Petitions
Free School Transport (PE368 and PE371)
We must decide whether to take any further action on petitions PE368 and PE371. Members have received a series of notes and papers, including responses from the Scottish Executive, Aberdeenshire Council and West Lothian Council and a note from the Scottish Parliament information centre. With us today is Fiona Hyslop, who is one of the regional list members for the Lothians. Stewart Stevenson, who has an interest in PE371, indicated that he would be present, but he has not yet arrived—perhaps he is trying to get a bus. Robert Brown, who is one of the petitioners, is in the public gallery.
Petition PE368, from Robert Brown, and PE371, from John Calder on behalf of Banff Academy and other Aberdeenshire parents action groups, are concerned with the criteria for the provision of free school transport and the adequacy of the relevant legislation. The petitioners are also concerned about road safety for children travelling to school.
The Public Petitions Committee has referred the petitions to our committee with the recommendation that we either take further action and consider whether the current legislation is adequate or agree to take no further action on the grounds that the legislation appears to be reasonable and that its application is a matter for the responsible local authorities and, ultimately, the courts.
Before I invite members to comment on the petitions, I will allow Fiona Hyslop to make a statement.
Thank you for allowing me to attend the meeting.
A common theme of the petitions appears to be that times have changed since the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was introduced. Issues that affect safety have changed somewhat since I was at school.
One of the main concerns of Mr Brown's petition, which was signed by 600 people, is safety. Livingston is a new town with a great number of underpasses. The route to school, which is the subject of the petition, uses routes on which, since 1999, 17 offences have been committed, including a murder. The issue is of serious concern.
The committee might also want to raise the point that although the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 amended the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to say that councils must have regard to personal safety, that concept was not defined. It is all very well for council officials to inspect during daylight when everything is fine; but the public's perception of, and concern about, safety must also be considered.
I have serious concerns about the number of violent incidents in Livingston. Compared with other areas, Livingston has unique problems that arise from the type of underpass there. Worried young women who must spend extra to travel safely by public transport and who are unable to participate in activities are being discriminated against, which is a serious matter. I hope that the committee will give that matter the serious consideration that it deserves and perhaps consider guidelines and the interpretation of personal safety. After reading the responses from the Executive and the local council, my main concern is that it seems that no one wants to be responsible for saying what personal safety means.
I also welcome to the meeting Stewart Stevenson. We will give him an opportunity to speak on behalf of the petitioners from his area, because of his constituency interest in the issue.
Thank you. I am trying to share my time among three committees this afternoon, so I apologise for my slightly late arrival.
The issue that PE371, from John Calder, presents on behalf of people throughout Aberdeenshire is related to, but slightly different from, the issue with which PE368 deals, as it is about school transport in a relatively densely populated rural area. A particular problem has arisen in north Aberdeenshire because of the fact that from the 17th to the 19th centuries many model villages were built within 2 or 3 miles of larger conurbations. Historically, Aberdeenshire Council and its predecessors operated a school transport policy that provided free school transport for secondary school children who lived beyond the 2-mile limit. The recent change that extended that limit to 3 miles, which was made for financial reasons as much as for any other reason, means that many children from those old villages who are 3 miles from a larger conurbation must pay for school transport.
The difficulty that John Calder brings to our attention is that the choice is between parents paying or the children not being safe, because the majority of the roads over which children might walk or cycle to school are simply not suitable for those purposes. There are few pavements and the road verges are often steep, so no safe exit from the road surface can be made to grass, gravel or another surface. Furthermore, since the original legislation, under which councils across Scotland operate, was brought into force the character, speed and weight of vehicles that use what are essentially rural roads has greatly changed.
For example, members might not know that in Fraserburgh, which is a relatively remote but substantial habitation, 90 per cent of the United Kingdom's refrigerated trailers are manufactured, which tells members something about the area's character. Large lorries transport for the fish industry up and down roads that were not built for that purpose. That creates real risks. We want to encourage children to walk or cycle, but if they are being forced for economic reasons to do so where it is unsafe, that is inappropriate.
