Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Official Report 733KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Motor Sport on Public Roads (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [Draft]

We move on to subordinate legislation and formal consideration of motion S5M-16261, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion—

I am sorry, in my excitement, as we get closer to the end of the meeting, I have jumped a page in my briefing.

Cabinet secretary, welcome again. I also welcome George Henry, who is the head of roads policy at Transport Scotland, and Stephen Rees, who is a solicitor with the Scottish Government. Cabinet secretary, I invite you to make brief opening remarks on the regulations—before I ask you to move the motion. I apologise again for getting things in the wrong order.

Thank you, convener.

Scotland has a long and proud tradition in the world of motor sport. We want to recognise that tradition and allow it to continue by permitting the holding of stage rallies and other motor sport events on Scotland’s road network.

However, motor sports can be dangerous. We recognise the need to balance the potential for public enjoyment of and economic benefit from events with a high degree of safety for spectators and participants.

Since the tragic events at the Snowman rally in 2013 and the Jim Clark rally in 2014, which resulted in four fatalities, no motor sport events have been held on closed public roads in Scotland. Since then, we have had the benefit of learning vital lessons from the Government-led motor sport safety review and the detailed and thorough fatal accident inquiry into the fatalities. Steps have been taken to implement the lessons that have been learned, and the self-regulation of rally events that Motorsport UK enforces is now much stricter than it was before those tragic incidents. Motorsport UK has published the fourth edition of “Stage Rally Safety Requirements”. The requirements have evolved into a comprehensive safety document, which covers all aspects of stage rallying.

The Scottish Government formed a motor sport on public roads advisory group, which was made up of key stakeholders, including Police Scotland, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Jim Clark rally organisers, the Isle of Mull rally organisers, motor sports governing bodies, Scottish Borders Council and active Scotland. All of those bodies were involved in designing both the public consultation and the draft regulations.

We received an impressive 3,788 responses to the recent public consultation on our proposals for the regulations, with 98 per cent of respondents backing the draft regulations’ proposed two-stage application process. That process for motor sport events on public roads will put the governing bodies and local authorities at the centre, and will bring together the people who have greatest experience of running such events with those who have the best interests of their communities at heart, in order to ensure that such events are delivered as safely as possible. In developing the regulations, we examined what happens in other parts of the UK and we have, as a result, refined our regulations.

In the first steps of the application process, the event organiser will be required to approach the relevant motor sport’s governing body for an event permit. The proposed route and public safety arrangements, and the question whether appropriate insurance cover is in place will be considered, and there will be close consultation between the motor sport’s governing body, the roads authority and Police Scotland.

Once a permit has been issued by the relevant motor sport body, the second step of the process will require the event organiser to seek the approval of the roads authority to hold the event. That will be in the form of a motor sport order. The roads authority, which for roads other than trunk roads will be the relevant local authority, must consider factors including the likely impact on and benefit for the local community, and it must consider the local community’s views. The authority must be satisfied with the proposed public safety and traffic management measures before it grants a motor sport order for an event. We are talking about public roads, so it is anticipated that local authorities will close the roads on which the event will be run using existing powers over special events that they have under road traffic legislation, which was amended to allow them to use the powers for motor sport events.

In conclusion, we believe that the regulations set out a robust and proportionate framework for authorisation of motor sport events on public roads in Scotland. I hope that my remarks prove to be useful to the committee’s consideration.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. It is a good job that we did not jump forward to the next bit of procedure, because we have a lot of questions on the regulations. The first is from Stewart Stevenson.

I very much welcome the instrument because, of course, the sport is exciting and so on. However, as we move towards general use of electric vehicles on our public roads, and given that on our motor racing tracks we now have formula E, which features races between electric cars, has there been any indication from Motorsport UK, event organisers or anyone else involved about such events for electric cars and the move towards rallies featuring electric rather than diesel or petrol cars?

We have had no specific representations on that matter, but I have no doubt that, as more and more electric vehicles come on to the market, they will increasingly find their way into staged rallies. Whether vehicles in an event must be all electric and whether there could be mixture of internal combustion engine and electric vehicles would be a question for event organisers, but I suspect that as the number of electric vehicles becomes greater we will see a greater number of them being used in rally events.

Like my colleague, I welcome the regulations, because they will bring benefits to, and be good for, the Borders. I note from our papers that the review that was mentioned

“recognised that there is an inherent risk in taking part in or attending motorsport events and it sought to recommend reasonable and proportionate measures”.

