School Bus Safety
The final item of business tonight is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4833, in the name of Alex Neil, on school bus safety. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that in certain local authority areas in Ayrshire and elsewhere there is a concern about the need to tighten up the rules and guidelines regarding the safety of buses carrying children to school and, in particular, believes that the regulations should be changed so that it is mandatory for a supervising adult to accompany primary school children travelling on a school bus whether the bus is a single or double decker.
I begin by outlining briefly the existing legal framework on the issue, which is vital to the safety of children travelling to and from school. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 states that local authorities must have due regard for the safety of pupils who travel to school by any arrangement. The Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 state that any arrangements that are put in place must be kept under review.
Under the "School Transport Guidance Circular", Scottish ministers "expect" local authorities to do that and it is also a common law duty of care. The circular states that
"parents have a right to expect that suitable arrangements for a safe school transport system will be made by education authorities, taking account of local circumstances."
I allege that the spirit, if not the law, of the circular and the act is not being adhered to—in particular there is a huge gap in provision of supervisors on single-decker buses especially in many parts of Scotland.
In a 2003 circular, Scottish ministers stated that
"on many journeys, the supervision of pupils is unnecessary"
without providing any evidence to back the statement up. Ironically, the circular goes on to say that supervision
"would be desirable in some circumstances",
but it does not state what those circumstances would be. That is at best an ambivalent position, which I think is also rather complacent.
The same circular also states:
"Supervision on transport can help to maintain good behaviour amongst pupils and this in turn can contribute to more positive behaviour within the classroom."
Well, if supervision is not necessary in most circumstances and it contributes to good behaviour inside and outwith the classroom as well as to the pupils' safety, why is it not universally applied?
The circular also states that
"Supervision contributes more generally to greater school transport safety."
That makes me wonder why supervision is not mandatory. Why is it left up to the local education authorities to determine on its provision? Why do not the vast majority of those authorities provide regular universal supervision on school buses.
The safe school travel pack that was provided by the Scottish School Board Association, and which has been endorsed by the Executive, provides guidance on good practice, but funnily enough it does not address the need for supervision.
Legislation is, however, prescriptive when it comes to safety devices: for example, display of distinctive reflective school bus signs at the front and rear of each vehicle is compulsory. Since 2001, under reserved legislation, any coach or minibus that is transporting three or more children aged between three and 16 must be fitted with seat belts. More recently, it has also become compulsory for cars to be fitted with booster seats for all children under the age of 12. Why do we have those measures for private transport but do not have parallel measures for buses and public transport?
Does the member share my concern that although a person driving a private vehicle must have a passenger service vehicles licence to transport children in a bus over a certain size, a person in the public sector who is driving for an education authority does not?
Absolutely. That is another gap and another reason why the law needs to be substantially reviewed.
The three Ayrshire local authorities' policy—it is also that of every council that was previously part of Strathclyde Region—is to provide supervision on all double-decker buses but not on single-decker buses, although research shows that primary school children generally travel on single-decker buses while secondary school children use double-decker buses. Surely it is more important that primary school children be supervised—although I am not denying the importance of supervision of secondary school children.
The Scottish Consumer Council's report, "Travelling to School" found that
"school bus services tend to use older and less comfortable vehicles",
which many pupils describe as unsafe. The same report states that
"just under sixty percent of school bus pupils reported that they never wear a seat belt".
Even worse, 40 per cent of school bus users reported that their bus did not have seat belts. The report also said that 75 per cent of school buses never have an adult supervisor other than the driver. In 2005, that report concluded that a more proactive approach from the Executive was needed and that the need for more escorts on school buses should be reviewed.
The Executive's own report "Anti-social Behaviour on Buses" said that the school run is a major source of bother. A similar report by the Northern Ireland commissioner for children and young people in 2005 concluded that
"There is a clear need for adult supervision … on school buses"
to reduce misbehaviour and to improve safety.
Unfortunately, there are no up-to-date precise figures on injuries or accidents that involve school buses. However, "Road Accidents Scotland 2004", which was published in January 2006, reported 612 injuries in the 10 years up to 2004 involving people who were travelling by public transport buses. In recent evidence to the Education Committee, a petitioner said that in every constituency that the members of that committee represented, a serious injury or fatal accident involving a school bus had occurred in the past 10 years.
