 The next item of business is a debate on motion 5655 in the name of Gillian Martin, on the seatbelts on school transport Scotland Bill at stage 1. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons, please? I call on Gillian Martin, who is the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. Up to 13 minutes, please, Ms Martin. I am pleased to have the opportunity to open today's debate on the general principles of the seatbelts on school transport Scotland Bill. Those measures follow the devolution of competence, and it is particularly heartening to be able to bring legislative proposals to the chamber, which take forward the new powers that are required for Scotland. Every weekday morning across Scotland, parents and carers are waving their children off to school. Quite rightly, they expect that robust measures are in place to keep those young people safe, not just in the classroom but on the journey to and from school. We are speaking about the safety of young people. Today is particularly poignant on this terrible day, and I just want to say that I know that we are all going to find this debate possibly quite difficult. As a representative of a rural community, I am acutely aware of the distances some pupils travel to school and the importance given to such journeys. Additionally, as a parent, I know what it is to entrust the safety of my child into the care of others. I believe that the responsibility to keep young people safe is something that we all share, from teachers and education providers to those of us in elected positions setting national legal and policy direction. The bill before the chamber today makes important strides in those endeavours. Seatbelts can play a vital role in the event of a road traffic accident. That has borne out through a wealth of internationally recognised research. However, we also know that the benefits of encouraging children to buckle up, foster productive, positive, lifelong habits in relation to road safety. It is to be welcomed that much of local government shares those sentiments, with 18 councils already voluntarily stipulating seatbelts in all dedicated home-to-school transport contracts. However, I want to ensure that this practice becomes universal across every local authority in Scotland as a matter of law. My own local authority, Aberdeinshire Council, was one of the first to insist on seatbelts in all dedicated school transport as they awarded contracts. I want every parent to have the same peace of mind that I have. The powers to be able to legislate on the stipulation and contracts for school transport have now arrived in this place, and many local authorities have been moving towards implementation in preparation for the prospect of a new legal duty coming in. Before I move on to key points from the rural economy and connectivities report, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the call for evidence and witness sessions. I would also like to thank all members of the Seatbelts in the school transport working group and the Government ministers and officials who have advised and assisted me. I welcome the committee's support for the general principles of the bill and its constructive comments and recommendations. That support chimes with public feedback. A national consultation in 2016 showed that respondents overwhelmingly thought that those measures would contribute to road safety, with many questioning why a law had not been implemented sooner. Turning to the detail of the measures, the bill will create a legal duty for local authorities, granted school providers and independent school providers to ensure that vehicles used for dedicated school transport have seatbelts fitted. That includes taxis, minibuses, coaches and buses. Some of those vehicle types are already covered by existing UK laws requiring seatbelts, so it is the larger coach and bus vehicles where changes will be required. Members will be aware that, unlike in some countries, there is not a bespoke model of vehicle used for dedicated school transport. A wide range of vehicles are used, particularly in relation to local authority provision, from double-decker buses designed for urban use to single-decker coaches associated with longer distance travel. Grant Aided and independent schools report that their dedicated school transport is already university supplied with seatbelts, so it is in the local authority provision that the transition has to be made. Collaboration has been key to ensuring that the measures are clear and workable in the ground, and that is why the seatbelts on school transport working group has been so important. The group was set up in 2014 as the Scotland Act order devolving power on this issue was being processed. Farming the group has allowed extensive dialogue with stakeholders, experts and delivery organisations, such as local government, the bus industry and parenting and education groups. Therefore, the proposals brought before the Parliament have been shaped and influenced by those that they will affect, ensuring that we have a bill whose content is practical and fit for purpose. It has been very important that a considered and reasonable implementation timescale is put in place, one that does not put partners under undue pressure. The legal duty will come into force in 2018 for vehicles transporting primary school children and 2021 for vehicles carrying secondary school pupils. That lead-in time helps local authorities and bus operators to adapt to the change. That also means that no contract should have to be broken as a result. I am glad to see that the committee endorses that approach in its report. Another issue that comes through strongly in the rural economy and connectivity committee's findings is the assertion that those measures should be extended to vehicles that use to take pupils on excursions during the school day, such as trips to the swimming pool, for example, as well as home to school transport. I welcome their comments on that and the views expressed by witnesses in the recent committee evidence sessions. The logic of that extension is not hard to see, however, the practical implications will need some consideration. The two kinds of transport are quite distinct in terms of organisation and administration. One is generally done in a three- to five-year council-wide contract, while the vehicles used for school trips can be booked singularly on an ad hoc basis and are organised by the individual schools. School discussions are, however, already covered by robust risk assessment guidance, which stipulates seatbelts should be on vehicles, and initial discussions with our stakeholders report that that is rigidly adhered to. I do not have any objection in principle to putting that on a statutory footing, and I am currently working with the Scottish Government to gather views and see how it could work on the ground. Since hearing the views of the committee on that, I have already made contact with teaching unions, local government and other stakeholders, and I will give that close consideration ahead of stage 2. One of the undeniable traits of school transport in Scotland is that there is no one-size-fits-all formula for delivery. There are around 2,500 schools in the country spread across a diverse range of geographies with our nation's local authorities. Essentially, we are talking about everything from pupils being driven to school on a double-decker bus in a bustling urban centre to pupils in remote areas such as my constituency in Aberdeenshire, travelling relatively long distances on coaches and country roads. Clearly, any attempt at a top-down dictate on how that should work will hamper flexibility and restrict the ability of councils to implement the type of school transport that works best for them and their school pupils. It is therefore very welcome to see that the committee recognises and agrees with the need to maintain that flexibility. I am firmly of the belief that the individual local authorities should use the methods of implementation that suit them. I am aware that methods such as adult bus monitors or supervisors were raised and considered during evidence sessions. Likewise, committee members