Plenary, 17 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, September 17, 2009

Official Report 751KB pdf

---

Road Safety Framework

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4861, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on the Scottish road safety framework.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to open the parliamentary debate on Scotland's road safety framework to 2020. The framework was launched on 15 June this year, and it sets out our road safety vision of a steady reduction in the number of those who are killed or seriously injured, with the ultimate vision of a future in which no one is killed on Scotland's roads and the injury rate is much reduced. It is an ambitious vision, but it is in keeping with those countries in Europe that are leaders on road safety.

To support that vision, we have set the first-ever national Scottish road safety targets, which experts agree are needed to focus action and maintain the reduction of death and serious injury. We are asking our road safety partners to help us to achieve those targets through their own local and organisational contributions.

Scotland has made considerable progress in achieving—indeed, exceeding—the current Great Britain road casualty reduction targets, and I recognise the validity of the Labour amendment, which reflects the achievements of previous Administrations. However, the risk of death and injury is still unacceptably high, and more needs to be done, particularly with regard to children and young drivers, and rural roads, which the Liberal amendment addresses.

The new Scottish targets are challenging but reflect our focus on driving down fatalities as well as serious injury for all age groups, and specifically for children. We are, of course, only too aware that setting targets is relatively easy, and that actually achieving them will require enormous effort, co-operation and perseverance. There is a strong commitment to help to achieve the targets from our existing dedicated road safety partners, with whom we have excellent partnership working arrangements.

To help achieve the targets, we have set out a range of high-level commitments in our framework. We have made a start in turning some of our commitments into action with our road safety partners. A strategic Scottish road safety board will meet for the first time in October, with a further annual general meeting—which I shall chair—taking place in December. That group is representative of the key delivery partners and will advise on how best to take forward the commitments in the framework.

We have committed to match fund the purchase of new roadside breath test equipment with police forces in Scotland by March 2010. That important new equipment will give additional data to help us to get a better profile of a drink driver and to help to inform enforcement, education and publicity for drink-drive campaigns. The amendments that are before us refer to that, and seek a reduction in the limit—a matter that we have consistently supported and which I am pleased to see is before the Parliament again today.

We have provided modest support to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to enable its production of a website for the Scottish occupational road safety alliance, which was launched on 10 September. It is intended to raise employers' awareness of the need to have a policy on the management of occupational road risk, because the professional driver, as well as the domestic driver, must be part of the solution.

A range of initiatives is under way to strengthen the safety of children who travel to school on school buses, including a proposed new school bus sign that has been designed by Aberdeenshire Council, which is also running a campaign to heighten awareness for drivers and schoolchildren around the pick-up and drop-off points for school buses. When the results of that work have been evaluated, we will share them with road safety partners in Scotland.

As yet, we have not seen much progress on the idea of banning the overtaking of school buses. I recognise that there are still some significant questions on that subject. However, we should continue to discuss the idea to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to pursue something that is thought to deliver some benefits in other jurisdictions.

Route safety groups have been set up for each of the trunk road routes, with participation from relevant road safety partners such as local authorities, police forces, emergency services, safety camera partnerships and so on. Transport Scotland's pioneering patrol service, the trunk road incident support service, which aims to cut jams at some of Scotland's traffic hotspots, has been extended to tackle hold-ups en route to the Forth road bridge. Those are all examples of initiatives in which road safety partners are working together to help to deliver reductions in the number of deaths and serious injuries on Scotland's roads.

It might be too early to say, but is there anything in the budget about which we have just heard that will have either a positive or negative impact on the road safety framework?

The budget does, of course, support the objectives of the road safety framework. I note that the Conservative amendment calls for funding to be focused on black spots. We are prepared to accept the Conservative amendment and we expect members on the Conservative benches to engage appropriately to see what we can do on that subject.

The framework signals our willingness, where we have solid evidence to back up our proposals, to advocate more restrictive measures than exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. That does not mean that we are not joined up with the UK Government on road safety. We are working extremely well together. I had a warm and supportive letter from Paul Clark after our framework was published.

I accept all the amendments on behalf of the Government and hope that we will have a good debate. The framework sets out a shared commitment to educate and inform, to engineer, and to enforce traffic laws. We seek to encourage partnership working and evaluate what works and how best to invest in road safety, but it ain't just about the Government, the Parliament and partner organisations. It is the responsibility of every road user. I hope that the framework will galvanise all of us, as politicians of whatever party and as individuals, to go safe on Scotland's roads.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication on 15 June 2009 of Scotland's Road Safety Framework to 2020; notes the road safety vision for Scotland, which is in line with other leading road safety countries, and further notes the road safety targets, priorities and commitments and the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to tackle road casualty reductions in Scotland over the next decade.

Last Sunday, I took part in the pedal for Scotland bike ride from Glasgow to Edinburgh. It coincided with a report in a Sunday newspaper about an option to introduce a new road tax on cyclists, which is being consulted upon in the Scottish Government's draft cycling strategy. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and perhaps the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change must have wondered why they have been saddled with such an absurd suggestion. As my amendment makes clear, the Government needs to do much more to support cyclists and pedestrians, and especially those with impaired vision, whose concerns are not given enough prominence in the road safety framework. Cyclists have certainly lost out on funding under the Government.

When I first skimmed through the framework, I felt that it was a motherhood-and-apple-pie document with little to disagree with. It represents the consensus of views about road safety of a number of agencies including the police, and its recommendations reflect the advice of an expert panel as well as the views of respondents to the consultation. When I read it again, however, I felt that, regrettably, the framework and the specific commitments that are listed in chapter 10 do not contain the radical new measures that the evidence in other parts of the document suggests need to be considered. I hope that we can beef up the document and our approach.

The framework shows that significant progress was made between 1997 and 2007 in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads—conveniently, that is the period of the previous Labour and Lib Dem Administration. I am sure that the present Government will continue those policies.

I am pleased that so much progress has been made in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries, but the statistics also indicate that the number of child deaths in Scotland is proportionately higher than that in England and Wales and that, in road accidents, pedestrians and cyclists are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car occupants. We need to do something about that.

