Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Official Report 656KB pdf

---

Seat Belts on School Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Item 4 is stage 2 consideration of the Seat Belts on School Transport (Scotland) Bill. We will start the formal procedure now.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Meaning of “dedicated school transport service”

Amendment 1, in the name of Gillian Martin, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4.

The committee’s stage 1 report recommended that

“no distinction should be made between travel on dedicated home to school transport and that on a school excursion”

and stated that the committee would welcome an amendment to the bill to the effect that the duty to ensure the fitting of seat belts be extended into such provision.

As the committee knows, I consider the safety of children on school transport to be an area of the utmost priority. As I intimated at stage 1, I share the committee’s sentiments that extending the scope of the legislation to cover school trips aligns with the ethos of what we are all trying to accomplish with the bill. Amendment 1 and the other amendments in the group achieve that aim.

I think that the committee is aware that in practice, vehicles that are used for school trips are almost universally supplied with seat belts already. That is because robust national risk assessment guidance advocating that already exists. Feedback from stakeholders is that that is rigidly adhered to by those who book such transport—they are often teachers, who belong to a closely regulated profession. However, we have listened to the views of the committee, parliamentarians and other stakeholders who feel that creating a legal duty for seat belts on home-to-school transport means that equivalent practices for school trips should be put on a statutory footing.

Amendment 1 replaces the previous definition of a “dedicated school transport service” in section 2 and adds the new element of transport that is used for school trips or excursions, which is defined in subsection (3) of the proposed new section as a “school trip transport service”, to the existing coverage for home-to-school transport. Again, the vehicles are those that are provided for the sole purpose of carrying school pupils. As with home-to-school transport, public bus services would not be captured as they are outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence.

There are different kinds of school trips, so the new definition of “school trip transport service” captures journeys that begin and end at the school on the same day, such as trips to a local swimming pool, as well as trips that take place over a number of days or weeks, such as skiing trips overseas.

The intention is that the commencement dates for school trip provision would be the same as those for home-to-school provision, which are 2018 for primary schools and 2021 for secondary schools.

The bill, as amended, will incorporate existing statutory definitions of “school education” from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended by the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which can include early learning and childcare provision. Therefore, the legal duty, as amended, will extend to nursery classes in schools, whether they are provided by local authorities or by independent or grant-aided schools. However, we anticipate little or no change in practice in that regard. The general use of minibuses, which already have to be fitted with seat belts under existing United Kingdom regulations, and the common approach of using specialised restraints for very young children mean that that should not require great transition on the ground.

Amendments 2 and 3, which are consequential to amendment 1, reflect the new definition of a “dedicated school transport service”. The effect of the amendments is to delete the terms “primary education” and “secondary education” from section 3(2), as they will no longer appear in the bill, and to replace them with the term “school education”, which has the meaning that is given in section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

Amendment 4, which is consequential to amendment 1, amends the long title to reflect the expansion of the bill’s coverage.

I move amendment 1.

I cannot speak for the whole committee, but I think that many of us are enthusiastic about the amendments, as we spent quite a lot of time in previous meetings discussing the question of school trips. We felt that, logically, they should be included so I am glad that Gillian Martin has been able to find a wording that fits.

I witnessed something on 8 June when I was visiting a school on polling day. The school choir was heading off to sing at a church and the pupils were going in a double-decker bus, which I found interesting. I suspect that it did not have seat belts—although I did not check—and that showed me that there is a need to include school trips along with other travel.

My main question, which perhaps Gillian Martin can answer in her summing up, unless she would like to intervene, is about the phrase

“to or from a place where the pupils receive education or training”

in subsection (3) of the proposed new section that would be inserted by amendment 1. Would that include the likes of trips to Alton Towers or to church, if pupils were going to take part in a service? Those events in themselves do not appear to be “education or training”.

This is a major change to the bill and I congratulate Gillian Martin on lodging the amendments. They make the bill much more effective and I will support them.

My only comment, which can be addressed in summing up or via an intervention, is about the inclusion of what happens between drop-off at and collection from school. There was general consensus about that being equally important when it comes to safety on buses. However, one of my concerns throughout has been around any legal requirements that that may put on schools that contract with bus operators or private coach companies.