In addition, many of the buses in which children are being transported do not have seat belts. That is an issue not only in Aberdeenshire but throughout Scotland. If we are considering the whole issue of safe transport and safe routes to school, the petitioners want to draw the committee's attention to the lack of bus seat belts.
I have a couple of additional comments to make on the petitions. I should say that I am familiar with the Aberdeenshire situation and have met many of the parents who have been affected by the changes in policy there. A case can be made for examining the current legislation and how it is applied. There is a good argument for saying that councils are guilty of failing to comply with the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
The claim that providing transport for which people pay amounts to providing a safe alternative could be challenged in many ways. We should not forget how hard that policy hits low-income families or families with several children at school, for whom the cost of transport may be considerable. If people want to avoid paying for that transport, the only option is for their children to walk to school.
As Stewart Stevenson said, on some routes there are no pavements and there is a high volume of heavy goods vehicles. Also, the weather in the north-east is inclement, to say the least. The SPICe paper points out that Shetland Council has taken note of that and reduced the distance from school beyond which free transport is available to 1.5 miles during the winter months. That is an enlightened and realistic interpretation of the law, which I would like to be extended. We should take a closer look at the legislation and how it is being applied, and consider whether it is still relevant to the situations in which children going to school now find themselves.
Personal safety is very important. For a long time I have campaigned on the issue of women's safety in underpasses and so on.
I represent an urban constituency, which has a BP facility right in the middle of it. Many children have to travel to and from school fairly close to roads that tankers use. However, this is an issue for local authorities. As Irene McGugan says, there is an argument for examining the legislation governing the matter, but I am reluctant for the committee to become involved in examining how a local authority is making decisions on the cost of buses or on mileage, or how the infrastructure of Livingston does or does not work. Those are matters for local authorities. If we start to do some of the work that the petitions are asking us to do, every community in Scotland will submit similar petitions and we will spend our lives dealing with local authority issues. I could mention six communities in my constituency that have similar concerns about transport.
I want to sound a cautionary note. These are important issues for local authorities to examine. It is not the committee's role to make decisions on behalf of councils.
It is not a question of second-guessing or imposing things on councils. We need to consider a wider and more general question—whether the present legislation on school transport is adequate for the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Stewart Stevenson had indicated that those circumstances are different from the circumstances in which our parents or grandparents found themselves. They are different in two ways. First, the environment in which children have to go to school nowadays is different. Fiona Hyslop made a valid point about traffic and urban infrastructure, which can be threatening, difficult and dangerous. Stewart Stevenson's point about traffic was also important. Secondly, young people's approach to such issues is different. Our grandfathers may have walked barefoot to school for 2 or 3 miles because they were forced to by their parents, but I doubt whether today we would find any child who was willing to walk 2 miles to school. They would regard that as an intolerable imposition. We must consider the issue in a different way.
I do not take a position on the individual instances to which the petitions refer, although there are cases for both councils concerned to answer and they have not fully answered those in the documentation that we have seen. However, we could find a way forward by considering more generally whether the legislation on school transport adequately meets the demands of the society in which we live. Many people have argued that it does not. I am surprised that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has not been prepared to respond to the petitions, because some years ago COSLA itself called for a review of school transport requirements. It is strange that COSLA has backed off—I hope that that is not because of undue pressure. However, I would like some sort of review of school transport legislation. I have great sympathy with the petitioners, and perhaps such a review might bring them relief, if not immediately, in the longer term and for a wider group of people.
I am equally cautious about commenting on individual cases and individual local authorities, but I agree with Mike Russell that a principle underpins everything that has been said to us, and certainly everything that we have read.
There is a balance to be struck. There is the question whether the legislative framework is robust enough; in my view it is. It is written at a level to ensure maximum flexibility for the local authorities implementing it. It does not exclude. It allows local authorities to respond to changes in generations. I will not give the committee anecdotes about changes in generations—other members have done so. There is always a balance between allowing flexibility and prescribing every last detail in legislation. The latter makes the legislation cumbersome and unable to respond.
The real issues are implementation of the legislation at a local level and, as Fiona Hyslop said, how we define personal safety. The guidance does not seek to define personal safety. The route might be to ask the Executive whether something further could be done with the guidance. The legislation is sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes but, by saying, "Here is the minimum standard that we would expect," the guidance is not helpful. I cannot help wondering whether that offers the less complicated but more effective way into the problem.