Three months ago, we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The minister will be held to account for his efforts to reduce emissions and tackle global warming, and I realise that he cannot be held accountable for the fact that, even in summer, the weather in Scotland can be a disincentive to commuting by bike instead of by car. However, if we are serious about meeting targets with regard to the proportion of journeys taken by bike, something needs to be done about the other barrier to cyclists: the risk of being involved in a traffic accident.

Other countries have moved much further than we have in creating segregated space for cyclists and pedestrians in major towns and cities. There is provision for cyclists on routes linking settlements as well as secure storage for cyclists at railway stations. South of the border, cities such as Bristol, York and Southampton and towns such as Darlington have shown how we can multiply the number of people who cycle, which, of course, would lead to health benefits and reduce congestion. Unfortunately, we in Scotland are a long way behind. We cannot blame the weather for that. We need to invest in cycling infrastructure and insist that road space is reallocated.

The minister might say that that is all a matter for local authorities and it is true that local authorities have a major responsibility in taking forward specific schemes. However, I feel that the document lacks a big idea. Its recommendations concentrate on providing information to drivers when we should be recasting our thoughts about road use and traffic management. We need a step change in our thinking not just about how we reduce the road safety figures, but about how we start to deliver our climate change commitments; indeed, we need the kind of radical change that has already taken place in Europe and other parts of the UK.

On rural road deaths, which are highlighted as a problem in the Liberal Democrat amendment, I agree that there is a need for targeted interventions to improve safety on Scotland's rural roads, where seven out of 10 fatal crashes and more than half of all serious injuries occur. There used to be a road safety fund that could be drawn on for modifications to junctions and bends but, regrettably, it is no longer available. Although the Government has made significant sums available for improving some junctions on the A9, it is not clear to me whether that is part of a road safety initiative or is connected with its aspirations to dual the road. Moreover, we need only think about the A82—something that many people in Argyll often do—to remember that the £16 million that was set aside for upgrading still remains unspent. We need to identify where such money should be used and put road safety improvements in place as quickly as possible, and it is a matter of regret that the Scottish Government is being unreasonably rigid in its insistence that the money set aside for the A82 can be spent only on schemes with very long engineering or planning lead times.

The minister has suggested one straightforward measure that could significantly reduce the unacceptable number of road deaths. According to the evidence, a properly enforced 50mph speed limit on all roads other than motorways and dual carriageways could have a dramatic effect on the number of people who are killed and seriously injured each year. The measure could be relatively easy to put in place throughout Scotland, could be cost effective and could also help to reduce emissions. Unfortunately, it does not appear in the document, and there is also scant mention of 20mph speed limits in residential areas, which have been shown to reduce accidents and to encourage children to play safely in the street. I am not saying that such a move would be an automatic panacea, but it is the kind of thing that we should be thinking about. We need to up our game and consider more radical approaches than are perhaps contained in the document.

We also need to think about how the road system is used and configured and how we ensure that all road users are given equal consideration. Our road system should not be designed on the presumption that motorists' interests are paramount. If we are to fulfil our climate change and health aspirations, cyclists and pedestrians should be prioritised alongside motorists.

I was going to say a wee bit about the visually impaired, but I have another opportunity to refer to that in my summing-up speech, so that will be fine for now.

I move amendment S3M-4861.1, to insert after "2020":

"; notes the significant reductions in the numbers of children and young people killed and seriously injured in the period 1997 to 2007; calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise making streets safer for cyclists and for vulnerable groups of pedestrians such as visually impaired and partially sighted people".

In a short speech in a short debate, I will try to rush through my points. I join the minister and the previous speaker in commending the present and previous Governments for achieving a great deal in cutting the number of road deaths and injuries in Scotland. That is part of a consistent pattern that we must praise and continue. The targets in the framework document will move us in that direction.

In the limited time that is available, I will deal with some specifics. First, I have a specific concern about the number of accidents on rural roads. I commend the Liberal Democrats for mentioning that in their amendment. In the north-east of Scotland, we have a noticeable problem with young drivers being involved in accidents, sometimes fatal, on rural roads. It is difficult to target and prevent that problem. The problem must be dealt with through the education of young drivers because, no matter how heavily we police the existing law or any additional legislation that might be put in place, the problem remains that many of the accidents take place in out-of-the-way areas where it is impossible to pre-assess the opportunities.

A second issue, which has been starkly highlighted in the north-east of Scotland in recent years, is that of school buses. I have an open mind on that and I am willing to support Government action to introduce further legislation if necessary. However, that is with the proviso that legislation is not on its own capable of achieving our objectives. In many accidents, existing legislation was not being observed. Mistakes are made by drivers or, in some cases, by those crossing the road. It must be remembered that there is a degree of individual responsibility and that, unfortunately, legislation will never solve the problem.

The Conservative amendment refers once again to something that has been in many a Conservative manifesto—our black spot funding proposals. The statement on the draft budget that we heard earlier made it clear that funding for any project, let alone transport projects, will be difficult to identify and achieve in the next few years. That is why my amendment highlights the need to spend any resource that is available, limited though it might be, in a way that saves lives on Scotland's roads. Even with very limited funding, there would still be no shortage of places in which it might be used to prevent accidents. Not least of those is the A90 at Laurencekirk where, last week, another fatal accident took place. Although the accident was not at the junction on which many of us have campaigned for years, it was nearby. The solution to the problem is proper investment that improves safety and achieves good results. That could be done with limited investment, but the opportunity has been missed.

Scotland is a big country that will always require its people to have access to roads and transport, especially in rural areas. As a consequence, we cannot legislate to prevent people from moving around, but we can educate them to do it more safely.

The Liberal Democrat amendment contains a proposal to reduce the permissible blood alcohol level. I will suspend judgment on that and will not support the proposal. I believe that the problem in Scotland is not with those who are under the 80mg limit; it is with those who are above that level. Consequently, I do not wish to burden our police force further, given that it appears to be winning the battle at present. As I said, I will suspend judgment on that proposal, but I look forward to discussing it at some time in the future.

I move amendment S3M-4861.2, to insert at end:

"; notes that ongoing investment in the road network is crucial to making our roads safer, and believes that road spending should be prioritised on the most dangerous black spots and those roads with the highest numbers of accidents and fatalities."