Information about supervision arrangements and the spend on school bus safety is not held centrally—I hope that the Executive will consider the need to collect that information. I know that a review of sorts is going on in the Executive, but I say to the minister that prevention is better than cure. To be frank, the policy is a complete mess and it requires ministers' urgent attention.
We owe it to every child in primary school and in secondary school to ensure that their travel to and from school is as safe as it can be in every respect. I beg the Scottish ministers to take the matter seriously and to produce an action plan early in the new year.
I thank Alex Neil for initiating this worthwhile debate. School bus safety for our primary and secondary students is sometimes overlooked, but it is extremely important. The Education Committee refers safety concerns to the Department for Transport time and again because the means to effect safety are reserved, but as school bus safety becomes a more pressing issue in local authorities it is our duty to highlight flaws in the system and to work to fix them.
As Alex Neil said, the Scottish School Board Association, supported by the Scottish Executive, provides a safe school travel pack that contains advice for school staff, parents and students on how to make the journey to and from school as safe as possible. However, that is not enough. Our duty as members of the Scottish Parliament is to ensure that legislation is in place to protect all Scotland's people. We need more than an advice pack to protect our youngest members of society and to keep them safe on the roads.
The issue's prominence was recently addressed by David Cameron, who created a working group in the Conservative party at Westminster to address school bus safety. We can do our part by putting our heads together and focusing on how we can improve the transportation system for Scotland's students.
Statistics tell us that in 2005 more than 700,000 students were enrolled in primary and secondary schools and that more than 150,000 of them travelled by bus each day. Legislation that the Conservative party introduced in the 1980s stipulates that coaches and minibuses must have seat belts available for every student when more than three children who are aged between three and 16 are being transported on organised trips. The legislation also specifies reflective school bus signs and hazard lights to alert oncoming motorists. Legislation from October 2001 requires all minibuses, coaches and buses to be manufactured with seat belts. Those regulations have been put in place to protect our children's best interests by addressing the availability of seat belts and by attempting to safeguard children as they get off and on the bus, but many other problems must be addressed if we are effectively to secure the safety of our children as they travel to school by bus.
All school districts have to worry about school bus safety. Urban schools benefit from well-lit streets and formal walkways that children can use on their trips to and from school. Special attention must be paid to rural schools, because children are often not afforded the same degree of safety there. Local authorities decide who is permitted to ride the bus to school. In some school districts, children under eight still walk two miles to school each day, while other students walk up to three miles each way. They often walk along dark pathways. With the seasonal change and early sunset, the dimly lit, unsupervised footpaths present imminent danger. We cannot sit by and allow our children to tempt fate daily.
If we insist that children continue their long walks to and from school, infrastructure must be inspected and lighting must be installed in poorly lit areas. Our priority is to protect our youngest members of society.
We must ensure that all students who take the bus to school use their seat belts at all times; that buses, minibuses and coaches are properly inspected and are up to date with safety regulations; and that bus drivers are adequately equipped with the knowledge and skill to transport students safely.
We might benefit from taking note of the yellow bus scheme in the United States. It stipulates that all buses are subject to safety standards on body and chassis construction, mirrors and exterior safety devices, which include stop signs that extend from the bus to halt oncoming traffic and warning lights to alert motorists of children boarding or leaving the bus. US bus drivers are also required to pass school bus driving tests before they are permitted to transport schoolchildren.
School bus safety should be a concern of every parent, student and authority in Scotland. We must acknowledge the changes that need to be made to ensure the safety of our children and actively pursue methods that allow such change.
I have a little experience of driving school buses.
I am sure that Stewart Stevenson must have, too.
As a teacher, I used to take groups of young people around in minibuses. I had a special licence. It was not a public service vehicle licence, but I was trained.
I am happy to speak in support of the concerns that are being raised because I am acutely aware of the danger to all pupils on a bus of rowdiness at the back, which can disturb the driver's concentration. On one occasion, I had a particularly unruly group of young people in the back of the bus. After giving repeated warnings, I had to stop somewhat short of our final destination, close to their homes, give two of them their bus fares and throw them off the bus because they were making the journey dangerous for everybody else.
Proper supervision on buses, when it is necessary and required, should be addressed. I am not sure about the suggestion that a blanket approach should be taken. Everybody in the chamber will be conscious of the extra expense that that would involve. The absence of bus conductors from Scotland's buses is to be regretted. There are still bus conductors in London. They seem to manage to operate the system there and the companies that have bus conductors still operate at a profit. They are very popular, particularly because of the protection they give to people at night, but I digress.
