A number of schools have raised questions about the authority's policy on the use of buses or coaches without seat belts for transporting children to swimming tuition or for other activities.

The authority's policy is governed by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 163).  These contain the requirements relating to seat belts.  These requirements apply to:

• minibuses used from 10 February 1997
• coaches used from 10 February 1997 if registered from October 1988
• coaches used from 10 February 1998 if registered before 1 October 1988.

If these vehicles are used to carry three or more children (a child being defined as a person aged 3 but under 16) on an organised trip, then seat belts must be fitted, the minimum requirement being for a lap belt to be fitted to each seat used by a child.

Seat belts are mandatory when a coach or minibus is used to take children on organised trips where the journey is taken for the purpose of that trip.  Basically, registered (i.e. fares collected) services are exempt from the seat belt legislation, but non-fare paying contract services will be included where the vehicle falls within scope of the Regulations.

Vehicles falling within the scope of the Regulations are:

• minibuses (a passenger carrying vehicle seating for 9-16 passengers)
• coaches (a passenger carrying vehicle over 7.5 tonnes, seating more than 16 passengers and capable of more than 60 mph).  Almost all double deck and normal public service vehicles will fall outside this definition and are, therefore, out of scope.

The Regulations have remained unamended since 1997.

The LEA has never formally stated a policy that all transport used by children should be fitted with seat belts.  It does of course expect transport operators and suppliers to obey the law and to ensure that vehicles that should be fitted with seat belts are so equipped.  If seat belts are fitted, they should be used.

So far as transport to swimming lessons is concerned, the position is that:

• the cost of transport is delegated to schools, and it is, therefore, for schools themselves to determine how it is spent;
• the LEA asks Metro to organise the school transport swimming contract on the school's behalf and schools can choose, or not, to take advantage of it;
• Metro attempts to obtain the cheapest quote for schools, though they do not specify transport with seat belts; to do so would be to cut across their tendering strategy which batches together home to school and within-school-day transport.  Metro is able to achieve savings on both types of transport when operators are able to use the same vehicles throughout the day;
• almost all double deck buses and other public service vehicles will fall outside the scope of the Regulations and Metro will rely on the use of such vehicles, not only for home-school journeys, but also for school swimming transport.  It is unreasonable for Metro to be required to specify seat belts for all transport when the main operators with the greatest number of vehicles available do not have to fit them to their vehicles.

Schools have a choice; if they continue to use Metro to organise their swimming transport, it is likely that they will find that most vehicles available are not fitted with seat belts because they do not have to be.  The vehicles will, however, be safe and fit for purpose, and the cost of transport will be relatively inexpensive.  Alternatively, schools can organise their own transport via private coach operators and specify the use of vehicles fitted with seat belts, or ask Metro to do this on their behalf.  If a coach operator is willing to commit to a year's contract, schools will probably find the cost will be greater.  It is then for the school to decide whether it wishes to find the extra costs from within the resources it has at its disposal, whether from delegated/devolved budgets or from other school funds.

The LEA would take the view that if buses which are not required to be fitted with seat belts are deemed to be safe to carry the general public, and for use in home-school journeys, there is no reason why they should not also be regarded as safe to take pupils on relatively short journeys to swimming baths, given that pupils are supervised and use the buses in an orderly and responsible way.  Schools would reasonably expect longer journeys for school visits and outings to be by coach, for reasons of comfort, and coaches should be fitted with seat belts.