore, when one hears the discussions about encouraging people to use public transport or safer transport, while a bid such as that has been totally rejected, one wonders where the Executive are coming from.

I want to deal with several issues in the report, and I want to put some things on the record. First, the Department of the Environment informed the Committee that, in an inspection of 178 buses run by education and library boards in February 2000, 37 were found to be in breach of the law and nine were prohibited from further use. For the record, 18 vehicles had no road service licence, six had no public service vehicle (PSV) test certificate, six were without a PSV driving licence, two were without excise duty, and there were four other offences, including failure to display school signs. That is not acceptable or satisfactory. We simply cannot afford to have vehicles on our roads that are not meeting the standard.

I have heard people pooh-pooh the report, saying that it is unrealistic and that the finances involved do not stand up. People can reject the Committee’s views; they can say that we are just busybody politicians, but perhaps they will pay attention to RUC traffic branch, because it had a major role in ensuring the safe passage of people on our roads. Ch Insp Hiller told the Committee without ambiguity that

"we must get the buses right and put seat belts in place. We must put large amber lights on buses to make them clearly visible; hazard warning lights are inadequate because they are 18 inches from the ground and quite small … the American system is very clear. The concept is excellent. Americans seem to take these matters much more seriously than we have in the past."

That makes things very clear. There is nothing that allows any room for manoeuvre. It must be done. Seat belts must be fitted on our buses.

Private coach operators who want to transport children must fit seat belts. The children on all those large coaches are all seated and wearing seat belts — or at least they all have the opportunity to wear them, if the law is properly enforced. Translink pointed out what it seemed to think was the major difference between its buses and coaches — Translink buses are restricted to 58 mph, while coaches are restricted to 62 mph. That makes the difference between Translink not having to put seat belts in its buses and private coach operators having to put them in. Frankly, the argument does not stand up.

Ch Insp Hiller went on to say in terms of accidents and the potential risk:

"the seat backs and so forth are non-absorbent, so they do not absorb the impact. Anyone standing will automatically become a projectile, particularly in a frontal impact. There will obviously be a pile-up towards the front of the bus."

I have watched the advertisement on television that Minister Nesbitt’s Department funds. You see the young man in the back of the car with no seat belt on. You can see his head crashing into the face of the young woman. It is very vivid and realistic. However, here we have the same Department ignoring the situation in relation to young people on buses.

It is saying that young men and women in the back of cars must wear a seat belt but that young children travelling to school in a bus can stand or be seated without wearing one. I will quote a final comment from Ch Insp Hiller:

"In our view it is simply not right, it is not safe. Without commenting on Translink, common sense would tell you that unless you take steps to restrict the potential for a serious accident, it is only a matter of time until it happens."

Last December, a young man alighted from a school bus. He walked round to the back of the bus, and there was no traffic coming up behind it. He walked to the middle of the road and found that some traffic was coming the other way. He stood waiting for that to clear. In the interim period, several other vehicles came up the side of the road that was originally clear, one of which was a van. Its wing mirror caught the young chap on the side of his head. His mother came and found him lying on the road. There were no broken bones; apparently, he had no serious injuries. However, whatever part of the vehicle hit that young lad on the side of the head, it killed him.

If buses that were leaving children off had signage and a system that ensured that vehicles were not allowed to pass on either side until the bus moved off, that young man would be alive. That is the simple fact of the matter, and if that had held up the cars for around 30 seconds or one minute, so be it. What was the cost to that life? For that we are not looking for millions of pounds to be spent; we are looking for simple legislation to be passed. It would perhaps slow down traffic for a brief period, but young people are being killed getting on and off buses.

If the Minister believes that he cannot afford to put "3 for 2" seating in or make school buses non-standing, surely we can afford to get proper signage and lighting on buses. Surely we can address seriously children’s safe passage when they are boarding and alighting from buses. If we cannot and will not do that, we are ignoring the needs of our community and the needs of the children in it. I appeal to the Minister to implement this report. I want him to implement it in full, but he should certainly begin with the recommendations that are easiest to implement. He must start taking the issue seriously.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the report before the Assembly today. Road safety is vital. It was vital when I was Minister in the Department. This is undoubtedly a serious issue. I refute the accusations thrust towards the Department that when I was Minister, we did not take any action. I can assure Members that we care deeply about road safety. I feel duty bound to speak on this motion — not necessarily to support every one of the many recommendations, but to caution that perhaps not enough thought has been put into whether some of them are realistic. Let us proceed with caution.

I can but assume that we all support the depth of feeling and care put into the report. None of us here would ever want to hear that a child, somebody’s loved one, had been killed or severely injured in an accident going to or coming from school. One death is one death far too many. Sadly, there was a death in my home county of Fermanagh towards the end of last year.

I speak as a parent and a grandparent. I am aware of the fears of many people in these days of heavy traffic and collisions, which result in many fatalities and cause so much heartbreak and heartache to families and friends. However, let me make it abundantly clear that no matter what is said by people here today — and I have no doubt that they are sincere, — nobody has a monopoly on the care or provision necessary to protect an innocent child from collisions. Such remarks are not made to try to challenge or to doubt the sincerity of those who support the report in full. I commend the Committee for its deliberations.