11:15  

In other words, if an excursion takes place for whatever reason, whether it is an educational or training visit, or indeed a social visit, will any changes to include such excursions in the bill place additional legal requirements on schools—public or independent schools and so on? That point has not quite been addressed. There may be a legal issue that needs to be discussed in more detail.

I would not like the inclusion of the provision to create unintended consequences for schools that have direct contracts or take out ad hoc or one-off contracts with bus hire companies, because that was never really the intention of the bill; it was more about local authorities ensuring the safe transport of children on buses.

As John Mason said, the member has included the definition of a “school trip transport service” in subsection (3) of the proposed new section. Would the member be minded to extend that definition at stage 3 beyond “education or training” to include participating in a sports event on behalf of the school?

The world has changed a bit since I went to school, but my reason for saying that is that I went to what was probably the biggest school in Scotland and, on a peak Saturday, we had 42 separate sports teams. About half of those teams would be travelling to participate in sports competitions with other schools and about half of them would be receiving teams from other schools. We had 15 rugby fifteens, 12 football elevens, 12 hockey elevens and three cross-country teams. There are fewer teams today, but that will still be an issue. Having addressed the issue of school trip transport, I wonder whether the provision should be extended to include such events, which are of a similar character.

The deputy convener and Christine Grahame both wish to comment. I ask you both to be brief.

I will be very brief, convener, thank you. In her summing up, I ask Gillian Martin to address the financial memorandum and whether amendment 1 makes any changes to it.

I would caution against adding a list to the definition of a “school trip transport service” for “education or training” to include sports purposes, for example. I ask the member to consider putting something in proposed subsection (3) that would have some flexibility—for example, “to receive education or training or for usual purposes connected with school activities”—rather than including a list in principal legislation.

Would the minister like to say anything at this stage?

Thank you for the opportunity to give the Scottish Government’s response to amendments 1 to 4. We welcome the work that the committee has done on this issue and the work that Gillian Martin has done. I congratulate Gillian Martin on getting congratulations from Mike Rumbles. It took six or seven committee appearances for me to get such praise from him and she has done it in just a couple of appearances.

We very much welcome the committee’s contention that the bill should be extended to cover school trips. That aligns with the Scottish Government’s overall aim to keep children safe while travelling in vehicles to and from school. Given the different nature of the provision from that which is used for home-to-school transport, some investigative and preparatory work was needed ahead of stage 2 to scope what such extension would mean on the ground. I welcome the detail that Ms Martin gave in her opening remarks and the reflections, wise advice and commentary that have been given by members.

The Scottish Government very much stands ready and willing to help with implementation following the passing of the bill. The committee will be aware that we intend to work very closely with Ms Martin, young people themselves and a range of stakeholders on the creation of guidance to accompany the commencement of the act.

We have heard that national risk assessment guidance already advocates vehicles with seat belts being used for school excursions. However, we will consider any alterations or additions that are needed as a result of the new element of provision that the bill would cover.

Again, I welcome the committee’s call for the proposals in amendment 1 and Ms Martin and the bill team’s work in bringing it before Parliament. The Scottish Government strongly supports all the amendments in the group.

I thank all members for the constructive comments that they have made throughout the process and for the useful contributions that they have made to the debate on these amendments. I will address the points that members made in reverse order, because that is the order in which I wrote them down.

Gail Ross asked about the financial memorandum. If this group of amendments is agreed to, a new financial memorandum will have to be looked into between stage 2 and stage 3, because the scope of the bill will be wider than it was when the bill was introduced. I hope that that answers her question.

I turn to the points that Jamie Greene made. After the committee suggested amending the bill in this way, which I was keen to do, we reached out to the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland and the teaching unions to get their feedback on just how onerous the change would be for schools. We heard that it was absolutely the right thing to do, so I really do not have any concerns in that regard. We heard overwhelming evidence that schools were already doing this, so they did not envisage much change to their practices. However, whenever we make amendments to a bill, it is important that we reach out again to stakeholders, from whom, in this case, we got full support.