Improving road safety and reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads has to be a priority of the first order for us. Three times as many people die on roads in Scotland as are killed in violent incidents. That loss of life is lamentable and the emotional, social and economic impact on families, communities, rescue services and health services is truly immense. I agree that the Government is right to focus on reducing death and serious injury and to set challenging targets.

As members have said, the overall rate of accidents is coming down, with the number of road deaths in Britain below 3,000 in 2007, making our roads among the safest in the world. However, that success is overshadowed by the fact that young drivers are not getting any safer. Road crashes are the biggest killer of 15 to 24-year-olds in industrial countries. In 2006, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concluded:

"the high crash fatality and injury rates of young, male novice drivers represent a major public health issue."

We would be railing against so many preventable deaths if they occurred in any other sphere of life.

Liberal Democrats advocate the successful Swedish vision zero approach to road safety. Although the Government makes reference to that approach in the framework, I am disappointed that it does not go as far as endorsing it. Stewart Stevenson admits that his vision of reduced deaths is "aspirational". There is much to welcome in the framework, but it is heavily weighted in favour of gentle exhortation rather than strong leadership and, when it comes to road safety, we might find to our regret that that represents a step backwards. I admit that a matrix of organisations is involved in improving road safety and, like the Government, I acknowledge the individual's role. However, the very fact that so many organisations are involved means that strong leadership will be required from the Government if there is not to be a diffusion of effort.

The need to lower the drink-driving limit is well documented. Scotland requires much stricter limits on blood alcohol standards if we are to tackle effectively the persistent problem of drink driving, which is related to one in nine road deaths.

The member castigated the minister about the need for strong leadership. Given that the Liberal Democrats voted to reduce the limit last December, does she support the immediate transfer of the power from Westminster to this Parliament?

We looked for that result from the Calman commission and I think that it should happen.

Des McNulty focused on child and pedestrian safety and we will support his amendment. Despite the fall in numbers of child deaths and serious injuries, as we have heard, child deaths and the combined child killed or seriously injured casualties rate in Scotland in 2007 were higher per head of population than in England and Wales. Research has shown that children in the lowest socioeconomic groups are over four times more likely to be killed as pedestrians than those in the highest socioeconomic group, which is unacceptable. In that context, the changes to funding for safer routes to school and the threats to the Sustrans budget must be reviewed to ensure a continued focus on those problems.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the framework, however, is the lack of attention placed on the issue of rural roads. Only three pages of the 154-page strategy are dedicated to tackling road safety in non-built-up areas, yet those roads tragically account for 75 per cent of all accidents. We must tackle those shocking figures by introducing specific targeted measures to improve the safety record of Scotland's rural roads. It is not enough for ministers to simply say in the document that they will continue to support current schemes or consider further action.

Driver training and more driving practice before solo driving are really important. We let down our young people by not ensuring that they are equipped to deal with the demands of rural driving. Preparing our young people to be safer drivers must be a priority. The Executive's research on rural road safety, published last year, identified the lack of adequate driver training as one of the main failings. I ask the Government again to develop a new, improved pass-plus scheme to operate throughout Scotland, harnessing, if possible, sponsorship from insurance companies and targeting those most at risk—young male drivers—to ensure that they are properly equipped with the skills to drive on rural roads.

Some problems on rural trunk roads require engineering solutions. There has to be concern that, by the Government's admission, many of the road safety interventions that were listed under the strategic transport projects review will not see the light of day for a decade. My colleague Mike Rumbles will say more on that and we will support Mr Johnstone's amendment.

Reducing deaths and injuries on our roads will take a concerted effort from everyone, but it needs clear leadership from the Government.

I move amendment S3M-4861.3, to insert at end:

"; reiterates its support for a reduction in the drink-driving limit from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood; expresses deep concern at the disproportionately high incidence of fatalities and serious injuries on rural roads, and calls for greater emphasis on specific, targeted action to improve the safety of Scotland's rural roads."

I fully support Scotland's road safety framework to 2020—Scotland's first road safety framework—and I am delighted that the Scottish Government is implementing an ambitious road casualty reduction target. We should all agree that any deaths on Scotland's roads are too many. The priority is to eradicate all fatalities on Scotland's roads, but we need to start somewhere, so the interim target of a 40 per cent reduction by 2020 is admirable—it is higher than the target in the rest of the UK.

Many of us will remember the Christmas campaigns to highlight road safety, and not just for drink drivers. However, road safety issues need to be tackled more regularly than just over the festive period. I have a high volume of correspondence from constituents in the West of Scotland highlighting their concerns about the speed of cars, infrastructure and the lack of adequate road signage, which shows that road safety is not a seasonal issue.

I have been looking closely at the issue of road safety in my constituency of the West of Scotland, with particular emphasis on the A78 running past Inverkip and Wemyss Bay. The minister is aware of that, as we have had a lot of correspondence about it. In early 2008, I was contacted by a number of constituents who were concerned about the section of road at Inverkip. Since that initial correspondence, I have undertaken a consultation on road safety, which I have highlighted to the minister and to the Parliament. Recently, I undertook another consultation, because Scottish Power is considering selling the Inverkip power station site for 780 new homes.

Both those consultations highlighted the strong local feeling on the issue of road safety and the need for vital improvements on the A78. I had an overwhelming 41 per cent response rate to my consultation on the A78, and I have received 721 responses to my current consultation on the Inverkip power station.

It is clear that the A78 will struggle to cope with even more vehicles using it at peak times.

In my current campaign to improve road safety on the A78, I have had numerous dealings with the Inverkip and Wemyss Bay community council. I also met Transport Scotland, along with Councillor Innes Nelson, which resulted in a safety review being undertaken by Transport Scotland and in planned upgrades to the Bankfoot roundabout at Inverkip. I thank Transport Scotland for commissioning the review; the papers arrived at my office this morning, so I am currently going through them.

I was happy that Transport Scotland took on board all the concerns that were highlighted to it and has taken steps to examine the concerns further. However, as residents in Wemyss Bay and Inverkip know, this is not the end of the matter; I will continue to fight for road improvements to secure a safer future for pedestrians and motorists in the area.

