Public Petitions Committee, 30 Mar 2009

Meeting date: Monday, March 30, 2009

Official Report 333KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

Item 3 is consideration of current petitions. First, we will consider PE1098 and PE1223 together. PE1098, from Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make provision for every school bus to be fitted with three-point seat belts for every school child passenger and to ensure that, as part of a local authority's consideration of best value in relation to the provision of school buses, proper regard is given to the safety needs of the children.

PE1223, from Ron Beaty, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take all appropriate action—whether through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation—to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses, to be used only when necessary when schoolchildren are on buses, and to make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.

Ron Beaty made a contribution to the meeting earlier today. He is sitting in the public gallery for our consideration of the petition. I also welcome to the committee Stewart Stevenson, the constituency MSP for Banff and Buchan and Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. He was present for our consideration of the earlier items and listened carefully and attentively to our deliberations. In respect of our consideration of PE1098 and PE1223, I welcome him in his capacity as the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. We all have to wear different hats; I am sure that Stewart Stevenson's focus today will be on the petitions that are under consideration.

There are two other MSPs at the committee today. I welcome Richard Baker, who is a regional list MSP for North East Scotland; and Lewis Macdonald, who is the member for Edinburgh Central—of course, I meant to say Aberdeen Central. Lewis Macdonald looked disappointed when he heard me say "Edinburgh Central", as he thinks Aberdeen Central is much more interesting.

Members have a paper from the clerks. Unless you wish to make any opening remarks, minister, we will move straight to questions from the committee.

The Scottish Government will shortly publish a road safety framework. What positive impact will the framework have on the two petitions that are before us?

What we will shortly publish will have an impact. It is important also to say that we are working on the subjects of both petitions in advance of publication. It is not necessary for us to wait for publication to respond to a problem. Indeed, we should congratulate Aberdeenshire Council on the considerable work that it has done on the subject. Although the road safety strategy will address a number of issues to do with road users generally, it will focus more on drivers. The two petitions that are before the committee today raise the specific issues of seat belts and safety in the vicinity of school buses.

What progress has been made prior to the publication of the road safety framework?

Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council and Moray Council have been working together with us. We have sought to navigate on the basis of contemplating anything that we are not forbidden to do. For example, although I do not have the power to change the design of the sign on a school bus that says that it is a school bus, we have established that, in the legislation, there is no upper limit to the size that the sign may be. That might be an oversight, but it provides an opportunity that we are considering in order to increase the visibility of school buses.

We are also pursuing with the councils, through the contracts that they have with operators, the appropriate use of the school bus sign. In other words, we want to ensure that the sign is not mounted on a bus when it is not being used as a school bus, so that people will not think, "Och, that sign is always on the bus." We want to ensure that the sign is on the bus whenever the bus is genuinely carrying schoolchildren under contract.

We are considering what lighting there should be on a bus, including lights that flash. There are opinions for and against that. Some people think that flashing lights might suggest a bus in distress, which other motorists should overtake, although the message that we are trying to convey is rather different. There is more work for us to do in considering that option. Another option is for school buses to have dipped headlights on at all times.

Aberdeenshire Council has also come up with a publicity campaign entitled one second, one life, reminding people that it takes only one second to end a life. With the council, we are looking at SeeMe technology, which will be piloted at certain locations to signal when there is a school bus in the vicinity. It uses a transponder system that pupils can wear, which says that school pupils are in the vicinity. Indeed, bus drivers could wear it as well.

Those are a series of actions that can be taken in advance of the publication of the road safety strategy, and I am pleased to say that Aberdeenshire Council and the adjacent councils are working with the Government on those.

I am obliged.

Local authorities have responsibility for school transport. You have mentioned several local authorities. Are you satisfied that, in general, local authorities are meeting their responsibilities for school transport correctly?

There is no local authority in Scotland that would not want to have the highest standard of safety on its school transport for its pupils.