I thank Gillian Martin for letting me intervene briefly. I accept that the majority of schools are already doing this—I think that we expected that to be the case. My question is more a technical one. If we include in the bill excursions that are made during the school day, will that place an additional legal requirement on schools that have individual contracts with bus operators, outwith local authority contracts? Will any finance that is being made available to local authorities to meet the requirements be made available to individual schools that face an additional financial burden in meeting the requirements of the bill?

I refer you back to my answer to Gail Ross. There will be a new financial memorandum, which will take into account all the issues that you address. We will be able to look at that at stage 3.

I want to pick up on the comments that Stewart Stevenson, John Mason and Christine Grahame made about types of trips. The bill covers all trips. Under curriculum for excellence, there is a broad definition of education. Schools make decisions about the type of trips that they see as being good for their pupils, and the definition of educational lies with schools. Perhaps we would not all agree that going to Alton Towers is educational—I have my own thoughts on that—or that going to sports events is educational, but all such trips will be covered as school trips. If the school sees fit to have a school trip, that comes under education. I agree with the point that Christine Grahame made about that: it would be problematic to start drawing up a list of what is covered. The umbrella definition covers all school trips. I hope that that answers members’ questions.

There are many nuances around how school transport is delivered across the country, so we need to allow flexibility—in many ways, that is the characteristic that will make this bill succeed. I welcome the acknowledgement in the committee’s stage 1 report that flexibility is key and should be retained for many elements of school transport provision.

I invite the committee to agree to amendments 1 to 4, and I press amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3—Meaning of other key terms

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Annual compliance statement

Amendment 5, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 6.

When we took evidence, the issue arose that it is the responsibility of the driver of a car to ensure that their passengers, including children, are wearing seat belts. However, it is clear that that responsibility could not be borne by a bus driver—that would simply be dangerous.

Further, road traffic legislation is reserved, so the bill cannot legislate on the wearing of seat belts, which is why the bill covers only the fitting of seat belts. There are also concerns about the duty of care and where that falls with regard to the wearing of seat belts. The Scottish Government responded to those concerns by saying that it would be for courts to decide where the duty of care falls. Therefore, the bill is not clear about who needs to promote the wearing of seat belts. It is simply not right that that should need to be tested in court after an accident.

My amendments 5 and 6 would ensure that the Scottish Government must issue guidance on what authorities’ expectations should be with regard to the wearing of seat belts. It might be that the Scottish Government could recommend that there should be monitors to ensure that seat belts are worn, but it could ask authorities to engage in an education programme with young people to promote wearing of seat belts. The Scottish Youth Parliament thinks that that is a good idea, because it feels that young people should be proactively involved in wearing seat belts rather than being forced to wear them by a third party.

Amendments 5 and 6 would ensure that the Scottish Government must issue guidance on how to promote use of seat belts and on how to monitor their use. That would mean that, when the act has come into force, it would be evaluated to determine whether it is having the intended impact. If it is not, we can look at the legislation again and prevail on the UK Government to act on reserved legislation.

I move amendment 5.

Rhoda Grant suggested that local authorities might engage monitors. Amendments 5 and 6 both use the phrase

“to monitor the wearing of seatbelts”.

I think that there is a bit of ambiguity regarding the distinction between engaging monitors and monitoring the wearing of seat belts. Would that involve statistical monitoring? I think that the phrasing is ambiguous, as it is constructed.

Rhoda Grant has said that the intention of her amendments 5 and 6 is to ensure that we get the best possible practical outcomes, and that local authorities keep an eye on those outcomes. I can absolutely sign up to that, and I suspect that others can, too. However, I am just not entirely certain that the construction of the amendments fully and unambiguously addresses that need, and I wonder whether that goal can be achieved in a different way, rather than simply by putting something in the bill. I would be particularly interested to hear what the member in charge of the bill and, perhaps, the minister have to say on that.

Amendment 6 would insert into the bill the following subsection:

“(2) Before issuing such guidance, the Scottish Ministers must consult—

(a) each school authority,

(b) such others persons as they consider appropriate.”

I have a slight concern about that. Is the intention that every school or local authority must be consulted before guidance can be issued? That would place a burden on the Government. Further, I find phrase

“such others persons as they consider appropriate”

to be very vague. I am a little bit uncertain about those two points.