highlighted some low-housing local authorities stipulate a maximum age of vehicle in their contracts. The bill does not restrict school authorities' flexibility on those matters. Indeed, we will look to point out options and guidance, and we will point to different areas of local authorities' good practice. However, making any singular measure a statutory requirement could hinder effectiveness and ultimately be counterproductive. The issue of flexibility brings me on to considerations around young people with additional support needs or smaller children for whom a normal seat belt might not fit or be effective. The provision has been looked at in detail with stakeholders, and the bill has consciously been drafted to allow for such pupils to be catered for. The legislation does not mandate a specific type of belt and leaves options open for school authorities in terms of using adjustable straps, booster seats or lap belts for smaller children. In practice, young people with additional support needs are often transported in taxes and minibuses in line with existing equalities and support for learning duties on school authorities, and the bill does not restrict that. I welcome that the committee gives recognition to the benefits of this in its report. I now turn to an issue that has come through strongly in consultation with people and stakeholders. That is, how do we ensure that children actually wear the seat belts? The laws around seat belt wearing are reserved to Westminster, yet I am of the firm view that the bill represents a real opportunity to promote successful approaches and raise wider awareness among strong people on the safety benefits of wearing seat belts. That is why there will be comprehensive guidance, as well as publicity and educational materials that are created to accompany the new legal duty coming into force. We have already had dialogue with parenting, education and youth group stakeholders, as well as Road Safety Scotland on that. We will also ensure the involvement of young people themselves, and I know that the committee supports that. It is crucial that we try and take a positive approach to instilling safety messages and allowing young people to see the benefits of good habits. The correct behaviour is not unique to the school bus. There is the same need to promote good behaviour in the classroom and represent in the school and the community, say at lunch times, for example. Approaches taken to good pupil behaviour are in practice every day in schools across Scotland. Stakeholders at the committee's evidence session used the analogies of society's changed views on smoking or wearing seat belts in cars. I wholeheartedly agree that habits change and practices become second nature, but it does not happen overnight. Yet, by consistent and concerted effort, we can achieve the desired outcome. Let us not forget that Wales has already successfully implemented similar measures on seat belts without having powers over the devolved liability for wearing them, and so will we. I know that Aberdeenshire Council has been very proactive when it comes to school transport, and it can give us many successful examples, as well as the other local authorities, to draw from as we refine good practice nationally. Obviously, stipulating an additional feature such as seat belts in a contract with private bus operators can lead to a cost increase. That regularly happens as contracts end and are renewed. For example, councils may be adding new requirements such as CCTV, or a certain standard of vehicle or new routes. In helping with the new statutory duties that fall on councils, the Scottish Government has worked with local government to forecast future cost implications, and those are set out in the financial memorandum. I am aware that the committee has made some comments on this exercise and the overall estimates that covered a 14-year period from 2018. We will look at what can be done to give further explanation of the detail of those figures. I have been in touch with COSLA to ask them to provide a representative to give a fuller explanation of how the cost analysis was completed. I have written to the convener and vice convener of the committee to advise them of this, since COSLA was unable to attend the committee session that they were invited to. In closing, I repeat my thanks to the committee for its support for the principles of the bill and the very helpful recommendations that it has made. I move the motion in my name. I now call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. No more than eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First, on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I welcome this opportunity to summarise our findings on Gillian Martin's bill on seatbelts on school transport. First, I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee. The evidence that we received came from a wide range of people—parent groups, councils, transport operators, Scottish Youth Parliament, named by a few. We also received evidence from school pupils. I thank the education outreach services at the Parliament, who helped to gather that information during school visits. I also thank the committee as a whole and the clerks, who I believe worked very diligently towards the preparation of the report, which I believe is a helpful report. Turning to the bill, I would like to point out that it is a single-purpose bill, which is to introduce a legal requirement for seatbelts to be fitted on all dedicated home-to-school transport in Scotland. The committee notes broadly positive responses received from our stakeholders and witnesses, who are all keen to improve the safety of children. There has, however, been some disquart from those that we heard from, as for the bill's purpose, being too specific and narrow. Before I look at the key findings and recommendations, I would like to make a general comment. The committee heard that the position across Scotland regarding the provision of seatbelts on school transport is mixed. It appears that there is an excess of 18 councils, over half of the councils in Scotland, who have already demanded that seatbelts be fitted on school transport. Furthermore, we heard that a number of councils are demanding that seatbelts be fitted on dedicated school transport is increasing, as are the number of councils that demand seatbelts to be fitted on school excursions. Thus, it may appear that the bill may be overtaken by events in that the aim may well be achieved before the staggered implementation dates are reached, a point that I feel may be picked up in open debate. Turning to the key findings, school excursions, the committee was surprised that the bill only covers home-to-school journeys and not for school trips or excursions. We heard repeatedly from witnesses that this was indeed a failing. It was felt that not having seatbelts available on all school transport sends out a mixed message and diluted the safety issue that the bill is trying to achieve. We also heard that wearing seatbelts on school trips where there is greater supervision would encourage children to continue to wear seatbelts on home-to-school commute, where there will be fewer adults present. In response to the committee's stage 1 report, the Scottish Government has indicated that officials have been in touch with teaching unions, local government and other stakeholders to ascertain what the practical implications would be of extending the legal duty in this area. I have heard today the words of Gillian Martin in relation to that. The committee, however, is clear and strongly recommends that the bill's provision should be extended to cover exclusions or trips organised by schools and looks forward to hearing the outcome of those discussions and a possible amendment being brought forward before the conclusion of stage 2. As far as wearing seatbelts is concerned, the committee fully understands that the bill makes it a requirement that seatbelts are fitted in dedicated school transport, but it is important that everyone understands that this is very different from the requirement that seatbelts have to be worn. It became evident during the committee's consideration