The first petition is on the subject of seat belts. We have made it clear, through guidance and policy direction, that contracts should incorporate a requirement for seat belts. The petition asks specifically for three-point seat belts, but many of the buses that are in operation have two-point seat belts. I do not make a particular distinction between the two. It is also important to ensure that, where seat belts are fitted, they are actually used. Having them fitted does not save any lives; it is using them that makes the difference. In law, I do not have the power to say that seat belts must be fitted and used. However, the local authorities have the opportunity, when they renew contracts, to consider including that requirement in the contract. I strongly advise that they do so.

I would make the point that school transport comes in all shapes and forms, including taxis, hire cars and scheduled buses, along with chartered school buses. We have a diverse set of provisions for wheeled transport. However, as I said, the authorities have the guidance that we issue and I hope that as many as possible will act on it.

You mentioned that some authorities use public service buses. Even on organised trips with children aged three to 16, there are no rules about seat belts for children on such buses. What can be done to close that loophole? How many councils use public service buses for school transport?

I think that it would be fair to say that almost all councils make some provision that relies on public service buses and, therefore, there are rules that govern that.

Certainly, the major bus companies have at least two-point seat belts on most of their buses. The bus that I take relatively regularly from Aberdeen to Peterhead has a two-point seat belt, which I use, due to personal exposure to some of the consequences of not wearing a seat belt. However, I have to say that, almost invariably, I am the only person on the bus who does so. I suspect therefore, that we should focus on getting people to wear them equally as much as we focus on getting them fitted.

As I said, we do not have the power to require bus companies to fit seat belts or to require that those that are fitted should be three-point seat belts. However, we are certainly of the view that it would improve safety if they were fitted and used.

Research is important, because we need to know the facts. Has research been undertaken to determine whether local authorities have revised their procedures in light of the good-practice guidance that was issued in 2007?

I am prepared to engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue. It is not for the Government to audit what councils are doing, but I would be surprised if local authorities did not want to take every possible action to ensure that there is the maximum possible safety for all passengers, and particularly school students.

I will take that as a no—there has been no research. We want research to be done so that we can base our work on facts and not on anecdotal evidence.

We have some basic facts on who has seat belts. We can make that available to the committee, but I suspect that that might lead to further questions, which I think it would be proper to address to COSLA.

I am conscious of our limited time, so I think that we should concentrate on our core questions.

You have answered a couple of the questions that I was going to ask, minister. One was about the size of the signage on the vehicles and the other was about removing signs when the bus is not being used to transport children to and from school.

Has the Scottish Government commissioned any research on the pick-up and drop-off points that are used, or has it been involved in discussions with local authorities on the issue? One of the points that came up in our previous session on this issue was the danger that is presented by some of the pick-up points that operators are using. It seems that that issue involves as much danger as anything else in the school transport system does.

The member is quite right to focus on the pick-up points. The two sets of parents who have been with us in the audience today both lost children at pick-up points. We need to ensure that pick-up points are assessed for suitability. I know that the council in this area is involved in that. In rural areas, of course, there are extremely large numbers of pick-up points. In Aberdeenshire, there are either 400 or 4,000—I have temporarily forgotten which, but it is a large number either way.

The SeeMe initiative that I referred to earlier is precisely targeted at trying to make pick-up points safer by making drivers who approach them when they are in use more aware that they are in use. We note that the technology has apparently been successfully implemented in Sweden.

Strathclyde partnership for transport has commissioned MVA Consultancy to produce guidance on risk assessment for pick-up points, and has indicated that it is willing to make that available to councils. Aberdeenshire Council, which covers the area in which Mr Beaty lives and works is developing further work in this area.

If that research resulted in identifying at least the most dangerous pick-up points, one of the issues in the petition could be addressed, at least partially. It asks about a reserved matter, which is to do with whether drivers can be punished in the courts for overtaking stationary school buses. If those dangerous pick-up points were marked with the zig-zag lines that forbid overtaking in any case, that might assist matters. Would it be worth investigating that?

The member is absolutely correct. However, I hope that identifying the most dangerous pick-up points would lead to consideration of a range of alternative strategies such as relocating pick-up points, carrying out road engineering works or ensuring that the drivers of the buses work to some sort of processes and procedures.

