School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
We now come to item 3. There are three current petitions and we will take the first two together: PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield on behalf of Kingseat community council, and PE1223, by Ron Beaty. The petitions are on school bus safety. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
Stewart Stevenson has a long-standing constituency interest in the petition. I am not sure whether Mr Stevenson is able to attend today, but I highlight the good work that he has done on it.
A number of overlapping issues are raised in the petitions. For clarity, we agreed that we would take evidence on the progress of the section 30(2) order, which, as members will know, relates to the transfer of powers from Westminster to the Scottish Government. However, a letter on the subject has been received from the Minister for Transport and Veterans, so it may be wise to postpone an evidence session. It is clear that progress has been made and Keith Brown has put some policy out on the issue. It is good to hear that there is excellent progress.
Apparently, there is excellent progress after four years.
Mr Brodie is welcome to his views on that.
On PE1098, the committee may wish to write to the Minister for Transport and Veterans to request a more detailed timescale for the devolution of powers to the Scottish ministers in order that the progress of the process can be monitored.
On PE1223, the committee may wish to write to Transport Scotland to seek further information on the work that it is undertaking with local authorities on signage and lighting and whether it still intends to assist with evaluations of some of the pilot schemes with a view to developing them nationally.
I apologise to the committee if that is a bit complicated, but there are a couple of overlapping issues.
I also flag up the very helpful reply that we received from the Welsh Assembly. It has done some really good work on the issue, as it has on other issues that we are concerned with, such as organ transplantation.
I throw the matter over to the committee for its views on the next steps.
On PE1098, in view of the announcement in Keith Brown’s letter, I agree that we might wish to postpone the evidence session and monitor what is happening with the transfer.
On PE1223, section 12 of the note from the clerk, PPC/S4/14/8/3, makes it quite clear that it is intended that the
“powers relating to signage and lighting, which are the main issues detailed in petition PE1223, will remain reserved.”
I may not be here on earth in four years’ time. We seem to be banging our heads against a brick wall when it comes to getting those things moved. I will not mention September—although I have just done so. I simply do not understand why these things take so long, but I am glad that we have moved at least one of the petitions along a bit.
Can we deal with one petition at a time? It has been suggested that we postpone our evidence session on the section 30(2) order. Are committee members happy that we do that in light of Keith Brown’s letter?
Members indicated agreement.
Convener, I am not quite sure whether we are going to let the evidence session with the minister slide, as you have just indicated. I know that you are coming to the second point. It would be useful if we asked the minister or the Scottish Government to give us a timetable for when the Scottish Government expects the powers to be devolved, but we should still indicate that we reserve the right to invite the minister along to give evidence at some future date, if we deem that necessary. As I said, we should not let the minister slide.
I emphasise that my view is that we should just postpone the matter. If we discover that we need a further evidence session in light of further information, I am sure that the committee will want to have that. I agree with John Wilson that we need to keep that option open.
I just do not understand what goes through the minds of people in the Westminster Government when they say, “Yes, it’s okay. These powers can be granted to Wales, but we’ll take an aeon to decide whether they should be transferred to Scotland.”
I noticed in the letter from the Welsh Assembly minister that some powers on technical specifications were held back. Westminster has not allowed a certain level of powers to go, although it has allowed others to go. We need to keep a careful eye on that.
I will confirm what we are doing. We are temporarily suspending the evidence session with the Minister for Transport and Veterans. In relation to PE1098, we will write to him to request a more detailed timescale for the devolution of powers, and in relation to PE1223, we will write to Transport Scotland to seek further information on the work that it is undertaking with local authorities on signage and lighting and whether it still intends to assist with evaluations of some of the pilot schemes with a view to developing them nationally.
Presumably we still have powers. The Welsh say that they are installing closed circuit television cameras, and they can do exactly the same as we can. Are there certain things that we can do that we have not yet done?
We need to clarify with the Scottish Government that there are certain actions that it wishes to carry out but for which it does not yet have the powers—the so-called section 30(2) orders—and if there are areas in which they do have the powers, how quickly those actions will be pursued. I have spoken to Keith Brown on this issue and he is certainly very keen to get powers over seat belts, because he feels that they are crucial.
On PE1223, I note from the recommendation that we will ask whether Transport Scotland
“still intends to assist with the evaluations of some of the pilot schemes.”
I would want to put that in stronger terms and say that Transport Scotland should ensure that the evaluations of the pilot schemes are concluded and that its report on the evidence is published as soon as possible so that we can take the petition forward. We need the evaluations to be carried out and published to strengthen the argument that Mr Beaty has been pursuing for almost eight years now about having the appropriate signage on school buses.