11:30  

First of all, I thank Rhoda Grant for lodging amendments 5 and 6. It is clear that she shares our commitment to making safety on school transport a top priority, and our view that we have a collective responsibility to do all that we can to keep our young people safe.

The Scottish Government shares the sentiment that I think the member is trying to express in amendments 5 and 6. As we have committed to creating non-statutory guidance, and education and awareness-raising materials to accompany the commencement of the legal duty, we have no issue with the principle of school authorities looking at Scottish ministers’ guidance. However, we know that school authorities take child safety very seriously and pay great heed to good practice in that respect, so it is questionable whether statutory guidance would be necessary.

Additionally, there are, as Stewart Stevenson and Jamie Greene have picked up, specific issues with amendments 5 and 6 as drafted that might cause difficulty. Committee members should be aware that because amendments 5 and 6 relate to the wearing of seat belts, which is—as Rhoda Grant mentioned—a reserved matter, legislative competence restrictions might need to be examined more fully and further legal consideration needed before we would be comfortable with supporting such changes to the bill.

On the detail of amendments 5 and 6, I agree with Stewart Stevenson’s point about the use of the term “monitor”. Added to that, its use in amendment 5 has the potential to cause difficulties with interpretation. It is very close to the widely used and accepted term “bus monitor”, which stakeholders in dedicated school transport are familiar with. Therefore, there is a risk of the amendment being interpreted as creating a legal duty to have bus monitors on every journey, which is an issue on which, in its stage 1 report, the committee said that flexibility should be retained.

Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new section that would be inserted by amendment 6 would create a duty on Scottish ministers to consult “each school authority” in the creation of guidance. I would add to what Jamie Greene has said by pointing out that the Scottish Government has already had in-depth discussions with local government and the grant-aided and independent school sector in creating the measures, and that discussion will continue in the production of guidance and during implementation. However, there are about 100 independent schools in Scotland, many of which are not represented by the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, and it might prove to be not feasible or workable to compel Scottish ministers categorically to consult every school authority in the country. As I have said, we will continue our dialogue with that sector, but we need to proceed carefully.

I am prepared to commit to looking again at statutory guidance and to working with Rhoda Grant on that before stage 3. If we conclude that it is possible to set out in primary legislation a guidance duty that falls within legislative competence, we will work with Rhoda Grant to address the detail of the wording in order to produce an amendment that will achieve that. However, we might well conclude that putting statutory guidance in place instead of issuing non-statutory guidance would create too much risk. If we conclude that such an amendment would be difficult for legislative competence reasons, we will of course let Rhoda Grant know of our conclusions before stage 3.

With those reassurances, I invite Ms Grant not to press her amendments 5 and 6 at this stage. I assure her that we will seek to work with her on these matters with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3 that meets our mutual aspirations.

I thank Rhoda Grant for lodging amendments 5 and 6. Ensuring that people actually wear fitted seat belts has been a crucial concern not just for the committee but for us all as we have moved forward with the bill, and I welcome the useful ideas that Ms Grant has set out in relation to future guidance.

However, I agree with the minister’s comments about specific terms in amendments 5 and 6. In particular, I reiterate the point that he made about the use of “monitor” in amendment 5. From discussions with stakeholders, it is clear that, in relation to school transport, the term is commonly understood to mean a person who acts as a supervisor on a bus. I appreciate that that is not what Rhoda Grant means, but any such interpretation could be at odds with the committee’s conclusion in its stage 1 report about there being flexibility. We know that school authorities can and do use bus monitors, but they also have the freedom to choose other methods.

I simply repeat the minister’s reassurance about our willingness to work with Rhoda Grant on the issue ahead of stage 3, and I, too, ask her not to press amendment 5.

I should make it clear that if I had been referring to bus monitors I would have said so in amendments 5 and 6. I suppose that instead of using the word “monitor”, we could say “assess” the wearing of seat belts, which is what is meant.

In addition, amendment 5 does not say that people should employ bus monitors. It would be up to the Government and local authorities to decide how best to encourage the wearing of seat belts. Amendment 5 is clear in that regard.