Although I do not necessarily think that this point is a huge impediment, I am not sure about our legal ability to paint those zig-zag lines in the places that the member describes.

As a point of general principle, however, I should say that no idea should be ruled out of consideration, because I suspect that there is no single intervention that will magically transform the situation. It will almost certainly require a range of interventions that are different for different sites and, indeed, for different seasons.

If a council decides that it wants signs to be removed from school buses when the children are not on board, does it have the clout to enforce that if the bus company does not comply?

At the end of the day, the issue is to do with getting the right contract between the purchaser and supplier. Entering into a contract with the council is something that the bus company does voluntarily, and it is up to the council to lay down the requirements that it has of that service. If it were understood that the company would not get the next contract if it did not obey the rules on taking the signs down, that would be helpful. In civil law terms, it would be perfectly proper to incorporate that in a contract. Although legislative courses might be pursued, that is one of the key ways in which councils can take action in this area, and it is quite outwith the powers of Westminster or the Scottish Parliament.

I am heartened by what the minister said about research into pick-up points, given local concerns about recent tragedies. I know that the minister is well aware of them and has worked hard on the issue. It would be productive if the research and advice from Strathclyde partnership for transport could be made public and reported on to the committee and Parliament to see what progress could be made. Although no single intervention would make a key difference, such reporting would be an important measure.

Although there has been a lot of local work on the issue, concerns have been raised recently about the standards of school buses more widely. I am keen to hear the minister's thoughts on that and to ask what dialogue needs to take place between the Scottish Government, councils and bus operators. I understand that he has given guidance to local authorities, but should these matters be considered as part of the single outcome agreements?

Strathclyde partnership for transport has said that it can make available the manual that it developed to any local authority that wishes it. I am sure that SPT will wish to make the manual as widely available as possible, but I am not entirely certain whether it would be possible to put it in the public domain, purely for the very narrow reason that I do not know what contract SPT had with the consultants that it used and it might be that an inhibition is involved. SPT could answer that question.

The member spoke about the standard of buses. Like others, he will be aware that, as a result of action that was taken in Aberdeenshire recently, several buses that were being used for school services were identified as not being fit for purpose and not meeting the rules. Two of the buses were taken off the road at once. I welcome that sort of action while deprecating the fact that the buses were found not to be fit for purpose while being used. The collaboration by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, the police and the council has been useful and should be repeated as often as is necessary.

The major bus operators operate services to very high standards. There are a few operators who are clearly not meeting the safety requirements or operating to the standards that we expect and we should come down hard on such people.

I welcome that answer, but any reporting back that could be done within reason to the committee or the Parliament on the issue of pick-up points would be helpful. Given what you said, it is a crucial point.

I will seek to facilitate that, although I emphasise that, as minister, I will not report back directly. However, we take a keen interest and will see what we can do.

I have a general question. I am pleased to hear the minister speak about a wide range of measures and say that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. One of the challenges facing the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament is that some of the measures that you come up with will be reserved to the UK Government, which will be asked to implement them. What if it does not do that? I am looking for an assurance that the Scottish Government will work imaginatively to find ways round the problem, although perhaps not on a legislative basis, and that if the UK Government does not want to implement changes, we will try to implement them anyway by taking a slightly different approach.

As I said in my opening remarks, with our partners in the councils we will contemplate doing anything that we can identify that could make a contribution and to which there is no explicit legal inhibition to our doing. I do not think that anyone expects this to be the outcome, but I have the legislative power, for example—and have exercised it—to change the design of a lollipop lady's lollipop, but I do not have the legislative power to change the design of a school bus sign. That is just the way the cookie crumbles.

As I say, we have established that the upper limit of sign size is not restricted and will use every opportunity presented by that to do what we can. However, we are not able to legislate to make the sign twice the size that people have been using. Councils might be able to deal with the issue through contractual arrangements, provided, of course, that there is good evidence that a trial is worth carrying out and that evidence from the trial suggests that it is the right thing to do and should be taken further. We should always be driven by the evidence. There are lots of ideas out there, some of which, when examined, are not as clear cut as one might immediately think.

