Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Official Report 628KB pdf

---

Seat Belts on School Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 2 is on the Seat Belts on School Transport (Scotland) Bill. On Wednesday 8 March, the Parliament agreed that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee should be designated as the lead committee to consider the bill at stage 1. The Seat Belts on School Transport (Scotland) Bill is a member’s bill that was introduced by Gillian Martin MSP, and it is supported by the Scottish Government.

To begin our scrutiny of the bill, we will take evidence from the Scottish Government officials who are providing support to the member in charge of the bill. I welcome Brendan Rooney and Kenneth Hannaway. Would one of you like to make an opening statement? We will then move on to questions.

Good morning, convener and members. Thank you for having us. I will set out the wider context and explain how we have arrived at the position that we are in, after which I will be happy to take questions.

The Scottish Government takes safety on the journey to and from school to be a matter of pivotal importance. That is borne out in a range of measures that are taken nationally to keep pupils safe, not just in motor vehicles, but when they are walking or cycling to school.

Given that the safety benefits of seat belts are well established and internationally recognised, the proposals in the bill are seen to make a valuable contribution to those wider aims.

There is history to how the legislative proposals have developed. They are not new to Parliament—they emanate from considerations by the Public Petitions Committee some years ago. The Scottish ministers subsequently stated their intention to act, and power was devolved via a section 30 order during the previous parliamentary session. The bill follows the introduction of similar measures in Wales following the use of a comparable devolution instrument.

The fact that the intention to legislate was announced in 2014 has allowed a substantial amount of engagement with stakeholders and parties who are involved in the delivery of dedicated school transport. As such, a collaborative approach has been taken to the proposals that are before the committee.

Central to all that has been the seat belts on school transport working group, which includes key partners such as local government, the bus industry, parenting groups and regional transport partnerships. In addition, a thorough exercise has been undertaken, in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Local Government Partnership, to forecast the cost implications of the policy. Those are set out in detail in the financial memorandum, which has been submitted to the committee. The Scottish Government has welcomed the partnership working and the contribution of local government to those endeavours.

It is clear from the engagement that there is a very varied picture nationally regarding dedicated school transport. It ranges from double-decker buses that transport pupils in busy urban settings to single-decker coaches that take youngsters to school on rural A roads.

For councils, such provision is linked to the statutory duties in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 relating to how far from their school pupils live. Grant-aided and independent schools align their provision with their own policies. Local authority provision is overwhelmingly delivered via contracts with private bus operators. Those contracts vary in size, scope and specification and can be quite different across the country, depending on council needs. A local authority can stipulate various measures within a contract, such as the standard of a vehicle or on-board features such as closed-circuit television, wi-fi or, indeed, seat belts.

Councils are increasingly writing seat belts into those contracts. Recent returns show that 18 councils already do so on all dedicated school transport, and the bill aims for that practice to become universal as a matter of law. It would apply to all dedicated transport vehicles, such as buses, coaches, minibuses and taxis, including those that are owned by local authorities and school transport providers.

Dedicated school transport is quite distinct from the public bus service, which some councils use to meet their statutory duties by giving pupils season tickets or paying for individual journeys. Extending the legislative measures in the bill to that provision would be outwith the scope of the powers that are devolved to Holyrood on the issue.

The bill’s proposals do not mandate specific measures to be taken in respect of individual vehicles, such as retrofitting existing buses or coaches with seat belts, or a private operator renewing or reordering its fleet. Such decisions will be for private bus companies. The industry regularly shows flexibility and adaptability to meet shifting contractual considerations.

The grant-aided and independent school sector reports that its dedicated school transport is almost universally provided with seat belts at present.

Existing UK law means that, since 2001, all new buses and coaches on UK roads that are not designed for what is classed as “urban use” have to have seat belts fitted. Therefore, as older vehicles are taken off the road because of wear and tear, or just generally retired from the fleet, the ones that replace them are more likely to have belts fitted.

With regard to young people with additional support needs or those who might need adjustable straps because of their height, the bill’s provisions have been drafted to allow for that. The statutory definition of seat belt that is used aligns with UK laws, which stipulate that special belts or restraints can be used in their place, for instance for a young person who has mobility issues or is in a wheelchair.

