Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, October 10, 2019

Official Report 588KB pdf

---

Continued Petition

---

Speed Awareness Courses (PE1600)

The next item on our agenda is consideration of a continued petition, PE1600, by John Chapman, which calls for the introduction of speed awareness courses. The petition was last considered in February 2019. At that meeting, the committee agreed to take evidence from representatives of the multi-agency working group that is devising the necessary infrastructure and guidance to support the introduction of speed awareness courses.

I welcome Chief Superintendent Garry McEwan from the multi-agency working group. Thank you for coming in. We will go straight to questions.

I will take us back to July 2016 and Transport Scotland’s written submission to the committee, which stated that, by the end of September 2016,

“Police Scotland will be able to provide an update on the progress that they have made in identifying all the steps required to introduce speed awareness courses and provide a steer on any identified barriers to implementation.”

Clearly, that has not happened. Can you explain why?

Certainly, convener. I am the commander of Police Scotland’s criminal justice services division; I am also the chairperson of the road traffic diversionary course Scottish multi-agency steering group, which is a mouthful in itself. A number of key partners are represented on the group: the Crown Office, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Scottish Government, the safety camera partnership and Police Scotland. The group’s purpose is to explore the relevance of speed awareness courses down south and whether, as a joint partnership, we should recommend the introduction of such courses. I have a timeline here that I could quickly talk you through and which would probably explain some of the apparent time lapse and delays.

Between September 2016 and February 2017, there were various discussions between Police Scotland’s chief constable and the Lord Advocate about the benefits or otherwise of introducing speed awareness courses across the country.

In March 2017, agreement was reached with the Lord Advocate that we should begin to scope the benefits and disbenefits of speed awareness courses. They have been on the go for a number of years down south, although there has been no clear and significant evaluation of them. The Lord Advocate—I think rightly—asked for scoping in principle.

A study had been on-going with the Department for Transport down south, looking back over three years at the benefits or disbenefits, and a report was expected to be published on 1 August 2017. In March 2017, the Lord Advocate stipulated that we had to await the outcome of that DFT report. Unfortunately, the report was significantly delayed and was not published until 15 May 2018—a nine-month delay.

I had a look at the report from a Police Scotland perspective. I would say that the key findings were not conclusive, although they were very positive. I will relate a couple of the key points. The report ascertained that participation in the courses had a larger impact in reducing speed reoffending than fixed penalties, which are what we have in place in Scotland. The report said that no direct link to a reduction in road traffic accidents could be found, although it appeared that the courses had a positive impact on driver speeding behaviour.

As a consequence of the report, Police Scotland submitted a further report to the Lord Advocate in September 2018, recommending that we be given approval in principle to begin implementation. We received confirmation of that approval in January 2019, and we formally established the multi-agency working group in March 2019.

A number of months have run into years, but I hope that that explains the delay.

What is speed awareness? In Scotland, if somebody is caught speeding, we give them a conditional fixed-penalty notice and three points on their licence. However, if the speeding breached a certain threshold, they would not be given a fixed-penalty notice; instead, a police report would go directly to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A speed awareness course gives the police the opportunity to divert an individual from prosecution to the course, so long as the speed does not breach a certain threshold. For that to happen—for the police to be allowed to divert someone from prosecution—we need the Lord Advocate’s approval. The Crown is responsible for prosecution policy and the police have to have the Crown’s acceptance of and agreement to diversion.

The purpose of the working group is to look through the intricacies of rolling out speed awareness courses. On the face of it, that may seem pretty straightforward but it is not. For example, we will need a bespoke, standalone information and communications technology system. Police Scotland would have to implement the ICT system, which we are currently scoping and for which I have put in a bid for capital funding of £600,000. That bid is currently with my executive, and the capital funding programme for next year is under negotiation with the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government. Therefore, the bid for £600,000 is in, but there is no guarantee yet that we will get it.

We then have to establish a third-party provider. That is quite straightforward down south because each force has its own third-party provider. In Scotland, where there is one national force, there are geographical challenges to establishing a third-party provider that can offer speed awareness courses across the country. My procurement people tell me that it could take from 12 to 18 months to go through the European tendering process and so on to identify a third-party provider. Therefore, we need first to confirm that we will get the ICT system and then we need to identify the third-party provider and go through that negotiation.