of the bill that its purpose is limited to the fitting of belts on school transport, and many witnesses were concerned about whether seatbelts once fitted would actually be worn. Indeed, the committee heard that children under the age of 14 are not required by law to wear seatbelt on buses at all. That is not a devolved issue, as Gillian Martin has made out, and therefore it falls under the jurisdiction of the UK Government. As a result of the questions raised in the committee, the Scottish Government did raise the issue with the appropriate UK minister. The minister was not able to support to change the law, but he did understand, I believe, the point that was being made. I believe that the committee would look to the Scottish Government taking this forward again post the election. We heard examples from witnesses of how the wearing of seatbelts is being encouraged, including bus monitors and prefects, educational programmes and CTV. We are convinced that pupils need to have greater awareness of the safety benefits of wearing seatbelts and that young people need to be involved in creating the guidance. We also heard that the guidance needs to be based on positive action rather than on a disciplinary approach. We heard from the Scottish Government that it intends to take this forward with young people and create the guidance that the committee supports. Turning to the non-statutory guidance, the committee heard that some children may choose not to wear seatbelts when they are fitted. That is an issue that we believe needs to be addressed, as I briefly mentioned earlier. We believe that there should be a packet of guidance and practical support should be provided within the bill's provisions. It is clear that there will need to be perhavial change within schools to encourage children to make the wearing of seatbelts in school transport as natural as it is in the family car. There is also the issue of duty of care and where this lies. The committee believes that the Government must seek to clarify that to allow bus drivers, teachers and all those involved to know where the responsibility of actually making children wear seatbelts sits. The committee also heard about the servicing of seatbelts. The committee heard that it is an annual testing requirement and that it is a statutory provision under the UK legislation. The committee feels that this is a bare minimum and that more regular tech should be done on school transport. It also believes that guidance should be given to operators should they find that seatbelts are found effective when they are being checked in the morning. The other issue that the committee looked at was the financial memorandum, which has briefly been mentioned. It probably raised some of the most more questions than any other specific subject, as far as the committee was concerned. The memorandum suggested that requiring all dedicated school transport vehicles to be fitted with seatbelts would require an increased cost for bus operators, mainly through retrofitting seatbelts, purchasing new vehicles and an increased maintenance costs. The Government anticipates that those costs will be passed on to local authorities through higher contract prices. The financial memorandum estimates that the total cost between 2018 and 31 will be £8.92 million. The Government was not clear how that money would be paid to all authorities and it was not clear that the money would be ring-fenced to achieve the aim that it was being paid for. The Government heard that this money could be seen as a reward to those operators who had not fitted seatbelts already and could undervalue those that had. Furthermore, the committee heard the evidence from the transport industry that the fitting of seatbelts was becoming viewed as a minimum standard anyway. As far as EU approval is concerned, we had our first evidence of the session of the bill from the Scottish Government officials on 15 March, but it was not until last week that we heard that the bill would have to go before the EU for approval before it was passed. That surprised the committee when the Welsh Assembly had passed a bill in a similar circumstances in 2011. In conclusion, the committee supports the member's bill and we welcome the proposed response to the committee on our final report that we received on 19 May. Whilst we have reservations on the issue of the fitting of seatbelts on school transport for school excursions and on the financial memorandum, we support the general principle of the bill and recommend to the Parliament that it be agreed to. I associate myself with the remarks that Gillian Martin made at the beginning of her contribution. There will be some people watching this wondering why the Parliament is continuing to sit, but it is important, in fact, in defiance of those who seek to disrupt our lives that we continue the business of this chamber. Secondly, there can be no more important issue for us to be striving towards to be working on collaboratively as individuals, as MSPs, as committees, as committee members and indeed as Government, than the safety of our children. That is a responsibility in today's debate that we will feel heavier than perhaps we will have felt ever before. Road safety is an issue on which we place the utmost priority. We are taking forward a raft of measures across Scotland to reduce risks as we move towards the ambitious casualty targets that are set out in our road safety framework to 2020. The chamber will therefore be aware that the Scottish Government fully backs those legislative proposals. They are not new to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, emanate from considerations before the Public Petitions Committee in a previous session. Subsequently, the Scottish ministers announced an intention to legislate in 2014, following confirmation from the UK Government that it was willing to transfer competence through a devolution instrument specifically on the issue, just as it had done with Wales. As such, the Government has been able to undertake significant and in-depth work with stakeholders to ensure a collaborative approach to forming the proposals. It has been very pleasing to see Ms Martin utilising that and building on it to refine the proposals that have been introduced and undergone at stage 1 consideration. I would like to, of course, convey my thanks to the rural economy and connectivity committee that I follow proceedings closely in seeing first-hand the thoughtful scrutiny that members have given. My gratitude extends to all those who gave evidence, and those contributions greatly aid the Parliament's ability to give due consideration. I will try to touch on some of the themes that the convener touched on in terms of reservations that the committee perhaps has. In that respect, the financial memorandum, as Ms Martin has said, is something that will continue to work with COSLA with to explore whether there can be some more robust evidence around that cost basis, but also what can be done to look again at some of those costings on the issue of enforcement, as well as something that I will try to touch on in some of my remarks. On the laws on wearing, the committee's report notices that there are not laws across the UK to create liability for ensuring youngsters between the ages of 3 and 14 were seat belts that are fitted on buses or coaches. As the committee convener says, there is a reserved issue, and the Scottish Government has been pressing the UK Government for some time. As the convener has said, the UK Government has responded to say that they do not have fixed plans, but on his recommendation. The committee's recommendation, I will, of course, pursue that matter once again after the general election. In terms of some of the observations around seat belt specification in the committee's report, we welcome the committee's recognition for the need for greater flexibility. The bill will not be able to stipulate the type of seat belt, such as a three-point or a lap belt, as that is beyond the scope of competence that has been devolved. However, local authorities have reported that the greater flexibility in such matters is very welcome. Additionally, the committee