Jamie Greene and the minister talked about consultation with a “school authority”—school authorities are the local authorities in charge of education, plus the independent schools. I accept that the consultation would be quite wide, but one assumes that the Scottish Government has a mailing list and that it emails school authorities when it makes changes, so I do not think that the approach would be onerous.

However, I have listened to people’s concerns. I want consensus about the proposed approach, and I do not think that members are at all at odds on it. I will not press amendment 5; I hope to work with the Government and the member in charge of the bill to produce amendments in a form with which everyone will be happy, and which will achieve the aim that I am trying to achieve.

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

After section 4

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 5—Commencement

Amendment 7, in the name of Peter Chapman, is in a group on its own.

Amendment 7 is a simple amendment, in my opinion. It is fair to say that members of the committee agree that it is right to support the aims of the bill. School transport is safer if seat belts are fitted and worn. I think that it is important that the measures be brought in as soon as possible. Therefore, rather than bring them in for primary school children in 2018 and for secondary school children in 2021—which seems to be a long time to wait—I propose that the measures be implemented for primary and secondary school children before the end of 2018. That would still leave the Government flexibility to implement the bill at any point in 2018 and the discretion to commence the act at different points for primary and secondary pupils, as long as the new approach was brought in before 31 December 2018. I just think that 2021 is a long time away. If we agree that it is a good thing to have seat belts on school transport, as we all do, why not bring in the measure quicker?

I move amendment 7.

I do not accept amendment 7. Over a number of years when I was a councillor, my council tried to bring in seat belts on school transport. I can see where Peter Chapman is coming from, but the Scottish Government had extensive stakeholder engagement during the process, and the feedback was that the transition in relation to secondary school provision will be greater, perhaps because more double-deckers are used.

A longer timescale should prevent the need to break contracts. We must remember that people have entered into contracts, and breaking them could cost more and have a significant financial impact on school authorities—in particular, councils. The Scottish Government has been consistent with its dates, so I say with the greatest respect to Mr Chapman that amendment 7 is not required. I will vote against amendment 7.

I have a question for clarification, which is probably for the member in charge or the minister. The committee heard in evidence that a lot of local authorities have already implemented the approach for which the bill provides and that authorities that have not done so are in the process of doing so.

Will Peter Chapman’s amendment 7 cause any of the unintended consequences that Richard Lyle talked about, or do you expect that the proposed legislation, or the intentions of the proposed legislation, would be in place by that date? Are you aware of cases in which that would cause a problem and in which local authorities would not be able to comply?

I am sure that the member in charge of the bill will address that.

I support amendment 7. The evidence that was presented to the committee was quite clear that local authorities are already pursuing the measure, regardless of legislation. We originally questioned whether we needed the bill, because local authorities were moving so quickly to adopt the practice. However, it is a good thing that the bill has been introduced because it encourages local authorities to ensure that it happens. In my bones, I think that sending a message out that we want to delay implementation until 2021 is wrong. Peter Chapman’s amendment is a sensible suggestion. As I understand it—correct me if I am wrong—2018 is the deadline for primary schools that is already in the bill.

Yes.

We should move forward on that basis. It does not provide any excuses for local authorities to be slack in finishing the work to achieve the 100 per cent coverage that we require.

The 2018 date was the original deadline for primary schools; I feel that it would not present any problems for secondary schools to meet the same deadline. We should be ambitious with the target, so I will support amendment 7.

Minister—would you like to say anything at this stage?

Yes, convener. I will let Gillian Martin speak about the commencement of the legislative measures that she has brought before Parliament, but it might be helpful to outline the approach that the Scottish Government took in reaching out and bringing stakeholders with us as the devolution process for the powers was undertaken.

A wide range of stakeholders and agencies are involved in school transport—from parents, teachers and pupils, to local government and the bus industry. Early on, we took the view that a partnership approach to shaping the bill’s proposals would be key, which is why we set up the not-so-imaginatively-titled seat belts and dedicated school transport working group.