Are members happy with John Wilson’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members have any more comments?
I have one final comment, convener. This is one of the very few occasions that Mr Beaty has not been present at a committee meeting at which we have considered his petition, and I trust that he is keeping well and that there are other reasons why he has not been able to attend today.
I certainly note John Wilson’s point. Mr Beaty has been extremely dedicated to his petition and has taken a great interest in our proceedings for a number of years now.
A9 Average Speed Cameras (PE1503)
The third and final current petition is PE1503, by Mike Burns on behalf of the average speed cameras on the A9 are not the answer campaign, which calls for a review of the A9 speed camera proposals. Members will have received a note from the clerk and various submissions.
As members will know, I have had some involvement in this issue. In particular, I supported the increase in the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles. That is associated with the issue of average speed cameras, because the Government’s position was that it needed average speed cameras for a pilot to find out whether increasing the speed limit would work.
Mr Burns has carried out an in-depth study as part of his petition and has gathered a large number of signatures. The area is difficult and complex, and we have written to a number of organisations on it. As the clerk has pointed out in the paper, the bulk of them supported the introduction of average speed cameras, although a couple, including the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, were opposed. There was also some debate about whether Mr Burns had been invited to meet the chair of the A9 safety group.
I do not want to get into any arguments about who said what, but I would prefer it if Mr Burns could meet the chair of the group to see whether any common ground can be found between what the group is proposing and what Mr Burns has suggested in his 20-point plan. He has put a lot of work into this issue and, although we all accept that excess speed is a factor in accidents, they are also caused by other behaviours such as overtaking and factors such as road design. We know that the Scottish Government has plans to dual the A9, which will obviously make the road safer than it is at the moment.
I therefore suggest to the committee that we write both to Mr Burns, asking whether he will take up the offer of a meeting, and to the A9 safety group, and that once there has been a meeting of minds between the groups we discuss whether to take further action on the matter. We have already written to safety organisations across the country, and the Government has made very clear its view that it is going to go ahead with the proposal, primarily on safety grounds.
That is one suggestion, but, as always, it is up to committee members to decide the next steps.
I want to make two points, convener. First, I think that Mr Burns has already met the safety group. Has he not?
11:30
Mr Burns mentions in his submissions that, although the chair of the safety group offered to meet him, that offer was not seen through. Mr Burns has his own view on that. Rather than get into a debate about who said what, I am merely suggesting that a formal meeting be held. That has been offered. Once Mr Burns has had that meeting, we can see whether there is any support or otherwise for his proposals.
It is undoubtedly the case that the issue of average speed cameras is a huge one and not just in the Highlands and Islands—it affects other roads, such as the A77. There is some experience of how successful their use has been there.
My second point relates to a discussion of the A9 cameras on “Morning Call” that I listened to one Tuesday on my way through to the Parliament. The overwhelming response was that it is not just the use of average speed cameras that is important, but the complementary package of training and other mechanisms that I understand Transport Scotland is putting together in discussion with the A9 safety group.
I am happy to support the convener’s proposal. Discussion is fine, but I think that there is a recognition that it ain’t going to change anything.
I put on record that the other measures that the A9 safety group is developing, which members will be aware of, are useful. I am referring to, for example, the installation of two-way traffic signage on single-carriageway sections, the clearing of vegetation, which is an issue that constituents have informed me of, and the review of collision statistics for the route. There is some debate between the petitioner and Transport Scotland about the figures, on which I would like to get some clarity.
However, I accept Chic Brodie’s view. It is quite clear that the Government intends to go ahead with average speed cameras on the A9 and that that will not change. I just want us to go the extra mile—no pun intended—with the petitioner to ensure that the proposed meeting takes place. We can hear about what happens at that meeting and consider it at a future meeting.
I think that you are right, convener. We should ask, in the strongest possible terms, that those who are responsible for arranging a meeting arrange one that Mr Burns can attend. There is no point in them setting dates for meetings that he cannot attend. It is to be hoped that that meeting will bring people together and allow them to express their views, with the result that Mr Burns will hear about some of the thinking behind the actions of the A9 safety group. The issue is particularly relevant, given that sections of the A9 were again closed in both directions yesterday because of another road traffic accident.
There are issues that still need to be identified. Raising the speed limit for trucks might be one solution, but there are other solutions that need to be examined. It is to be hoped that, by bringing Mr Burns together with the A9 safety group, we can find a solution and help to prevent the serious accidents that continue to take place on the A9.
Do members agree to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
There is no one in the gallery, but I formally close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 11:33.Previous
New Petitions