Generally, I agree with Jackie Baillie. There is no question but that, throughout the country, there are issues to do with seat belts, the standard and quality of buses, and whether double-decker buses should be used. There are real issues to do with how kids are transported to and from school. I accept that circumstances have changed. We must not ignore the financial implications and we must judge whether the best way of spending money would be to extend free bus transport. It is not easy—it is something that requires a national debate.
I agree with Mike Russell that COSLA ought to take a position on the matter. It would have to consider the whole picture, including priorities. It is not for us to go into detail on individual authorities. In the SPICe note, there are a variety of treatments of the matter. Neighbouring authorities do things marginally differently. Clearly, there is a bit of elbow room for different authorities. Issues such as the standard of buses, distances and seat belts are worth discussing, but that discussion ought to take place in COSLA, and COSLA should come to us with proposals.
One begins to wonder what COSLA is for, in as much as the reason why responsibility for school transport is devolved to local authorities is to allow them to take account of the widely differing circumstances throughout Scotland. One would hope that, as transport modes change, local authorities would come forward in a unified, representative form to say that times are changing and that we should perhaps consider how the current legislation stands. However, if that does not happen, there will be a great temptation—we have seen it a number of times in the Parliament, and indeed in the committee—to fill the vacuum left by local authorities.
I am reluctant to see the Parliament and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee meddle in local authority affairs. It is right that, from time to time, we review what is devolved to local authorities, but we must allow them to have parameters to work within.
I hope that, following our deliberations, COSLA will take a fresh look at the issue. I also hope that, on behalf of its members, COSLA will say what its views are on the subject.
I thank the committee for the constructive and positive way in which it has responded to petitions PE368 and PE371. I make it clear that I am very much in favour of allowing local authorities to respond to local conditions. Much of what Jackie Baillie, in particular, said was useful and might offer a way forward.
I draw attention to two issues. The fact that specific distances are included in legislation dominates the landscape when local authorities are taking decisions on the matter. That is certainly the case in Aberdeenshire. Furthermore, that fact also dominates the way in which local authorities are supported by central Government in respect of their needs assessments.
The legislation could be changed to remove prescribed distances and simplified to make public safety the main consideration. That would create a simpler situation, in which local authorities would be allowed more discretion to respond to local needs. It would also avoid the situation of having to apply arithmetic norms, which have to be varied. That can happen even within local authority areas, which—in many instances, such as Aberdeenshire—are quite large.
I was very interested in and taken by what Jackie Baillie said on the non-statutory ways in which the issue could be developed. If I am in a position to do so, I will support any moves to proceed along those lines.
Members will see in the table at the back of the SPICe paper that most authorities use the 3-mile radius.
The issue that is common to the petitioners is that of personal safety. The problem stems from the 1996 act, which amended the 1980 act to require local authorities to have regard to personal safety. However, what is considered to be personal safety today is different from what was considered to be safe in 1980.
Jackie Baillie's constructive proposal on guidance might be the route to take. The committee is not suggesting that legislation needs to be more regimented; we are acknowledging that there are problems and that communities face considerable difficulties. We should not kick things off to COSLA. People use the petitions route to access committees of the Parliament such as the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. We are supposed to be a responsive Parliament. This morning, I was at a meeting of the Procedures Committee at which we took further evidence on the principles on which the Parliament was founded.
If COSLA is considering a review, a debate on guidance would give it an opportunity to make constructive proposals. We are not trying to clip the wings of local authorities; we are trying to help to resolve some of the issues around personal safety. If we were to examine the guidance and ask the Executive to develop proposals, that would form a positive way in which to proceed.
A few of the things that Fiona Hyslop said were in line with what I wanted to say. However, if there is broader discussion, certain authorities might want to discuss the particular burden that they are under because of their geographical structure. How school transport impacts on their education budgets is also a subject for debate. Certain authorities feel that their burden is heavier than that of other authorities because of their geographical position.
