Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 21 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Free School Transport (PE368 and PE371)

I welcome Stewart Stevenson MSP to the committee. Mr Stevenson, I take it that you are here because one of the petitions refers to Banff Academy, which is in the area for which you are the constituency member. Am I right?

Correct, ma'am.

Members have copies of the correspondence. They will be aware that it has taken the committee some time to bring the petitions back for consideration. That was because COSLA took some months to come up with what was, in the end, a fairly non-committal response, saying that it did not believe that there was any need to change the regulations. Do members have any views on how to proceed?

I will not advise the committee on how to proceed, because I am a visitor and that might not be entirely proper, although I thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to speak.

I am deeply disappointed that COSLA is not prepared to engage with the issue. Although there are only two petitions from the 32 council areas, I know that the issue exercises people in many parts of Scotland from time to time.

The Scottish Executive response is quite proper. It draws our attention to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—as amended by the Education (Scotland) Act 1996—which places a duty on education authorities to "have regard" to pupils' safety in relation to school transport arrangements. The Executive also draws our attention to the fact that, if councils do not show that they have given regard to the issue, they may be challenged in the courts.

At least in the case of Aberdeenshire Council—which is raised in petition PE371, submitted by John Calder—that is where the matter has been left. The council has always addressed the alteration of arrangements for school transport in Aberdeenshire as a cost-reduction issue. It claims that that, not safety, is its primary responsibility, although I have to say that I am obviously not a court.

However, I am a little disappointed that the Executive did not feel able to nudge councils more actively in the direction of showing openly and publicly that, in making such decisions, they have taken account of individual pupils' safety. After all, the situation often varies from one pupil to the next. Although a change has been made across the board, I quite accept that that will not give rise to public safety issues for all pupils. Indeed, it will increase the exercise rate for some of them, which can only be good news. However, it does not do public policy much credit when the public feel pushed to use the legal system to secure the implementation of legislation that local authorities should be delivering.

Nonetheless, the petitioners in my constituency should take heart from the expression "councils should have regard" in the Scottish Executive's response. I and others will seek to press that point on Aberdeenshire Council. I thank the committee for facilitating this communication, albeit that the results have been less than I might have hoped for.

I also welcome Fiona Hyslop MSP to the committee. Fiona, do you wish to make any comments just now?

I apologise for being late. I would have liked to have been here earlier, but the Parliamentary Bureau meeting has only just finished.

Do members have any other comments on the correspondence that we have received?

I must apologise. The Rural Development Committee is in the middle of stage 2 consideration of a bill and I need to leave at once. I hope that the committee will excuse my apparent discourtesy.

You are leaving just as I am about to speak.

I think, then, that "understandable" is a more appropriate word than "apparent".

Having read the correspondence, I am slightly disappointed that the point that I made a year ago when we first considered the petitions has not been taken more seriously. The petitions raise a legislative issue in connection with the changed circumstances of school transport. Indeed, the points that Fiona Hyslop made when we initially considered the petitions are still absolutely germane.

Circumstances have changed. I have recently been involved in a case in Ashgill in South Lanarkshire, where the rules have been very strictly interpreted. The case is known to you, convener. There is a need to review the issue of school transport, not least because expectations are now high. Indeed, they are higher than the legislation can support. In such circumstances, it is only fair to everybody that we review the legislation. I am only sorry that the Scottish Executive seems to have bogged the issue down in the question whether the word "safety" should be defined, whereas the issue actually centres on the whole context of school transport and safe routes to school. Now that we live in a different world—more negatively than positively, I have to say—we need to examine matters more carefully.

I agree that we need to revisit the subject, although I am not sure about the timing of any review and how it would be triggered. However, we must examine different issues, such as the increase in traffic, the greater mobility of people who wish to take advantage of youngsters who are left at the side of roads and the expense to councils that have to provide school transport. Moreover, there will always be marginal cases in which neighbours find themselves on different sides of the line. Sometimes, the line might be drawn illogically. We should debate and discuss those issues. If those discussions do not lead to new legislation, they should certainly lead to a strengthening of central guidance.

We received a letter from the Minister for Education and Young People in September 2002, and my understanding is that the transport circular is to be reviewed and revised. I recall that the minister indicated that to Parliament towards the end of last year. It would be useful for the committee again to make the point to the minister that any review should take account of the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. There is a much higher volume of traffic on the roads and children and their parents are rightly far more concerned about safety than people were 50 years ago, given the nature of the threats, perceived or otherwise, that are out there.

I am well aware of the Ashgill case that Mike Russell referred to. Lines always need to be drawn and we all accept that some people will end up on what they see as the wrong side. However, there is an argument for some flexibility in interpreting the rules, particularly when one village or one street might be concerned—for example, if kids on one side of a street get transport whereas those on the other side do not, that seems pretty bizarre.