Two areas that we can do in tandem are the policy and guidance process and training for operational staff, but that is just from a Police Scotland perspective. The ICT system will not just begin and end with us; there will have be connectivity with other partners who will also have to change their processes.

The multi-agency working group is very supportive of the implementation of a speed awareness course because it educates rather than penalises certain driver behaviour, but we need to implement it properly, and that will take a bit of time to do.

The petitioner has raised concerns about the lack of progress. Is the delay basically down to you trying to evaluate and get information about the course down south and, as you mentioned, the DfT report being late?

Yes. The delay in the DFT’s report has been the biggest delay—through no fault of the DFT, I am quite sure. We expected the report in August 2017, but we did not get it until May 2018, which delayed us significantly, and now, because of our understanding of the requirement for an ICT system, a lot of money is needed. We needed at least to start the bidding process to secure that funding, which is not yet guaranteed. Once the funding is ratified, we will still need to be realistic and manage expectations, and I think that it will be between 12 and 18 months from the point of receiving the money to full implementation. However, if we do it right within that timescale, we hope that the system will last for decades to come.

I am looking at the financial implications. You mentioned the £600,000 bid, which has to go to the Scottish Government and the SPA. It is implied in the research that we have received that there is some holding back of that money, or a delay in getting it approved. Are you finding any problems within the approval process?

No. I do not know for certain yet whether we will get the money, to be honest. We have put in a bid for it but, as you can imagine, Police Scotland and all our partners have a number of competing priorities for capital moneys for next year. The bid is in and it has the support of my supervisor, but it has to be independently assessed against all the other competing priorities that will come through. There is no guarantee yet, although we hope to find out soon. There will be a meeting the week after next and a further meeting in December, by which point the force will notify people such as me as to the priorities and spend for next year. I am confident that I will receive the moneys, but it is not guaranteed yet.

What are the implications of the delay? What is the knock-on effect for road safety in your eyes if you do not get the money in time?

The DFT paper says that the introduction of speed awareness courses cannot be directly said to have significantly improved road safety. The report is vague about that; it cannot quite tie it down. Anecdotally, we have learned that positively influencing driver behaviour should, and does, improve people’s thought processes while they are on the road. To answer your question, until we get the money, until we get the ICT, and until the partnership has everything in place, we will continue with the current process, which is a conditional offer, three points on the licence, and/or a report going to the Crown Office for a court case if that is required.

At the beginning of the year, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service confirmed that a multi-agency working group would

“work together to devise the necessary infrastructure and guidance required to support the introduction of speed awareness courses in Scotland”,

You touched on that in one of your earlier answers. Can you explain what infrastructure and guidance is required and, in doing so, maybe tell us about the progress that has been made in devising it?

I touched on the policy guidance and process. Under the group that I chair, we have four steering groups, or sub groups: communication and engagement; course content and funding; guidance around the courses and development of the Lord Advocate’s guidelines and operational parameters; and assessment of the consequential potential impact on business levels for the Crown, Police Scotland, the SCTS and the road safety camera programme. We know the number of conditional offers that are given, but, if we to divert people from prosecution, I expect that the number of conditional offers will reduce and that a number of people will take up the opportunity of a course. The course will not be mandatory. People who are stopped and have been caught speeding may choose not to take up the course and may choose to pay the fine and take the three points. Each of the four subgroups is chaired by one of the partners. To be honest, there has not been massive traction, because we need to confirm that we are getting the money to roll out the ICT system first, because if we do not get the ICT system, it will be very challenging to roll out the course. The most important milestone will come in the next couple of months.

09:30  

I have a supplementary question. I will go off at a complete tangent—that is not like me.

Is there a financial implication, whether positive or negative, to moving away from the standard fine and three points approach to the offer of a speed awareness course?

There may be a financial implication for some agencies, although not for Police Scotland. I do not know enough of the detail, but the conditional fixed-penalties go to the courts, so potentially moneys will be moved from the courts towards paying for the diversionary course. Although we still have to go through the process of identifying the right course provider for Scotland, we know that the cost of the course down south is around £90, which is the same as the fine. Therefore, there may be financial challenges for some partners as a consequence of the fixed-penalty fines not going to the SCTS and instead going to pay the external provider for the courses.