Members have had the opportunity to make their views known. I also thank the two members who have raised the issue.
How are we going to proceed with the issue?
I am about to summarise that, in case you are anxious.
Yes, I was anxious that we were just going to say thank you and goodbye.
No. I was generous and allowed you back in to remind me of my duties as deputy convener.
Thank God somebody does.
I have picked up the message from the committee that we are reluctant to interfere with the decision-making process. We should not be interfering with the decision-making processes of local councils, which are accountable to their electorates.
However, several members have raised the issue of guidance from the Executive. We will write to the Executive to seek its further views and bring the response back to the committee. We are seeking a response on the question of the guidance and, in particular, on personal safety and the terminology used in the 1980 act
Secondly, as we are cognisant of the role that local authorities should play, we should ask COSLA to respond to the issues raised by the petitioners and members. Are there any other issues that members want to raise?
Once we have seen the responses, we might want to take a wider view of the issues of school transport and the modernisation—if I might use that terrible word—of the legislative framework. The committee might not want to endorse that approach, but we should take the steps outlined by the convener within that context. It might not be necessary to take a wider view. We might be devastated by information from COSLA that changes our views. However, there is a case for considering the legislative context. I am not as happy with it as Jackie Baillie has indicated herself to be.
We can agree on the two core elements and address the issue that Mike Russell has raised when we receive the responses from the Executive and COSLA.
Legislation does not always end up satisfying people. I am not minded to review legislation just for the sake of it. The route in is guidance. However, I appreciate that Mike Russell wants to take a wider view and that, if the responses we get are not satisfactory, the committee would take that view. I just hesitate to go down the legislative route because it does not always produce results.
Cramond (Roman Remains) (PE9)
The next item is about the Roman remains at Cramond. That is a long-standing issue for the committee.
We have a letter from Herbert Coutts, who is the director of culture and leisure of City of Edinburgh Council. Mr Guild, who is the main petitioner, is in the public gallery. Mr Coutts has replied to the committee's letter on behalf of City of Edinburgh Council and his letter details the actions that were agreed at the first meeting of the Cramond management group on 1 March.
Members are invited to comment on that response and agree what further actions to take.
As he is the major Roman on the committee, I invite Mike Russell to make a contribution—personally, I thought he was an episcopalian.
There are a number of interpretations of that, Mr McAveety, but you and I can debate that later.
I continue the religious theme and give thanks for this miracle. The Cramond management group met on 1 March, after being properly pressured by Mr Guild, and after there were a number of events including a media event with the Antonine guard. That takes serendipity to new heights.
We are seeing the necessity of keeping constant pressure on people to listen to what is being said, not just by the committee or by Mr Guild—although he is a formidable campaigner on such matters and I know that he is sitting in the gallery—but by those people who go to Cramond to look at the sites. Those people ask whether that is really all that can be done.
Is this how we care for our heritage—we allow such a mess to exist and allow it to be made worse by lunatic planning decisions? I welcome the progress that the letter describes, as far as it goes. I hope that the committee will continue to keep a watching brief in support of Mr Guild and his activities. We have been invited to walk the site. I have done that once with Mr Guild. The activity is energetic, but it is worth doing. Perhaps, at an appropriate time, as the weather improves, the committee should do that. I am delighted that we are at last seeing some signs of spring in the winter of discontent about Cramond, although we are not there yet.
I was waiting for the words "Beware the ides of March" to pop into those remarks.
The letter from City of Edinburgh Council raises several issues. The first bullet point says:
"A system of signage was presented for consideration by the group and broadly agreed."
It might be useful if we had a timetable for installation. The letter says that installation will be progressive. It would be useful if Herbert Coutts gave us details of the progression that he expects.
It is disappointing that an alternative access road to Cramond down the eastern boundary might not be possible. We should keep a watchful eye on the opportunity for pedestrian access along that route, to find out whether that is followed up.
Otherwise, we must review constantly what the council and the management group have done and hear regular reports from them.
I am aware that members have been invited to the site. We are trying to organise a visit, in which there is a reasonable level of interest, which should please the petitioner. We will keep an eye on that and raise with the council the points that Brian Monteith and Mike Russell made.