The law on seat belt wearing on dedicated school transport remains a reserved matter. However, the bill represents an opportunity to promote successful approaches and wider awareness of the issue. Councils and schools use a variety of methods to regulate behaviour on school buses and to encourage seat belt wearing, and 18 councils have already implemented the measures that the bill provides for. Extensive dialogue has taken place with local government, parenting groups and other stakeholders. That will continue so that we can produce non-statutory guidance that will help to promote good practice on seat belt wearing to go alongside the bill, if it is enacted.

The Scottish Government conducted a three-month public consultation on the proposals last year; an analysis of it is before the committee for consideration. It garnered feedback from organisations and people across civic society, such as parents and schools, with the respondees overwhelmingly stating that such legislation would be a useful contribution to road safety.

We would welcome any questions that you have.

Thank you, Brendan. Stewart Stevenson will ask the first question.

I want to ask a couple of questions along the lines of “Why the bill?” and why the Government supports the bill. To underpin that, can you tell us how many children are injured travelling in school transport who would be affected by the proposed legislation?

Figures are not collated on the number of schoolchildren who are injured on dedicated school transport. The number of children up to the age of 16 who are injured on buses and coaches in Scotland is around 45 a year. That is the figure for all provision, however—it is not the figure for dedicated school transport. It is not possible to extrapolate from the figures the precise number of children who are injured on dedicated school transport.

Do you have anything to indicate to the committee what proportion of those 45 children would not have been injured if seat belts had been available to them?

An analysis of that has not been done. It is worth noting that those are children who were on a bus. If a child had been injured just after disembarking, they would be counted as a pedestrian, in statistical terms.

Yes, indeed—that is clearly a different issue. It could be as many as 45, but we can expect it to be rather fewer.

Let me come at this from a slightly different angle. Can you tell us anything about the nature of the injuries that the 45 suffered? In other words, were they comparatively minor ones, were they significant or were they a mixture of the two?

Of that average annual number, three were serious and 42 were deemed “slight” in statistical terms.

So, basically, we have the statistical underpinnings. I have constituents who have been on the case of the bill for a long time, and I have supported them in that, but given the progress that seems to be being made and the numbers that you have given us, why is the Government supporting the bill?

The Government’s stated intention for the proposed legislation goes back a number of years, to the previous Administration in the previous parliamentary session. As I have stated, seat belts are a well-established safety mechanism, and the Government feels that they would be a useful contribution to road safety on the school run.

We can take up that point with Gillian Martin when she comes before us.

I have a question. Could you explain to me why the implementation dates are 2018 for primary schools and 2021 for secondary schools? Why was it decided to make that differentiation?

The proposal is for the measures to be phased in, with the legal obligation for primary school vehicles to come in in 2018 and the obligation for secondary school vehicles to come in in 2021. There has been extensive dialogue with those who deliver the provision—that is, the bus industry and councils. The transition that is needed is greater for the vehicles that are used for secondary schools. More of those are not currently fitted with seat belts. The timescale was arrived at in consultation and collaboration with those who deliver the provision.

We got feedback that accelerating the process would put significant pressure on councils and the bus industry and could lead to contracts being broken, which could greatly increase the costs for local government.

I understand that, but one of the questions that Stewart Stevenson asked you was to do with injuries. You indicated that the 45 injuries recorded, of which I think you said that two were serious, were among people under the age of 16. You were unable to say what the split was. It might be that more secondary school pupils than primary school pupils are injured on buses. Therefore, there might be an increased need to accelerate the measures on secondary school transport. Was that considered prior to the bill’s introduction?

Yes, that was considered. Implementation dates were discussed and a range of options were looked at. There is a balance to be found. With the statistics that we have, we cannot differentiate between secondary and primary. I cannot give you the split.

I might pursue that question with Gillian Martin.

You said earlier that the measures do not cover registered bus services. I understand that. Am I right in saying that the bill does not cover school trips, either? I am a bit puzzled by that—if children were brought to school on a compliant bus, why could they be taken to the swimming baths, for instance, on a non-compliant bus?