Does the person who is caught speeding still have to pay for the course?

Yes. That is the option: pay the fine or pay for the course. The benefit of the course is that there is some education there. Down south—and I imagine that we would follow a similar model—there is also positive traction in relation to associated insurance costs, because the individual will not get three points, which may prove beneficial to them. To me, the most important thing is getting people on the course and educating them to change their driver behaviour in a positive way.

Has there been any investigation done around those people not going through judicial process? Is it reasonable to conclude that there will be a saving there?

We have not—not as yet, anyway—calculated any consequential savings. I am aware that there will be some additional back-office costs. The ICT system is a one-off cost, but there may be recurring costs for its lifetime management and we will require staff to input the data and so on. We are hoping that some of the staff who currently do other bits of what I call middle-office work will be able to assist with the process once it is rolled out.

I have a couple of questions. Drivers would be given the choice of a fixed fine or taking the course, but would they still get three points on their licence?

No—there would be a threshold for that, which has not been agreed with the Lord Advocate yet. I am going off piste here, because I am not a road-traffic expert, but down south, in a 30mph zone it tends to be that up to 39mph no action would be taken against someone who is caught speeding. Beyond 39mph, they would get a fixed penalty. I am not certain about this, but I think that a person who was caught at between 39mph and 49mph might be given the option of having three points and a £90 fine, or taking a speed awareness course. Someone who was caught driving over 49mph, whose driving was erratic and fast, would not be given the option to take the course; that case would go straight to the Crown Prosecution Service.

I will come later to a question that is set out in the committee’s papers.

First, however, why has this taken so long? From what Chief Superintendent McEwan is saying, if the funding is not provided in the next few weeks, the scheme is going nowhere. This is my first time at a meeting of the committee, but I presume that that would be something that the committee would not be happy about. In the olden days—when we had Fife Constabulary, for example—there was a police committee, but where would we go if the funding is not made available in the next few weeks? If it is not available, the idea will not take off. Where in Parliament would we take the matter up? I am assuming that the committee wants to see the speed awareness courses happen. That is a question that we need to answer.

A number of years ago there was a campaign called “Safe drive stay alive” in Fife. I attended a course in Stirling a few years ago, at which a box of hankies was handed round at the start. We came out of there really thinking about what we had seen: it was shock and awe sort of thing. I remember that it was said on the course in Stirling that the number of young people who were in accidents had fallen. Is that right?

Yes. Again, I point out that I am not head of road policing. I am sure Chief Superintendent Stewart Carle would know the detail. There is the “Safe drive stay alive” course in Fife, and there are other similar courses, perhaps not called that, across Scotland. Those courses are targeted at young people, not at drivers who have been caught speeding, at whom speed awareness courses are targeted. The courses that Alex Rowley mentioned are about positively influencing the behaviours of young people when they get behind the wheel.

When does the multi-agency working group intend to report its conclusions to the Lord Advocate, and where else would it report to? The proposal will represent quite a significant change in road policing if it goes ahead. Where does it all come together and where will the report go? Where do we go if the money is not available?

There is a road safety scrutiny board—it might not be called that. I do not sit on it, so this might sound a bit muddled. The report will go to a board that is attended by senior partners from across the country. It will be for that group to support, or otherwise, the rolling out of speed awareness courses.

I am hopeful that the funding will come, but if it does not, we will need to go back to the drawing board and look at alternative information and communications technology solutions—although we have already looked into that—and at other things, including going back to paper system, which would not be ideal. That would be the next step.

If the committee thinks that the proposal should go ahead, and given that it would be a significant change in road policing, we need to be able to flag up to the committee that deals with Police Scotland not only our support, but our concerns about funding. This is hit or miss: if you get the funding, it will happen; if you do not get it, it will not happen.

You advocate that the educational route is beneficial for some people who have been caught speeding, especially in respect of preventing reoffending. The Department for Transport commissioned an impact evaluation of the national speed awareness course, which concluded that such courses have a better effect than penalties. Does the multi-agency working group accept, as you do, that the speed awareness course would be a useful tool in prevention of reoffending?