My predecessor Keith Brown announced the plans for legislation in 2014 and ministers were clear about the implementation dates of 2018 for primary schools and 2021 for secondary schools. Those were committed to and that is what our partners have been working towards, so I take some exception to the word “delay” that Mike Rumbles used. Implementation is not delayed; there is a timetable that was agreed at that time. Accelerating those dates could lead, as Richard Lyle and others have suggested, to contracts having to be broken, which could lead to significant practical difficulties for councils and, as Rhoda Grant suggested, to unintended consequences.

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Yes.

You said “could”, but my question was “will it lead to unintended consequences”. Do you know of cases in which the change would cause a problem?

I do not have that information to hand, but I am more than happy to hand over either to Gillian Martin or one of the officials if they have that information, or to provide the information in the future. I do not know whether there are local authorities that would have to break their contracts; I am simply suggesting that that could be an issue. However, I respect Rhoda Grant’s desire to get a bit more information and certainty on that point.

Will the minister take another intervention?

Of course.

I talked about a delay of four years, but I take the point that you have been working towards that date, so it is not a delay, as such. I agree that it is an important bill and I congratulate Gillian Martin on introducing it. My point is that if it is such an important bill—which it is—why wait until 2021 to have it implemented? It is an important bill and Gillian Martin has done a lot of work on it, and we, as a Parliament, should make sure that we advance the date from 2021 to 2018. I accept that that is not a delay; I am talking about advancement of child safety on our buses.

11:45  

Sure—and I will mention that very point towards the end of my remarks, to try to give some assurance—

Would the minister take a brief intervention?

Yes, of course.

Councils have different contracts and some might be coming up for renewal in the next couple of months. The intention is to set an implementation date of 2021, but am I correct to say that that does not prevent councils from bringing in the measures more quickly, knowing that the law will come into force?

Yes, that is my understanding.

I have a feeling that there is another intervention coming, and I am happy to accept it.

If the suggestion is that amendment 7 could have contractual implications, I would have thought that you would have information on that to hand. Clearly, the work of a law-making establishment such as this one cannot be shaped around the potential implications that proposals may or may not have. We make decisions in good faith and shape the law. I am no expert in contract law, but I presume that contracts will reflect that. That in itself should not hinder the work of this establishment.

I thank the member for that contribution. My point is that contractual difficulties could arise, and we will try to get some more certainty for the committee on that, as has been requested.

My other point is that a lot of work has been done on the date, so it was not arbitrarily plucked out of the air. My predecessor’s predecessor, Keith Brown, brought together a working group involving the industry, local authorities and others to work through the practical issues. Ms Martin will touch on the fact that, for high schools, there are of course more school buses, which is one reason—although not the only one—why there is to be a later commencement date for those.

I want to give some reassurances and commitments on the issue, because we all share the ambition. First, it is worth remembering that the committee’s stage 1 report described the commencement date as “reasonable and practicable”, and that is what I am talking about—I am talking about what we are able to do practically. It is important that we do not forget what the stage 1 report said. It is hard for me to understand what has changed between the stage 1 report and stage 2. However, I completely understand the motivation behind Mr Chapman’s proposals. As I said, we all have a shared ambition on the issue.

To that end, I am more than happy to give a commitment that I will engage further with local authorities to ascertain whether the practical issues that led to the two-phase approach to commencement dates are still as stark as they were previously. If local authorities can give me more detail and certainty on commencement dates, I see no reason why we cannot work through bringing those dates forward. With that commitment to re-engage with local authorities in mind, I invite Mr Chapman not to press amendment 7. In advance of stage 3, I will let him know what we get back from local government. If he is satisfied, we can move together on the issue and, if not, he of course has the opportunity to bring it back at stage 3.

As the transport minister has just said, the implementation dates were decided on for a number of good and practical reasons and in consultation with stakeholders. With any new legislative measures, an element of having to adapt to and absorb the changes that are being implemented is to be expected. In preparation for the powers being devolved, the Scottish Government did the right thing by listening to the views of those whom the measures will affect and coming to a general consensus on some of the specifics.

To answer Rhoda Grant’s point, which is legitimate, local government has told us that some councils have already signed contracts up to 2021 based on the 2021 commencement date for secondary school transport. Richard Lyle is absolutely correct that we do not want to force councils into a situation where they have to break contracts—

Will the member give way?