It is vital to implement the recommendations of the road safety framework in seeking to influence young people's attitudes to road safety and increase awareness of the benefits of lower-speed driving in relation to health and road safety.

It is well known that one in five young drivers are likely to be involved in an accident within a year of passing their test. That needs to change, and with it the attitudes of all drivers, however experienced.

I have highlighted just a few of the commitments that are given in the framework, but having 90 pledges from the Scottish Government is a positive step to encourage people in our communities to do their bit to ensure that our roads are safer.

The framework will ultimately allow existing funding streams from the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland, local authorities, the police and many others to be used in a more cohesive fashion. By working together, all parties can play a part in reducing the horrific death toll on our roads.

The good news is that years spent campaigning and improving safety features in vehicles have made a big difference to accident statistics. The number of people killed on Scottish roads has dropped steadily to a quarter of what it was 30 years ago. However, one avoidable accident is one accident too many. The bad news is that having 16,000 casualties means that we must continue to look at better ways to improve road safety.

It is perhaps no surprise that about half of all casualties are car passengers or drivers, with young males being the highest-risk group—we see that just by looking at the cost of insurance for young males. Better driving is important, and advanced driving courses such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists courses and pass plus can help.

About a quarter of casualties are pedestrians and almost as many are people travelling on two wheels—although that figure could be higher, because there is evidence that cycling accidents are underreported. Those groups are vulnerable in an accident. They include young people and old people, and their safety merits particular attention.

Children are forced to use busy roads when going to and from school. Although we are extremely grateful for the dedication of crossing patrols, the plight of children, the elderly, wheelchair users and those with prams is made worse by obstacles, not the least of which is pavement parking. It is a recipe for an accident when vehicles park on the pavement and pedestrians are forced to use the road. Badly parked vehicles can also make it difficult to see oncoming traffic. More could be done to tackle those problems, perhaps by enforcing existing laws or by creating new byelaws. Failing that, we should consider what legislation we could introduce in the Parliament.

The same goes for bad driving—tailgating, undertaking and so on. People should know better, but those who do not should be dealt with and pulled up for it.

Instead of taxing cyclists, we should improve their lot. Accident rates for cyclists and motorcyclists are again rising. That may reflect an increase in the number of cyclists and motorcyclists but, as we want more people to get on their bikes, we should do what we can do to make the roads safe for them. Young cyclists could benefit from better training and all cyclists would benefit from more and better cycle paths and lanes, but what would benefit them most is more consideration from other road users.

When we consider road safety improvements, we should pay more attention to the views of those who are endangered by bad practices. We should not only give out fridge magnets and lecture children; we should consult schools and the young people who attend them when we formulate policy.

I agree with the suggestion in the framework that, as road users, we all have responsibility for road safety. We must ensure that people take responsibility for their parking. Motorists should realise the effect that bad parking has on children, young people and others who have to walk on the road. For those who do not take their responsibilities seriously, we need to have recourse to legal remedies.

Getting it right for all road users is about persuading people to travel safely and sustainably. We should encourage and protect those who use environmentally friendly modes of transport. This debate is very important, but it is only a start. It is not enough to debate these issues; we need action, in which we all have a role to play.

I am sure that what I say will come as no surprise to my good friend Stewart Stevenson. I represent a constituency with a poor road safety record where, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made to the A9 between Helmsdale and the Ord of Caithness, there has historically been a fairly poor record of public investment in main roads.

I welcome the publication of the framework, which demonstrates a commitment to on-going improvements in road safety. However, the danger is that the framework will, like some in the past, attract good publicity in the short term but, once it has served its purpose, be forgotten in the future. I hope that that is not the case.

The framework notes the Scottish Government's commitment to

"Continue to invest in junction improvement schemes"

and to

"Rank the worst performing junctions on the trunk road network … and prepare a programme to improve selected locations."

That news will be welcomed not only in my constituency but by everyone who is concerned about the many people who are killed every year on our roads. What would be even more welcome is some indication of when the necessary improvements might be made or at least when a list of improvements might be compiled.

As the minister knows from our conversations and meetings and from the questions that I have asked, in my constituency alone there have been campaigns about the Tomich junction near Invergordon and about the Cambusavie bends and Berriedale braes on the A9 on the way north through Sutherland. We wonder how many more accidents will have to occur before there is decisive action on those issues. It is self-evident that the longer we delay on the issues, the greater the risk of more accidents. [Interruption.]

I draw the Parliament's attention to the findings of the strategic transport projects review, which reported back to the Government in late 2008 outlining priority changes to our roads. Under the stated objective of reducing fatal and severe accident rates on our roads to the national average or lower, the review identified the corridor from Inverness to Wick and Thurso as a key concern. I am grateful for that but, despite the improvements that I have outlined at the Ord of Caithness, no more improvements have been made more recently.

The issue of improvements to the A9 is raised with me continually by constituents. I will quote from one, Mr John Banister, who runs Ackergill tower just outside Wick. He is a prominent spokesman for the area and he will be known to the minister as a result of his involvement with airport issues. He said that the A9 provides

"road access that is critical, not only for people but also for goods coming into Caithness. Local businesses rely on the A9. The alternative rail journey takes"—

as my good friend Rob Gibson often says—

"around 5 hours, and the result is a terrible jam of traffic on the A9 as people cannot stand the lengthy train journey".

The roads issue is crucial for the regeneration of the economy of the far north as Dounreay decommissions.

In its road safety framework to 2020, the Government notes its commitment to

"implement the Strategic Transport Projects Review including … Road Safety Improvements in North and West of Scotland".

The Government continues to voice its commitment to improving roads—[Interruption.]

Mr Stone, will you please check that your mobile phone or BlackBerry is turned off? Something is interfering with the sound feed.

It is not me, Presiding Officer.

Then it is somebody very close to you, Mr Stone.

Ah well. I could not possibly name them.

John Swinney voiced doubts that the improvements to the A9 north of Inverness would deliver

"a positive benefit to cost ratio".

In saying that, he seems to be writing off any future plan to dual the northernmost section of the A9. I may be unfair in saying that, yet what he said came just days after the publication of the strategic transport projects review, in which there is the strong recommendation that such change be made. We have a degree of indecision on the matter. We need to see commitment to improving roads to the north.