The Committee has made 28 recommendations that translate into some 40 actions that cross-cut several Departments. The four key recommendations are: abolishing the "3 for 2" provision for public service vehicles; no standing on publicly and privately operated road passenger vehicles; the need to have seat belts on those vehicles; and proposals for new signage and lighting requirements for school buses. Those recommendations will require a comprehensive impact assessment, which will include an analysis of the cost of implementing the changes and the potential road safety benefits that would accrue.

The Department — and I am not speaking on its behalf today — must secure expert advice to assess the detailed implementation of the Committee’s recommendations. The Chairperson of the Committee, Dr McCrea, must recall the points that I made in my letter to him of 12 December 2001 when I was Minister of the Environment.

The Department of the Environment, the Department of Education, the Department for Regional Development and Translink are all involved in making provision to try, at the very least, to save a child from injury or death. They will assume most of the responsibility for trying to effect such action as would help to prevent collisions. However, there are some minor, but nevertheless important, actions that stem from the Committee’s report that could be introduced to improve safety and which would not require major expenditure — and several Members have already referred to expenditure. Urgent re-evaluation is required. That will not be easy because children can be taken to school in a family car, in a relative’s or friend’s vehicle, by Ulsterbus, by school bus or by rail to the nearest station. The different conveyances used make it more difficult to co-ordinate action to ensure safety.

The education and library boards have the power to ensure that their vehicles do what is expected within the law. A suggestion has been made that all vehicles must stop when children are alighting from a bus. However, there is great danger in that. If all traffic has to stop when children alight from a school bus and are about to cross the road, children could be under the false premise that traffic stops every time people alight from a bus, and there could be horrible consequences. There is a danger that children would be given a false sense of security when alighting from an ordinary service bus. That is a vital point.

Parents or guardians should have a duty to ensure that their children get to school safely. Entitlement to school transport is conditional on primary schoolchildren living more than two miles from school or public transport. Secondary schoolchildren are entitled to school transport if they live at least three miles from school or public transport. Many children travel on school buses as a concession. Not all schoolchildren can obtain transport to school, so many are in an "at risk" situation. However, life is not without risks. Any collision by a school bus with children on board would be a tragedy. There are always risks in life, and families should take greater responsibility to ensure that their offspring are protected against injury or death.

I commend the report and its good intent, but I think that it should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and not have built up expectations.

The education and library boards could improve the situation if a personal supervisor were to assist on the buses and keep a watching brief on pupils who do not always act their age. The bus drivers have enough to do without also having to conduct and control pupils. It is the drivers’ responsibility to concentrate on the road, and nothing should distract them from that. Overcrowding and standing are not acceptable, and the roadworthiness of buses is also important.

It is easier to be an advocate than the person who takes necessary action. I refute the accusations that have been thrust at my former Department and myself. Dr McCrea does not have a monopoly on care and compassion — we all care.

I acknowledge the report. However, I cannot accept it hook, line and sinker, because it encourages aspirations that are unlikely to be easily fulfilled. It is somewhat dishonest to raise such expectations.

When we consider the large number of deaths on the roads these days, there is a thought for all of us:

"But O for the touch of a vanished hand, And the sound of a voice that is still!"

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Like many Members who have spoken today, I serve on the boards of governors of several schools. It is impressed upon school governors that they have a duty of care towards the children in the schools. The Assembly has a duty of care towards all the children of Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I wish to see the introduction of measures that will improve the safety of children alighting from school buses, particularly in country areas.

Traffic on country roads, especially where there are no speed limits, can be fast. That is not good for children alighting from school buses. A simple measure that could greatly enhance children’s safety is the clear marking of school buses. That was mentioned earlier in the debate. We are all aware, from American films on television, of the purpose-built yellow school buses in the United States. It may seem to be a small thing, but brightly coloured school buses could make an important contribution to saving lives, particularly when the buses have to travel in country areas in the early morning or late in the evening when visibility is reduced.

We should always be aware that children might be on a road. Whenever one sees a bus, one can be sure that someone is going to get on or off it. I congratulate the Committee for the Environment on bringing forward its proposals today. However, we must ensure that drivers are made to exercise greater care — especially on small country roads, where people may not be as careful as the rest of us. There will always be someone who will flout the law. As time goes on, more and more children will use school transport. We can go a long way today towards solving the problems that the report highlights.

A clear message that has come out of the debate today is that cost is a major factor. However, what cost do you put on the life of a young child? Regardless of family, colour or religion, a child’s life cannot be replaced. I am glad that the Minister of Education and the Minister of the Environment are both present today. I say to them that we frequently hear about discrimination, but in my constituency there are many places where groups of children get on and off school buses. It is wrong that some have to pay while others do not. All children should have free transport to school. That would save time when boarding or alighting from the buses, and it would save the energy of the bus drivers. I hope that I live to see the day when all children will have free transport. I support the motion.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I have listened with great interest — and I say that in all sincerity — to the debate. I support wholeheartedly the sentiments that Members have expressed in word and spirit. Road safety is a top priority for the Department of the Environment. Quite often, road deaths and injuries are avoidable and, as often as not, they are the result of human error such as carelessness, inattention, excessive speed, alcohol consumption or failure to wear seat belts.

