Public Petitions Committee, 13 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Official Report 303KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1223)

Good afternoon, everyone. I bid a good new year to visitors to the Parliament. Welcome to the Public Petitions Committee's first meeting in 2009. We have received no apologies. I inform members of the public that all mobile phones and other electronic devices are to be switched off.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of six new petitions. All the papers have been provided for committee members. The first petition is PE1223, from Ron Beaty, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take all appropriate action—whether through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation—to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses, to be used only when necessary when schoolchildren are on buses, and to make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.

I welcome to the meeting Ron Beaty and Janet Beaty. A letter from Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers has also been provided to committee members. Ron Beaty will make the three-minute introduction. I ask him to make himself comfortable. The opportunity for questions and answers will follow.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the committee. I speak especially on behalf of the families who have recently lost children—the Oldham and Milne families—and other families who have been in the same position in the past 30 years.

I ask members to imagine being told that their child will rely totally on others for the rest of their life or that their child was killed when coming home from school. School transport can and does have deadly consequences. In this room in 2006, I brought a similar school transport problem before the committee, but nothing was done. Alex Neil raised the matter with the Scottish Executive, but nothing was done. He said:

"I beg the Scottish ministers to take the matter seriously and to produce an action plan early in the new year."—[Official Report, 23 November 2006; c 29818.]

However, still nothing was done.

I was three weeks home from speaking to the committee in 2006 when a young lad from Crossgates in Fife was killed while getting off a school bus. Still nothing changed. In September 2008, Robyn Oldham and Alexander Milne were, tragically, killed within weeks of each other. Nothing has changed. I now appear before the committee again. Surely members will not let me leave this time without things changing.

Parents are right to ask how safe their children are on school transport. Children are our most precious commodity. If we cannot pass laws to protect our schoolchildren, something is seriously wrong. Regardless of where they live, every child needs the same level of safety.

I will describe doable measures that can be introduced to save lives. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament could introduce at least some of them under devolved road safety laws. The safety sign on school buses has been abused for years. It is displayed on old-age pensioners' runs, on tours and on minibuses that are used as taxis at night. Legally, the sign must be displayed when children are on board a bus, yet no law says that it must be removed when children are not on board a bus. That is ridiculous. Advertisements on school buses are larger than the safety sign. Should the situation not be the other way round?

Dustcarts are more visible than school buses. Is that common sense? Buses need extra hazard lights that are set higher on the vehicles, as with all ambulances. The Department for Transport allows that, yet no council insists on that in its contracts, just as no council insists that the safety sign should be removed when no children are on board.

Each bus could have a flashing scrolling message on the back window that said, "Caution—schoolchildren crossing."

Strobe lights could be fitted. Just as undercover police cars have blue strobe lights fitted in radiator grilles, the same lights could be fitted to the back window of a school bus. They can be bought easily—they are certainly not expensive—and they would draw attention to the fact that it is a school bus. School buses should be instantly recognisable as such.

We cannot have service buses also used as school buses with different laws; we need the same laws for all buses that carry children. We need dedicated school transport with trusted drivers and better safety education at school on a regular basis. Those are doable short-term measures that the Parliament can take.

Stewart Stevenson and Aberdeenshire Council recently met the families involved. The one measure that all the families agreed with—as do many other families to whom I have spoken since—was stopping other vehicles passing school buses as they load and unload. It works in North America, and if that were made a criminal offence here, the law would save lives. Passing vehicles kill children who are leaving a school bus. If we stop them passing, we have a cure. Nothing will prevent every accident, but that measure will prevent most.

Such a law cannot be passed by the Scottish Parliament. You need to take a stand and test your own powers in relation to transport laws. If a new law is needed in Scotland, it should be created. If Westminster does not agree, that is its problem. You must be forceful about this and say that we need this law to benefit our children, even if they do not wish to benefit theirs down south. If our MSPs voted on the matter and secured a majority, that would surely be enough to take it forward regardless of what Westminster thinks. If our Parliament has the will, it will happen—you can fight for it.

It appears that some motorists have so little time that they cannot stop to save a child's life. Is a few minutes really that important? We have 20mph limits around schools and 30mph signs that flash as motorists enter a town. There must be something that we can do. We must get rid of the cheapest form of school transport for children—which many buses are—and replace it with the safest form of school transport. The families whom I represent all expect that the law can be changed and that lives can be saved. In fact, that is what is expected by every parent and every child. Do not make the mistake of saying, "It can't happen to my family." We all thought the same. It will happen again to another family unless legislation is introduced.

I ask the committee one simple question: can you put a price on a child's life? We cannot.

Do you want to add to that, Janet?

No, thank you. Everything has been said.

Okay. Thanks very much.

This is the stage at which I invite questions from members of the committee. You should both feel free to respond to the points that are made by committee members.

Mr Beaty, one cannot help but be moved by what you have said. Is the evidence from other legislatures and other countries that do not allow overtaking wholly positive? What evidence do you have to support your contention that if, in co-operation with Westminster, we were able to introduce such a change to the law, it would be advantageous and would save lives?

In North America, the system is very successful, although there are still accidents—with the best will in the world, we cannot stop every accident—and it is enforced strongly. In America, it is a serious crime to pass a bus that is loading or unloading school children. California provides the best example. The buses there are also fitted with video cameras so that, if the bus stops and a car passes, an image is taken and the enforcement officer is sent out.

California has a slightly different system from the one that is used in other parts of America in that, at a double road crossing, the driver can get out of the bus. There are eight lights that flash on their buses, the stop signs come down and the driver gets out, holds up a sign and sees the children across the road. Under health and safety regulations, drivers in this country are not even allowed to leave their seat.

Mr Beaty, you have mentioned North America. I understand that they have yellow school buses there. Am I right in thinking that the use of such buses has been trialled in Aberdeenshire? I confess ignorance, as I do not know the results of any trial that there has been or whether there are any plans to introduce such buses in Scotland.

I do not know what the outcome was. David Blunkett runs the Yellow School Bus Commission, and trials were conducted in various areas throughout the United Kingdom—down south as well as in Scotland. By all accounts, the buses were great and the kids were happy on board because they knew that they were safe. The buses are big and yellow and you cannot miss them. The problem is that, if such a bus were forced on the private coach contractors, they would have a bus that was used for school contracts but nothing else. They would have to find a financial way of getting round that. As far as I and many other people are concerned, that would probably be the way ahead, but it would need a lot of investigation.

Are any councils in Scotland forcing bus companies to remove the school bus safety signs by putting that in their contracts?

Not as far as I know. The Department for Transport tells them that they can insist on the removal of the signs. We have told Aberdeenshire Council that on numerous occasions, but there are photographs of buses at various times of the night being used as taxis with their schools signs still up. The contractors are not obliged to take them down. Councils have been told that it is not a problem for them to write that into their contracts but, for some reason, they will not to do so. Perhaps that is an area in which the Parliament could act to take away councils' flexibility as, when it comes to child safety, everybody should operate on the same basis and at the same level. There should not be different levels for different councils; they should all do the same.

There is now some movement on the introduction of seat belts in school buses. I have been pushing for that in Aberdeenshire, and I know that it has happened in other council areas. We could perhaps find out what the position is in different council areas regarding the various safety measures.