I will conclude, Presiding Officer, if I am not interrupted by a BlackBerry—[Interruption.]—which I have just been—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask all members to check that their communication equipment is turned off. A member's telephone or BlackBerry is on, and it is interfering with the sound feed.

I ask Stewart Stevenson to say whether the Administration can assure the chamber that the recommendations in the publication will be taken seriously. I hope that the answer is yes, specifically in the case of the A9 in the far north. Regardless of where someone lives in Scotland, they have the equal right to drive safely.

My BlackBerry is definitely off, Presiding Officer. If the sound interference happens during my speech, it must be the fault of Mr Stone again.

The road safety framework is an important document. It contains the first ever Scottish casualty reduction target, for which the minister is to be commended. It is clear that the SNP Government is committed to improving road safety. That is witnessed by the fact that it has allocated £1 million a year until 2011 to implement the framework.

The framework contains 90 commitments, but I will focus on one: the commitment to work to reduce the effect of alcohol on road accidents through a reduction in the drink-driving limit and random breath testing. As members know, I have long campaigned to have the drink-driving limit reduced from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. I support the Liberal Democrat amendment in that respect.

On 18 December last year, the Parliament voted overwhelmingly to support a lowering of the drink-driving limit. Given the outcome of the vote, I will not rehearse again the arguments in favour of such a reduction. The vote last year was 66 in favour of the reduction—a number that included the Liberal Democrats and five Labour members—with 49 abstentions and only one vote against. Clearly, a reduction in the drink-driving limit is the settled will of the Scottish Parliament. The Calman commission subsequently recommended that powers over the drink-driving limit be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. That is not such a radical move as it appears, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly not only has such a power but is involved actively in the debate on the issue.

During the debate last December, great play was made of the reduction in the limit being made across the UK. Some members said that we should await the outcome of a UK-wide review on the matter. Although I would be pleased to see the limit reduced across the UK, we still await action at UK level and meanwhile people are dying or being injured unnecessarily on our roads.

Given that a reduction in the drink-driving limit would save 65 lives a year across the UK, the prevarication of the UK Government has cost 50 people their lives since last December. Since I started my campaign, 130 lives have been lost and, shockingly, 780 lives have been lost since Labour came to power in 1997. How many more people have to die before Westminster sees sense on the issue?

In the absence of a commitment by the Westminster Government to reduce the drink-driving limit across the UK, I wrote to a number of organisations that support such a reduction to ask them whether they favour the power to reduce the limit being given to the Scottish Government. Although some, understandably, felt that it would be inappropriate for them to comment, others expressed the strong view that if the UK Government was unwilling to act, Scotland should be given the chance to lead the way. They said that the power should be transferred to the Scottish Government. The British Medical Association, Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents all took that view.

There is now an unstoppable momentum behind transfer of power over the drink-driving limit. The Calman commission favours transfer of drink-driving powers to the Parliament. Influential bodies such as the BMA, SHAAP and ROSPA also back it. The Scottish Government has already drafted the necessary orders, and Westminster could implement the measure in a matter of weeks, if it wished. What is the problem? I plead with the Opposition parties, especially the Liberal Democrats, to stop playing politics with people's lives, to come on board now and to back the immediate transfer of drink-driving limit powers to the Parliament.

In my experience, good road safety is the product of what I call four Es. The first is education. I can still recall word for word the so-called kerb drill that was in the front of my first school jotter, well over half a century ago. That means either that it was a very effective piece of road safety education or that I am nearly as much of a geek as Stewart Stevenson admits to being.

Another E is engineering. We can have signage, lines painted on the road or traffic calming. I am a strong supporter of the last of those, because traffic calming also assists enforcement. Frankly, if we put up a 20mph sign, the speed merchants can ignore it. However, if they do that on a road that has sleeping policemen, their head will go through the roof of their car and they will not do it again.

There is also human enforcement—the white-hatted traffic cops of Rikki Fulton fame and their motorbikes. Road safety should be the responsibility of all police officers. Although I see good work being done by community officers outside schools, my observation is that too many ordinary bobbies nowadays appear to leave the police station without their book of tickets for parking and traffic offences.

The fourth E, along with education, engineering and enforcement, is encouragement—by all of us. It is up to politicians to set an example and to lead the debate, as we are doing today. Some good practice on the part of employers is quoted in the rather worthy document that we are debating. All of us in the community have a responsibility for road safety.

Most of the trends are in an encouraging direction, but one or two modern trends should discourage complacency on our part. Cathy Peattie has already mentioned parking. A particular scourge in the past five years is that of people parking on corners—literally—and roundabouts rather than driving around to look for a space. People seem to take the view that, provided that there are no double yellow lines, they will take a chance and park. We may not be far away from a time when yellow lines painted on the road will indicate that parking is permitted and the absence of yellow lines that people should not park at all. The balance seems to have been tipped in the wrong direction.

Another modern scourge is a series of offences that come under the heading of distraction and are discussed in chapter 8 of the framework. I was particularly struck by a survey cited on page 88 that indicated that 90 per cent of drivers agree that it should be illegal to drive while using a hand-held mobile phone but 25 per cent admit to having done so. A bit of a disconnection in driver behaviour is developing in relation to this category of offence. Rightly, the document points out that, as we have seen in the past few days, sheriffs have new sentencing powers and people can be incarcerated for such offences under the heading of careless driving. The mandatory sanction is a £60 fine and three penalty points. I have just had an e-mail from a constituent who has returned from holiday in the Isle of Man. He says that the signs on the ferries and the roads make it clear that anyone who drives while using a mobile phone there faces an automatic £1,000 fine. Therefore, nobody does it. I leave that as food for thought for the minister.

I wish to highlight just how significant the publication of Scotland's first road safety framework is. This is the first time that Scotland-specific casualty reduction targets have been set. Although they are ambitious, they are wholly necessary if the progress that has been made in reducing casualty rates is to continue. It will be no easy task to halve the number of serious injuries and achieve a 40 per cent reduction in fatalities over the next decade, but I am confident that the Scottish Government will work hard to achieve those targets.