You are correct to say that the bill as drafted does not cover school trips. School trips are subject to quite stringent and robust risk assessment. The duties that are placed on what is called the group leader—which, in effect, is usually a teacher—stipulate that there should be seat belts on the buses that are booked. There is quite a distinction in provision, in that home-to-school transport is organised at local authority level on a local authority-wide basis, whereas a school trip often involves a teacher booking a bus for their individual class. There is guidance in place that promotes seat belts and stipulates that there should be seat belts on the buses that are booked.

12:15  

That is an interesting point. Although the guidance for teachers says that they should book buses with seat belts, there is no obligation on them to do that—there is no legal requirement for buses that are used on school trips to have seat belts. Is that what you are saying? I think that parents would find it difficult to understand the different approaches, as John Mason said.

That is right. There is not a legal obligation on teachers, or group leaders, to ensure that buses with seat belts are used for school trips. However, the feedback is that, in practice, that is universally done and the guidance is well adhered to.

I would like to follow up on the convener’s line of questioning. Is it a devolved power to legislate to ensure that seat belts are used on school trips, where they are provided, or does that authority lie with the UK?

No. That is devolved—

So we could do it now. We could do it in the bill.

Technically, I believe that that is the case.

Okay. Perhaps an amendment could be lodged.

We can consider that further.

Richard Lyle will ask the next question.

Good morning. If I take my grandkids to school, I have got to have two seats in the back with seat belts, and I have got to ensure that my grandkids are well fastened in. There are 32 councils, of which 18 already require all dedicated transport to be fitted with seat belts; 14 do not. A further six stipulate that some contracts—for example, those for services for primary school pupils or those that involve a particular type of vehicle—require seat belts. Mr Rooney made an interesting comment about new buses coming on, but there are still 110 buses that have not been fitted with seat belts. With the greatest respect, I would contend that most of those buses are quite old—they spew out diesel fumes as they go along the road. John Finnie will be interested in that.

This issue has been on the go for a number of years. Why do the other authorities not insist that there are seat belts on the buses in question? Is it because the people who tender still have ancient buses and they do not want to spend money bringing them up to standard, or is it because we have not insisted that they get it sorted?

There are a couple of points there. The issues vary from council to council. It is a fair assumption that some of the buses will be older vehicles. As I said, since 2001, any new bus that comes on to UK roads must have seat belts fitted, unless it is designed for urban use and has standing room. Double-deckers, for example, are designed for urban use, and some single-deckers that are used on commercial bus services do not have seat belts fitted. It is the stipulation relating to standing room that means that a vehicle is designed for urban use. Larger coaches, which are often used in more rural authorities, given the faster roads and the more rural environment, are more likely to already adhere to those wider UK laws.

Since the ministerial announcement in 2014, an increasing number of councils have been stipulating the use of buses with seat belts in preparation for the legislation. Given that we knew that powers were being devolved via a section 30 order, there was a good amount of time to engage with councils and the bus industry to help them to get ready for the legislation and make the transition. That is borne out in the feedback that we have had that it is increasingly happening in the run-up to the legislative measures.

You are basically saying that the buses in which seat belts have been fitted are those in rural council areas. I am interested in what happens near my area—in Glasgow, South Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire, which are covered by Strathclyde partnership for transport. Why do buses in those areas not have seat belts fitted? Are bus companies in the SPT area particularly averse to that?

I do not know whether the committee is going to take evidence from SPT. It contracts for a number of local authorities in the west of Scotland and runs an extensive number of contracts with various bus operators. The feedback from SPT to us is that it is increasingly writing a seat belt stipulation into those contracts as we move towards legislation. However, I cannot talk categorically about the decisions that it makes on individual contracts—like any local authority or regional transport partnership, it has the option of writing a stipulation for seat belts into those contracts. It might depend on provision in the area and on what bus operators are offering, but I cannot vouch for the decisions that SPT makes.

What will the bill mean for SPT? Is SPT pushing the operators to fit seat belts, or is it not doing that because it does not want to rock the boat? Can SPT require the operators to fit seat belts only as the contracts come up for renewal?