Sure.

Do you know whether contracts would be broken?

Councils told us that they have agreed contracts up to 2021. I assume that some of those contracts are with bus companies that do not have seat belts fitted, so that probably would be the case. However, given what the minister said, we are willing to ask councils about that specifically and to re-engage with our stakeholders to see whether the position has changed.

I am not a lawyer but, as I understand it, contracts cannot be broken if the law has changed. For a contract to be legal, it must comply with the law. It is as simple as that.

The bus companies are some of the stakeholders that we have engaged with. We have to recognise that some of the strong voices supporting the bill are the bus contractors, who have been working towards the 2021 date. Given that some businesses might have plans in place to bid for the contracts in 2021, it would be unfair of us to move the goalposts in that regard. However, if we find out that there is not a problem—

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

Two members asked to intervene. Gillian, you can choose who you want to take first.

I think that Stewart Stevenson had his hand up first. I will take his intervention first, then Christine Grahame’s.

I will not bear a grudge.

I might regret that decision in the chamber.

Can Gillian Martin tell us whether contract law is part of the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament? Is there a risk that we could be seen to be affecting contracts that have been made in good faith in a legislative area for which we are not responsible?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

There is, but I am not sure that she is allowed to speak.

We have to be careful, because officials cannot speak during the debate. It is up to the member in charge to answer questions.

I will try to read Anne Cairns’s writing. The bill, when it is in force, would supersede contracts, so the contract would have to be looked at again. I refer you to my comment that some of our key stakeholders in this process have been the bus operators. We have had consultations with people around the table in our working group and the date that has been talked about is 2021.

I do not want to force you to take interventions, Gillian, but Christine Grahame offered to intervene. I do not know whether she still wants to do so or whether you want to take her intervention.

I am not a contract lawyer—I am not a practising solicitor. I am quite sympathetic to what Peter Chapman said, but I do not think that I am in a position to take a view on it until I have received clarification that what is proposed would not be practicable, because you do not have information from all the local authorities. It is up to Mr Chapman whether he proceeds with his amendment, but my understanding is that the member in charge of the bill has given an undertaking to the committee to come back prior to stage 3 with up-to-date information about whether the date suggested is practicable, given all the contract stuff, for secondary school transport. Is that what the member is undertaking to do?

I ask Peter Chapman to withdraw amendment 7. All stakeholders have been working towards the 2021 date. If we agree to amendment 7 without consulting them, that would not be a good place to be.

Why is there a one-year delay between primary and secondary? It is very unclear.

It is not a delay.

Why is there a differential? Why is there a one-year difference?

There is a staged implementation; 2018 is the implementation date for primaries and 2021 is the implementation date for secondaries. As has been pointed out, a lot of local authorities are already working towards that and many have already done so. There are a lot more buses and different types of buses for secondary schools, whereas the majority of primary schools use minibuses. That is certainly true in my constituency. The type of coach involved in transport for secondary schools might include double deckers, as Richard Lyle pointed out, which are not generally used for primary school transport. That is why there is a three-year staged approach.

To answer Christine Grahame’s point, I note that we have made an offer to look at that, but we would not want to make a recommendation on it until we have spoken to stakeholders about whether it is possible and to what degree contracts might have to be broken. I therefore invite Mr Chapman not to press amendment 7.

I call Peter Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 7.

I listened with great intent to what has been said. In our discussions on the bill, we learned that over 50 per cent of local authorities have already put the measure in place. That is where I start from. The second point is that I cannot see why it is more difficult for secondary schools than it is for primary schools to put the measure in place. If it is okay for it to be in place for primary schools in 2018, I remain to be convinced as to why that would be more difficult for secondary schools.

I heard what Richard Lyle had to say about the breaking of contracts. That is possibly the case, but the point that we are talking about—the end of 2018—is still 18 months down the road. I would argue that there is time to do this and put it in place. I welcome the support that I got from Jamie Greene and Mike Rumbles.

As we have seen, there is a division in the committee. I am minded to press amendment 7.

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

Long title

Amendment 4 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and concludes our meeting. Thank you. I ask committee members to wait behind briefly.

Meeting closed at 11:58.