In the north-east, we know only too well the importance of making improvements to road safety, given how many families have suffered the tragedy of seeing a loved one injured or killed on our roads. As I have said before, I, like many others in the north-east, dread opening the local papers after the weekend, when there are nearly always reports about fatalities or serious injuries. The pain that family and friends feel can never be reduced to a mere statistic. That fatalities are at their lowest level in Scotland for more than 50 years is of little comfort to them so, for their sake, more must continue to be done to make our roads safer and to prevent other families from experiencing that pain. Every death on Scotland's roads is one too many.

Although the north-east has seen more than its share of tragedy on the roads, we are also seeing innovations to improve road safety. As the minister mentioned, Aberdeenshire Council is trialling SeeMe technology in the Banchory area. SeeMe has proved successful in improving the safety of children boarding or getting off school buses in Sweden. Children are given a transponder that is placed in their school bags and which causes warning signs to flash when a child is near a bus stop, warning motorists to take more care. I am sure that all members share my hope that the pilot scheme proves to be a demonstrable success and can be used to help to protect children throughout Scotland in coming years.

That the north-east was selected for the trials is testament to the tireless campaigning of people such as Ron Beaty, whose granddaughter was seriously injured after getting off a school bus, and the many other people who are involved in his campaign to make improvements to all aspects of school bus safety. I pay tribute to all their efforts and the changes that they have already achieved.

As the school bus safety group—and, no doubt, other campaigning organisations—has found, significant powers over Scotland's roads are still reserved to the UK Department for Transport. I sincerely hope that the UK Government will play its part in striving to do more to improve safety on our roads where the responsibility rests with it. Like others, I call for those powers to be devolved. Inaction that puts people at risk is surely inexcusable, and I hope that members of all parties will play their part in pushing the UK Government to take action in those areas where the Scottish Government identifies changes to reserved policy that could help to save lives on Scotland's roads.

I hope that the new Scottish road safety framework will give a new impetus to build on the casualty reductions that have already been achieved, and that improvements in Scotland's road network and road safety technologies will help to bring down the figures still further. Highlighting the fact that road safety is everyone's responsibility, as the framework does—and as Charlie Gordon did—is important and will, I hope, encourage a fully joined-up approach to safety on Scotland's roads.

I welcome the progress that has been made to date in reducing casualties on our roads by such significant numbers, and I am confident that everyone who is involved in road safety, from Government to individual road users, will play their part in making Scotland's roads even safer in the decade to come.

I join members in welcoming the Scottish Government's road safety framework, and I declare an interest: I am president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport and I have not knowingly driven a car for 32 years.

Although I distrust target setting—as Katherine Whitehorn memorably said during last year's Melrose festival, "If you hit anything, call it a target"—it is good to see that by 2007 Scotland had considerably exceeded the 2010 UK targets and it is good that we plan to do even better. If the UK Government will not move to reduce the blood alcohol limit for drivers from the current level to 50mg, we should be allowed to do so.

I want to link this debate with yesterday's debate on sport and physical activity, when we considered the country's weight problem. People who are overweight—that includes our friends and ourselves; I am 6kg heavier than I ought to be—live under a kind of indirect threat from traffic, because lifestyles have become overwhelmingly sedentary. We spend our lives safely in bed, in front of computer screens, at tables, eating, and in cars, going to or coming back from work, school, the supermarket and so on.

The international comparisons that can be derived from the statistics are not comforting, although they are explicable. In wonderful Copenhagen, 36 per cent of workers cycle to work every day, whereas in Edinburgh we have just registered an increase of an eighth, to 2 per cent.

It is not easy to walk in Scotland. We have to walk along or cross many roads that have heavy traffic and are heavily parked. Freuchie community council got in touch recently to say that folk in that Fife village, which is bisected by the A92, can be cut off for 20 minutes from their bus stop, shops, school or work.

In Edinburgh in the 1960s, I was that daredevil, a bike commuter—let's hear it for Scotland's greatest invention, the invention of Kirkpatrick Macmillan and John Dunlop. I did the trip from Morningside, and later from Stockbridge, to the university. Members should consider the volume of traffic and parked cars on such routes now—that is why our cycling statistics are so bad. Even when I walk from Old College, where I get off the Borders bus, to Holyrood, I have to cross two busy roads in half a mile. The cobbles on Jeffrey Street are so badly laid that they look like a death trap—I do not know whether other members have observed that. That might be taken care of when a toddler or pensioner trips and is knocked over, which is—alas—the sort of incident that propels intervention.

My daughter, Alison, commutes by bike in London in traffic that looks and often is frightening. Last year, my friend Lisa Pontecorvo of the Open University, who was born in Glasgow and was a great expert on documentary film, was crushed to death by a heavy lorry while riding her bike in Islington.

My brother, Steve, is a lorry driver for Christian Salvesen and he keeps me informed about that scene. UK standards are pretty good, particularly in unionised firms such as Salvesen, although they are not perfect. However, two thirds of the overseas traffic that reaches Scotland by road comes in foreign heavy goods vehicles, of which a third have been recorded as being overloaded or badly maintained or having overworked drivers. Members can imagine the hazards in that regard.

Our orthodoxy has been to squeeze more traffic capacity on to our roads. Instead, we need to reduce car speed, provide broader pavements and give right of way to bus, cycle and pedestrian traffic. Cars are not the only issue. Ideas such as the concept project, which is mentioned in the framework, enable us to devise an overall solution to the problem in the context of allocation of loads.

It is not just about declarations and planning. We need an ethos that is not that of "Top Gear"—the "four wheels good, two legs boring" ethos. "Top Gear" might be "just fluff", as Jeremy Clarkson tells us; fluff is not a policy for transport or indeed for our survival.

Presiding Officer,

"every death and every serious injury on the roads is one too many. We need to maintain the huge effort made by many people in Scotland towards making our roads safer. Indeed, we need to take stock and see what more we can do."

Those are the words of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in the foreword to the road safety framework. In the body of the text on page 91, the framework states, with regard to the trunk road network, which is the minister's direct responsibility:

"A road's design has a major influence on its safety performance. The features of the roads themselves affect the likelihood and severity of accidents. Humans are fallible and, in recognising that road users will make mistakes, we must acknowledge the need to design out or protect the features that result in death and serious injury."