Yes, I think that that will be done when contracts are renewed, as it could be difficult to change the terms of a contract midway through it. The feedback to the Scottish Government has been that SPT is increasingly writing such a requirement into contracts and is phasing seat belts in as we progress towards legislation. SPT has a large number of contracts for various local authorities, and I understand that although it does not require all the operators to fit seat belts, it is increasingly moving towards that.

Thanks very much.

Mike Rumbles has questions on enforcement.

I say first that I think that it is right to have seat belts on school buses. The committee’s work now is to scrutinise the bill and see whether it is fit for purpose. Correct me if I am wrong, but if we pass the bill and require school transport to have seat belts, we will still not be requiring that they be used. Is that correct?

Do you mean that we will not require that they be worn?

Yes.

That is still a reserved issue.

We cannot legislate for that.

We cannot place a duty on a driver—

When I asked you whether we could legislate for the use of seat belts on school trips, you said that we had the power to do that.

I am sorry: I was, perhaps, not clear. The Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on wearing of seat belts, but legislation could be passed that would require them to be fitted—

We cannot legislate for their use on school trips, either.

No.

Okay. That is clear now. The bill is purely about getting seat belts fitted. Is that the right way to go about it? I think that everybody is supportive of the process. Has the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to use its legislative power to pass a bill that would allow us to enforce fitting and use of seat belts?

To my knowledge, the Scottish Government has not done so, but I could write to the committee on that. I am not certain. There may well have been reluctance to devolve beyond what is already—

I am not talking about devolving; I am talking about the Scottish Government asking the UK Government to legislate on the issue. I fear that although we are spending time on the legislation—which I want to be effective—in committee and Parliament, we might put a big tick in the box and say, “Job done,” only to find that kids are still being injured. I want whoever legislates for this to have the best solution. It would be helpful, therefore, if you could let the committee know in writing whether the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to legislate, so that we do not go off at half-cock, as it were.

Is it a legal requirement to wear a seat belt on a bus in the United Kingdom?

Kenneth Hannaway will answer that.

That comes back to Mr Rumbles’s point. There is a fairly intricate set of statutory provisions that cover the wearing of seat belts. The short answer to your question is no. There are various exceptions and exemptions, examples of which include children under 14 and particular types of eco-coaches. There is a related EU directive under consideration that has not been implemented by the Department for Transport. There is a framework, but it is not universally applicable.

I could help to clarify a point for Mr Rumbles—I do not know whether it was adequately clarified—about the question of what is reserved and what is devolved. We are doing a particular thing with the bill in relation to school transport between home and school, and I think that your question was whether that could be widened out to include school trips during the day and so on. The answer to that question is yes, because a section 30 order effectively devolved power over the

“arrangements for persons to travel to and from the places where they receive education or training”.

What we are doing is in the specific category of travel between home and school, but that could be widened out to school trips.

It is about the fitting of seat belts, not wearing them, so there would be no enforcement.

That is exactly right. It would be a requirement that education authorities would have in their contracts that buses that are used for that type of provision have seat belts fitted.

I understand what you have just told me. I will look at the matter from the perspective of someone whose child is on a bus. Let say that something horrific happened and the child was injured on the bus. That person would turn round and say that the Scottish Government had made it law that seat belts had to be fitted on the bus. There would be no requirement to wear a seat belt, so the onus would be on school teachers to make it acceptable practice to wear seat belts on the bus. The Scottish Government would be saying, “Fit seat belts. School teachers have to encourage children to wear them. Job done.” Parents in Scotland will not feel that that is right. I wonder whether that is a question that we should ask the minister. Is that your point, Mike?

It is. We have a series of unfortunate questions, but they are legitimate. What I take from the answers from the officials is that, in legislative terms, there will be no enforcement. As I understand it—correct me if I am wrong, but this is coming to light only now—the bill is purely about the technical aspect of having seat belts fitted. It is not about any other issue related to whether kids are safe travelling to and from school on buses that have seat belts fitted. If we are to take legislation through, we should be comprehensive and attack the potential problem that we all see, rather than go off at half-cock—if I can use that expression—with a bill that does not cover people’s worries.