Good afternoon, folks. I was interested in your comments, Mr Beaty. I am sure that everybody around the table sympathises with the parents who find themselves in that situation. You talked about having illuminated signs on dedicated school buses. That could be done easily and without too much cost. How would that apply to buses that run as service buses as well as school transport? Would there have to be an exemption for them or would the same criteria apply? Would they still have to display illuminated signs?

To be honest, I cannot see how we can differentiate between the two. To my way of thinking—and probably that of the parents whom I represent—a bus is either a school bus or it is not. How an operator can run a service bus with children on board and call it a school bus is beyond me. That will not work on the ground of safety. The laws that apply to school buses will have to apply to public service buses—there is no way round it. Either we protect children or we do not.

You are suggesting that, if a percentage of the passengers on the bus are schoolchildren, the vehicle should have an illuminated sign, just as a dedicated school bus does.

Exactly. Yes.

I confess that I am looking for a bit of help in understanding how we can make rules for bus companies—I am not worried about who makes them or the legalities that are involved. If an ordinary scheduled bus happens to go in the direction that pupils want to go and goes past a school gate at a sensible time, the local authority will say, "We don't need to run a separate school bus," and it would be right, because doing so would be ridiculously expensive. However, you are, understandably, asking for buses to be marked as school buses from a point onwards so that drivers and others will understand that they are school buses. I am struggling to see—dare I say it—the practicability of that. I am struggling to find a simpler solution in such an environment than buses having large electronic boards fore and aft that can be switched on to say the right things. Do you have any other suggestions about how things can be done simply?

Is that not a simple solution? The driver could switch a sign on and off. Signs near schools flash up to say that the speed limit is 20mph so that people will—I hope—slow down to that speed when they pass the school. If a driver can switch on and off a sign on a school bus that will say "Caution—schoolchildren crossing", surely that will tell people who is on board. Regardless of who is on board the bus, children will still get on and off it. The only way to stop accidents is to stop traffic passing buses.

You mentioned costs. Please do not get me wrong. The other families who are involved with the petition and I probably see things in a different light from how you see them. How can we cost things? How do we price a child's life?

There is another issue. Do the drivers of buses that both children and fare-paying passengers use have disclosures? There may be drivers and others on buses whom we know nothing about.

I accept that there is an issue to do with bus drivers and children, which applies regardless of whether the children are going to or from school or are out at any other time of the day. However, if I understand you correctly, you are looking for all our buses to be designed in such a way that there will be things like big electronic scoreboards fore and aft—above head height, I presume—that can display the signs that you want to be displayed and which can be changed over time. I take your point. That would not be hugely expensive, but it would certainly involve a significant amount of money, as none of our buses has those things. Is that the way forward?

That is only one way forward. I am not being cheeky, but I simply cannot grasp why people do not understand that school transport should be dedicated school transport. I do not see why there should be a mix on buses of children and people who are paying fares. There must be safety for schoolchildren, which there will be by using yellow school buses. Perhaps I am not picking up correctly what you are saying.

I think that you are absolutely right and that there could be an extended discussion on the matter, but surely it is not difficult to conceive a run on which only one child lives. That is fair enough, but we will not know whether that child will be in school on a particular day and we can quickly imagine other folk saying, "Why is that being done? A service bus goes past their house—can't they use it?" I see where you are coming from and understand what you are saying, but there is another side to the coin.

If we are looking for a thing like a big electronic scoreboard that a driver can switch on and off at the appropriate stage, it sounds as if we can put up the signage and warning lights that you are looking for in a standardised way and that every bus in every fleet in the country could have such signage.

When you speak about a large sign, you frighten me—it does not have to be a large sign. Signs with strobe LED lights are so effective now that they can be seen in broad daylight at a great distance. All that is needed is something that says "Caution—schoolchildren crossing". Strobe lights could be placed in the corner of each window—that kind of electronic gadget is exceptionally cheap. Even switching the lights off and on can be done from the driver's dashboard.

And in your view those would be small enough to fit in the front window and the back window of the bus?

Yes.

I do not want to labour the point, but I can understand where Nigel Don is coming from. We have great sympathy with the petition, but in an urban setting there are many service buses that travel across the city and carry ordinary passengers as well as secondary pupils—I am thinking here about secondary rather than primary pupils. Do you want to say anything more about the important issue of teaching road safety and school bus safety in schools? We could perhaps push that issue. Do you have any particular examples of local authorities in Scotland that operate good practice with regard to school buses?

I will take your last question first. Most authorities try to do the best work that they can within their financial constraints. Money is spent on this, that and the next thing, but money is never spent on school transport. It seems to be the most basic transport in most cases—the oldest buses that the authorities can run.

We are talking about investing in children as well as investing in safety, and they are worth investing in. I am sorry—I forgot the first part of your question.

I was asking about teaching school bus safety, and road safety in general.

Talisman Energy is currently producing a DVD that will be sent to every school and viewed by every pupil. Carla Oldham, the mother of Robyn—the young girl who was run down—is taking part in the DVD. I hope that it will reach children in the schools.

We also have plans for children to design high-visibility jackets for themselves. There are a lot of things going on, but it comes down to the basics in the end. If you take a link out of a chain, the chain falls and, in my view and the view of the other parents involved, the main link in the chain is that we do not have dedicated school transport. School buses do not look like school buses. They are no different apart from having a small square sign in the back, which has been abused for years and, as a result, means nothing to drivers now. We need to up the ante and show that a school bus is exactly that. As Nigel Don says, folk could come up with hundreds of other ideas, and things could be adapted to fit buses, but we certainly cannot leave things as they are. Kids are getting killed and injured on a regular basis, and it has to stop.

Do you have any indications on whether accidents and deaths are more prevalent on the morning run, when children are being picked up to be taken to school, or in the afternoon, when they are being dropped off after school?

Most accidents occur in the afternoon, when kids are dropped off from school. Erin was just about a foot and a half from the pavement on the safe side of the road when the car passed the bus and knocked her down. Robyn Oldham was in the middle of the road when she was knocked down; and Alexander Milne stepped out from behind the bus.

You have suggested that all schoolchildren should be covered by the safety measures that are recommended in the petition. Should the measures apply to all children, in both primary and secondary schools? In my village, I see children being picked up in the morning to go to primary school. In effect, you are asking for dedicated school buses, as they have in America, to pick up every child who requires bus transport.

The system would have to cover every child. Otherwise, we would have somebody deciding that this school would have one system but that school would have another. We would end up with fragmentation, and it would not work. This may be where we are going wrong. Over the years, the Scottish Parliament has allowed councils to make their own rules. It is perhaps time for the Government to set a framework so that every council is required to operate in exactly the same way.

The school bus that I see is usually a private-hire contract bus, not a regular scheduled bus. Contracts usually go to private-hire companies. As well as the bus to the primary school, two older-style double-deckers pass my door in the morning, on the way to pick up secondary school children in another area. In many local authorities, school run services are contracted out to private-hire companies.

In the past, the Parliament has discussed the introduction of seat belts on coaches that transport children on school runs. The most common argument against seat belts is cost. One of the local authorities in my area is trying to set money aside from its budget each year to give to contractors so that they can install seat belts in their coaches. It is the local authorities that let the contracts for school bus runs. Have you any figures for the costs that are associated with each yellow bus—each dedicated school bus—when services are delivered by local authorities?

I have done no costings for that whatsoever. To be quite honest, that is beyond my wit.