It is really good stuff. The document goes on to say that many road junctions are targeted specifically at road safety. A good example is the addition of seven new interchanges on the A90 between Perth and Forfar where junctions with poor accident histories have been replaced with grade-separated junctions—that is, flyovers.

The minister knows full well the level of accidents on the A90 at Laurencekirk, although he has repeatedly disputed the figures that Grampian Police has provided.

Will the member give way?

I do not have time, I am afraid. The minister has six minutes in which to respond, and I hope that he will.

The minister knows full well the level of the community campaign led by Jill Campbell with its 8,000-signature petition, which is before the Parliament again in November. He also knows full well that the safety measures that a previous transport minister put in place in 2005 were never intended to be anything more than temporary.

The minister refused to meet Jill Campbell and me for some time, but we eventually secured a meeting with him in February this year. We were astonished at the complacency that he and his team displayed. He told us that he had other transport priorities but, when pressed, declined to say what they were in comparison with Laurencekirk. He felt that the injuries and accidents around the three junctions at Laurencekirk were at an okay level.

Will the member give way?

I have told the minister already that I will not.

We warned him repeatedly that it was only a matter of time before we had more—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it correct for members to put in other members' mouths words that have not been said?

You have an opportunity to respond when you wind up the debate, minister. I have a little flexibility if Mr Rumbles wants to take an intervention, but he does not have to.

I repeat that the minister told us that he had other transport priorities but, when pressed, declined to say what they were in comparison with Laurencekirk. He felt that the injuries and accidents around the three junctions at Laurencekirk were at an okay level.

We warned the minister repeatedly that it was only a matter of time before we had more loss of life at those junctions. Last week, we had that next fatality. My condolences go to the family of Mr Anderson, but I ask the minister to ensure that I do not have to stand up in the Parliament again and plead with him to do the right thing at Laurencekirk.

Will the member give way?

I do not have time, unfortunately.

On behalf of the campaigners, I thank Frank McAveety, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, who wrote to Jill Campbell and the campaigners after the tragic accident at Laurencekirk last week.

Seven junctions have been authorised on the road south of Laurencekirk by recent transport ministers. It is the only community of its size between Dundee and Aberdeen that does not have a grade-separated junction for access on to the A90. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change must complete the work, authorise a grade-separated junction for Laurencekirk and close the other two junctions to crossing traffic.

I ask the minister again to put the good words that he uses in the foreword of his publication into effect for the community of the Mearns around Laurencekirk. The issue is, and has only ever been, about saving lives. It is too late for Mr Anderson and his family, but we should all make every effort to ensure that it is not too late for other families whose loved ones will die if Laurencekirk and the Mearns do not get their grade-separated junction.

The road safety framework has much in it that is to be commended. It is clear that a lot of positive work was put into it by an expert panel, the Government, various respondents, various parties, the police, motoring organisations and a number of individuals and safety organisations.

The targets in the framework are challenging, although I take on board Alison McInnes's points about Sweden's target of zero road accident fatalities by 2020. We must watch to see whether Sweden is achieving things that we are not. Nevertheless, reductions of 40 and 50 per cent are challenging targets. On the analysis of a number of motoring organisations, it seems that the bulk of the easy wins in road safety are over. There may be some easy wins still out there, but the bulk of them, I think, are over.

Mike Rumbles is absolutely right to say that any death on Scotland's roads is a tragedy and is one death too many. Over the past 30 or 40 years, under Governments of all different stripes, enormous progress has been made. In the late 1960s, there were almost 900 deaths a year on the roads in Scotland. The latest figures that I have seen suggest that there are now around 270 to 280 such deaths a year. Given the increase in traffic over that period, that is no mean feat for various Governments to have achieved. Nevertheless, I agree with anyone who says that there is no room for complacency.

My colleague, Alex Johnstone, touched on several measures for which the Scottish Conservatives have been pushing for some time. We had black spot funding in our previous manifesto, and we reiterate today that the targeting of problem roads must be a priority. Although the global figures have come down, there are certain roads and parts of the country where there has not been a decrease in the number of fatalities or where the decrease has taken place far more slowly than on other roads.

Some areas need to be worked on. In his statement, the minister picked up on what the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I think, had noted in drawing out specific Scottish problems or issues. It pointed to the high fatality rate per crash, which was higher than in the UK in general. It also felt that child safety should be a higher priority here, and it mentioned the issues of new drivers and rural roads, which many members have touched on in the debate.

It is worth dwelling on the point that Charlie Gordon made about technology—or distractions, as he described them. At the weekend, I read a study compiled by Heriot-Watt University that addressed various distractions. Mr Gordon rightly talked about mobile phones; the study looked at more recent developments such as satellite navigation devices. A number of crashes have happened while people have been changing the co-ordinates in their sat navs, and some have happened—although not so many—when people have been flicking about with iPods. The issue needs to be addressed each year, rather than every 10 years, as technology advances quickly and there will be things to distract drivers in five years' time that we cannot think about today.

Seat belts are not a new subject, but I was struck by a comment that the minister made in evidence to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. He said that he thought—he added that caveat—that 50 per cent of in-car injuries and fatalities could be traced to the non-wearing of seat belts. He was not 100 per cent sure whether that figure was correct; nevertheless, if it is anywhere near correct, it highlights an area in which there might be an easy win or a slightly quicker win in comparison with other areas.

A parliamentary question was asked about the collection of data on road safety black spots, and the answer was that the information is not held centrally. The data on trunk roads are held centrally, but there are black spots all over Scotland that are not on trunk roads. I wonder whether there can be movement on that so that we can collect information on all black spots and hold it centrally.

I have a degree of sympathy with the Conservative amendment: we need to invest in ensuring safety on the road network and we must identify where the worst problems occur, focusing on the number of accidents—particularly serious accidents involving fatalities. In that context, it is important that we have criteria that are set by professionals who can assess the situation and the problems. We should not have a process whereby people simply assert that their problem is somehow worse than anybody else's.