I probably jumped the gun by making my comments, as we will have two evidence sessions with witnesses and can reasonably ask such questions.

On the convener’s point, it is not school teachers who are on a bus at 8 o’clock in the morning; it is bus drivers who take kids from the furthest away point to school. It would be the bus driver who would need to say to kids, “Put your seat belts on,” and who would need to stop perhaps every two minutes to check that people had their seat belts on. The points that Mr Rumbles and the convener made are quite valid. Who will be liable for enforcement, if there is to be any enforcement?

I am not sure that the two gentlemen on the panel can give us the answer. Perhaps that is something that we can take up with the minister. Do you want to give us a short answer to the question? Is what Richard Lyle said correct?

12:30  

Yes. The legal measures on seat belt wearing are reserved to Westminster and are overseen by an EU framework. In practice, councils have various ways of monitoring and improving behaviour on school buses. Some use bus monitors and some use prefects or older children, who help the youngsters to put their belts on: it is not always the bus driver who must do such things. We have had a lot of engagement with local government on the issue, and some innovative measures seem to be in place. As I said, we envisage comprehensive guidance that will help us to look at the best approaches, but it is fair to say that legislation on use of seat belts is outwith the scope of devolved powers.

The officials have obviously been charged with doing a job and are doing it thoroughly. I sense the frustrations that you and Mike Rumbles feel, convener, so it might be appropriate for the committee to seek devolution of the necessary powers. There may be a range of frustrations about the situation, but I presume that that is an option that we could pursue.

The critical thing that the committee needs to consider is whether the bill will achieve what it has set out to do, which is to safeguard children.

May I comment?

I think that John Mason wanted to come in.

It is just a technical point. You said that good practice in local authorities is to have somebody on the bus. Could we amend the bill to place a duty on local authorities to have someone on buses to ensure that the children wear seat belts? Is that within our legislative powers?

I would have to write to the committee on that point. It is a different issue from the section 30 instrument that devolved power on the fitting of seat belts. It is something that we would have to look at more widely.

My question is on the same subject, but I want to engage directly on the drafting of the bill. Maybe Rhoda Grant’s question should precede mine.

My question is about the duty of care. Although there is no legal responsibility, people send their children to school and hand them over to the authority, which is in loco parentis. If a child was in an accident and was not wearing a seat belt, one would imagine that the parent would come back against the authority, because it had not ensured that the child was being cared for appropriately. Might there be a comeback under health and safety or negligence legislation?

Brendan Rooney looks as if he wants to consider that and write to the committee before our evidence session. That is a key question that runs through the themes in the points that other members have made.

We will certainly take those questions away and write to the committee.

I am addressing my question to the officials because I presume that the drafting of the bill lay in their purview. Of the six sections, there are two active sections—sections 1 and 4. I take it from the commencement arrangements that those two sections would be commenced at a later date, to be chosen by ministers. Section 1 is commendably brief. It states:

“A school authority must ensure that each motor vehicle ... has a seat belt fitted to each passenger seat.”

That is fine, but section 4, on the face of it, appears to introduce some doubt, because it would require each school authority to provide an annual compliance statement on whether it has done what it must do under section 1. I wonder whether the secondary legislation that would introduce the transitional savings provision will show that the “must” element is not immediate, but is phased. Am I making a correct hypothesis?

I think that that is right, Mr Stevenson. There are the high-level dates and there is, as you say, the section 1 duty. You will recall that there is no intention at this stage to require authorities to break contracts, so the nuts and bolts of the transition will, I think, be as you say.

So, the whole point of section 4—which, if one were to read simply section 1, appears to be pointless—is that because we expect fitting of seat belts to be phased, the bill requires authorities to produce annual reports so that Parliament can monitor what is going on.

That leads me to a modest supplementary question. I presume that, at some point, when all the authorities are reporting 100 per cent compliance, we will be able to suspend the requirement in section 4, rather than for ever more receive from authorities reports that tell us what we already know.

I will note that. Thank you. That is helpful.

Good. Thank you.

We move on to finance. John Mason will start on that.