comments around seat belt maintenance, and it may be useful if I set some of that in the wider context. Vehicles used for dedicated school transport are subject to roadworthiness testing regime. That is reserved and undertaken on behalf of the UK Government by the driver and vehicle standards agency, DVSA. In addition to the scheduled vehicle inspection cycle DVSA officers and the police have powers to undertake unannounced roadside vehicle inspections on buses and coaches, local authorities also have the option to employ or appoint their own vehicle inspectors, which can monitor buses or coaches used for the dedicated school transport contracts. Additionally, school authorities can also make vehicle standards or maintenance a condition of contract and include punitive measures for any breaches of that. We will look to highlight best practice on checking and maintenance of seat belts and guidance as per the committee's suggestions, and I hope that that gives them some elements of comfort. On the European Commission notification, I noted the committee's surprise and answered questions on that at the committee appearance that I took part in with Ms Martin a couple of weeks ago, but I would make the mention once again and reiterate the point that the bill is slightly different to that of the Welsh bill. The Welsh bill was wider in scope, but nonetheless I thank the committee for agreeing to the amended timetable that suggests that stage 2 can proceed before notification, which will be done by the UK Government, but before notification takes place and at stage 3 scheduled for after the summer recess of my thanks to the committee for agreeing to that timetable. I could address the issue that the committee has repeatedly been raising. We have not had an answer yet. When the bill was introduced, we were told that 18 local authorities had this in their contracts and therefore so many did not. We have been asking repeatedly, could we give an up-to-date information as to how many have them in their contracts or are about to have them in their contracts and we still do not have that information? Let me try to get some of that information for Mike Rumbles if I can and I will respond to my closing remarks. I will ask for the latest information from local authorities and the information that is gathered from local authorities. In January 2017, I estimated that there were 110 vehicles. A transition from 323 buses will be aware of in 2014, showing that councils are moving towards compliance. That number, as far as we can gather, has not changed. 110 vehicles is still the latest estimate. Let me also say to Mr Rumbles that, even if all 32 local authorities were moving towards that and were in that position of stipulating seatbelts in their contract, we have to legislate to future proof. There is nothing stopping local authorities rolling back. I admit that politically it would be incredibly difficult for them to do so, but I think that legislation is important to future proof that if possible. The financial memorandum that I have already touched on and said that we will re-examine and re-explore that with COSLA. Now that the Administrations are taking shape and COSLA itself is taking shape, I look forward to hearing this debate and I look forward to hearing some of the points, the concerns, the reservations, but hopefully, broadly, the support for this very good bill being taken forward by my colleague Ms Martin. I call Jamie Greene for up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to echo the sentiment of the chamber today that there can be no better subject matter for us to be discussing than the safety of children. I am pleased to be opening this stage 1 debate on behalf of my party and to express thanks to Gillian Martin for bringing it to this Parliament. I too have sat in many evidence sessions in the rural economy committee for a number of weeks on this matter. The Scottish Conservative position on this is that we are largely supportive of its aim. It shares a common ambition. However, we share some of the concerns that other members have voiced already and perhaps may voice today. I would like to take each of them in turn. The first concern was raised around that of liability and enforceability. We appreciate that the legislation around the wearing of seatbelts is not a devolved matter. It was, however, originally quite unclear if there would be any liability on a third party if an incident occurred. We had concerns over whether any recourse could fall on a driver, a prefect, a monitor, a teacher or even the local authority themselves in the unfortunate situation of an accident. I think that some clarification is necessary on that point. At this point, we would also like to share our disappointment with any potential delayed progression of the bill due to the fact that it must be approved by the EU on the grounds of competition law in regards to its technical standards directive. We are aware that a similar case was raised through the Welsh Assembly in 2011, and although it is not exactly the same, there are some parallels with the situation here. This delay may have been avoided with some foresight. Nonetheless, due process must be followed and we look forward to the outcome of that decision. Moving on to the financial components. It is estimated, as has already been mentioned, that the total cost of fitting seatbelts on 110 buses and coaches could amount to £8.92 million, which in effect will be covered by the Scottish Government. Of course, it is entirely normal for the financial repercussions of a bill to form part of its scrutiny. Whilst I expect that this figure might be a worst-case scenario, there seems to be unanswered questions about the allocation of the subsidy. For example, will all local authorities get a portion of the budget and how will it be carved up? Will there be any historic payments made to local authorities who previously spent funds on ensuring that seatbelts were part of their school transport contracts? Will any funding that is made available by the Scottish Government for this purpose and given to local authorities be ring-fenced for this purpose alone or will it simply be allocated through block grant and, indeed, on a trust basis? In our view, clarity on the funding elements of this legislation is required as we progress through the stages of the bill. I think that that leads to my next point, which is quite a more fundamental one. This Parliament will need to consider whether or not there is a need to legislate at all. Given that at least 18 of our 32 local authorities currently stipulate the need for seatbelts in dedicated school transportation, that does seem to be the general direction of travel. According to the MVA consultancy research, even back in 2013, 85 per cent of dedicated school transport already had seatbelts fitted, so whilst best practice is welcome, is intervention the only way to ensure that this happens across 100 per cent of local authorities and 100 per cent of vehicles. We are open-minded as to the need for a bill, but only if the bill is adequately structured and impactful and offers good value to public spending. My final point is one that you will no doubt hear much of today, and that is around the inclusion or exclusion of other school-related trips on buses. As it stands at the moment, the bill will not cover school excursions, field visits or school trips. It only applies to dedicated school commuting. That makes very little sense to us. Surely the application of duty of care should be applied to all circumstances where a child is on board a school bus. I do appreciate that this opens up a very separate debate around the fact that schools often contract directly with operators for ad hoc trips, but we should not avoid having that debate. My colleagues today will go into more detail on that and some of the issues, and some other points that they would like to raise with the chamber. I agree in principle that tackling the issue will make a difference. The WHO published statistics recently showing that seatbelts substantially reduce the risk of minor injuries and can reduce fatalities, resulting from collisions by up to 25 per