I congratulate Aberdeenshire Council on having insisted that all school buses be fitted with seat belts, which is good news. It will remove quite a lot of buses from the present fleet. The council is also stopping double-deckers being used as school buses, which is a great idea. Even at the best of times, double-deckers are potentially unsafe for children. In our area, they can carry a whole generation of children. Further south, all the children in particular streets are probably on board the same bus.

Seat belts are one link in the chain. However, without the other links, the chain is incomplete. An holistic outlook is required.

Do members have any final questions?

The technology is there to put any notice that you like in the back of a bus. That notice would be stored on a chip and could be altered at the flick of a switch. Buses are large and they obstruct views, so for safety reasons there should certainly be a campaign for such technology to be adopted on all public transport. It would not be only for children; other kinds of messages could also be displayed on the backs of buses.

We have a gentleman who is working on various inventions. In the argument about seat belts in buses for children, some people say that children would not put them on, or they ask who would be responsible. The answer to that is easy. An electronic chip, which Robin Harper mentioned, can be used to point out when a seat belt is not fitted. The bus would not move until the child put on their seat belt. The rest of the children on the coach would get on at the child, who would put on their seat belt and that would be the end of that. Eventually, people get used to such things. For example, people eventually got used to the 70mph limit on motorways and the 20mph speed limits.

Before I leave the committee, I ask members please to think about our proposals and save children's lives.

I have a small question. There is a lot of sympathy for your petition. The idea of illuminating buses that are on the school run so that people can identify them immediately is fine. You said that you want a restriction on traffic so that it cannot pass such buses when they stop—the restriction would make passing them an offence. How would we amend the legislation to control traffic that passes school buses? Would we do that at local authority level through byelaws or would there have to be national legislation?

It would have to be a national law, because byelaws that are set by councils tend not to work. Somebody has to be there, and if a national law was passed, the forces of law—the police—would be involved, so anything to do with that law would then become important.

There could be video cameras on buses. Many buses already have cameras that record what happens in front of them. Down south, a car driver who is in a bus lane can have their photograph taken by a bus. A ticket then is issued, and the car driver is fined for being in a bus lane. Many Stagecoach buses in Scotland have video cameras on board. It sounds like new technology but, in this day and age, there is no problem with electrical gadgets.

So you think we should have national legislation for the traffic offence.

National legislation is the only way.

Parents and teachers can play a major role. When a child leaves in the morning and the parents take them to the car or bus or whatever, they should remind the child to be careful and to take extra care when they cross the road or leave the bus. That kind of reminder will stay with the children.

The same applies to teachers. When children leave the school to go home, the teacher in charge of the last class should give the same message and tell the children to take extra care when they cross the road. I would hope that if that message was given to children twice a day, in the morning and when they leave school, there would be a lot of improvement.

I am from a backward world, where no transport to school was available for children. When we walked to school and back to the house, we saw lots of bricks and small bits of concrete here and there on the footpaths. The teachers told us to put aside whatever we saw on the road, so that the footpath could be cleared. That happened a lot.

You have to tell drivers who are passing school buses to look out, too. It is not always just down to the child. You have to draw attention to the bus and let drivers know that children are there. I agree that we have to tell children about road safety at every level, but you have to tell the drivers, too. There has to be a warning sign to draw attention to the school bus.

When Robyn Oldham was run down, she was in the middle of the road. Regardless of what the teacher said to her, she obviously thought that the road was safe to cross at that time. Erin was three quarters of the way across the road when she was run down. I understand what you are saying and I agree with a lot of it: road safety needs to be taught better in schools.

After Erin's accident, we found out that a child's perception of danger changes radically with age. Even at 10 to 12-years-old, when children get off a bus and look to the right and see the parked bus, their assumption is that it is safe to cross, because the parked vehicle is preventing anything from passing. It does not matter what you tell them—that is what they perceive to be the case. They look one way, see that the road is clear and step out.

Erin knew her road safety; Alexander Milne knew his road safety; and Robyn Oldham knew her road safety. There are problems teaching road safety in schools. However, the biggest problem is that when it comes to passing a school bus, drivers could not care a toot. They do not slow down. The "Highway Code" tells them that they should take care, but they do not have time to take care. They see the bus; they see a small square sign in the back window, which means virtually nothing; and they pull out and pass the bus. To them, it is not a school bus; it is not marked as a school bus or coloured as a school bus. All it has is a small, square sign, not much bigger than a piece of A4 paper, in the back window. Until something is done about that, I am afraid that children will continue to be killed and injured.

Every member of the committee has asked a question. That has not happened for a while, so perhaps we have addressed the concern that was expressed at the beginning about our understanding the importance of the petition.

I think that the petitioners have heard members' willingness to try to explore the issues that they have raised. We would be frustrated—although it would be nothing compared with what the families have experienced in having to deal with difficult consequences—if they did not think that things were moving on at all.

At this stage, I invite members' views on how to take forward the petition. I do not want the petitioners to leave today feeling that they have not achieved something in relation to finding solutions to the difficult problems that they have raised. I invite suggestions from members, after which we will try to explain what we want to do next with the petition.

In the first instance, we should ask the Scottish Government a number of questions, such as what specific actions it is taking to make routes to school safer for children and how it promotes best practice among local authorities in how they handle contracts, especially with regard to better signage and lights on school buses. We should also ask the Scottish Government whether it supports in principle the change in the law that the petitioners have been asking for, which would ban the overtaking of a stationary school bus. If the Scottish Government supports that change in principle, let us ask whether it will make representations to Westminster to see whether Holyrood and Westminster acting together can affect that change in the law.

I wonder whether we might take a step slightly beyond what we have normally done in the past year and a bit that I have been on the committee and agree that we think that the proposal is important and we want to see a change, as the petitioner does. Rather than just asking questions about what people are doing—although we need to do that, and I support what Bill Butler said and would also suggest that we write to some local authorities for their views—perhaps we could frame those letters in a way that says, particularly to the Government, "We would like to see a change on this and can you advise us how that change can be brought about?" We could ask the Government to address each of the issues that the petitioners have raised and clarify what would need to be done to make the change so that we are not unsure about how to proceed. If the Government says that the matter is reserved to Westminster—I believe that some of it is—it ought to be encouraged to write to Westminster. It might tell us that the best way forward for the committee is to write to Westminster, too. Alternatively, we could ask the Government to tell us what to do. I have certainly got the message from the petitioners that the matter needs to be addressed. This is not a paper exercise, and I believe that we need to make some progress.

Although the petition talks about drivers of motor vehicles overtaking stationary school buses or buses that are identified as transport for schoolchildren, there might be a wider issue about how we transport children. I refer particularly to the point that was made in response to my question about the incidence of accidents when children are dropped off and then cross the road. Although it might be fair to say that such buses should not be overtaken, there is also an issue about on-coming traffic being able readily to identify that a bus in the distance is dropping off schoolchildren.

There has been some discussion of warning lights at both the rear and the front of buses. As with pedestrian crossings, drivers would then be made aware that they were approaching an area where pedestrians might be on the road or about to cross it.

