Mr. Stephen Kent:

As the Deputy knows and has just said, it is a policy. It is not intended to be in any way discriminatory. It is simply a policy that is based on judgment. The judgment is all about trying to keep the children as safe as possible. Last year, when we had the greatest demand increase for drivers as a result of the waiving of school transport fees which created greater demand for the service, we still managed to put every child on a bus. There were certain gaps for a period, but we did it.

We are here because we still believe it is better to continue to bring more drivers into the industry than to try to extend careers. We have seen a lot of data and I have had a lot of consultation. I have gone to the chief executive of the Road Safety Authority. As members know, we are having a difficulty in that incidents involving fatalities on the road have increased and the trend is against us. I have listened to that and I try to listen to any advice on what happens when people get older. As we know, there are lots of things. The Deputy and I both know there are many fit 70-year-olds but we are trying to make the best decision, one that encompasses the 9,000 routes we operate. What we have at the moment is something that is working. We have a safety record that is keeping people, at last, safe. In the contracts we know someone is approaching the age of 70 so a contractor should continue to provide the service and see if it can get a replacement when someone is available. From all the internal consultation I have had with our medical officer and Department officials and from looking at other consultations and studies around the place, the risk increases rather than decreases.

For something as precious as the cargo of little children, we are just simply making a decision in the best interests of the scheme, and the safety of everybody. There is no right or wrong in it. One will probably find that there will be a driver who is fit and able. It is not meant to discriminate against that. It is simply to put something in a policy that will direct us in the best way to operate as safely as possible. That is all it is.

We do not just roll it over. We brought it in to our board again as recently as November just gone, and reviewed it all. There was a strong debate within the board about the pros and cons. It came in to our safety committee, and there was nothing to compel us to change our position, so we hold the position where it is, continue to recruit, and fill in the positions. I think what we are doing at the moment is working, so we should probably still continue to do that, given that the safety record speaks for itself. That is where we are.