The death or injury of a child is especially tragic. Parents and grandparents know that a child represents a bundle of opportunity. Therefore, the Department of the Environment has an onerous responsibility to ensure that it does everything possible to promote road safety. I speak for all Ministers, especially those who are directly responsible for road safety — Mr McGuinness and Peter Robinson and I — when I say that we will continue to do all that we can to improve this aspect of road safety.

I will make some general comments on the Committee for the Environment’s report. I listened carefully to Dr McCrea’s comments. He said that he gave an honest, open account of the situation. I share many of the sentiments expressed in his report. He concluded by saying that

"we will seldom ever have a more serious issue before us".

I concur with that. There is seldom a more serious issue than that of the life of a child, the future of Northern Ireland, so I thank the Chairperson and the Committee for their extensive work. I assure the Assembly that my ministerial Colleagues and I are considering seriously the Committee report, as did my predecessor, Mr Foster. I also support what he said.

A comprehensive evaluation is needed and will be carried out on the key recommendations. I emphasise the words "comprehensive evaluation" and "key recommendations" because the evaluation will be complex and lengthy. Some 28 recommendations and 44 actions were proposed. They fall within the competence of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and the Department for Regional Development. Each of those Departments will develop the specific recommendations for which they are responsible.

The length of time that the Department of the Environment took to respond was commented upon. The Department of Education and the Department for Regional Development each made an initial response in November. The Department of the Environment, as the overall umbrella Department, produced — and it took until February — a comprehensive response compiling the three Departments’ recommendations and detailing how each is to be progressed. Therefore, the wait from November to February was justified.

We have discussed key recommendations and what needs to be done. One aspect that filtered through the debate was the financial implication. That is relevant. Nothing crystallises the mind more than having to live within one’s budget. That applies also to school safety provision.

I shall look at the main recommendations briefly. I said that there were four key recommendations. The words of the report are:

"on the clear need to increase safety and quality standards of the transport used for home to school transport."

The four recommendations were simple to state: the abolition of the "3 for 2" provision; the phased introduction of no standing for schoolchildren on buses; the phased introduction of lap and diagonal seat belts for all schoolchildren; and improved signage and flashing lights. Dr McCrea rightly said that those recommendations have far-reaching implications, and I accept that. He also made a point about the financial implications. A third point that he made was that, although the recommendations are far-reaching, that does not mean that nothing can be done in the interim. Something is being done.

The financial implications are important. I was struck by Mr Kennedy’s comment that, whenever action is decided, funds should not be taken from the classroom. We are mindful that he is asking that the Committee for the Environment and I support the Minister of Education if or when he bids for funds. I note that in passing.

I shall touch on the aspect of expenditure and give an indication of the cost to implement the four recommendations. The abolition of the "3 for 2" seating provision will have an estimated capital cost of £3 million and an annual running cost of £2 million. The abolition of standing on school buses will incur a capital cost of £38 million and annual running costs of £21 million. Seat belts will have a capital cost of £140 million and an estimated annual running cost of £40 million. The cost of new hazard lights is currently not known in detail. However, the costs will amount to £181 million for capital expenditure and £63 million for the annual running costs for the simple implementation of the four key principles, which is not inconsequential.

I have looked generally at the detailed recommendations and at the costs involved. I said earlier that a comprehensive impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis of the more detailed recommendations is required. That analysis will include a more accurate estimate of the cost of implementing the changes. In looking at the costs, we must also assess the benefits — namely the potential road safety benefits of putting that multimillion spend into place. That will require appropriate, expert and professional advice. A new post has already been created in the Department to undertake that work and to be responsible for co-ordinating external advice.

To implement the four main recommendations will require a robust case to be made to the Executive. Significant resources are required for their implementation. Rapid decisions on the four main recommendations will not happen; we must undertake the assessment. As I have said, the analysis will be complex and comprehensive. I wish to make it clear that I empathise with what the Committee says about what needs to be done. However, the report did not offer the prima facie case, that road safety benefits were likely to be commensurate with full implementation. Figures were mentioned, which I shall come to, but the prima facie case was not there. Perhaps a prima facie case could not be offered, given what the Committee was doing — and I do not say that as a criticism of the Committee. Therefore, the Executive’s approach to the analysis of these four key elements must be detailed, sensible and pragmatic.

The child road casualties are the important element. It has been shown that children are significantly more at risk as pedestrians or as car passengers than they are as bus passengers. In the last four years 131 children were killed or seriously injured while travelling to or from school, but none of those killed and only six of those injured were occupants of buses, coaches or minibuses. That is a small proportion. Mr Gallagher said that most fatal accidents occur when alighting from or boarding buses, and Mr McHugh perceived the problem as being outside school buses, not actually on the buses. The statistics indicate that the problem arises in the vicinity of buses, but I do not want to reduce a sensitive issue to mere statistics.

The Committee’s report on page 1, under the heading "Collision Statistics 1995-1999: Children Under 16 Years Travelling To and From School" shows that the statistics do not distinguish between slight and serious injuries and that children travelling to and from school are grouped under different modes of transport — bus and car/van. Those statistics do not, however, disaggregate. When the figures are disaggregated it is found that travel on buses is safer than it is in a car or as a pedestrian.