There is a wider issue about how we deal with the safety of passengers coming off school buses. As Nigel Don mentioned, we could ask the Scottish Government to ask the UK Government about what measures can be put in place to safeguard children getting off buses not only from traffic coming up behind the bus, but from other traffic using the road. As a road user, it scares me when I see buses, particularly school buses, dropping off children at blind bends, where other road users cannot see what is going on in front of them. We need to bring all such measures into play so that we create the safest possible environment for all children getting off buses and an environment in which other road users also feel secure. The trauma to any driver involved in a road accident, particularly when a child is involved, can be debilitating. I hope that the Government will take on board our concerns to safeguard the environment not just for children but for other road users.

I think that Mrs Beaty said that drivers need to be aware, which is so right. When I was a councillor, we dealt with an issue of speeding beside a school. We looked into the matter carefully and found that the people speeding were mums on their way to pick up kids from school—even they were not really aware of the possible consequences of their actions. I would like to find out whether councils are doing anything to educate children and parents about road safety.

I would also like a bit more detail on the yellow bus trial. We should find out how successful that has been in the trial areas, what the costs are and whether it might be rolled out across Scotland.

I accept Nigel Don's point about the way in which we should approach the Department for Transport. I think that we should do so by providing a list of specifics.

We should also note—this applies to cities rather than to small villages—that other physical steps can be taken. Near my local primary school, the railings are positioned in such a way on both sides of the road that the children can proceed conveniently only to the controlled crossing point. In other words, it is not easy—or even possible—for the children to run out into the road from either end of the bus.

The committee will now try to pull together those points into a course of action. Once we have agreed that action, the petitioners will be kept informed of any progress. When the committee reconsiders the petition to look at the responses, the petitioners will be notified. I hope that we will be able to make progress on the issues that have been raised.

We have absolute agreement from committee members that we should raise the issue with the Scottish Government, the UK Government's Department for Transport and the education and support mechanisms that provide advice here in Scotland. We are also agreed that we should explore with a number of local authorities how to create good guidance frameworks for school transport contracts and the operational conduct of bus operators that provide school transport.

I agree with Nanette Milne that we should explore the issue with the UK Yellow School Bus Commission. Initiatives have also been undertaken by local authorities and others with FirstBus, which I think is the major bus operator that has tried to deal with the issue. Such initiatives could produce further welcome developments if resources were made available for them.

Nigel Don asked whether, as a matter of principle, the committee could agree with the petitioners by supporting this safety initiative and calling for the overtaking of school buses when they are in operation to be banned. The committee took a position on a matter of principle—curiously enough, on seat belts, which Nanette Milne mentioned—in a previous parliamentary session when dealing with a similar situation. Therefore, it would not be remiss of the committee to take an in-principle position by recommending a particular course of action. We could ask both Governments as well as other agencies to make progress on addressing the issue to the satisfaction of the petitioners. Would that be worth doing? Is there a consensus among committee members on that? If there is, we can move forward.

For the sake of clarity, it might be wise to add "while the bus is unloading or loading children", given that a school bus that has no children on board could stop.

I am not too worried about the semantics; I think that we should just agree the broad principle. A lot of lawyers will probably give us 10 reasons why we cannot put a certain sentence together, but we will see what happens. I mean no disrespect to anyone in the legal trade—I probably was disrespectful, but there we go—but, essentially, we first need to achieve a consensus on the matter. According to the information that I have in front of me, the issue has popped up a couple of times both in this Parliament and in the House of Commons, but it has not got any further. We need to create some momentum on the issue to meet the petitioners' aspirations. If we can agree most of that and pull those points together, we can move forward.

I hope that John Wilson is about to give me a conciliatory contribution.

I am aware that local authorities can introduce 20mph speed limits on the roads outside school buildings. As has been mentioned, the issue is whether local authorities can introduce byelaws on the operation of school buses, as that might offer a way forward. Given that they can put up speed reduction signs outside school buildings, they might be able to introduce byelaws on the safe transportation of schoolchildren, for whom they have a duty of care. Although we need to go to the Department for Transport to get the regulations changed, we should investigate whether local authorities can make changes locally.

That is a positive suggestion, which we can raise directly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and a few specific local authorities. Perhaps we could choose a city authority and a rural authority, because the experience of road use will be different in those areas.

Members have made helpful suggestions, which we will pull together and raise with the agencies that have been mentioned. I have explained the process. We have managed to get to the heart of the issue that the petition raises. All that I can say is that I hope that we can make progress on it on behalf of the petitioners and those who have supported the petition, and that today's consideration has been useful.

---

Assisted Dying (Referendum) (PE1228)

PE1228 by George B Anderson, on behalf of the Militant Retired, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on assisted dying and asks the Parliament to hold a debate on the issue. I welcome to the meeting George Anderson, Alice Watson and Mary Scott Macfarlane; I think that Mr Anderson will lead off. The format is that you have three minutes to speak to the petition, after which we will have a question-and-answer session.

My eyesight is bad and the battery has gone in my watch, so you will have to keep me in touch with time.

I will keep the conversation going until you are ready. I am losing my eyesight, too, so I can sympathise. On you go.

Dr Libby Wilson was supposed to come along to the meeting, but she took unwell. Alice Watson and Mary Scott Macfarlane from FATE are here to help me out.

In the next few minutes, I would like to expand on why we need a referendum and a debate on assisted dying. Believe it or not, my first source is a wee history book, in which something caught my eye the other day that I thought was pretty relevant. I will read out what the author says about the last hours of George V on 20 January 1936 at Sandringham house, Norfolk:

"The king's health had been deteriorating for some years … and by the beginning of 1936 he clearly had little time left … His hand shook so badly that he could no longer write his diary and his doctor, Lord Dawson … issued a bulletin from Sandringham: ‘The king's life is moving peacefully to its close'. He gave the dying man drugs to ease the pain and also apparently to hasten the end so that the news of the death would appear in the quality morning press rather than the evening papers. The king died that same night."

I ask you to consider how that relates to the subject of the petition.

The second item that I want to read to you is from one of the case studies in Margo MacDonald's consultation paper. I do not know whether many of you have read that, but it is worth a read, as are Jeremy Purvis's papers. Both made helpful contributions to the debate.

The case study involves the Bowman family from Cumbernauld:

"Mrs Bowman suffered from Parkinsons … She was totally dependent on others, mainly her husband."

Mrs Bowman bravely chose a day to explain to her family—I am choked up reading this—that her

"life had become intolerable and that with her husband's help, she planned to end it rather than endure what she saw as meaningless torture.

Her children respected her decision, and their father's agreement to co-operate with it. Mrs Bowman's death took place in her home by means of a combination of drugs and possibly, suffocation."

The family never discussed how Mrs Bowman's life ended, and

"Her death certificate did not record her death as having been due to suicide or assisted suicide."

That is another important point.

Those are two graphic examples of assisted dying; there are many others if you care to read up on them. I have one here—Raymond's story—that I will not read out to you but which can be had from FATE. It is about a trip to Dignitas, and it does not spare us any of the details. It takes us in another direction—to Switzerland, to be precise—and it gives a full account of what happened there. I will spare you the details; suffice to say that Raymond's story would break a stone's heart.

Why are terminally ill people being forced into exile in the same way as lepers were in medieval times? Let me suggest a possible reason. Those who drew up the Suicide Act 1961 did not envisage that other countries would amend their suicide laws, which has resulted in people who have terminal illnesses seeking assistance abroad. That phenomenon can only increase if the figures that show our aging demographic are to be believed and the laws of this country remain as they are.

