It is good to see the Section 19 debate get underway.
One thing that is evident in all this is that the state, as rule maker, appears to ignore the interpretation and application of the rules so far as they affect any arm of the state and its variously publicly-funded operations.
It has long been a concern that tendered school bus provision can be replaced by a school-owned minibus driven by a member of staff. This has been seen to happen around here at very short notice, and involved a driver who had never previously driven a minibus, suggesting that there was never any basic training.
Some private schools do hold an O-Licence, and as far as I can see, those minibuses provide a home-to-school service, which is paid for by parents, but do have specific drivers employed for the job. Many I know have long-standing PSV experience.
I am not aware of any state school that does the same. Even some of the so-called academies, which are funded differently, have the potential to fund a fleet of minibuses, but have not done so, but it is important to note that these are not controlled by the state.
I was at the Leicester Space Centre a while ago and was intrigued by three minibuses from a school in Lincolnshire, working on Section 19 permits. Each driver appeared to have a manual logbook, so there was a daily record of vehicle use, but whereas I had delivered my passengers and was free to roam at will, these drivers would then act as supervisors for the assembled children.
So when would they have had a rest period before the return to school? On my count there would have been two periods of two hours’ driving with four hours of supervising, which even the working time directive would not countenance, because the individuals cannot properly delegate their duty of care.
The issue is about loss of commercial work to the transport sector, but it does not end there.
The MoD sees many support services privatised, and under this, motor transport is provided by a contractor who holds an O-Licence.
While the contractor employs properly-qualified drivers for PCVs, the vehicles can be available to military drivers, and while they might not hold or use a digi-card, hours are monitored.
And then comes another anomaly: The minibuses can be made available to civilian personnel working with the Air Cadet Organisation. They do not use the digi-tacho (with which all vehicles are fitted), are driving on a car licence, and certainly do not hold a Driver CPC.
These are people who may have been working all day, and they can jump into a minibus and drive children around, and also be part of the supervisory team.
Obviously some Cadet units fund their own minibus, which is a separate issue, but you still have the professional training aspect to consider, especially if parents are expected to contribute towards the cost of certain journeys, either additional to the normal subscription, or otherwise as part of it.
The problem with all this is that the state is involved. As I have found with charity matters involving the MoD, you have an independent regulator in the shape of the Charity Commission, which claims to be free of ministerial control, but seems reluctant to deliver any form of arbitration to support proper application of the law.
Let us hope that this tactic does not affect Section 19.
Chris Brown
Shropshire