Therefore, children’s behaviour coming from or going to school, in and around school bus stops and alighting from or boarding a bus is widely accepted as requiring attention. Road safety education is a key area. As Mr McCrea said, the fact that the issues are complex does not mean that nothing can be done. The Department of the Environment has taken that aspect seriously. Under Mr Foster’s guidance, the number of road safety officers was increased from 11 to 21 — in other words, it almost doubled. That enables us to intensify those officers’ work in schools and to allow the introduction of new education initiatives. For example, we will ensure that every school is visited at least twice a year, amounting to 4,000 visits by departmental education officers to schools. That is a significant contribution to education and road safety. We are mindful that the danger lies in alighting from and boarding buses. Through the remit of the education officers, the Department of the Environment also gives valuable support by providing teaching material worth £650,000 on road safety in schools.

Those are among the Department’s attempts to educate young people about road safety. However, there will be other initiatives. Mr Gallagher said that schools should be made particularly aware of safety. My Colleague, Ken Robinson, said that people were often glib about road safety. We must ensure that people are conscious of road safety. My Department will introduce practical child pedestrian training in October 2002, in support of classroom training. Later this year we will introduce a new initiative called the "children’s traffic club", as part of which the parents of every three-year-old will receive six free books on road safety at three-monthly intervals. The thrust towards education is part of the Department’s structured approach to encourage parents to teach pre-schoolchildren about road safety.

The Department will be examining other initiatives on education and publicity. I am conscious of the problems, and I intend to ensure that children and other vulnerable road users become more alert to the dangers of the roads — that permeates everything that must be done. It applies not only to children but to drivers and motorcyclists. People must recognise buses as critical danger zones for children.

Ken Robinson, Mr Kennedy and Ms Morrice referred to the school bus system in the United States. Although the Executive have overall responsibility for the matter, recommendations relating to the American model are matters for the Department of Education and the Department for Regional Development. My Department’s responsibility is limited to ensuring that any vehicles used as part of pilot or permanent schemes meet the relevant technical standards.

The two principal features of the American system are purpose-built buses — we have seen them in the movies or during visits to America — and road traffic rules that require motorists travelling in each direction to stop when the buses are stationary. Both were mentioned today. The matter requires careful examination, as I will demonstrate. Such road traffic rules would be the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development, and if it wished to introduce such rules, my Department would be fully behind it in assisting with the provision of any necessary public information. My Department has spent much time and effort on road safety education.

It might be beneficial to prohibit the overtaking of buses that have stopped to allow children to alight. However, we do not have dedicated school buses, such as those in America. If we adopted such a system, children might presume that it is safe to cross the road when any bus stops and that traffic will have stopped. They might develop the habit of running across the road, without worrying about traffic, after alighting from a bus. That is a serious point. I am not saying that the recommendation is wrong; but something of that nature requires serious consideration before it is introduced.

A pilot scheme is currently underway in Calderdale, Yorkshire, managed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It began in February 2002 using adapted American buses. It does not include traffic control measures for such things as overtaking, or speed restrictions. However, the Department of the Environment is mindful of what is happening there and will monitor the scheme closely.

Dr Paisley raised the issue that 101 children being crammed on board a 53-seater bus was a calamity waiting to happen. I agree that that is indefensible. However, the Assembly must ensure that when statistics are used, they are not misleading. The figure of 101 is simply calculated from the theoretical "3 for 2" maximum number on a bus, allowing for standing passengers. However, the figure of 101 does not operate in practice. The Committee for the Environment reported that Translink carries a maximum of 75 passengers on each bus and makes limited use of the "3 for 2" provision.

The report also stated that the education and library boards have an operating maximum of 79 passengers per bus, and they do not permit standing. Translink and the education and library boards are at liberty to reduce standing and the "3 for 2" provision. That does not require legal change. However, it would have significant financial implications. I empathise with Dr Paisley’s sentiments about cramming on school buses. The Assembly must, however, be mindful of the statistics.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

The Department of the Environment has released a hard-hitting advert about the dangers of not wearing a seat belt. The emphasis is put on a young lad who does not strap himself in and causes his girlfriend permanent brain damage. Considering what Dr Paisley and his Colleagues have said, I assumed that the issue being discussed is that when people are standing on buses they become potential projectiles.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I do not deny that people standing on buses can become projectiles. The House does not want to reduce such a sensitive issue to statistics. However, in that context, there are more road killings and injuries involving cars than involving buses or pedestrians. That advertisement is directed particularly at people who do not wear seat belts in the back seats. At speed, the back seat passenger can project forward. I accept the Member’s point. However, I must also put it into context.

Ms Morrice suggested the "walking bus". She praised its introduction. I thank her for reminding me about it. A walking bus pilot scheme has taken place at Moneyreagh Primary School. For people who are not fully conversant with the idea, a walking bus is not a vehicle, but an organised party of children walking to and from school under parental supervision. Those taking part are appropriately dressed in fluorescent or reflective garments. The Department is assisting two schools in Limavady and Ballymoney to organise similar walking buses in September 2002, and aims to further promote the practice in Northern Ireland. I thank Ms Morrice for raising the issue and enabling me to draw it to the Assembly’s attention.

I assure the Assembly that we are, have been, and will continue giving the Committee’s report serious consideration. I say that not on behalf of my Department but as a representative of the Executive. It is for other Ministers to bring forward their own thoughts on the report, but the Executive are seriously considering it.