I have one final point to do with our call for a referendum. If the city of Manchester can hold a referendum on traffic congestion charges, it would be perverse for the Scottish Parliament to fail to treat the issue of assisted dying less seriously. I do not know whether members have any questions or whether my friends have any contribution to make.

Committee members will ask questions, to which any of the three witnesses can respond.

Alice Watson has asked me to explain that FATE means Friends at the End, in case members do not know that. FATE is based in Glasgow.

We are aware that a couple of members have raised, and are raising, the issue of legislation for a framework for assisting people who wish to terminate their lives. What discussions have you had with members who have raised the issue in the chamber? How do you feel about the members' bills that have been proposed?

When all of this is over, I will write it up, as it has not been a happy experience. I wrote, either by letter or by e-mail, using my daughter's computer, about the business of asking for a referendum—that was all that I asked for. I will quote one of the half a dozen letters that I received, without saying from whom it came. The letter states that my comments "have been noted".

I invite Mary Scott Macfarlane to comment. Members have raised the issue in the chamber; most recently, Margo MacDonald's proposed bill has received publicity. How do you think that the proposed bill will engage with the issues that you raise? Would it be worth your exploring that option before initiating a debate on a referendum?

We have had contact with both Jeremy Purvis and Margo MacDonald over a number of years. Jeremy has spoken at Friends at the End meetings. We have written to all MSPs in my area of Lothian and the Borders on several occasions over a number of years. My most recent contact with Margo MacDonald was at St John's church, towards the end of last year, when she met Ewan Aitken and we had a debate. I assured her then that I was totally on line with what she is proposing and that we back her 100 per cent. We have been in touch with both Jeremy Purvis and Margo MacDonald and know how they feel; I think that they know how we feel.

This is a serious issue, and there is much to be said on both sides. How would you respond to someone who said that they supported members of the elected Parliament introducing members' bills on the issue to which your petition relates, because that is part of representative parliamentary democracy, but that they could not support a referendum on it, because by and large referendums are concerned with constitutional issues? Why do we have a Parliament if there is to be democracy by referendum?

My first response is that Manchester City Council does not look at the issue in that way. This is not a constitutional matter. Referendums such as that which we propose are held in Switzerland all the time—the aim is to find out what the people think. The petition was prompted by the wee poll on the issue that my local paper conducted about a month ago. Do you have the material that is on our website?

No.

I thought that you might have a printout of that material, but it does not matter. My local newspaper asked its readers whether there should be a law sanctioning voluntary euthanasia; 84 per cent of people said yes in response to that simple, straightforward question. I want to know whether that is the view nationally as well as locally, and the only way of finding out is to hold a national referendum. Never mind your cosy wee meetings in the Parliament—put the issue out to the people. I do not know what that would cost—there is a cost to everything—but we propose a postal referendum. How did Manchester do it?

I understand what you are saying, but others take a contrary view.

I do not want to go too far down this road, but I echo what Bill Butler has just said. Both he and I have been members of the Justice Committee for a while—we spent all this morning dealing with issues there. With respect, law making is rarely a simple matter, and any law that we might be able to introduce in this area would involve a lot of complexities that it would not be appropriate to deal with in a referendum. However, we have got the point that there is a serious issue.

I suggest that one of the reasons why the replies that you have had to letters and e-mails have been fairly terse is that this is quite a difficult subject for MSPs and others to get to grips with, so it is much easier to give a simple reply.

Please do not insult my intelligence. I know that it is a difficult issue; I was a nurse at one time, so you do not need to tell me that it is a difficult issue.

There are considerable concerns about what the law might be able to say and how it should be drafted. Experience tells me that it is not a simple matter. I have got to the point of recognising that we must have a debate about the matter. That is why I welcome Margo MacDonald's consultation, because on whichever side of the divide—if there is a divide—anyone might stand, it is such a current issue and so relevant to the general population that we must at least grasp the nettle and address it.

That is where I am coming from. We therefore need to write to the Government—I echo what I said previously—not so much to endorse a view, which I would not want to do at this stage, but to say to it that we think that this is a real issue and to ask it what, if anything, it proposes to do about the matter. If its view is that it does not propose to do anything, we should have the Government saying that.

The other recommendation that I will make—as petitioners you will be aware of this—is that because there is a general public consultation on the issue, we should encourage anyone who has a view to respond to Margo MacDonald's consultation paper, because that is the fastest way forward.

I noted assent from members to those suggestions, so I think that there is agreement with them. Are there any other questions for the petitioners?

Before—

I am chairing the meeting, George. Haud on. As there are no questions, George can now come in.

Nigel Don said that it would be inappropriate to hold a referendum. What do you mean by that? How is it inappropriate to hold a referendum?

Manchester's referendum—I think that London had a referendum on a similar issue—asked a specific question about a specific issue, which was an issue about which people would not die in a ditch, if you will allow me to use that phrase, but you are asking a question that, we accept, is hugely complicated. You cannot just define "voluntary euthanasia". Every time you put "just" in—

You are confusing two things. I am asking for a referendum; you are confusing that with drawing up a bill. I am not asking you to draw up a bill. I am asking you to ask the people: do they want help at the end of their lives if they want to get out of it?

There is an issue of process that we will all negotiate about. Essentially, when a referendum is held, either by a local authority—on whether there should be congestion charging in London, Manchester, Edinburgh or wherever—or by Government in the UK or Scotland or, in Europe's case, encouraging or not encouraging referendums on other issues, the decision to have a referendum will be taken at a certain point in the process.

The question that you are asking at this point is, "What is the view of the Scottish Government—or any other institution with the power to hold a referendum—on whether we should have a referendum?" The purpose of the Public Petitions Committee is to take that forward.

You have been around for long enough to know that there are people around this table who profoundly disagree with the position that you have articulated. There will be arguments about that among parliamentarians and others, including the public. That debate will happen and we may not agree. The issue that we are addressing now, however, is the specific one that you have raised in your petition and what we want to do next. The core of Nigel Don's contribution was about what we want to do next with the petition to seek views from those who would make the decision about the principle of a referendum.

We could go into endless detail about whether in a pluralist democracy with a Parliament and so on it is always necessary to consult through a referendum. Some folk are passionately in favour of doing so and others think that it is a waste of time, but we will have that debate. Some issues will end up as the subject of a referendum, because people make them sufficiently important. You might wish the issue that you care about to be one of those. We want to move your petition through the process to try to address your concerns.

Do members have other views?

I do not know whether this will help, but it might be useful for you to know the views of other committee members. We have engaged in a parliamentary process on the matter, Margo Macdonald has lodged her proposal for a bill, which I support, although some other members do not. A consultation on the bill is under way, which will be extremely useful as it will canvass people's views on the subject in general and on other matters that might get into the bill if it is considered by Parliament. I feel that asking for a referendum at this point might hold that process up—it certainly will not help it. However, it would be interesting to get on record the Government's response to a call for a referendum.

I point out that Jeremy Purvis asked for 18 signatures in support of his members' business debate, and he got five. That is what I am up against. As the post that I received shows, I am up against the politicians, not the doctors and not the church.

Plenty of other folk are queuing up to be against politicians as well.

Rightly or wrongly—regardless of whether you agree with the situation—MPs and MSPs have to determine issues based on the endorsement that they have as individual representatives. This is an issue about which people have powerful emotions. There are many different views on the matter and there are different layers to those views.