In your opinion, have such risks been reduced and minimised as a result of the review?

As I have said, there have been significant changes to the governing bodies and the rules for holding events. They now have a more robust and stricter safety regime in place with regard to, for example, arrangements for spectator zones. That is now being used by the national governing bodies. The key point is that safety lies at the heart of the national governing bodies’ decision-making process in considering an event organiser’s application for a permit, and they must be satisfied that the safety arrangements that are put in place are sufficient and meet their standards and expectations.

Once the event organiser has received a permit and applied to the local authority—the roads authority—for an order to have the event, the local authority needs to be satisfied that the appropriate risk assessments have been undertaken and that the right safety measures have been put in place.

There is no doubt that the system now is much more robust than it was previously. That has been informed by the outcomes of the review and the fatal accident inquiries that were undertaken.

I noticed that the public consultation was from 3 December to 28 January and that there were 3,788 responses, which is quite a lot. The plan is to have the next rally on 24 May. Has the process been a bit rushed? The committee is not getting quite as long to consider the matter as we normally get.

We got a large response, and 98 per cent of the respondents were in favour of what is proposed. There is more time for the event organisers; they could have the event later in the year than 24 May. Once Parliament passes the regulations, the event organisers will have to comply with them, but they can use the existing regime with the enhanced provisions from motor sport governing bodies that are already in place.

Graeme Dey said in his letter to the convener that the Government

“will fulfil the statutory 40 day laying period, although not the 54 day convention.”

Are we rushing the regulations through in order to meet the May deadline?

The organisers will have the opportunity to consider having an event later in the year once the regulations are in place. If we do not put the regulations in place now, the organisers would not be able to undertake an event in the way that they would wish to, because they would run out of time. If we put the regulations through now, organisers will be given more time to consider an event later in the year.

George Henry wants to say a bit more about that.

The initial information that came from the Jim Clark rally organiser suggested that it wanted to run the rally on 24 and 25 May. However, that would be subject to approval being gained from Scottish Borders Council and Police Scotland.

On John Mason’s question about whether we are rushing the regulations through, the direct answer is no. If members wish to consider the regulations for longer, they can do so. Information came in late—just yesterday—that the Jim Clark rally organiser might seek to run the event later in the year, potentially in August. It would still need authorisation from Scottish Borders Council and Police Scotland, as well as the regulations being passed.

I thank the cabinet secretary, his team and his directorate for their work on an important subject that will affect many parts of Scotland. Many welcome opportunities will be provided to introduce or reintroduce such events to boost tourism—especially out-of-season tourism—and to support island communities, for example on Mull. The regulations are therefore very welcome.

The regulations come, unfortunately, off the back of tragic events. I pay tribute to David Richards from Motorsport UK for the tremendous work that he has done on the subject.

On local decision making versus national guidelines, what role will the Scottish Government play in issuing appropriate guidelines that will assist local authorities to make decisions that will ensure that public safety is at the forefront of any events that are held?

12:45  

The new regulations put public safety at the heart of every step of the process, which is now a two-stage process. The national governing body must be satisfied that public safety and the safety of drivers are being addressed. The local authority must also be satisfied that a full risk assessment has been undertaken, and it must engage with Police Scotland and the national governing body on safety matters to ensure that it is satisfied that all safety arrangements are in place, from its point of view.

There are therefore two checks in the system: at national governing body level—when a permit is asked for—and at local authority level, where, before a motor sport order can be obtained, there must be consideration of the safety measures and arrangements that have been put in place. We will consider what further information needs to be provided to local authorities to assist them in that consideration.

The new system is much cleaner and more safety-focused than was previously the case. Specific lessons have been learned from the fatal accident inquiries that we have had.

I thank the convener, the cabinet secretary and other members of the committee for the opportunity to discuss the SSI. I want to say how important the Jim Clark rally is to tourism in the Borders and Berwickshire. There have been shop closures in Duns recently; the rally will bring increased footfall and the economic regeneration that we have missed over the past few years. There is also the exciting news that the Jim Clark museum will soon open, which will attract more tourists. As has been said, the organisers are speaking closely with SBC and Police Scotland and—as George Henry said—it looks as though there could be a postponement of the date from May until perhaps August.