Detailed evaluations of the key recommendations will be conducted as quickly and as practically as possible. A new official is in post to conduct the research and analysis. We are not standing still. To paraphrase Mr McCrea’s initial comments, the fact that some of the big things cannot be done does not mean that nothing can be done. I have mentioned areas where we have been doing things and will continue to do things.

I repeat the commitment that I made at the outset: none of us wants to see any road deaths. Most of them are avoidable, but the road death or injury of a child is particularly sensitive. Therefore, I have no doubt that all Members who took part in the debate are not, and should not be, trying to score political points. Rather, we should try to do what is right for the future of Northern Ireland, because the future lies with the children.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Members who participated in the debate for their largely positive and constructive contributions. The seriousness of the issue is clear to everyone in the Chamber. For a long time, safety on school buses has been a major concern to parents and school principals, which is why the Committee sought to address the matter in greater detail. Immediate action is required on the detailed recommendations brought forward by the Committee.

I want to deal with some of the contributions, but, because I have been allotted only 10 minutes, I cannot reply to many comments. Mr Nesbitt said that we should not seek to score political points. I do not know where the Minister got that from or why he felt it relevant. Let me make it abundantly clear that it was the unanimous opinion of the entire Committee.

I was saddened that the former Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, chose to attack me personally by saying that I do not have a monopoly on compassion or caring. I have never sought to bring forward my personal opinion in Committee, although I fully endorse and wholeheartedly agree with the report. I have sought to represent honestly and fairly the unanimous opinion of the Committee. The Committee members who spoke today made it abundantly clear that the report represents the unanimous opinion of the Committee.

I do not know why there was a personal attack or why seeking to score political points was mentioned. This issue has nothing to do with scoring political points. We are talking about one of the most serious matters affecting the lives of families and communities — the lives and safety of our children.

Irrespective of the school he or she is going to or coming from, every child is of equal importance, and we value the lives of all our children. I trust that that has nothing to do with scoring political points, but that it has everything to do with the safety of our children’s transport. For that I will never apologise. It constitutes the main thrust of the report, and I stand wholeheartedly by that.

The report does not state that we have a monopoly on care or that we should beat our chests and say that we have a monopoly on wisdom. No one has a monopoly on wisdom or anything else. Let us be honest; surely we all learn something through the Assembly, and surely this debate has made us all think carefully. The contribution of the Member for East Antrim, Mr Ken Robinson, was a thoughtful and helpful contribution. He put his finger on many points that concerned Committee members and which should concern the Assembly. He referred to fundamental principles and impressed the importance of several recommendations on the Assembly. We should recognise those points and act on them.

Let me therefore repeat: any notion that this matter concerns party political issues must be completely removed. It is a political issue, and this is a political forum. It affects all our children, irrespective of the party people support, and I will defend the right of every parent to demand that the Chamber represent their will and their wish for their children to travel to school in safety. That is the burden and the emphasis of the report.

I take seriously the comments of the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, and I support Mr Kennedy’s call for the education and library boards to progress pilot schemes to improve safety in boarding and alighting from school buses. Mr Kennedy also mentioned action being taken by education and library boards, but unfortunately my Committee has no information on that matter. That highlights the need for co-ordinated action by officials from the Departments involved, with the Department of the Environment taking the lead.

The Member for North Down, Jane Morrice, mentioned that the Committee was too lenient about phased proposals to prevent standing on buses and to provide seat belts. I understand her point, but it contradicts the opinion of some people who thought that the Committee was pie in the sky and unrealistic. The Committee was criticised for being too soft. It shows, however, that the Committee was careful to frame its recommendations in order to ensure implementation and to address priorities. It endeavoured to do that with consideration, not thoughtlessly or recklessly. I know that many people would have liked matters to be rushed ahead.

I take seriously the point made by my hon Friend Dr Paisley in respect of 101 children in a 53-seater bus. In their evidence to the Committee the police said that it is legal to carry 101 children or less in such a bus. In 2002 it should not acceptable that such a situation is considered legal. The Minister said that that does not happen, and he pointed out that the report stated that the number of children on a Translink bus was 75, and the number on an Ulsterbus was 79. The Minister should know that that is the evidence that was given to the Committee; it is not an assumption that the Committee made.

However, the Member for East Londonderry, Mr A Doherty, reminded the Assembly that two principals told the Committee in oral evidence that up to 90 children per bus were travelling to their schools. Where did the figures of 75 and 79 go to? The Committee dealt with the hard evidence that it was given. Those principals were seriously concerned. What message is the Minister giving? Ninety children are being crammed into one bus, and yet we put advertisements on television that lecture the importance of having seat belts in the back of cars.

The figures mentioned are 75, 79 and 90 — up to 101. The Assembly is giving those young people a dual message; it would be fair of them to assume that it is not really serious. The Police Service provided the Committee with the following statement about the wearing of seat belts:

"Our paramount priority is road safety, although we understand that there are other issues such as the environment and congestion. We want to see children on school buses afforded the same opportunity for protection as afforded to those travelling in cars".

Therefore, the Committee could not close its mind to that issue. It is a calamity waiting to happen.