We want to find out the position of Government on the matter. Robin Harper has identified the fact that a process has been begun by politicians who are not unsympathetic to the position that you have raised. He would like that process to be allowed to be explored, and I am sure that all members agree with him.

I believe that the committee is agreed that we want to take your petition to the next stage by seeking observations and comments from the Government and others. When we have received those responses, we will seek your perspective on them. Hopefully, that process will be helpful in moving forward some of the issues that you have raised.

So that is it, is it?

I assure you that it is not. You might be part of the sceptical brigade but, as I have explained, as part of the process that is now under way, the petition will come back to this committee, and you will—

Kicked into the long grass—that is the phrase.

You might have that perspective, but I do not share it.

I remind you that none of us would be sitting around this table if it were not for a referendum.

We could continue this intellectual tennis match all day, but we do not have time. You are speaking to another ex-teacher, George, so I am enjoying it.

We guarantee that you will be notified of the responses that we receive and will be informed when the matter is due for discussion at a subsequent meeting of the committee.

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE1212)

Our next petition is from Jean Camidge. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to hold a public inquiry into whether the Scottish public services ombudsman has delivered the quasi-judicial complaints-handling service that it claims to provide and to review all complaints that have been brought by members of the public but have subsequently been rejected by the SPSO.

We have had a number of petitions on the SPSO, and I am conscious that we have sought views on the issue before. That might influence how we deal with the petition.

I invite members' comments on the petition. Members will remember that we drew to the attention of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee all petitions on the SPSO that are before the Public Petitions Committee.

The Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee will report in April, so it might be wise to wait to see what action will emerge from that that might be relevant to PE1212. We can keep the petition in the pending file until then.

We did that with a previous petition, so we will do it with this one.

---

A977 (PE1221)

PE1221, by Sandy Morrison on behalf of Fossoway and district community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to recognise that the A977 is part of the strategic road network in Central Scotland, that the opening of the new Clackmannanshire bridge will lead to increased traffic on the road and that, as the safety and welfare of the whole community is of paramount importance, the Government should provide funding of £1.5 million for traffic mitigation measures to provide long-term safeguards for the community.

The presence at this meeting of so many members from the Aberdeen area confused me about the geography of the A977. I wondered where in Aberdeen it was—thanks for that! Richard Simpson is a regional member for the area that includes the A977 and has expressed an interest in the issue in the past. He will expand on the issues that the petition raises and then we will have questions.

There are certain principles involved in this case, which is why I think the Public Petitions Committee's view on the petition will be important. The Scottish Government decided to create the Clackmannanshire bridge, at a cost of £120 million, and it was brought in on time and on budget. It is now open, which is excellent, even if it did cause the First Minister to get pneumonia at the time.

Prior to and after the opening, the Government also funded a bypass for Kincardine and road works to the south of the bridge that allowed various traffic problems to be solved, which was all very well and appropriate. However, the appropriate contention of the petition is that the Government should also be responsible for the consequential effects on local communities of the national decision to build the bridge. The negative effects on communities along the route of the A977, including Forrestmill, Blairingone, Powmill, Rumbling Bridge, Crook of Devon, Drum and Balado, have not been taken into account fully by the Government.

Against the advice of the council at the time, the A977 was de-trunked in 1966, but there is no suggestion that it should now be retrunked. The issue is, therefore, about a local road; it is not a trunk road issue. However, that is where the problem arises and why the Public Petitions Committee's view will be important. The question is whether a national undertaking should also bear the costs of its consequences.

Why should that be the case with the A977? All the reports that were received predicted that, following the opening of the new bridge, it was likely that traffic would immediately increase by 40 per cent, with a steady growth in additional traffic on the road over the ensuing five years of up to 100 per cent. However, the communities concerned are sceptical about those figures and consider that they probably underestimate the true position, because the removal of all the traffic blocks for the Kincardine bridge means that traffic levels are likely to increase substantially. Currently, there are some 24,000 crossings a day of the old Kincardine bridge, of which 6,000 are by heavy goods vehicles. HGVs go through the seven communities that I mentioned at the rate of one per minute. On the grounds of safety and of ensuring that the A977 does not become a trunk road and the main road for HGVs, my and the petitioners' view is that the Government must fully fund the required consequential elements.

At present, all the traffic on the A977 has a clear and unimpeded run from the Gartarry roundabout through the various villages, and we believe that the safety and welfare of those communities is seriously compromised by the lack of crossing points and the absence of pavements and traffic lights. In particular, there are no roundabouts to slow the traffic down.

I turn now to the current situation with accidents. The report by the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership—tactran—and other reports that I have received indicate that there is already a higher than average number of road traffic accidents on the A977. Only two weeks ago, there was an accident when two horses strayed on to the road.

There is a perception that the A977 is a preferred route for HGV traffic, which causes major concern to residents. It is also the preferred route to the north-east when there are restrictions or closures on the Forth road bridge. Those will continue when there are high winds and so on; they will not decrease in frequency at least until 2017—and we do not know what will happen beyond that. The closures are in fact likely to increase in frequency, given the increased maintenance work as the bridge nears the end of its life—we now know that the bridge's life is to be extended, but the closures will nevertheless continue. The road appears to be used as the main distribution route for at least one major supermarket, as well as for tankers travelling to and from the Grangemouth refinery.

The introduction of roundabouts would primarily be on the ground of safety, as they would slow traffic through the communities concerned, thereby making the route less desirable as a through route for HGVs.

Perth and Kinross Council is not seeking to have the road retrunked, which would make it the total responsibility of Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government. The council has fully accepted that, despite the predicted increase in the amount of traffic, it will retain responsibility for what will undoubtedly be increased maintenance costs.

It is just over £1 million that is at stake. Remember that that is a one hundred and twentieth of the cost of the Clackmannanshire bridge, and we should also bear in mind the substantial amount of money that was required for the road works on both sides. Only £1 million is required to ensure that the measures that I have discussed are introduced on the A977.

The principle has already been partly conceded by Tavish Scott, the former Minister for Transport, who agreed to £250,000 being made available for improvement work. Surely, as for any major project, there should have been agreement beforehand on the effects of the new bridge opening and the necessary works, which should have been funded as part of the Clackmannanshire bridge project. I hope that, as it considers the situation, the committee will examine those issues in relation to the Clackmannanshire bridge and future projects.

I will act as devil's advocate, convener. You are telling the committee, Dr Simpson, that none of the local authorities concerned wishes the A977 to be—this is a terrible word—retrunked. The latest answer from the present Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, which was given on 18 June 2008, was:

"We have no current plans to designate the A977 as a trunk road."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 June 2008; S3W-14058.]

How do you work through the problem with the £1 million that the local authorities are seeking? How can they justify that request—you are articulating that desire on their behalf—given that such moneys are given only for trunk roads?

The principle has already been conceded with the granting of £250,000 towards it. Retrunking the road would mean that it would be designated as a major route, which HGVs would use. The modifications that have been proposed to help persuade people that it is not the best through route to take, and to provide the communities along it with enhanced safety, would be undermined by retrunking.

Retrunking is not at the centre of the argument, however; the centre of the argument is whether, when work on a major structure is undertaken on part of the trunk road network or, following a Government decision, on the transport network as a whole, the Government should bear the consequences and take into account the effects on, and safety of, the local communities concerned.