The figures that we have been given for the number of accidents on school buses sound alarming. It would be interesting to see how they would stack up against a control based on pupils who travel on ordinary transport. That would ensure that we do not get too alarmed about the accident rate.
I would like more pupils to walk to school. Many pupils take the bus quite unnecessarily. In my part of town, hordes of pupils travel on buses over distances that they could easily walk. I used to walk to my school from the bus stop at which quite a lot of young people got on. On busy days, I would sometimes beat them into school. However, that is another slight digression from the central argument.
The figures that we have been given for the non-use of seat belts, let alone the behaviour problems, suggest that supervision on some buses would be extremely useful. That is particularly the case in rural areas, where the poor state of the roads means that there is a significant danger of accidents with other vehicles, through no fault of the bus driver. Rural roads are not as safe as main roads and roads in our cities.
It is a case of horses for courses. In principle, I support the motion, which it has been useful for the Parliament to discuss. We look forward to the Executive coming up with its answers.
Contrary to Robert Brown's sedentary remark, I have never a driven a school bus. Indeed, I will go further than that and inform members that I have never used a school bus to travel to school—although as someone who was a member of many sports teams when I was at school, I used buses to travel to many away events.
I congratulate Alex Neil on securing a debate on an important topic that has universal application. Every member of the Parliament should be concerned about safety on school buses; would that every party were represented in the chamber to take part in the debate.
Of course, school pupils use other means of transport that we might address on other occasions. Many kids commute to school by train or—in Glasgow—subway. In the Western Isles, ferries are used for inter-island transfer and in Orkney, in particular, a number of kids commute to secondary school by air. As we are comparing public and private modes of transport, I wonder whether we might reduce the number of kids who are ferried to school by their parents if we required a responsible adult other than the driver to be present in private vehicles—I leave that thought pinned to the wall.
At the core of the debate is safety, both of the kids on the bus and of the kids in the vicinity of the bus, either as they wait for it or after they have got off it—the importance of which an example in my parliamentary constituency has well illustrated. There is action that we can take. Dave Petrie mentioned that school buses in America have external signs that prevent overtaking. We could not introduce that measure because the Parliament does not have the necessary powers, but we could put advisory flashing signs on the backs of buses that said, "Please do not overtake." The "Please" could be in small print and the "do not overtake" in very large print.
Such a warning would certainly have saved the grief and pain of one of my constituents, whose child ran out from behind the bus and was hit and brain damaged by a passing car. All of us will be aware of stories of a similar nature. Although we cannot ban overtaking as has been done in the States, we could require councils to put into the contract for the provision of school bus services that the buses should have appropriate designations at the back and elsewhere. We should certainly consider taking such action, which would fall within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
In Aberdeenshire, there are already a number of yellow buses. The fact that they are distinctive means that they contribute to improved safety, which I welcome. We are probably some way off being able to light every road along which kids walk. Aberdeenshire is the most rural council area in Scotland—57 per cent of its population live in the country, which is 2 per cent higher than is the case in Highland. Many of the roads in Aberdeenshire that kids use are single carriageway and there is no prospect of their being lit, so training and more buses to the door are essential.
Aberdeenshire Council gets only one quarter of the money that it has to spend on school transport. Glasgow City Council, by contrast, gets three times what it spends on school transport as part of its annual funding allocation. That issue should be part of a wider review of how we fund our councils—a process that leaves Aberdeenshire at the bottom of the per capita league.
I congratulate Alex Neil again on securing the debate and hope that the absent members on the coalition benches will read the debate and hang their heads in shame for their absence.
I thank Alex Neil for securing the debate. This is an extremely important issue. The Education Committee has received a number of petitions about school transport in general.
Safety is always at the top of the agenda when it comes to school transport. It is shameful that we do not give our young people the safest possible journey to school. By not putting supervision on school buses, we are not giving parents the option of the school bus when distance or dangerous routes are an issue. There are the problems of emissions from cars and traffic congestion around schools. From an environmental and safety point of view, and to reassure parents, it would be far better to put supervision on buses. An issue for teachers in some areas is that children who arrive at school on an unsupervised bus often go into the classroom rowdy and overexcited and it takes time for the staff to settle them before they can start learning.