The Member for Upper Bann, Mr Savage, asked what cost could be put on a life. That is strange because, when the Committee asked that question, his Colleague condemned it as being emotive. Those are double standards. The Committee is genuinely concerned by the value that is put on the lives of our children and by their safety when they travel to school. The report goes to ensure that they travel in safety. Therefore, it is with confidence and conviction that I commend it to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee for the Environment on its Inquiry into Transport used for children travelling to and from school (1/01R) and calls on the Minister of the Environment to ensure urgent evaluation and to take full account of the recommendations.

The sitting was suspended at 2.23 pm

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Mosside Primary School, Ballymoney

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

We are now supposed to have joined-up government. On the one hand, we have a Department pushing like mad for rural development, and on the other, an education and library board that is responsible to another Department, which is determined to close a rural village school. I ask the Minister of Education and his Department — is that not a contradiction of policy? On what grounds can the education and library board justify closure?

We talk about social and economic deprivation. What greater social need can there be than the need for education for the growing and close-knit community of Mosside? All 108 MLAs should be fighting tooth and nail to keep all schools in rural communities open in order to preserve them for future generations. The North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB) is taking away the very fabric of society that exists in a rural community and does not exist elsewhere.

The NEELB appears to have had a complete disregard for the facts in reaching its decision to close Mosside Primary School. The extensive new build programme in the village and the creation of new commercial ventures in the Mosside area are significant reasons to keep Mosside Primary School open. Those factors have been overlooked in the decision-making process. Has the NEELB taken those factors into consideration, or is it too short-sighted?

I accept that a reduction in the number of children of primary school age can lead to falling class sizes, which in turn leads to inefficiency in the provision of primary school education. Bearing in mind the pointers that suggest that the trend is for more youngsters in the village, I am perplexed by the proposed closure of Mosside Primary School. The potential is there in Mosside. Support for rural sustainability means having local primary education. The population and potential for an increase in numbers of children of primary school age is there. The decision to close the village primary school is therefore premature and poorly thought through.

Some parents in the village take their children to other schools, thus not supporting the outstanding teaching qualities available at Mosside Primary School. However, I congratulate the principal and her staff on those outstanding qualities. The NEELB should put the recommended closure of the school on hold and begin a public relations exercise in the community to encourage parents and children to return to Mosside Primary School. That would be a great asset to the community and a positive step forward.

Teaching staff, the board of governors and parents inform me that the performance rate of children at Mosside Primary School far outstrips the performance rate of children at larger schools. That is a great achievement, and it is a major challenge for the board to have the school kept open. It constitutes a significant factor in the decision that, ultimately, should be to keep Mosside Primary School open for business.

I have been strongly petitioned by parents and members of local churches to resist the closure of the school as it is a focal point for young and old. The parents, children and the entire community are very much aware of the value of the school. There seems to be a disregard in the proposed decision to close the school as it provides convenience for working parents living in the village and surrounding area, and continuity in first-class primary school education for children.

Schools that have closed in the area in recent years include Cloghcorr, Cloghanmurry, Tullybane, Drumtullagh, Giant’s Causeway, Croaghbeg, Kirkhills, Ballintoy and Moyarget. Although the circumstances of the declining attendances were compelling at the time, the detachment of children and young people from their community is evident. I must caution Members that this has not been an encouraging development in many cases. We must provide our children and young people with a sense of belonging and a sense of identity for them to prosper and become contributors to their society. We can do this in Mosside, and we must not ignore the opportunity. The future of Mosside Primary School depends on the support of the House to prevent the closure. Neither I nor other Assembly Members can begin to quantify the social damage that primary school closures inflict on rural communities.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I congratulate my Colleague on securing the debate today. It is an important debate because it goes to the heart of Government policy; it also goes to the heart of what we want for our community and for this society. Schools are a cornerstone of society, and in rural areas where there is remoteness and lack of choice, it is essential that the heart is not ripped out of the local community. That issue must not be lost in the House.

Many people will argue that this is about resources, but the reality is that the school has been well resourced. In fact, one could argue that it is one of the best equipped schools in the area. Therefore it would be a double scandal to remove the teachers and the resources and equipment from the school. Today I saw a report listing the equipment in the school. For such a small school it is not short of modern technology. There are six personal computers, two laptops, two televisions, two videos, five printers, three data projectors and a hi-fi system. The Internet is available to every classroom as well as the assembly hall. The classes are obviously small due to the dwindling number of pupils who have enrolled. However, that means that there is more time allocated to each pupil and that there is a better teacher/pupil ratio than in many other schools. Therefore it can be argued — and shown — that the children are well catered for in this area.

The fabric of the building is also very good. The recent installation of double-glazed windows and a new central heating system; the construction of a principal’s office and the replacement of sanitary ware have left the school in tip-top condition. There have been improvements and special conditions put in place for children with special needs. There is now a special needs classroom that has been completely refurbished with a new roof, carpeting, curtains and a heating system. In relation to the entire fabric, therefore, the school is probably one of the best catered for and maintained primary schools in the vicinity. It would be a double scandal to rip up that good work by no longer using a well catered for school and by asking the children to go elsewhere.