As I understand it from the financial memorandum, we are talking about a cost of £8.92 million. Part of me wonders why there is any cost, given that 18 local authorities have achieved seat belts on buses—I presume that that is just because buses have gradually improved in that regard, as they have done in terms of disabled access and lower emissions. There have been a whole lot of improvements on buses in general. Why do we feel that we have to give anybody any money to improve buses in this way?

The costs are essentially the knock-on effect of increased contract costs and local government outlays. More stipulations in a contract generally leads to a cost increase—extra stipulations mean that contract costs go up. That is how the figures have been arrived at. It is quite challenging to isolate the precise costs, because a range of options are open to private bus operators to meet a contract. Essentially, the figures are based on previous increases for contracting authorities—councils—being applied to future contracts. They are based on forecast increased contract costs in the future.

It is fair to say that, as we have discussed, some buses may well go out of service anyway and some may not. The Scottish Government has an understanding with local government that any new burdens are costed and looked at robustly in financial terms. That is the exercise that we undertook with local government, which arrived at the figures.

It appears that the bill would reward the bad authorities that have not done what they should have done already: 18 authorities that have found the money—I presume by trimming their library services or something else—would lose out. If my maths is correct, £8.92 million equates to £89,000 per bus, if there are 100 buses.

It has not been worked out on a cost per bus. It is a yearly annual increase.

The money will not be distributed only to the 18 councils that John Mason mentioned. COSLA and the SLGP negotiate on behalf of all their members; it would not have been fair for councils that have already done the work not to receive some financial recompense for it. The figure is the national figure for local government and not a breakdown between 18 councils. The precise distribution will be worked out, as all local government funding is, in negotiation with the local government representative bodies, and it will be looked at in the block grant. We do not have a breakdown council by council.

I will leave it at that.

I feel that you might be asking that question again at a future evidence session, John.

How will the additional money be distributed? John Mason talked about councils that have good practice being penalised. However, it may be that councils have not done the work because they cannot afford to do it. If the money goes into the block grant, everyone will get a share, but some councils will be out of pocket through having to recontract for a higher price. I suppose that this is fraught with unfairness because it involves either penalising some authorities or not fully compensating others.

We are transport department officials, so it is fair to say that we are not immersed in the nuances of local government financing. However, the financial memorandum covers local government as a whole. My understanding about the settlement and distribution is that exactly how much is apportioned to individual local authorities is decided between local government and the Scottish Government in the round of the block settlement. We are not in a position to give a detailed breakdown of what money will go where. The overall costs in the financial memorandum make a forecast of the national figure for local government. At this stage, there is not a breakdown of what will go to individual councils.

Would we be able to get that for our consideration of the bill? Obviously that issue will be raised with the committee.

We will certainly see what we can give the committee. We will endeavour to give you as much information as we can on how the money will be distributed.

Richard Lyle has the final question, and has promised that it will be a quick one.

It will be quick. When I was a local authority councillor I could never get this, and I still cannot. If a contractor wants to provide a bus to run children to school, that contractor should provide the seat belts. Why should that be a cost to the council? If someone wants a contract, should it not be a cost to them?

I suppose that that question is better directed at councils and private contractors. Our understanding is that stipulating extra measures in a contract leads to increased costs. There is not a specific unit cost for that. With any contract, things such as competition and the amount of provision in an area are factors. In an area where there is a lot of competition, those who bid for contracts will have to be more competitive and will seek to keep their prices down.

However, as somebody said earlier, you are stipulating that it will be a couple of years before the bill’s provisions come into force for primary schools and then a further number of years before they come into force for secondary schools. By that time all the contracts should be out of date and new contracts will be coming in. Local authorities should then say, “Bring your new bus and you can have the contract.” Is it not that simple?

Richard, your point is well made. Gillian Martin and the other stakeholders may be able to answer that when they come to the committee.

We will stop there. We will have two further evidence sessions, which will include evidence from Gillian Martin. I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting. The clerking team will be in contact with you to request further information on a few matters. I would be grateful if you could let us have that as soon as possible.

12:42 Meeting suspended.  

12:43 On resuming—