We have had a good question-and-answer session on this matter. As we wish to pursue certain issues, we will keep the petitions open. I thank the minister for his patience in sitting through this and earlier items, and I hope that we can make progress not only on the critical issue of seat belts in buses but on the even more important issue of road safety for children making their way to and from school.

I will be very happy to respond to further questions on these petitions and on the previous petition that Mr Rumbles spoke to. With regard to that petition, I point out that Mr Rumbles has previously been told that the numbers that were given for Laurencekirk junction were different because the questions were different. The numbers are actually the same, and I will be happy to confirm that in writing when you ask me about it. I have to say that I was somewhat surprised to hear Mr Rumbles, long after he had been told that the numbers were identical, repeating a point that he had legitimately made to me. As I say, the numbers were not different; it was the questions that were different.

Thank you, convener.

Thank you very much, minister. I did not think that you would miss such an opportunity.

---

Community Prisons (PE1150)

I really want to press on with the next petition, but we need a minute or two to get the link up. I will introduce the petition while we check whether there is a line to Edinburgh.

PE1150, by David Wemyss on behalf of Aberdeen prison visiting committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider whether larger prisons that are more remote from prisoners' families offer the best way of rehabilitating offenders and whether, as an alternative, localised community prisons could receive stronger support.

We definitely have an audio link with the Families Outside organisation, which is based in Edinburgh. I cannot guarantee, though, that we will get a video link. We are working on that.

Hi, this is Martin from the Parliament.

Hello, Martin. We can hear you.

How good is the sound quality?

It is absolutely perfect at our end.

Thank you. I should let you know that there is a fire alarm in the building. We have been told to stay where we are, but we might have to evacuate if the alarm goes off in the middle of the conference.

It always happens when we are not there.

Can you see us?

Yes.

We can see you, too. I will pass you over to the witnesses.

Thank you for your time.

I welcome to the meeting Superintendent Innes Skene from Grampian Police, who is with us in Fraserburgh. We are joined by Richard Baker MSP, whom I introduced earlier, and Lewis Macdonald MSP, both of whom have expressed an interest in the petition. I welcome Lady Cullen of Whitekirk and Susan Cross from Families Outside, which is based in Edinburgh. I hope that you can hear us.

Can you hear us?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you for your patience. I know that it has taken a long time to reach this petition.

We will move to questions. I ask members to indicate whether they are directing their questions to Grampian Police or Families Outside.

My question is for the ladies in Edinburgh from Families Outside. Why is it important that local prisons are local?

Families Outside is the only national charity that works solely to support families of the people who are involved in the criminal justice system. We recognise that maintaining family ties can reduce the risk of reoffending by up to six times. About 50 per cent of prisoners lose contact with their families during their time in prison, usually because of the cost and distance of visiting, both of which are obstacles to the contact that can help to reduce reoffending.

A third of visitors use public transport. Our figures are based on research that we have carried out in the past. Public transport can be patchy, it may not be available at the right time, and it can add an extra burden on visiting if someone has to travel, if they have children—

Temporary loss of sound.

—scheme that can help people to—[Interruption.] Pardon?

You are okay. On you go.

The assisted prison visiting scheme can help with the cost of visits, but it does not cover every visit that the visitor can make. It is limited to two visits a month, and quite often, particularly in the case of remand prisoners, their entitlement to visiting is much more than that.

Distance can work against people in other ways. There are times when social workers have to accompany children on visits. Again, that impacts on the ability and resources of people to visit as often as they wish in order to keep in contact. As I emphasised before, a good way of preventing reoffending is to maintain family contact.

There is another angle to the issue. Like the Scottish Prison Service, we encourage the involvement of families in the whole process as someone goes through the criminal justice system. We are talking about integrated case management, which involves—[Interruption.] There are organisations that help prisoners through their offending behaviour and bring them together to talk about—[Interruption.] We would encourage families to become involved in that. Again, a distant—[Interruption.]—can stop that, as well.