I do not know about the situation in Laurencekirk that has exercised Mr Rumbles, but anyone who has been involved over a period of time in dealing with roads budgets would, I hope, accept that there is a need to identify what must be done, what can be done and how that relates to other priorities. That process should operate in every context. For example, my constituency includes a short stretch of the A82 on which three fatalities have occurred within the past 15 months. I am working with the different road authorities to find a solution to the problem, or at least mitigation measures to reduce any future fatalities. However, the solution should come from professional judgment rather than from a decision made ultimately by me as a politician.

We need to identify the correct solutions rather than necessarily the solutions that local people might prefer. While bearing in mind the sympathy that we all naturally have for those who suffer from accidents, as well as for their families, we nonetheless need to ensure that decisions and allocations are made in a professional way.

One problem that I have with the wording—as opposed to the spirit—of the amendment in the name of Alex Johnstone is that it perhaps suggests that the roads budget should be distributed in a way that takes away from road maintenance as opposed to road projects. I would insert a wee caveat on that point because I think that many road accidents are actually a product of poor maintenance that results in potholes and unanticipated traffic problems. That issue is not about major schemes to straighten out bends in the road or to sort out junctions but about keeping the roads in a good state of repair. Again, how the different priorities should be taken forward should be a matter for professional judgment. I hope that the minister will quite properly maintain that point.

The minister needs to drive the professionals forward by highlighting the range of concerns that exist. In my opening speech, I tried to do that by drawing attention to the problems that are experienced by cyclists, but I also want to highlight the concerns of those who represent the visually impaired. Such groups are really worried about the impact that the proposal for shared surfaces might have on the unsighted and the partially sighted, who would lack warning of approaching cars or even bicycles emerging unexpectedly. We need to think of all road users—current and potential users—in designing our streets and allocating resources to maintain them.

It seems to me that we need to consider not only historical traffic accidents but the opportunities that people have—or do not have—to use the roads because of their present configuration and design. I would like to see our roads being used in a different way. I would like more people to feel confident enough to walk or cycle and fewer people to feel that they need to rely on the car. If we can redesign our road network—not immediately but slowly—towards that objective, we will be moving in a positive direction not just on road safety but on tackling climate change.

We will not oppose the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I am not 100 per cent convinced that reducing the permitted blood alcohol level is the most important issue. Statistically, it is clear that reducing speed on trunk roads and other roads, including residential roads, would deliver more significant returns—

I am afraid that I must hurry you.

If the minister is to have a conversation with his colleagues in Westminster and elsewhere, I hope that he will have a broad-based conversation on all those issues.

This has been a useful debate. I look forward to participating in the vote at decision time, when I hope that we will agree to a sensible resolution.

This has been a useful debate. As I indicated at the outset, I am prepared to accept all three amendments—I could, of course, pick at some of their wording—because they all reflect the concern that is shared by all parties in the Parliament to ensure that we make our roads safer and that we make people's use of those roads safer.

Road safety is not an issue that we can build our way out of by forever improving our roads. Indeed, it is pretty clear that an increasing proportion of the accidents on our roads are related to driver behaviour and that, increasingly, the engineering interventions that we make on our roads should be about protecting people—who are often confronted by unreasonable driver behaviour—from the consequences of other people's accidents by giving them roads that give them exits or soft options that minimise the effects of poor driving.

We have had some good speeches that have highlighted a number of important issues. Des McNulty talked about the visually impaired and the use of shared surfaces. Like him, I think that there are some important issues there. The idea of clearing a space and making it shared is a good one, if we can find ways of providing areas in which people who are visually impaired can be protected and of allowing people to recognise the different needs of others.

The concept of shared surfaces often relates to the reduction of speeds in urban areas. Charlie Gordon touched on that in what was, as ever, a thoughtful speech. He said that we should use measures that affect the way that people use our roads to improve safety. I have every sympathy with that approach. [Interruption.]

Order. Members who have just come into the chamber are making far too much noise. Will they please respect the fact that a debate is being wound up?

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Des McNulty also mentioned the need to work with Westminster—we do, of course. We have had a number of good ideas from Westminster, and it is clear that Westminster sees merit in what we have done, much of which is reflected in what it is doing. We are working on slightly different timescales, but we are certainly working to a shared objective.

Mention was made of the Swedish objective of zero road deaths, but it is worth making the point that, although important work is being done and good progress has been made in Sweden, there is not the same degree of cross-body working that exists in Scotland, which was introduced by the previous Administration and has been sustained by this one. Indeed, the Swedes are having to have a rethink, as the progress that they have made is not being sustained.

Alex Johnstone, among others, introduced the subject of rural road deaths. Those of us who represent areas in the north-east of Scotland have particular concerns about the relationship of that issue to young drivers. It is suggested that two thirds of accidents are caused by driver error. Inexperienced drivers in their first year of driving—members should note that I said "inexperienced" rather than "young", although it is inevitable that young drivers will be inexperienced—are as much as five or six times more likely to have an accident as other people are. We must have a special focus on them.

Alex Johnstone and Alison McInnes spoke about school buses, which is not just an issue of legislation. Technology can help, but we must educate and show true leadership. Alison McInnes said that we need targets—of course we do—and pointed, quite properly, to the fact that children from the lowest socioeconomic groups are at significantly higher risk.

The budget of Sustrans is being sustained, and we are working on driver training with the Driving Standards Agency at Westminster. It is clear that some roads need new investment, and I welcome the work that Stuart McMillan has been doing in his constituency to help identify where such investment is appropriate.

Like many members, Jamie Stone spoke about his constituency. He highlighted the fact that road junctions present particular challenges, which they do. Dave Thompson returned to the subject of drink-driving limits. I am glad that the Liberals reflected the position that we have taken in their amendment.

Charlie Gordon got the school jotter out of the back of his pants and talked about kerb drill. It is right that we need some flair and imagination of the kind that has meant that, even at his great age, the road safety education that he received at school is still at the forefront of his mind. We must keep doing such work.

Order. I say again that there is far too much noise in this chamber.

We would all be astonished if anyone had risen to their feet today to oppose road safety and, of course, we have not been astonished.

We have had an excellent debate. Much more has been said than I can summarise in the six minutes that I have been kindly allowed. We will read the Official Report carefully and seek to respond accordingly. We will, of course, continue to work with partners.

I hope that we achieve unanimity when we vote.