As I said at the beginning, this is not just a question of resources; it is a question of Government policy. It is essential that Government policy allows for choice in rural areas. People in areas that could be left remote or without choice should be given the choice to attend a local primary school. We have seen that choice given to other schools, such as Irish-medium schools. Government policy for Irish-medium schools shows that where a school has 12 pupils or more, it can be considered for funding. This school is not an Irish-medium school, but surely it is entitled to the same rights. If Irish-medium schools with 12 pupils are entitled to funding, then Mosside, which has seen a dwindling in its numbers, should also be entitled to proper funding.

I want to identify some of the reasons for the dwindling numbers in the area. In 1988 there were 72 enrolments, and last year there were 13. The tapering downwards of the number of enrolments seemed to start between 1996 and 1998. It fell from 34 to 22 in the year beginning 1999. I suggest that the reason for that is the uncertainty placed at the heart of the future of the school. That uncertainty started with a rumour that the school would not last due to dwindling numbers. As a result, parents have panicked and decided to register their children for pre-school education in other local schools, so that they can get the next best school. That rumour has damaged the availability of pupils to enrol in the area.

The one thing that the Department could do is give certainty back to the school and say that it will stay open. We would then see enrolment increasing because parents would be confidentthat their children would be at the school for several years to get their education before going on to secondary level education. The rumours should be quashed, and the Assembly and Department can help to do that by saying that they will give certainty back to the school. It is not an unprecedented request; the Minister of Education, who is here for the debate, made such announcements before. He has done it for two other schools. He indicated that Toberlane and Churchtown Primary Schools would stay open even though they do not reach the same criterion. Most Members will know that the criterion is that if a school does not have 25 pupils for enrolment, it can be earmarked for closure. Those schools had 25 and 24 pupils respectively, yet they were not earmarked for closure. In his public statement of 6 December 2000, the Minister recognised that to close them would be unfair and would disadvantage people in a rural community.

If the argument stands for areas such as Cookstown, it stands for areas in north Antrim. The same criteria used for that decision should be applied in this case. To close Mosside Primary School because it has not reached the enrolment criteria last year and this year is not good enough. The school needs to be given a chance.

My Colleague Mr Kane talked about local development, and there are major planning developments in the locality that will see a development of the village and an increase in people who will want to live in areas that have been depleted because of changes in farming and in the locality. Those people will want a local school for their children. If there is no local school, they will not want to live there and will go elsewhere. They will want to live in a town or village that does have a local school. We need to encourage people to stay in the area.

Another Government agency, namely the Planning Service, has taken decisions to allow building in the village to keep the village whole, instead of seeing a dwindling population. People will then go to that village and see the cornerstones of the local village, such as the local church, the local school and the local shops. I hope that the principles that were applied to Toberlane and Churchtown Primary Schools will also apply to Mosside Primary School.

There are peaks and troughs in enrolment, and there is a trough at the moment because of the birth rates in the area. There will be peaks in the future, and it is essential that we cater for them and be ready, instead of ensuring that they can never be catered for by closing the local rural school. It is essential that parents have choice. To close a rural school and reduce parents’ choice is not a good policy or principle upon which to devise education provision.

The issue has not only been raised at local community level, at the local council, and in the form of a petition which I presented to the House, but also by many people who have indicated their strong desire not to see another rural community decimated by a decision that will damage the fabric of that rural society. It is important that the plea go up from the House to maintain that school and to apply the same principles in operation elsewhere to allow the school to continue, and also to make sure that discrimination does not creep in. It could be argued that discrimination has been allowed to creep in through other policies. The Department of Education has the responsibility to demonstrate to this rural community in a part of Protestant Ulster that they deserve their rights and are entitled to the same rights as others in that locality.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

All public representatives have seen rural schools closed before. All sorts of arguments were put forward. First, we were told that the buildings were not manageable; that they had been built years ago and had deteriorated and that a new school would be required. I am glad to report that Mosside has a good building. The issue does not relate to the building — an excuse which has been made on many occasions by those who were intent on ruthlessly carrying out a policy of closing down rural schools. Small rural communities are vital contributors to life both locally and Province-wide.

I was amazed by the figures produced by a recent inquiry into relative deprivation by the centre for urban policy studies at Manchester University. That inquiry reported the shocking statistic that 76% of residents in Mosside over the age of 16 have no formal educational qualifications. If they are to gain formal educational qualifications, they must have a good primary education.

First, Mosside Primary School has a good building, so the Department would not have to spend a vast sum on a new building or renovations. Secondly, it is a good school. All the parents and community members wish me, as an MLA and MP for the area, to express thanks to the teachers and the principal of the school. They have done, and continue to do, a good job.

The issue is represented across the board. An Ulster Unionist councillor, Helen Harding, who is a former pupil of the school, has pledged to fully support the campaign to keep it open. An SDLP councillor, Madeline Black, said that it is vital that such communities have a primary school, which is necessary for children’s stability. Therefore, it is not just one section of the community that is crying loudly for the maintenance of the school; every section with pupils at the school is represented. The community has a united voice.

Schools and churches cement a community together. If the cement is taken away, the community will disintegrate. Communities in Ulster are in danger of disintegrating. Schools have been removed from other rural districts that used to have real communities, to which people were pleased to belong, and that enjoyed a neighbourliness that was begotten of people’s sense of community. Those communities have completely disintegrated because the cement has been taken away. Children who are brought up and educated together share a closer bond than those who are educated separately. Therefore, there is a danger of destroying a community that is vital to the betterment of that area of north Antrim.