cent. However, the fitting of seatbelts is just the cog and a wheel of a much wider road safety campaign. This Parliament should consider the issue of education and responsibility. We believe that education is absolutely key to the success of such schemes. Children should want to wear a seatbelt on a bus in the same way that they do without hesitation putting one on in their family car, so the tone and method of the education and the enforcement message is vital to changing mindsets, especially among older pupils. In closing, I would like to thank Gillian Martin for her enthusiastic pursuit of the bill to date, but we feel that there are many loose ends that need to be tied up before we progress to stage 2. In principle, we will support the aims of the bill at this stage, but we would like to see the inclusion of extra trips and excursions as a baseline for progress on the bill. I would request that the member and, indeed, the Scottish Government carefully consider many of the comments and concerns that members might share in today's debate. We will monitor its progress carefully. At the outset, let me recognise the work of Gillian Martin in bringing this bill to the Parliament and let me thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for their stage 1 report, as the convener Edward Mountain said. In addition to the usual pattern of scrutiny and evidence taken, committee members also found the time to visit schools and engage the opinion of young people. At this point, I commend the staff of the Parliament who made those external visits to schools. I also welcome the input of all those young people who participated. The bill affects them more than anyone else, and it is only right that they were given the opportunity to have their stay. The bill marks a step forward. It may be a small step forward, but it is a step forward nonetheless. There are, thankfully, according to what evidence is available to us, very few injuries involving children travelling on school transport. Just 45 children are injured per year on buses and coaches. However, when it comes to preventable injuries on transport to and from school, I am sure that we would agree across the chamber that any injury that brings harm to a child is one too many. It is therefore only right that we collectively consider what preventative steps we can take to make school transport safer. Although the focus of the bill is narrow and specific, it raises a number of wider issues relating to the safety of school transport. In its report, the committee has addressed some of those issues alongside the specific provisions of the bill, not just considering the merits of fitting seatbelts on school transport but considering the behavioural changes and the wider legislative changes that may be required to protect those young passengers. In addition to endorsing the general principles of Gillian Martin's bill today, I also want to welcome the wider debate that has been initiated about the use of seatbelts and the safety of children. It is important that we consider what changes could be made during stage 2. The bill itself could be broader and more ambitious, rather than echoing the intentions of the Government. It could be stretched further. We could have used similar legislation in Wales as the starting point for our own proposals. In Wales, every bus provided or secured by a relevant body and used for the purpose of learner transport must have a seatbelt fitted to every seat. Several buses are used for dedicated learner transport. Even if the majority of their journeys are not for dedicated learner transport, they will need to be fitted with seatbelts. That is not to detract from the merits of the proposed bill before us, but simply to point out to the Parliament that the bill could be different. As has been acknowledged, the bill does not, for example, cover dedicated transport that is used for school excursions or trips. The committee recommends that the provision of the bill be extended to ensure that it does, and we would agree. Why should there not be the same protection for a 20-minute journey home after school and for a school trip that could take children further from home? I could last 60 minutes, 90 minutes or even more. Importantly, as members will be aware, the bill requires that seatbelts are fitted. It does not require that seatbelts are worn. The fitting of seatbelts alone does not in itself make school transport safer—a point made by the Scottish parent teacher council in their written evidence. There has to be a concerted effort to change behaviour, to promote safety and responsibility on school buses and to ensure that seatbelts, which are already widely fitted anyway, are properly used. I noted in the committee report that secondary pupils are described in the report as being a tough audience to convince to wear seatbelts, and certainly with them in the case on my school bus when I was a child. Indeed, one of the high schools that were visited during that inquiry, 74 per cent of people said that they were unlikely or not at all likely to wear seatbelts. That is a clear illustration of how far we still need to go to change behaviour with some age groups. If the safety of children is paramount, we need to look at a range of issues in changing that behaviour. We also need to look at the role of escorts on school buses who perform an important role in ensuring safety. The committee also made a sensible recommendation that the Scottish Government and the UK Government work together to ensure that all children aged 3 to 14 are covered by a legal requirement to wear seatbelts. In doing so, the Scottish Government could begin to consider who should be responsible for ensuring that such a requirement is met—the school, the local authority, the driver. It is a different matter from one before us today, but it is not unless a matter demanding our attention. The Scottish Government may also wish to consider requirements relating to nursery transport given the expansion of the early years sector. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in Rytyn Evans said that they support the fitting and wearing of appropriate restraints on all methods of transport, including school transport. However, they also point to evidence showing that adult-style free-point belts and lap belts are not necessarily appropriate for children under 12. Therefore, they seek an assurance from the Scottish Government that the tension will be paid to the concerns of the society. There has been some debate already regarding the financial memorandum to the bill. The cumulative cost of implementing the provisions of the bill is estimated to be around £8.92 million. The committee says that it is unconvinced of that figure. Evidence from the SPT and the Confederation for Passenger Transport suggests that the cost that is involved in tendering for the necessary work will not be as high as anticipated. Clarity is needed. The Scottish Government has indicated that it will work with stakeholders to assess whether further work has to be done to refine forecasts. Whatever forecasts the Government has set on, it is important that the councils have time to plan for any changes that could increase their costs. There is certainty about any contribution that those costs may come from central government. In conclusion, it is important that we as a Parliament not only understand the purpose of the bill but also the limitations of the bill ahead of amendment stages. It may be different. It could go further. If it is the right thing to do, we should consider whether we should be implementing it in 2020 or sooner than 2021 for secondary schools. It must stand alongside measures to drive a change in behaviour, because alone it is not enough. That is a modest proposal, but nevertheless, as a proposal, we are prepared to support it. Thank you, Mr Greene and Mr Bibby, for finishing well within time. We are already over time, so speeches have absolutely no more than five minutes. John Mason, followed by Liam Kerr. The starting point has to be that there was widespread support for this bill at committee, as I think all of us saw it as a way of trying to improve safety for young people on