We got the vast majority of that. We also liked the ambient beat track when the fire alarm went off. We have the gist of what you were saying. I will pass back to Nigel Don.

I appreciate that the petition that we are discussing is of particular relevance to Aberdeen, but I would like to take your view on the distance that folk have to travel to prisons in other cities. Glasgow and Edinburgh are large places; siting a prison within the locus of a large city does not necessarily mean that it is accessible. There is a suggestion that Aberdeen's prison might be in Peterhead—around 35 miles up the road. How does that compare with the experience of folk in Glasgow or Edinburgh who visit prisons in those cities?

It can be difficult to visit any prison. For example, the public transport timetable may not match up with visiting times, and people may have to travel long distances. Our argument for keeping things close to Aberdeen is that many of the prisoners are from the city. Aberdeen is also a transport hub—people have to come into the city before going out again. The bus journey to Peterhead can take about an hour and 10 minutes, and then there is a wee bit of a walk to get to the prison. For a half-hour visit, you can be talking about a long round-trip, which can be difficult for people. In other parts of the country, the journeys can be just as difficult.

We have always tried to encourage collective thinking among the prison service, local authorities and transport authorities, in the hope that they can work out ways of getting people to and from prisons.

I conclude from what you have said that a prison should be sited at a transport hub, rather than away from it. That would apply to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or anywhere else.

It would certainly help people who wanted to visit.

Thank you.

I am conscious of the time, but local members who are interested in the issue are here.

I wanted to ask about the importance of involving community organisations—for example, charities that work with offenders on or just prior to their release. In this area, most such organisations are based in the city of Aberdeen, rather than in Aberdeenshire and closer to Peterhead.

Yes, that is an issue. For example, organisations that work in drug support or employment support tend to be centred on urban areas, so if the prison were closer to the centre, it would be easier for the organisations to go to the prison. From the point of view of families, we are concerned that prisoners might not get the support that they need.

I have a short question for Families Outside, and it picks up on the point about prisons being at a transport hub. When a prisoner's family is from a rural area that is not near a prison, are you saying that that family is even more disadvantaged than a prisoner's family from a city if the prison is somewhere other than at a transport hub?

I am sorry—the sound link is not very clear. I did not quite catch your point.

Are prisoners and families from rural areas even more disadvantaged when a prison is located away from a city?

I would say so. Rural transport can be a difficulty for anyone, not just for people who need it to get to a prison. Those families will have more of a challenge.

I have a question for Superintendent Skene. At a previous meeting, we heard evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who appeared to dismiss concerns that Grampian Police had raised about travel between Aberdeen and a new prison at Peterhead. He seemed to dismiss the fears as groundless. Can you explain the report that you made?

Yes, sir. Grampian Police appreciates that the Government's figures show a projected increase in the prison population. We therefore understand that issues will arise in future, and we are aware of Dr McLennan's report on Aberdeen prison and its suitability for the future. However, the establishment of a new so-called super-prison at Peterhead would create a number of logistical issues for the force. There would be a fairly major shift in service up to Peterhead, and the issue for the force would be shifting a very large number of prisoners from the force's centre, in Aberdeen, out to Peterhead. The challenges and risks associated with that are broadly to do with the distances and travelling times that would be involved. There would also be challenges for the local police: if an establishment of such a size were built, the policing population in Peterhead would have to be reassessed.

There are issues of confidence and security in the movement of prisoners between Aberdeen and Peterhead. I am also concerned about the police time that would be involved. The distance from Aberdeen sheriff court to Peterhead is much greater than the distance to Aberdeen prison. What effect would moving prisoners to Peterhead have on police resources, which can be stretched?

Reliance Custodial Services has the contract for conveying prisoners from court to prison. There can be difficulties on the road network in the north of Aberdeen, and we are concerned about the time that it would take to convey prisoners between Peterhead and the court.