In the light of the timetabling constraints, will there be any commitment of goodwill from the Scottish Government in terms of provision of resources—financial or otherwise—to reinstate the rally, which is so important to the economy of the Scottish Borders?

Although it is not specifically on the SSI and its obligation, I will let Rachael Hamilton away with that question. The cabinet secretary may answer the question briefly, if he wants to. However, he does not have to answer it if he does not want to.

I will try to be helpful. There are no plans on our part to provide funding. I suspect that such engagement would be more with EventScotland and such organisations that can potentially provide some form of support. I am not sure what discussions are taking place with those organisations on helping to promote the event—which EventScotland can assist with—to attract more people to the area.

There is provision in the regulations for local authorities to set a fee, which would allow them to recover costs that they might incur in undertaking the work that is necessary to issue an order.

Schedule 2 contains a table showing statutory provisions disapplied by a motor sport order. As I read it, the items at the bottom of the table say that a person does not require obligatory test certificates or a driving licence, and that a person can do motor sports even while they are disqualified from driving. It seems that we are proposing that somebody who has been disqualified from driving can take part in rallies and drive around the countryside at horrendous speeds. Is that correct?

I will ask Stephen Rees to comment on those items and give a bit of background.

The disapplications in schedule 2 relate to various provisions that may be problematic for those trying to hold a race or rally on the public road. The obvious disapplications relate to issues such as speeding and following traffic signs.

On the disapplications that Peter Chapman mentioned, the disapplication of the requirement for test certificates relates—I think—to vehicles. Obviously, vehicles that participate in rallies may not conform to the normal requirements for road vehicles. As I understand it, the requirement to have a driving licence is disapplied because it is possible for participants in such events not to have a regular driving licence; I also think that people can participate in rallies from the age of 16. On the disapplication of the provision about driving while disqualified, I think that the view was taken that that flowed from the fact that there is no need to have a driving licence. However, the two things are not necessarily connected.

The regulations are not dissimilar to those in the rest of the UK. They broadly reflect the provisions that have been put in place in the rest of the UK for such motor sport events.

I find that extraordinary, given that rallies were stopped for reasons of safety. It is incredible that somebody who has done something seriously wrong and has been disqualified from driving should be allowed to take part in a rally.

This is a self-regulatory regime. The regulatory body is Motorsport UK, which sets the criteria for participants in its events. The requirements are the same across the rest of the UK. Apart from the two-step process that we have put in place, our regulations broadly reflect those that exist across the rest of the UK.

The next and, I think, final question is from Stewart Stevenson.

Maybe Stephen Rees can answer this. Is it correct that one cannot participate without a competitor’s licence issued by Motorsport UK and that the standards required to obtain that licence are significantly more stringent than those for a public roads driving licence?

I have to confess that I am not aware of the specific requirements that Motorsport UK imposes on participants. There is nothing to prevent Motorsport UK from imposing more stringent requirements on some participants. The application of the provisions in schedule 2 does not prevent that.

The nub of the point is that Motorsport UK sets the criteria on who can participate in these events.

I was wrong—that was not the final question. Mike Rumbles would like to ask the final question.

Following on from Peter Chapman’s question, I would like to focus on the issue of driving while disqualified. As I understand it, we either approve an SSI or we do not—we cannot amend it. I am not particularly persuaded that, because the UK has taken this action, we can take it in Scotland. We are not responsible for UK legislation; we are responsible for legislation here, and it is our responsibility to decide whether the regulations are appropriate. I do not think that they are, but I am very reluctant to oppose them for that reason.

I make a plea that we consider future SSIs before we are asked to recommend their approval. I do not like approving something that I am not happy with, but recommending that the Parliament approve it—[Interruption.] I am hearing comments from my left. If Mr Lyle and Mr Finnie could contain themselves, it would be helpful. I have an issue that I am not happy with, and I am trying to articulate that.

Can we let Mike Rumbles finish his point? I know that Richard Lyle wants to comment, and I am happy to let him do so. I ask Mike Rumbles to finish what he was saying. Is there a question for the cabinet secretary to answer?

Yes. The cabinet secretary just said that Motorsport UK provides the criteria. If the regulations are approved, it would be helpful if he could pass on to that organisation my concerns and those of Peter Chapman.

I am more than happy to do that. The member has raised a reasonable point. If it would be helpful, I will also ask Motorsport UK to write to the committee setting out the criteria that it uses, which may provide greater clarity about the way in which it applies the regulations.