There are anomalies throughout the country. Alex Neil quoted a Scottish Consumer Council report. According to a news release:
"The research, carried out by the Scottish Consumer Council, found substantial differences in the use of attendants on school buses, on the checks carried out on vehicles, on the monitoring of transport contracts and in information provided to parents."
That is a scandal and something should be done about it as soon as possible. Supervision on school buses should be mandatory. It is not good enough to say that there will be supervision only on double deckers. Alex Neil is right that in many areas it is primary schoolchildren who are stuck on single-decker buses.
Someone who has a young child and has no choice but to put them on the school bus will be extremely fearful for their safety. Some people have to decide whether to make a sacrifice and give up their job in order to get their children to and from school. In many cases, grandparents have to fulfil a role that they perhaps should not need to. If we had safe buses to school, we would be able to say to all parents, "There is supervision, all the rules and regulations are being met and you don't have to worry. We're doing the best we can for your children."
An issue that has been raised by my constituents in the South of Scotland is that some local authorities have had the sense to consider the risks that are associated with the distance to school. In many cases, the number of miles might be just under the quota that is required for school transport to be provided, but the children are often walking along busy, dimly lit or unsafe roads. Those local authorities that are still not taking on board such risks need to start to do so. We need a complete review and we need to hear what the minister says. It is extremely important that we get this right. People have been complaining for years about school transport. Some people do not have a choice. I hope that Robert Brown can reassure us that something will be done as quickly as possible.
Stewart Stevenson made a good suggestion about signage. A petition came to the Education Committee on that and we were all very concerned about it. I hope that we can move forward, and I thank Alex Neil again for securing the debate.
I had not intended to be here for this debate but I am delighted that I am because for once it is a quality debate.
Robin Harper and I recently spoke at a conference on school transport, which was attended not only by parents and people from school boards but by local authority officers with responsibility for school transport and Executive officials. I wonder whether any of the subjects covered have seen the light of day in the Scottish Executive's Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department or Education Department. Much of what has been said so far in the debate was said by a range of people at the conference, including specialists in the field. As Alex Neil said, we owe it to people to take the issue seriously.
I recently held a meeting to try to solve a transport problem in the Mearns in Kincardineshire. I managed to get a director of the school, a senior master, a local policeman, a transport official from the council, the local education director and the school board to come along. We chewed the fat about unruly behaviour on buses. There had been major problems: drivers did not want to take on certain routes because of unruly behaviour; and younger children were in fear of being bullied because there was no supervision. By the end of the meeting, we had covered not just that one issue but a range of issues, including access.
Rosemary Byrne was right to say that we need to review the rules on how pupils qualify for a place on a school bus. For the life of me, I do not understand why the rules are not as simple as, "If you don't have a pavement to walk on, you should have the option of getting a school bus." In Aberdeenshire, parents are queueing up to pay to put their children on a school bus—either because the family have only one car and the husband needs it for work, or because they are dependent on someone, or because they have other children to look after.
On anomalies, does the member acknowledge that, although 90 per cent of three and four-year-olds go to nursery education, school transport is not provided because such education is not statutory?
I accept that, and I thank the member for making the point.
Drivers are very concerned about public safety. The schools want to take action and the local authorities appear to have an appetite to take action. However, there is a lack of fair funding across Scotland. Stewart Stevenson mentioned that, and I would have done so anyway. In funding, there is no recognition of the effects of rurality on the costs of basic services. Aberdeenshire Council would like to take on some of the things mentioned in this evening's motion and would like funding to cover the costs. The cities in the central belt get more funding than they ever use. That is grossly unfair on children and families in the rest of Scotland. That is the case in the north-east of Scotland and I am sure that people in the Borders feel the same.
Although the issue has come up, I do not want to use this debate to go on about funding. However, does the member accept that, in grant-aided expenditure allocations, the allowance made for rurality is substantially greater than the allowance made for deprivation?
All I can say in reply is that, yes, I acknowledge that, as do councils. However, there is also deprivation in rural areas and it comes in different forms. Deprivation is not only about money; it can also be about a lack of access to facilities.
In a trial, FirstBus introduced yellow buses to Scotland to see whether they would work. The system works in America and has gone down well here. But again, is the money there to fund contractors so that they can provide expensive and well-designed vehicles? Is the money there to provide supervision?
Another anomaly is that school buses are also used as routine service buses. As a result, unknown adults can get on buses with unsupervised children.
The debate has been worth while. I hope that the minister will go away and consider what came out of the conference that Robin Harper and I attended. I can certainly give him the details—but his officials were there.