To give members an idea of the scale of the problem, I took a snapshot of prisoner movements in a particular month, which showed that in the region of 600 prisoners travelled between Aberdeen prison and the courts. Given that Aberdeen prison is within two miles of the sheriff court, where most business is, our concern is that moving to the new Grampian prison would create logistical problems for us.

On security, I am aware that concerns have been raised about our submission to the committee last August. We used the word "escapes", which was seized on as a specific concern—and rightly so. Escapes from police custody or Reliance are rare, but logistical problems would be created if we increased the distance between the courts and the prison. Difficulties getting through traffic and difficulties with prisoners would be issues for Grampian Police, so we must be mindful of that. It is in such areas that we envisage the most demands being placed on us.

I presume that the Government's figures on the expected increase in prisoner numbers are based on the fact that the number of people aged between 15 and 25 will increase. We cannot do anything about the number of people who have been born, but we can do something about reoffending. Do you agree with the general proposition that we must do everything that we can do to reduce reoffending? The petitioners say that their approach would reduce reoffending, whereas what is currently proposed is likely to increase reoffending, so do you agree that there is a case for the petition in that regard?

It would be madness for a police force to say that it was opposed to anything that reduced reoffending. The best approach is to prevent crime, rehabilitate offenders, reduce reoffending and therefore reduce the number of people in the prison establishment.

Grampian Police engages on a number of fronts with criminal justice partners, the Scottish Prison Service and social work departments and does everything in its power to reduce reoffending. I am not in a position to say whether the location of a prison facility would act against the principle of reducing reoffending. We want the best possible prison facilities for the community that assist in rehabilitation and lowering reoffending rates.

I invite Lewis Macdonald to speak, after which Families Outside can make a final contribution.

I have a short, factual question for Superintendent Skene on the 600 journeys a month that he said take place between Aberdeen prison and the sheriff court. Is that 600 2-mile return journeys or 300 journeys each way?

The monthly figure is in the region of 100 journeys and the vans have six cells for prisoners.

So it is 100 journeys a month at the moment. Instead of that involving a 2-mile trip, it would be a 70-mile round-trip if the prisoners went to Peterhead.

Yes.

How many remand prisoners are involved in those 100 journeys?

I do not have specific figures on that but, if Aberdeen prison closed down, I presume that the movements would be to HMP Grampian.

And that would include both remand and convicted prisoners.

Yes.

I invite Families Outside to comment now. We obviously have a busy schedule today, so we are trying to get as much information as possible as quickly as possible. Are there other critical observations or pieces of information on this and other issues that affect families that you feel that the committee would benefit from?

There is nothing that has not been raised already. We would just emphasise that family contact is an important part of the strategy for reducing reoffending and that about 50 per cent of prisoners lose contact with their families. Another relevant statistic is that 22 per cent of booked prison visits do not go ahead. An SPS survey found that one reason for that was travel difficulties.

I thank Susan Cross and Lady Cullen for putting up with the fire alarm inconvenience at their end in Edinburgh and with the length of time that, for genuine reasons, it took us to reach this item on our agenda. We had some fantastic contributions from young pupils here at Fraserburgh academy earlier in the meeting, and we spent a lengthy time eliciting their views. I thank you for your patience in Edinburgh and for your contribution. I think that we have it all on the official record, and I hope that it will benefit the committee in its deliberation on the petition.

I thank Families Outside and Superintendent Innes Skene of Grampian Police for their time. We have enough information to take the petition to the next stage, which we will discuss at our next committee meeting.

---

Family Mediation Services (Funding) (PE1120)

The next petition is PE1120, by Brian McNair, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review its family law policies and spending levels to ensure that greater emphasis and funding is attached to family mediation services and providing more focused family support to children. The petitioner has been in front of us on a couple of occasions. Do committee members have views on how to deal with the petition?

We have had detailed information from the Scottish Government on the funding that it will make available to family mediation services in each year up to 2010. Given that, I think that we should consider closing the petition.

Are there any other comments from committee members? Do we concur with that suggestion?

It would be open to the petitioners to come back to the committee if, in 2010, there was a significant drop in the available funds for mediation services. We could alert them that our closing the petition would not be the end of the matter in that regard.