I certainly sympathise with concerns about the condition of the road. I have experienced the congestion on it; indeed, it is the most appalling that I have ever seen on a relatively minor road in Scotland. However, there are competing interests to take into account. If the Government had £1.5 million to spare, cycling groups, which are desperately short of money, might want it. Moreover, as Bill Butler has pointed out, the petitioners are asking for extra money that would not normally be available. Has the council done everything that it can within its present budgets to slow traffic on that route? After all, a major concern with regard to people's safety and wellbeing will be the speed of traffic through the villages.

Indeed. Perth and Kinross Council has agreed to undertake some upgrading in relation to four or five priority mitigation measures in a list of 10 that was agreed with the local community. Those particular elements, which include cycle paths and pavements, will involve smaller amounts of expenditure; however, we need to remember that Perth and Kinross has to bear the road's maintenance costs which, given the fact that the volume of traffic has increased by 100 per cent, can only rise. Moreover, the council has one of the country's more extensive non-trunk and rural road networks, so it already faces some quite major issues.

Given that the cost of the bridge was upwards of £130 million or £140 million, £1 million should have been set aside for consequentials. At the outset, there should have been discussion and agreement between the council and the Government on the appropriate allocation of costs. I hope that the Public Petitions Committee will not only seek the establishment of such a principle for future projects, but agree that the issue be revisited to ensure that more of that £1 million is provided.

Some of the correspondence that I have seen has suggested that the regional transport partnerships have been given money for this work, but there has been no sign of any contribution, either from them or from Transport Scotland. The various groups involved simply failed to get together before all this started and agree on the projects that were necessary to protect these communities. They should have done so; indeed, the Government should have made available the entire sum for consequentials or, failing that, at least agreed a sum to allow Perth and Kinross to proceed.

Dr Simpson indicated that the Government that commissioned the bridge should have ensured that money was available to carry out necessary works on the road. He also said that £250,000 was given to the local authority for works; however, the petition mentions a £1.5 million contribution. I want to get these figures sorted out. What is the total cost of the work proposed in the petition? Is it the £1 million that Dr Simpson has mentioned? Is it £1.25 million, which is the £1.5 million mentioned in the petition less the £250,000 that has been made available? Is it £1.5 million plus that £250,000? If we are going to take forward this petition, which has been submitted on behalf of Fossoway and district community council, I want to be clear about the real figure for the works and how it has been assessed.

Thank you for asking that question—I certainly understand your confusion over the figures. If I remember correctly, when discussions were held in 2004-05, the original costing for the 10 mitigation projects—the list of which I have given to the clerk and can be circulated to members—was £1.048 million. Obviously, that figure will have increased.

I am not sure whether the exact figure is £1.5 million now, but the works that are involved are fairly clear, and those works should have been undertaken. The local authority may be responsible for some of them, but it is certainly not responsible for the bulk of them. The three roundabouts, which would be around a quarter of a million pounds each, are the most expensive element, but they will slow down the traffic, which is important. The first six priority items, which include the cycle path, pavements and a crossing, will help considerably and are funded within the current £250,000, but the three roundabouts are important. I appreciate that things are still not absolutely clear, and I am sorry about that, but the usual issue of real-time and original costings arises. That is why the costings are different.

I am an occasional user of the A977. I used to travel almost annually to the wildlife fair in Kinross, and the road was the easiest access route for me to get there from where I live.

The issues are whether roundabouts are the best way to slow down the traffic on the road, the costs associated with putting in roundabouts, and whether alternative traffic-calming or speed-reduction measures can be put in place. If the costs are mainly due to installing roundabouts, can we consider another method of slowing down the traffic? I know from going through some of the villages that you mentioned that they have traffic-calming measures and speed restrictions, and that hitting a 30mph zone in some of them is sometimes difficult for many drivers after being on a section of the road with a national speed limit. We must consider whether other measures can be put in place that could reduce the costs, make the situation more sustainable and provide the safety measures that Dr Simpson and the community council are looking for in dealing with the traffic flow in the area.

I am not a traffic expert, but from the information that Perth and Kinross Council has given me, the measures that I outlined are thought to be appropriate. As a politician rather than an expert on the matter, I must accept what the council says is the most appropriate way to proceed. I suspect that it may have to find funds over the next few years for some of the work, but it will put in place the most cost-effective and least expensive measures that it can find to protect the communities in question.

I recall the road well, as I used to live in Dundee. It was the alternative route for people struggling with the Forth bridge.

The idea of large numbers of heavy goods vehicles going through Rumbling Bridge is quite appalling. I can visualise what would happen and understand why people want to stop it.

I have got the message that the issue is not retrunking; rather, it is trying to ensure that there is relatively little traffic on the road and that that traffic goes as slowly as is reasonable for safety and general noise reasons and to reduce wear on the road. However, I wonder what the consequences of success might be. Has anybody given any thought to where the traffic will go if the road becomes not the alternative route of preference as a result of such engineering works? Will it go through Dollar or have I misread my mental map? Is there a risk that we would simply displace a problem if you got what you want? I appreciate that the community council, whose consideration is probably fairly localised, would regard that as a success, but the community council in the neighbouring area might not be quite as pleased.

I do not think that traffic would go through Dollar, because it would then have to go through another three or four very controlled towns—I am referring to the route along the hillfoots. Going through some of the villages there is very tight; heavy goods vehicles would take an inordinate time to get through them. The main thing that we do not want to happen is traffic diverting from the Forth bridge on to the route. There will be real problems if it is seen as a speed route.

I have been shown photographs of an accident that happened in 2000, in which a major vehicle was tipped up in a field. A fuel vehicle has also been involved in a crash not far from a school in the area. That would have been a serious issue if the weather had not been right.

Our duty as parliamentarians is to say that there is a joint responsibility to deal with the consequences of major changes such as the new Clackmannanshire bridge. The bridge is undoubtedly welcome, because there have been horrendous traffic jams there, but it should not endanger other communities. In general, a joint responsibility should be negotiated before a change is made, not afterwards. The fact that it will have to be negotiated after the change in the case that we are discussing is due to an earlier failure and is not the current Government's responsibility. Nevertheless, addressing the issue will lay down an appropriate marker for future projects.

We will now consider how we want to take the petition to the next stage. I am open to suggestions from members of the committee.

I suggest that we ask the Government to reconsider the decision about additional funding for the road in order to allay the fears of communities along the route. We should also approach Perth and Kinross Council in the hope that it and the Government will get together to consider the most suitable remedial action that can be taken to alleviate the flow of traffic. We are not going to stop the flow of traffic from the bridge, which will still flow through the villages, but we must try to ensure that sufficient measures are put in place so that the type of accidents that Dr Richard Simpson mentioned do not occur in future and communities along the route are safeguarded.

We should ask the Government to reconsider that matter along with Perth and Kinross Council. I hope that the Government will respond by taking action.

I tend to agree with my colleague John Wilson about the direction that the committee should take. In writing to the Scottish Government, we could ask whether—to use a phrase that lawyers say does not mean anything, even though they are always using it—without prejudice and in consultation with Perth and Kinross Council, the Government will revisit the A977 and consider whether discretion could be exercised regarding the road given the safety issues involved, or something like that.

I do not think that we should let the petition go. It is a difficult one because what Dr Simpson is asking for, on behalf of the community council, is not a retrunking but a negotiation between the Scottish Government and the main council that is involved to determine whether moneys can be made available from whatever source to begin to deal with the issues and effect traffic mitigation measures.