Alex Neil has initiated an extremely important debate. Different speeches have highlighted different aspects of the safety of our children on the buses that take them to school each day of the school year.
In an accident in 1997, a school double-decker bus toppled over an embankment on the B9161 Munlochy road, resulting in some injuries to pupils. Perhaps as a consequence, Highland Council tightened the rules on buses. Robbie Roberts, a constituent of mine who was involved in operating buses at the time, wrote to me in September to draw attention to a particular problem that I want to highlight in the debate.
Side-facing seats on buses cannot have seat belts fitted properly, even though, since 2003, the law has required seat belts to be fitted to all bus seats that are used in school buses. Since 2001, Mr Roberts has been pursuing in lengthy correspondence with Highland Council the use of buses with side-facing seats to transport children to school in the council area. Children being children, from time to time they will use the side-facing seats, despite the fact that they have no seat belts.
Ultimately, Mr Roberts pursued the matter with me. The process culminated in my raising the issue in the good columns of the Inverness Courier, which highlighted the issue, as a result of which Hugh Fraser, the council's head of support services, asked all area managers to get written confirmation from bus operators that they do not use the side-facing seats. I believe that the bus companies and the council have great concern for the safety of children. Bus companies such as Rapsons Coaches, Stagecoach and many others and their drivers have a good reputation in the Highlands. I do not criticise them, but it appears that buses with side-facing seats—they are mostly double-decker buses—are being used for school transport, despite the fact that it is perfectly clear that safety belts are not being used.
That is not acceptable. If the same thing happened on an aircraft, the Civil Aviation Authority would immediately ground it. Given that it was not exactly yesterday when we discovered that safety belts are a good idea, why are such buses still being allowed to be used? Ultimately, the Executive must be responsible. It really is astonishing that not one member of the Labour Party is here to debate the issue. That is unfortunate, because I am sure that many of them have had such issues raised with them and may have knowledge to bring to bear on the topic. Members' business debates are extremely important. The Official Report of the debate will be read by people throughout the country.
Legislation on health and safety is often developed as a result of tragedies. Would it not be better to think ahead, take account of advice and learn from the experience that members of all parties, except the Labour Party—the members of which are completely absent from the debate—have talked about? I hope that the minister will address the specific issue of side-facing seats and say whether he believes that they should be banned and, if so, what the timescale for doing so would be. If he agrees with Alex Neil's call for an action plan, I ask him to say whether it will take account of that particular aspect.
I congratulate Alex Neil on securing the debate, which, as members have said, is on an important subject. I am always open to listening to expressions of concern by members and to considering whether issues are raised on which the Scottish Executive has a locus or can be of help. The debate has been wide ranging and, although it has not solved the problems of the world, many issues have been raised. I give an undertaking to read the Official Report of the debate and consider whether I need to follow through on some of the issues.
Robin Harper's comments, which were based on real-life experience, were illustrative and balanced. He raised several good points, including the fact that some children travel on service buses rather than school buses, or by train or other forms of transport. A series of important issues have been raised about matters such as seat belts and side-facing seats. There is a link between school transport and the school run, which is done by car, although Rosemary Byrne rather overstated the matter when she implied that many people will suddenly begin taking their children to school by car because of concerns about safety on buses. There is a connection between those problems but, although we need to consider such matters holistically, it is important not to overstate the issue, as the problems are not really the same.
I will clarify the statutory duty that Alex Neil touched on to start with. The duty to provide school transport rests with education authorities under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended, to
"make such arrangements as they consider necessary"
for the journey between home and school of pupils who reside in their areas. Rosemary Byrne mentioned that the Education Committee has taken a close interest in the two-mile limit and other issues. That was certainly the case when I was a committee member and I am sure that that interest has continued.
I had a major dispute with Argyll and Bute Council, which tried to alter the mileage limit for school bus travel from two miles to one mile. Would it be possible to actively encourage a fixing of the mileage limit for free bus travel, if not to put it on a statutory base?
There has been a fair bit of controversy in a number of areas. Somebody raised an issue with me about children who go to the same school and live within streets of each other, just outside the limit and just inside it. Such matters raise many difficult issues, which must be for the local authority to determine. As Dave Petrie knows, the two-mile limit is in guidance rather than statute.