I do not understand why we plan to build so many new houses in the area and then tell people that there will be no school. Anyone with experience of such schools knows that enrolment statistics vary. The unfavourable statistics of some schools have been reversed because of an increase in the intake of pupils. That must be considered when deciding whether to close a school. New houses are being built, and people are moving to the area, including some who were forced to leave before because of housing difficulties. They wish to live in the area in which they were brought up.

People who speak for rural districts understand that well. I do not know why some statistics should be played to the full, when other statistics point to a rise in the number of children. At first there was panic when it was whispered that this school would close. Then parents worried about where their children were going to go. They naturally wanted to get their children into the nearest school and into the school that they calculated to be the best.

Once there is a rumour in an area that a school is going to close, there is panic among parents. They have been telling me that they are worried that all the children will have to be bused away. I do not think that any mother or father is keen to see children leave home earlier in the morning than they should have to do because of the distance that they must travel to the new school. One mother told me that it will be a long and tiring day for her youngest child, who will have to catch a bus at around 8.30 in the morning and will not return home till long after 3.00 pm. That is not right.

The Assembly must remember that those children are growing up and should not have to depend on such a busing system to get a primary education. That could be avoided if the school were maintained. If it is announced tomorrow that the school is to stay open many parents who have already made alternative arrangements will go back on them to keep their children at the local school.

The Assembly must address those difficulties. The best thing to do is to give the school a chance to continue to do its work. Members are pleading for that chance because the results of closing it will be dire. It will tear the heart out of the community and lead in some measure to its disintegration. All those matters and the points that my Colleagues put before the House mount up to a strong plea to give Mosside Primary School the chance to survive — indeed, the chance not only to survive, but also to succeed.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle. Members will be aware that the North Eastern Education and Library Board published a development proposal on 31 January to close Mosside Controlled Primary School with effect from August 2002.

Under the legislative provisions there is a two-month period following this publication during which objections can be sent to the Department of Education before a decision is taken on the proposal. As that period has now expired, I will be examining the details of the case soon, with a view to taking a decision quickly. That is necessary to remove any uncertainty on the part of the school, parents and pupils regarding educational plans that will have to be finalised soon for the next school year.

While I have not yet determined the outcome of that matter, it may be helpful if I outline to Members the various factors that I will consider as part of my examination of the closure proposal. They include the pattern of enrolments at Mosside Primary. I understand that there are presently 13 pupils in attendance.

We must also consider educational factors, such as the balance and delivery of the curriculum and the proximity of neighbouring schools. There are four other controlled schools within a five-mile radius of Mosside Primary School. We must also look at surplus places in other schools and the social, economic and community issues, which several Members raised.

I am on record as emphasising the importance of a strong network of rural schools as part of the infrastructure to reinforce rural communities. However, although it is important to retain relationships between schools and their communities, there are circumstances in which the burden on teachers to deliver the curriculum in very small schools across a whole range of age groups and abilities is excessive. Ian Paisley Jnr mentioned the situation at Churchtown and Toberlane controlled schools. In those cases, I made it clear then that there are circumstances when change is needed when the burden on teachers to deliver the curriculum is such circumstances is excessive.

We must also look at the condition of school premises. Objections to and representations on the proposal are other factors that we must consider. There were three objections to the proposed closure of Mosside, two of which came from the school’s board of governors and Moyle District Council. Furthermore, Ian Paisley Jnr laid a petition in the Assembly during the two-month objection period. That petition has been treated as a formal objection. Members can see that I must carefully examine a range of issues before I can make an informed judgment on the matter.

Ian Paisley Jnr also mentioned the funding criteria for Irish-medium schools. That also affects integrated schools. The reference to the figures acknowledges the lowering of the viability criteria, a decision that I took last year to make it easier for integrated and Irish-medium schools to become established. Support is given to those schools only when my Department and I are convinced that the proposals are robust and that the schools will go from strength to strength. In almost 100% of cases, those schools have gone from strength to strength. They have not failed. Indeed, enrolment numbers have increased rather than decreased.

It was interesting that Ian Paisley Jnr used the argument about Protestant Ulster. I do not think that Ulster is Protestant. Ulster is full of Catholics, Protestants and Dissenters, and we are all the better for it. We should not attempt to sectarianise the argument. Any decisions that are taken on schools, especially small rural schools, must be based on what is best for the education of pupils in those areas.

All aspects of the arguments for and against the proposed closure of the school will be considered. The overriding objective is to determine a way forward that is in the best educational interests of all the pupils. I am on record as saying that I value highly the contribution that small rural schools make to society, especially as much of our geographic area is rural.

The arguments against closure are not lost on me — I sympathise considerably with all the points that have been made by the three Members who spoke. However, we must also recognise that all cases must be judged on their merits. There are 13 pupils at Mosside Primary School. In all likelihood, there may be only 10 pupils next year. The numbers are declining. People can say that there is a historical explanation for that. Before this institution was established, there were rumours in Mosside that the school was in difficulty and numbers were dwindling. Those circumstances were well beyond my control. If there was any validity in those rumours, we were effectively left with that legacy.

A decision will be taken shortly, and I shall consider carefully the points that have been made before I make an announcement.

Adjourned at 4.35 pm.