I think that Dr Simpson is also making a more principled point, which is that we should ask the Government how it will address the consequences of major projects for minor roads in future.

We will pull together those three helpful suggestions and take the petition forward. Obviously, you know the process, Dr Simpson. Perhaps you could indicate it to the community council as well.

We will have a brief comfort break before we continue.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I ask members if we can delay consideration of the next petition—PE1224—in order to consider the subsequent petition on the Scottish Police Services Authority. Three parliamentarians from the affected area are present and I am conscious that they have a meeting at 4 o'clock with the chair of the SPSA, so I do not want to act against their interests. I ask that members indulge them by bringing the petition forward, although that will limit the time that we have to consider it.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Forensic Services (PE1226)

Lewis Macdonald will lead off, then other members will speak.

The petition concerns the proposed closure of the forensic laboratory in Aberdeen. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave the go-ahead in May for the building of a new laboratory in Dundee, which has been welcomed there, but he required the authorities to consult again on their proposal to close the Aberdeen laboratory. He called for a full, frank and transparent consultation, which—by universal agreement—has not happened. That is why the laboratory staff and their trade union have lodged the petition.

Unison, which represents the staff at the Aberdeen laboratory, has not—it is fair to say—been formally consulted, although the proposal first surfaced more than 12 months ago. It would be useful for the committee to hear from Unison, from the SPSA, and in particular from the chief constables of Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary, which are the main customers of the forensic laboratory in Aberdeen. The chief constables will be able to inform the committee about the consultation process and—even more important—about the importance of having a forensic science laboratory in the north of Scotland. I offer that proposition to the committee for members' consideration, as it is important that the committee hears from the chief constables about the service.

I do not know what we will get from the quartet of Aberdonian representatives who are present today, but it might be quite a lot. I ask Brian Adam to speak first—we have also been joined by the Lib Dem MSP Nicol Stephen.

The petition raises a particular concern about the fairness, transparency and openness of the consultation process. Some consultation has taken place, but not in the manner with which we would be familiar. A number of face-to-face meetings have taken place between SPSA officials and interested stakeholders. One of the stakeholders, who is very experienced in the processes of government, told me that he is still waiting for a copy of the minutes of the meeting that he attended, so that he might comment on them and ensure that they are accurate and reflect his views. He also wants to see what others at that meeting said, in order to make further representations, but he has not been able to do so.

Some of the technical aspects of a normal consultation process have not been applied to this consultation exercise. I endorse what Lewis Macdonald said about how we might try to resolve the issues, but it might be of interest for the committee to hear from the SPSA about how it has reached the present stage and how it intends to resolve the matter. There have been some significant changes in the make-up of the SPSA board since the process started, and there may be further staffing changes.

The inadequacy of the consultation process was initially highlighted by the cabinet secretary, who insisted that the plan dealt inadequately with the proposal to close the laboratory in Aberdeen and move it and the fingerprint service to Dundee, and therefore had to be dealt with again. It is still not being dealt with adequately, and the petitioners are right to bring the matter to the attention of the Public Petitions Committee. I hope that you can help to resolve the matter.

In the interests of proportionality, I ask Mike Rumbles to contribute.

Well said, convener. I will focus on the nub of the issue, which is service delivery, and the efficient and effective detection of murder and other serious crimes. In the debate on the proposed closure that we had in Parliament last week, Fergus Ewing, the deputy minister who is dealing with the matter, made an erroneous statement. He said that nobody was talking about diminishing the level of service, but we are all talking about that. Colin McKerracher, chief constable of Grampian Police, and the local police board have made it clear that if Aberdeen is closed and the service is run from Dundee, the level of service for the effective detection of serious crime will be diminished.

As my two colleagues have said, the consultation process is flawed. I emphasise that I have never seen a campaign with more cross-party support than this one: there is support from all the MSPs who spoke in the debate and every MSP from the north-east has been involved. It is absolutely right that we get to the nub of the issue, which is service delivery. We must ensure that service is not diminished.

Any campaign that includes both Mike Rumbles and Nicol Stephen is remarkable.

I do not have much to add to what has been said. I agree that there is a lot of cross-party unity and cross-party anger about the way in which the issue has been handled. It is appropriate for the committee to consider the matter further, but that is a decision for the members of the committee to take.

I am conscious of time, so I invite members of the committee to ask brief questions. We will try our best to get through them in the next seven or eight minutes.

I am sitting beside another MSP for Aberdeen on the committee; I think that there are six of us in the room.

Ahem.

I am sorry, I completely missed Marlyn Glen.

I knew that there was a takeover.

I will not comment on that further. When you are in a hole, you should stop digging.

There are not too many questions to ask. We had a substantial debate on the subject last Thursday, which lasted 50 minutes, such was the interest in it—we cannot afford to spend that amount of time on it today. We need to clarify what we can take from this meeting. I have a string of suggestions. Perhaps I should defer making them until Nanette Milne has asked her questions.

It is okay.

We need to ask the Scottish Government for its take on the issue. We should put that in the spotlight. We need to seek the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. We should also ask the chief constables of Grampian Police and Tayside Police for their take on the service that they will receive if the lab is removed. We should write to Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, who will have his own view. We should write to Grampian joint police board and Tayside joint police board to ensure that we are clear about their perspective. We should write to the Scottish Police Services Authority and its new chief executive, to whom colleagues will be talking within 10 minutes, to ask for their view on what is going on. Nanette Milne or other colleagues will correct me if I have missed anybody.

Perhaps you should include Northern Constabulary, which is served by the laboratory in Aberdeen.

Of course.

I invite other representatives of the northern lights element and Robin Harper to comment.

There is complete cross-party support for the campaign. I am sorry that I did not attend the debate, but I signed the motion, because I was concerned. I support Nigel Don's suggestions.

I suppose that I am the fourth party that has been involved with this issue in the north-east. All the local representatives—not just those who have been at various meetings—are of one mind. The debate showed our unanimous take on the issue.

I go along with the suggestions that Lewis Macdonald and Brian Adam made about taking evidence from the chief constables—

No minutes have been produced, so people do not know what has been taken from the consultation meetings.

I support the suggestions that have been made. I just want to say that I had hoped to go to the meeting at 4 o'clock, convener.

I will not elaborate further. There seems to be a shared perspective. Before we move on to the next stage, we will pull together the views that committee members and other parliamentarians have expressed. I hope that people's endeavours in the next hour will lead to benefits. I appreciate that Nanette Milne will have to leave this meeting.

---

Scottish Flag (Parliamentary Chamber) (PE1224)

We turn now to the petition that we held back to allow us to deal with petition PE1226. Petition PE1224 is by John Blyth and Helen McNeill, who call on the Parliament to consider displaying the flag of Scotland in the parliamentary chamber.

A request relating to the Parliament's insignia was raised with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body before, and it was turned down. Nevertheless, we should refer the request in the petition to the SPCB so that it can make a judgment. We should also write to the petitioners, reminding them that the SPCB has already taken a similar decision on the Parliament's logo.

The clerk is telling me that the petitioners are aware of that point. However, Robin Harper raises a legitimate point of process, relating to who assesses and determines such issues.

One issue was sent to the SPCB, so the other should be, too.

Okay. As no other members want to comment, we will accept that recommendation and return to the petition in due course.