Yes. All the members of my group are overwhelmingly supportive of the principle behind speed awareness courses.

I will follow on from what Alex Rowley said about funding. Is the working group clear about the Scottish Government’s policy on introduction of speed awareness courses?

There is no direct instruction. There is an action point in “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020” that says—I am paraphrasing—that introduction of speed awareness courses should be explored, but there is nothing more than that. There is no direct instruction to implement speed awareness courses: it is for the multi-agency partners to explore the benefits and disbenefits.

In that framework, is there a general commitment from the Scottish Government that it will implement any policy that the multi-agency working group recommends as the best way forward?

Transport Scotland sits on my group and is very supportive of the introduction of speed awareness courses. Transport Scotland is, of course, part of the Scottish Government.

I want to get a couple of things about funding clear. Is the £600,000 a bid into Police Scotland’s capital budget?

Yes.

What kinds of things in the list of bids is your bid competing against?

Examples include personal cameras for police officers and vehicle-fleet requirements. There is a list, which I have not seen, of 20 to 30 priorities. They are real priorities for policing. Speed awareness courses are on the list, but clearly not everything can be funded. I know that the Executive and others have meetings—there is one next week, I think, but the most important one is in December—to see what they can and cannot prioritise, and what will be given the green light for next year.

So, a decision will be made in December and we will know then.

Yes.

Should we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to flag this up? As a committee, are we saying that we support the proposal? If we are, we should flag that up. There are other budgets, including road safety budgets and all the rest of it. If we are serious, we need to do that and have the discussion with those in authority who have the power to make it happen.

I would like to write to the Scottish Government to ask what its policy is on the introduction of speed awareness courses. It will come down to finance and priorities. The proposal is competing against the speed-camera infrastructure network, fleet requirements and so on, so its funding is certainly not a given. It would be interesting to know the Scottish Government’s policy; I certainly want to ask the Justice Secretary about the matter.

We could write directly to the Lord Advocate and ask him when the courses are likely to be rolled out, and exert a bit of top-down pressure.

Yes, so we will write to the Scottish Government—

The justice secretary—

And the Lord Advocate.

Okay. When do members want that to happen? Will we let the matter play out and wait to see whether the funding is granted in December, or will we write immediately?

I would like to wait and see whether the funding is delivered in December. If it is, the programme will then take 18 months to implement. If the funding is not delivered, however, we can put pressure on the Government and the Lord Advocate to say why it has not been granted.

In general, and most of the time, I would agree with that, but in this particular instance I am concerned to understand what the Scottish Government’s policy is. We can write to the Scottish Government to get a feeling for where it sits. We do not need to wait until December to ask that question, although we can wait until then to write to the Lord Advocate. We also have to see how this plays out.

It is important to understand where this fits within the wider road safety agenda. I am not sure that competing against those other police priorities is right when there are road safety and other budgets available. What is the Government’s overall coherent approach?

Moving from fines and fixed penalty points to educational courses would be a significant change in road policing and would be a clear policy shift. If the evidence supports the change, that is good. However, there is a more strategic issue that the Government needs to be on top of. If it supports the shift, it needs to say whether there are other funding routes, because every bid for capital budget will, no doubt, be worthy. Let us look at the matter more strategically; we need to understand. Either the Government supports the change and is willing to look at it more strategically, or it does not.

I will give some of my more tangential thoughts. First, the policy, if it is implemented, is about improving road safety. That is fundamental. It would be interesting to know the financial implications of implementation—the capital costs. What would come out at the other end in terms of people not going through the judicial system, and what are the implications are for the overall budget? We should not be talking just about the police budget—other budgets would be positively or negatively affected. The cost of the ICT system would come out of the Police Scotland budget, but other budgets will be affected. It is for the Scottish Government to do cost impact assessments. Implementation might not, in the end, if money is saved elsewhere, cost £600,000.

Thank you. It will require quite a substantial letter to the Scottish Government to cover all the points that we have just listed. We will watch the situation very closely and get feedback in December. We hope that the bid is successful, so I wish you good luck.

09:46 Meeting suspended.  

09:49 On resuming—