The Scottish Executive issues guidance—it is guidance rather than regulation—on school transport provision to local authorities. It covers matters such as pupil and bus safety, advises on contracting with transport providers and stresses the importance of supervision in maintaining good behaviour among pupils, which is central to the issue that Alex Neil raised tonight. Incidentally, it also covers a number of matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, such as the provision of seat belts, school bus signs, hazard warning lights and the use of vehicles that are in fit and roadworthy condition.
I accept that regulating is a matter for the UK Parliament, but does the minister accept that it is possible to require contractual terms of the local authorities, which would have the same practical effect?
Yes. I was making the point in the context of explaining the use that the Scottish Executive makes of guidance on school transport.
Dave Petrie made a valuable point, which a number of other members touched on, about the differences between rural and urban transport. I will leave aside funding, which is an issue for a different day, but it is important to acknowledge that the position with which local authorities have to deal can vary substantially because of Scotland's geographical complexion. That is one reason why there is a fair degree of local autonomy.
I have taken enough interventions.
A point was made about statistics. The annual road traffic accident statistics for Scotland provide data on the number of children who are injured on school journeys and those data are broken down into categories such as bus passengers and pedestrians. That provides some guidance on the extent of injury arising from accidents.
The issue of supervisors is complex. The Scottish Consumer Council report that has been referred to suggests that behaviour is not a problem on all school buses. It recommends a review of practice, but it might be neither necessary nor desirable to place supervisors on all routes. However, the report is a welcome contribution to the debate and Peter Peacock said at the time of its publication that he was prepared to commend it to local authorities for their study on that point.
It is perhaps more important for the debate that the report recommends the introduction of a good-practice guide. We have taken that proposal on board and are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to draft a remit that covers not only the Scottish Consumer Council's recommendations, but concerns that the Education Committee flagged up in the course of its consideration of school transport. I think that Alex Neil touched on that work in his speech. The contract for it has been awarded to MVA Consultancy, which will examine good practice in improving the quality and safety of school buses, improving pupil safety and security and integrating school transport policy with wider transport policy and other policies such as those on health and sustainability—the school bus run is part of that issue. A number of points have been made about seat belts as well.
We also expect MVA Consultancy to consider supervision as part of the task. It is worth saying that the Executive has made £34.9 million of funding available for additional staff to support schools in tackling indiscipline. It is up to local authorities to decide where the pressure points are on indiscipline, but it is open to them to include supervision on school transport in their use of that funding.
We expect MVA Consultancy to report early next year. The good-practice examples will help authorities to drive up the quality and standards of school transport and we hope that that will have the incidental effect of making it more attractive to pupils and parents.
That approach, rather than a legislative one, which can be a little heavy-handed and sometimes unsuitable, will give local authorities a real incentive to secure school travel that meets the aspiration of parents and pupils. I understand that some authorities, such as South Ayrshire Council in Alex Neil's area, require supervision where double deckers are used. Others require CCTV cameras or use designated school escorts of various kinds, such as teachers, volunteer parents, prefects, or travel monitors. That is broadly a matter for them and we acknowledge readily that there might be a range of different ways of dealing with the safety issues about which members are concerned.
Many issues of this sort raise the question of the balance between central and local government. Broadly, local government has its own democratic mandate and is, quite rightly, accountable to its own electorate. The provision of schools and associated facilities, such as school transport, are matters for local decision-making, subject of course to certain guidance and specific statutory regulations.
The issue arising out of today's debate is the extent to which there should be central regulation of these matters, or central guidance, as opposed to local discretion, assisted by advice about contracts and so forth. Ministers would have to be persuaded that there was a substantial mischief to be addressed before we wanted to provide national regulation. It is fair to say that none of the three Ayrshire councils has identified any particular problems with regard to bus or pupil safety in which they want us to intervene.
Although the councils might not have identified the issues to the Executive, a number of school boards in all three Ayrshire authorities have identified the problem to the authorities.
If Alex Neil has evidence of problems, I am more than happy for him to write to me about them or to meet him.
Many generalised points have been made, but examples of local problems that require to be dealt with have been scarce. Such examples would give provenance and enhance our understanding of the issue.
That said, the debate has been worth while. It has shed light holistically on a range of issues with regard to the current provisions and approach. We will share the consultants' report with Parliament in due course. We attach great importance to good practice throughout Scotland and it is important to keep the matter under review—I do not have a closed mind on it. I will reflect on the good points that have been made, in the context of the report that we seek.
Meeting closed at 17:47.