their way to school. The question was whether the bill was actually necessary, and we were told that 18 local authorities out of 32 already did require seatbelts on school buses, and Strathclyde authorities are expected to follow suit after the summer. The financial memorandum refers to 323 buses in 2014, not having seatbelts, and we understand that this was recently down to 110, so the number has fallen quite dramatically. Would full implementation happen without legislation, we probably cannot say for sure, and it may well be that the promise of legislation is spurring on the other local authorities. I suppose that I have to say my own feeling is that we are better to be safe than sorry, and having the legislation gives us a belt and braces approach. We quickly came across the issue that, even with the legislation, some pupils would have belts available and others would not. Many young people travelled to school and service buses, and they clearly do not have seatbelts. The bill cannot affect that, but there could be a change on buses for school trips, and I would certainly support that as well. It is one thing to ensure that there are belts on the buses, but another to make sure that young people are wearing them, and we understood from evidence that, for some young people, it was not cool to wear a seatbelt, and clearly there will have to be guidance and educational materials on that. On all those points, I think that committee colleagues will go into more detail on the committee's thinking. However, the issue that I wanted to concentrate on was finance. Because of the tight timescale, the economy committee, rather than the finance committee, looked at the financial memorandum as explained in paragraph 89 of our report, we were immediately struck by the potential cost of £8.9 million, given that we had been told that there were only 110 buses operating without seatbelts. That seemed an extraordinary high cost of over £80,000 per bus to get seatbelts fitted retrospectively, but we were then told that that was not how the figure had been calculated. In fact, that figure is based on all local authorities receiving a payment whether or not they had compliant buses, and the figure was based on potential increases to contract prices with bus operators over the next 14 years. We also heard that that figure had been agreed by COSLA. To take those points in turn, firstly, I take the point that, by paying all local authorities for the changes, councils that have been proactive and already had belts fitted are not losing out. As paragraph 96 of our report says, funding will be distributed subject to the established settlement and distribution process, and therefore not according to the needs of particular councils. On the other hand, given the relatively small number of buses not meeting the standard, it does seem a huge amount of money to be paying. As the money is not ring-fenced, any local authority will be able to use it, any excess, for any good purposes, and I am sure that none of us would grudge local authorities a bit of extra money, but I do not think that that was the aim of the bill. Secondly, the financial memorandum does also give a lower figure of £2.35 million for purely changing the non-compliant buses, and that was based on the number of £323 million, so it might well be considerably lower for £110 million. I am not clear why that figure is not being used as the planned cost. In addition, we did get the impression from witnesses that where contracts had been renewed and included seatbelts, the increased cost in contract had been pretty minimal, as paragraph 93, 94 and 95 say. Thirdly, COSLA and the local authorities agree the figure of £8.9 million, and I think that they have produced it themselves. I have to confess that I am afraid that that does set alarm bells ringing for me. If those are the figures that COSLA and the council submitted, I would wonder if they were a bit on the high side. Very often in Parliament, committees have been concerned that the proposed cost of a bill in the financial memorandum was too low, and councils or other organisations might be left footing any extra. However, this time, we seem to be in a slightly odd situation where those incurring the cost seem very happy with it, and it is committee that is concerned that this is not good value for money. So, as the report says, the committee remains unconvinced that the £8.92 million cumulative cost of implementing the bill's provisions, as outlined in the financial memorandum, are justified. In conclusion, I am very happy to support this bill, even though it is possible that buses will all have seatbelts fitted anyway. I would also support any amendment to widen the coverage of the bill. However, my key concern is the proposed cost, and whether £8.9 million is really necessary to achieve the end of safer bus travel that we all support. I welcome today's stage 1 debate on the seatbelts on school transport Scotland bill, and joined with my colleagues across the chamber by supporting the legislation in principle. There is no doubt that failing to wear a seatbelt exposes people to unnecessary danger, and I accept that the provision of seatbelts on school buses can help children to develop good habits, which ultimately translate into greater safety. Accordingly, I think that this is a commendable attempt to improve the safety of children and am comfortable in voting for the passage of this bill at stage 1. I would like to, in my remarks, highlight three areas that, before stage 2, may benefit from greater reflection. First, the issue of enforcement. We were all school children once, and we know what school buses could be like. It is hard enough to get some of them to sit down, let alone put a seatbelt on. As was stated by Murray Council's submission to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, seatbelts are not seen as cool or necessary by many young people, particularly when they move up to secondary school and face new peer pressures. Yet, as we have heard a few times, this bill only covers home-to-school transport, and not school trips or excursions such that, for example, minibuses might not be fitted with belts. A whole tier of transport could exist on which seatbelts are not mandated. I am pleased to hear Gillian Martin's comments that she is working on that and on the messaging of that. My concern is that, if we are saying to children that seatbelt fitting is mandatory, as it is so important for safety, and then have an entire subset of transport on which seatbelts are not mandated, there is a risk that we have diluted the message to such a degree that they will not be used where they have been fitted. Secondly, I have concerns around the costs and clarity of the bill. With nearly 95 per cent of dedicated school transport already fitted with seatbelts, is there not a risk that the Scottish Government will be hit with an £8.9 million bill, whilst rewarding the small percentage of bus companies that have not already fitted seatbelts? I am also, as others have raised, a little concerned whether that is the absolute figure for this retrofitting. I would prefer a much more detailed breakdown of the figures, and I am glad again to hear Gillian Martin's comments on that. That also begs a potential question about where the nearly £9 million is going to come from. In an era of tight public finances, which budget might need to face cuts to fund the provision? That is not to mention the on-cost and responsibility of maintenance. Imagine if the seatbelts were fitted but did not work in an accident. Who is liable? Is that the operator? Is it the council? Is it the Government? Given that the funds may not be ring-fenced, does that bring pressure on already hard-pressed and underfunded councils? The final point that I wish to reflect on is that the bill's policy memorandum highlights that local authorities are increasingly moving towards stipulating the needs for seatbelts in their dedicated school transport contracts voluntarily. National guidance already states that seatbelts should be fitted as a condition within dedicated school transport contracts. As we have heard, nearly 95 per cent of dedicated school transport already has seatbelts fitted. 