I agree. Most MSPs have probably come across such issues in dealing with constituents. There is a particular problem in villages, where there is often an issue over the proximity of schools. It would perhaps be worth writing to the minister to draw our views to her attention. I support the idea of our revisiting the matter.

Having read the Executive's letter dated 26 September, I have concerns. Basically, it has taken four months to arrive at the conclusion that that the status quo is sufficient. I am more comforted by the indication that there is to be a general review of the transport issues—I think that that avenue ought to be pursued. However, some sort of legislative change is needed, because, as the letter says, unless a reasonable view of safety is taken, there could be challenges in the courts.

I remind the committee that we are dealing with two petitions, not just one. One is about traffic safety in a rural context; the other, which came from constituents of mine, relates to the safety of a 14-year-old girl—as she was then—who, because the Parliament has not been able to support her, has had recourse to the courts. The fact that a 14-year-old girl has not been able to progress what is a women's safety issue through the Parliament is a matter of concern.

If the committee is considering the transportation aspects of what the minister indicated last year, I would recommend that it focus on personal safety. There is not only a rural dimension to the issue; it concerns new towns such as Livingston, where my constituent lives. In Livingston, the roads and pavements are separate and there are questions about safety.

To reiterate, I am disappointed with the letter, but I take some comfort from the fact that there may be some action. However, the girl will have left school by the time there is a resolution of the matter. I am aware that things can sometimes grind slowly, but they are not moving quickly enough for our satisfaction in this case. I ask the committee to give some comfort to my constituents by pursuing the issue and keeping an eye on the situation. We should not just leave matters as they are now.

Do you know whether a risk assessment of the route was carried out? In cases in which I have been involved, I have sometimes found it difficult to obtain copies of any risk assessment that may have been carried out. It is possible to investigate that. I am thinking of a particular case, in which Mike Russell and I were involved.

In this case, a number of councillors carried out an inspection in the daylight, although daylight conditions are obviously different from those that an individual faces walking at night, especially during winter.

As I said, we are talking about drawing an arbitrary line. There is also the potential for discrimination near the line, with children on one street having free access to school with bus passes, while others living elsewhere do not get passes. The idea that children who live in the same street, barely yards from each other, and go to the same school should be treated differently is problematic. If lines are drawn, they have to be realistic and they must not be open to misinterpretation. They have to be drawn somewhere, but their arbitrary nature presents a problem. I hope that that issue can be addressed in the wider context of the transportation aspects of education.

I want to go on record as saying how disappointed I am, yet again, with COSLA's response. It is becoming all too apparent that when we seek COSLA's views on issues—for which there is often cross-party sympathy, particularly on petitions—COSLA is reluctant to give its view. I hope that COSLA does not regard the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Parliament as bodies to be feart of. I would think that, on issues such as the present one, or rural schools, the committee and the Parliament could work with COSLA.

I hope that, when we raise issues with COSLA in the future, there might be more opportunity for mutual help. I find it hard to believe that there is nothing to say on the issue of legislative change or even change to guidance with regard to transport, other than that everything is fine. It is patently clear that people in COSLA local authority areas do not think that everything is fine.

I was not going to say anything, but I think that, by offering us its opinion of current legislation, COSLA has done what we requested of it. Indeed, like us, COSLA did not want to comment on individual cases or individual local authorities—that is consistent with the committee's approach.

I remain convinced that the legislation provides a robust framework. The problem has perhaps been in its implementation and in how the guidance is written to allow for issues such as personal safety to be considered. I would be happy if the minister announced a review of the guidance, as that would allow us to see where more flexibility could be afforded. A review could resolve some of the problems that have been experienced, not just by the two petitioners, but in other cases.

The convener's suggestion of writing to the minister to flag up the issue is helpful. However, if the legislation is to be reviewed, I would take a slightly different view—the problem lies not with the legislation, but elsewhere.

I agree with Jackie Baillie that we should seek a review of the guidelines and write to the minister in those terms. It is obvious that nothing will happen before the election, but I think that it is correct to write to her. I have a sneaking sympathy with what Brian Monteith has said. Of course, if it concerns Brian Monteith, it would have to be a sneaking sympathy—

I think that it is a consistent sympathy.

Well, I have a sneaking sympathy with Brian Monteith's view of COSLA. There are several key issues, but on the two on which we sought COSLA's advice—rural school closures and school transport—COSLA has been, frankly, a broken reed. It certainly was not much better on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill.

That is a biased view.

I take it that members want the committee to write to the minister again in the terms that have been indicated. I will certainly undertake to do that in the near future and keep members advised on any progress of which I am aware.

As we are going to write to the minister, can we copy the letter to COSLA so that it can see that we are interested in the guidance and not just in changes to legislation?

I am happy to copy the letter to whomever you want, Brian.

I will come up with a list.

We will copy the letter to COSLA and to the petitioners.

We now move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 16:56.