Stewart Stevenson’s point was linked to that. I think that Motorsport UK has its own licensing system for people who want to race motor vehicles, which includes certain health and driving capability requirements. It would be helpful to the committee to know that for future reference.

Surely people learn on motor sport tracks and in formula 1. How many great drivers have a public driving licence?

I can partly answer that question. To take part in on-road racing, drivers have to have a motor sports driving licence, which requires them to go through a stringent test and have a health assessment.

I am talking about whether they hold a UK driving licence.

They might not have a UK driving licence. They have to have a licence issued by, I think, the British racing drivers association. Am I right?

The competitor’s licence is issued by Motorsport UK—that is covered in its handbook.

I am in danger of sounding like another member of the committee, so I will not go any further down that line. Peter Chapman has the final point on this.

I highlighted some items at the bottom of schedule 2 to the regulations. Perhaps we now have an answer to the question about the driving licence and there being a more appropriate licence for taking part in competitions. However, the disapplication at the bottom of schedule 2 says:

“Users of motor vehicles”

are to be

“insured or secured against third-party risks”.

I imagined that those drivers would have to have insurance in place, yet that disapplication suggests that they do not need it.

The event organisers have insurance cover in place, which brings us back to the self-regulatory nature of the sport. If an event organiser wants to host an event such as the Jim Clark rally, they have to put their proposal to Motorsport UK, and it must include appropriate insurance cover for the event. Before Motorsport UK grants a permit, it has to be satisfied that insurance cover is in place.

As there are no more questions, we move to item 3, which is formal consideration of motion S5M-16261.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Motor Sport on Public Roads (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson]

The question is, that motion S5M-16261 be agreed to, on the understanding that the committee will be provided with more information on the driving licence provisions, as discussed during the meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Thank you for your participation, cabinet secretary.

---

Agriculture Market Measures (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Amendment Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/89)

---

Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (SSI 2019/87)

---

Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/88)

The next item of business is consideration of three negative European Union exit instruments, as detailed on the agenda. No motions to annul or representations have been received in relation to the instruments.

I have a couple of observations and a question on the Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019. I very much welcome the fact that the order will prohibit foreign vessels from fishing in the Scottish zone unless they first obtain a licence from Scottish ministers. My constituents have long thought that such a measure should be in place, so I welcome it on their behalf.

The second paragraph of the policy note on the order says:

“Although this Order is being made to prepare for EU Exit it is not being made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

I have a question to which I think I know the answer, but I need to hear it formally. It sounds as though we could have such a measure without leaving the EU, but that is probably not the case. I will support the order—I am not trying to overturn it. I just want clarity on what scope there is for taking such action independently of when, in what way or if we leave the EU, because my constituents would find that every encouraging.

13:00  

I very much welcome the order, too. It has been required for some time, and the fishing industry in the north-east of Scotland will welcome it.

The policy note says that no foreign vessel will be allowed to fish in our waters without a licence, but it does not say anything about the criteria that will be taken into account in allowing a foreign fishing boat to obtain a licence. How will that operate in practice, how easy will it be for foreign vessels to obtain a licence, and what will they have to say and do to gain a licence? The policy note does not explain that, and I would like some clarity on the subject.

When the word “foreign” was used in the House of Commons, people did not like it. We must note that there are European boat owners who operate out of Scotland. The order will not exclude European fishing boats, because there are European owners who own access to Scottish waters.

The key point is that the order will bring them in—Scottish regulations will apply to all vessels in Scottish waters. At the moment, Scottish regulations do not apply to Spanish or Dutch vessels that fish in Scottish waters.

I think that you will find that those Spanish operators have Scottish licences.

No—they have Scottish quota, not Scottish licences.

I am not sure that anyone around the table is qualified to give an opinion on that, so there are a couple of questions that we can legitimately take back to the Government. One is to ask the Government whether there are other legislative means of doing this apart from the way in which we are being asked to do it. We are being asked to do it in a specific way—that is what is on the table. We can also ask how people can obtain a licence.

That all does not prevent us from considering the motion. The question is, that motion S5M-16261 be agreed to. [Interruption.] Sorry—that is wrong. I need to organise my folders. It has been a long meeting.

Subject to the comments that I made, is the committee agreed that we do not want to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

I am glad that we have agreed that. I have now apologised twice to the committee for getting things out of order. I will try to get organised for next week.

Meeting closed at 13:02.