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.

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

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:

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

TOP

I wish to inform the House that question 3, in the name of Mr McGrady, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

TOP

1.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the granting of city status to Newry.

(AQO 1138/01)

We were pleased to note the granting of city status to Newry and Lisburn this month to mark Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee. People of both these new cities have every right to be proud of their new status and to be congratulated on their success, which was achieved against significant competition from towns across the United Kingdom, including others in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the First Minister's message of congratulations to the people of Newry on achieving their new status, graciously conferred by Her Majesty The Queen as part of her Golden Jubilee celebrations. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is incumbent on the chairman of Newry and Mourne District Council to invite Her Majesty The Queen to Newry to present the letters patent in person, and, in recognition of his position as chairman, to receive Her Majesty in a proper manner, thereby representing the wishes of all local people from all local traditions?

I am sure most people, if not everybody, in Newry would welcome the prospect of Her Majesty's visiting the new city and presenting the letters patent in person. Regarding the position of the first citizen of the new city, I am sure he will be prepared to take a leaf out of the book of the DUP. I noticed that on Friday of last week the DUP mayor of Derry City Council was there to welcome the President of Ireland on the occasion of her visit there. I am quite sure that Sinn Féin will be only too happy to follow the DUP's example on this matter.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>