We approve the recommendation to close the petition, while noting Robin Harper's comments.

---

A977 (PE1221)

PE1221, by Fossoway and district community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to recognise that the A977 is part of the strategic road network in central Scotland and that the opening of the new Clackmannanshire bridge will lead to increased traffic on the road, so funding should be provided for traffic mitigation measures to provide long-term safeguards for the community. The committee has previously discussed the petition.

I know how the petitioners must feel, but I wonder—with frustration—whether we should close the petition because we have the clear message from the Government that the road will not be trunked. We need to accept that and to recognise the state of affairs. By closing the petition, we would send back to the community council and the community the message that we have tried but we will not obtain the answer that they want, so they will have to explore with the local council other ways of dealing with the road. I am sure that the petitioners have a real issue. By closing the petition, we can send them the message that it is clear that the road will not be trunked, so they will have to live with that.

So we will close the petition on those grounds.

---

Forensic Services (PE1226)

The last current petition is PE1226, by Chris Morran, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the Scottish Police Services Authority board's consultation process on the provision of forensic services is open, fair and transparent and fully engages all relevant parties. We have previously discussed the petition.

It is clear from the written evidence that the committee has received from the chief constables of Grampian Police and the Northern Constabulary that the consultation process has not been satisfactory. That is the view of the police forces that are served by the forensic laboratory at Aberdeen. In responding to the committee's invitation to make comments, the Scottish Police Services Authority recognised explicitly that the process had been unsatisfactory and had been seen to be unsatisfactory by many who were involved. For example, it conceded that the lack of minuted meetings as part of the consultation process was not a satisfactory basis on which to make the closure proposals, which are significant and worrying.

The committee might wish to investigate the matter further and to hear from the chief constables of Grampian Police and the Northern Constabulary, the Scottish Police Services Authority and the petitioner—Unison, which is representing scientists and other members of staff at forensic laboratories throughout Scotland—in support of the written evidence.

The proposals have been a cross-party concern: Nanette Milne, Mike Rumbles—who was here earlier—and I have all supported Lewis Macdonald's campaign. The promised consultation document has not yet appeared. As Lewis Macdonald said, given that the consultation of organisations including Unison and the police forces has not been what it should have been, it is important that the committee keeps a keen watching brief on the issue to ensure that what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the SPSA have promised transpires.

I agree absolutely with what has been said. I was heartened after the meeting that local representatives had with Vic Emery—I do not remember his position in the SPSA—because he encouraged us to look forward to a proper and meaningful consultation, which is essential. As Richard Baker said, that has not yet taken place, but I hope that it will soon.

We should keep the petition open and keep an eye on the situation. I would be happy to follow Lewis Macdonald's suggestion that we hear from some of the people who have responded to what was almost a non-consultation.

Several fundamental issues are involved, which I am happy to try to pursue.

Should we give the SPSA a month or two of grace to sort itself out? I am slightly worried about our running something in parallel, although I certainly do not want to let go of the petition.

Both the chief constables have made the point that the consultation was inadequate, and they and others have said that they have not yet seen a compelling case from the SPSA. We all have our guns trained on the SPSA, and it knows that. I would be slightly concerned about the committee running something in parallel with the work that the SPSA is, correctly, doing. We should let the SPSA do that work and then have a quick look at what appears.

Bill Butler has a final helpful suggestion.

I hope that it is helpful, convener. I agree that we should not duplicate work, which I think is what Nigel Don was saying, but we should set a timescale that is not too extended so that we come back to the issue when we have the information. At that point, as Nanette Milne and other colleagues have suggested, we can interrogate—in the nicest possible fashion, of course—the agencies involved and the individuals who are responsible. I support the non-duplication of work, but we must be as expeditious as possible.

There is fairly broad agreement. We will continue to pursue the issue, and we will determine what to do when we have the further information.

I thank Lewis Macdonald and Richard Baker for their patience, as they have been here for a considerable period. I hope that their time will be of benefit to the petitions in which they have expressed an interest.