Editorial

Given prevailing circumstances, worried parents can hardly be blamed if they conclude that the safety of children on school transport is being neglected by the authorities and the owners of minivans. An EU directive imposing the use of seat-belts on the newer minivans in service should have come into force last Friday. This after Malta had been given a two-year extension to come in line.

Last September, things looked well on course. Charles Mercieca, the chairman of the Minibus Cooperative that operates vehicles on the school run, had told Child magazine that "only a small percentage of the fleet will not have safety belts by May next year". The cooperative and the government, he added, were in talks to help owners get a good deal on the importation of seat-belt compliant second-hand minivans.

The same magazine was told by the manager of the Malta Transport Authority's enforcement operations that there had been a good deal of cooperation to ensure compliance by May and that a lot of minibuses had changed their seating to accommodate safety belts.

"We will be carrying out inspections and do spot checks once the directive comes into force in May," he promised.

The tune seems to have changed completely now. The whole issue has been clouded by what can only be described as a litany of excuses. Speaking to this newspaper, Mr Mercieca argued that minivans tend to carry more children than there are individual seats for them, so enforcing the seat-belt rule would perforce mean carrying fewer children per van. This would lead to "pandemonium" and "the fee parents pay will have to go up". He also accused the government of ignoring the cooperative's pleas for talks on the issue.

On the other side of the fence, while recognising child safety as an overriding priority, the ADT says there has to be a balance between enforcement and being practical, at least until the end of the scholastic year.

In the meantime, the education authorities are consoled by the rarity of incidents during the 1,600 trips that are run every day by school transport. Tell that to the parents of children who have been involved in such incidents, such as a four-year old boy who lost three front teeth last year when his van went over a bump at speed. It could have been worse and there have been worse.

The fact of the matter is that the government and the cooperative, with the help of schools and the educational authorities, have had plenty of time to plan for the entry into force of the directive. Routes could have been re-shuffled, parents could have been informed of any rise in fees well ahead of time. Most of them would surely have not begrudged the added small financial outlay in the knowledge that their children are somewhat safer on the school run. One must assume that the government, which pays for the transport to its own schools, has the same order of priorities.

In one of its recent, highly commendable strong-arm initiatives, the Transport Ministry ordered the ADT to draw up procedures to ensure high safety standards on roads adjacent to schools, following a complaint that pupils of a Żurrieq school were in danger from a hazardous road.

To be consistent, the ministry must take similar, firm action on this issue. If it does not, parents would be justified in concluding that for the government, sectoral interests come before the safety of children.