18 local authorities already require the provision of seatbelts in all dedicated school bus contracts up from 4 in 2009. A further six require them on some contracts. As the point was made by John Mason earlier on, is not there a strong possibility that by the time that this becomes law in 2018-21, all buses will have seatbelts fitted as a function of councils demanding seatbelts as part of their contracts? If so, there has to be a risk that we are legislating for legislating sake. I hear John Mason's thinking on this and it is an interesting debate. My view is that bringing in legislation often simply succeeds in making compliance more difficult. An excessively crowded legislative landscape can hinder economic activity. It can create burdens for individuals, businesses and communities and obstruct good government. I simply pose the question that Jamie Greene raised earlier, is adding to this legislative jungle actually the best and most effective way to achieve the endgame. I reiterate my support and principle for the seatbelts bill, but prior to stage 2, I believe that a period of reflection is in order, particularly around whether a bill that does not cover all school transport is sufficient to promote the wearing of seatbelts, secondly whether the Government is inadvertently rewarding those companies who have not yet fitted seatbelts, and whether we really need more legislation to achieve something that is more appropriately achieved in other ways. Like many others, when I first heard that Gillian Martin was bringing forward a member's bill to ensure that seatbelts were fitted on dedicated school buses, my first thought was, why has this not been done already? It turns out that some local authorities are already doing it. We heard about 18 with a further six on some routes and vehicles, but while progress is good, we have 32 local authorities. I think that we still have a long way to go. Let me give the chamber a bit of background to the bill. In 2007, Lynn Murray Field, on behalf of King's Seat Community Council, lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament on school bus safety, calling on the Scottish Government to make provision for every school bus to be installed with three-point seatbelts for every school child passenger. Unfortunately, because that law was still reserved to Westminster, Scottish ministers could not compel local authorities to do so, but the power was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2015. The fact that we are now debating this today in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament is a very proud moment. I would like to thank Lynn Murray Field and Gillian Martin from the bottom of my heart, because, as a mother, there is nothing in this world that is more important to me than making sure that my son is safe. Having seatbelts on school transport is a vital part of that for so many parents. When I was a child, I took a bus to and from school every day, and there were no seatbelts on them then. There were no seatbelts in the back of cars then. No, it was not long ago. However, with changes to legislation over time, we have come to realise what an essential part of travel they are. When I get in a car, the first thing I do before anything else is put on my seatbelt. It is automatic, it is a habit. The aim is also to make this the first thing that kids do on a bus on their way to and from school. Awareness, education and reinforcement. Being safe is cool, Liam Kerr. Seatbelts keep you safe. That is the big question. How do schools and local authorities ensure that, once the seatbelts are fitted, they are actually used? As a committee, we scrutinised every aspect of this report and took evidence from a number of experts. The Scottish Youth Parliament gave a powerful account from young people themselves. It has advised that guidance should be prepared with young people. They need to have ownership of that, whether it is bus monitors, mentorships or educational events. There are many different schemes already in place in schools all over the country that are very successful, and those should be looked at. During the course of the committee deliberations, I brought up the question of maintenance of seatbelts. I have travelled on buses all over the Highlands and I have encountered seatbelts that do not work. Under no circumstances do we want to see children and young people not wearing their seatbelt because it is broken or they are unable to use it. The answer that I was given was that seatbelts are covered by the bus MOT and will be checked regularly. We must encourage frequent and thorough checks and maintenance and make sure that young people are comfortable telling the driver or the responsible person on the bus if a seatbelt is out of action. The guidance that is given to all local authorities should emphasise that all seatbelts must be in work in order. I welcome the minister's commitment to that. In the policy objectives, it stated that over the period 2010 to 2015 an average of 42 children were slightly injured while travelling by bus or coach in Scotland each year with a further three children per year seriously injured. Luckily, no children have lost their lives while travelling on buses or coaches during this period. This is not a safety measure that can wait any longer. The legislation needs to be in place. Neil Bibby is completely correct when he said that one injury is one too many. In committee, some members have questioned if all local authorities are planning to have seatbelts fitted on school transport was the legislation even needed. I have spoken to a few of my colleagues since then and one of them told me, quote, we have been trying to get our local authority to do this for years and they keep putting it off. There is no guarantee that it would happen if they were not forced into doing it, unquote. This is why we need the legislation. We simply cannot base our children's safety on a what-if scenario. I have also been doing some local consulting. I would like to thank William Gullfyllin, head of community services at Highland Council and all the teachers that replied to me. I found your responses extremely useful and every single teacher I spoke to is in favour of the bill. Although I have supported the bill since it was brought to committee, it has made my resolve stronger to see it pass. As a Government, as a Parliament and as a society, we owe it to our young people. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is fundamentally a debate about child safety and, on a day such as this, it is difficult not to think about the tragic events in Manchester last night. As a parent, I think that one of the most difficult things that you can do is step back and give your child the space that it needs to explore the world. Undoubtedly, your child's first concept is one of those important milestones. I cannot even begin to understand what parents are going through who have lost children or, indeed, do not know where their children are. Our thoughts go to those families and our thoughts are with those 22 lost lights that we have lost from this world. Today, we are talking about seatbelts and transport school. In the sense, it is about that parental trust. There is a duty of care, as Edward Mountain put it. It is vital that we explore every safeguard that we can put in place, every feature that we can put in place to protect our children. That is none more so than on that journey to school. I thank Gillian Martin for bringing forward this bill. It is an important step forward. Indeed, I remember when she mentioned that she was bringing it forward on the steps of the garden lobby and I, too. One of those people said that it is not the law already. It is an important step forward in closing those loopholes and taking those additional steps so that we can honour the trust that parents have put. It also touches on the wraparand school day, because, increasingly, parents are working. We do not have stay-at-home parents who are able to take their children to school. The journey to and from school touches on the wraparand care that we all need to work towards, whether that is breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and, indeed, school transport. However, I would like to ask whether or not the bill goes far enough. A number of members have already raised the questions. Gillian Martin said that she felt that the bill could not go further in the interests of flexibility and effectiveness. As the bill proceeds through further stages, I think that it would be good to hear more about where her concerns are around that effectiveness, so that we can explore the full scope and possibilities of the law. Indeed, we need to look at the context of the bill. We have already seen significant improvements in the safety of minibuses and coaches with the legislation that has been brought forward in 1997 and 2001. The points around school excursions are extremely well made. It is because of the tragic accident on the M40 in 1993, when several 12- and 13-year-old children returning from their school excursions lost their lives that the bill was introduced in 1997. That required the seatbelts of minibuses and the 2001 legislation that required them in coaches as well. Given that coaches built from 2001 are required to have those seatbelts, what are we talking about? We are talking about 110 coaches that are old. Why are we taking our children to school in old buses that no longer meet the current standards? John Mason's lesson in mathematics, looking at those costs, was useful. We need to question those costs very carefully. That £8.9 million, divided by £110 million, gives you £80,000 per bus. For £80,000, surely we can upgrade those buses to maybe even buy new buses. Let us probe those costings, let us look at what we can do. Let us ask whether we are doing everything—should we be giving those monies directly to bus companies to pay for those upgrades rather than giving them to local authorities? Those are the sorts of questions that we need to ask, and those are the sorts of issues that we need to explore. While we have come so far on road safety, that progress has often been slow. The first three-point seatbelt was installed in a car in 1958. The UK legislation to install the minibuses only came forward in 1967. The requirement to wear those seatbelts only came in 1983. The law only required seatbelts to be fitted in the back seats of cars in 1987. We cannot tolerate such tardy slow progress when it comes to road safety. We cannot tolerate any complacency around safety when it comes to the transportation of our children. I urge members, as we look at the bill in stage 2 and stage 3, to think about how we can improve it. That is welcome. It is an important step forward, but we must ask, can it go further? We cannot afford the complacency of the past. We must do everything that we can to protect our children. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Peter Chapman. Sometimes we legislate to fix a problem, sometimes we legislate to prevent a problem, sometimes to reform or simplify, sometimes to create opportunity, sometimes for the benefit of institutions or individuals. The reason we legislate are many and diffuse and my list is far from complete. Each bill must stand on its merits or fall because of its shortcomings. The seatbelt's bill lies in the territory of fixing a problem and of preventing a problem. As a member's bill, it is of necessity, relatively limited in its scope. So why this bill and why now? I want to talk about my late constituent, Ron Beattie, from Gameray. He turned his attention to the safety of transporting school students after his granddaughter was severely affected by an accident after a lighting from a school bus. I met his granddaughter and I met Ron Beattie not long before he died, as Gillian Martin did, to discuss the bill. He was one of those dogged campaigners that Scotland perhaps particularly throws up. He understood that there were no simple, no quick solutions, but for over a decade, Ron attended public petition committee meetings and other committee meetings and parliamentary debates wherever road safety was being covered, even if it was likely only to be a procedural consideration. The odds are that Ron had made the four-plus-hours journey to show us all that he was holding us to account. However, the bill is of course not the limit of what Ron campaigned for but it is a useful part for it. Requiring the fitting of seatbelts and school buses is a power that we can now exercise, requiring that they are worn is currently beyond our powers. However, because we can only do a little, we should not choose to do nothing because we cannot do all that we want to do. We can and should must persuade people to use seatbelts. As we have been reminded in the last couple of days by one bus company, even when every bus is fitted with seatbelts, we need legislation in place to keep that soul for the future for everyone, forever. Let us consider the value of seatbelts in our road transport system. We have just heard some of the dates and I will not repeat them, but I will say that we have seen thousands of lives saved by seatbelts. The United States Department of Transport estimated in one of the early years of their fitting seatbelts that 12,000 lives had been saved. For my part, I first fitted seatbelts to my car in 1964 after seeing the brain damage suffered by a patient for whom I was a nurse and I wore them from that day onwards. More recently, I came upon a road accident where a driver had not been wearing a seatbelt and was sculpted in an urban collision with a comparatively low impact speed. It was not a pretty sight, not, I could tell you more if you wish, but I shan't. We have all but normalised the wearing of safety hats by cyclists. It shows us what can be done. We now need to achieve the same bake-through in the wearing of seatbelts in buses. Is the lady legally required, according to a fully referenced article in Wikipedia, in the Czech Republic from 2004, Finland 2006, France, Germany, Japan and Burma from last year? The relevant regulation is the motor vehicles wearing of seatbelts amendment regulations 2006. I had a quick look at it just to remind myself of some of it in the light of some of the remarks that have been from Liam Kerr and Gail Ross. At section 3, it appears to suggest that seatbelts must always be in conformity with regulations. In the context, what I take from that is that they have to be kept in working order. They will be checked at the MOT, that is for sure, but there is a legal obligation to keep them in working order. That is what I take from that. I will say that, like lots of legislation, the legislation is complex and it amends other legislation. It also requires that the driver tells passengers to wear it or that there is a sign in every seat in blue. I have seen that sign many times, but I did not know what it meant. I would really wonder whether it is particularly effective. Again, that is something that needs to be done. I very much welcome the bill. I am happy to support the general principles of the bill. I wish the bill bon voyage. Deputy Presiding Officer, this is a bill that, like apple pie and motherhood, it is impossible to be against. It is a simple and focused bill that aims to make it a legal requirement for seatbelts to be fitted to all dedicated home to school buses in Scotland. Despite its simplicity, however, there are several shortcomings within the proposal. I can always hear you, Mr Chapman. There you go. You should always project, they say. The most significant and obvious of which is that the bill, in its current form, makes no provision for the same level of care for school children on school trips during school time. I believe that that is a series concerning a mission. In discussion between stakeholders and Gillian Mott on MSP, the member who is responsible for bringing the bill forward, there was an agreement to look at this issue again in a more in-depth manner with the possibility of amending the bill to include this. I think that that is vital going forward and must be addressed. The committee heard that there are serious difficulties in persuading young people over 14 to actually wear the belts when fitted, and that must again be urgently addressed. During evidence, it was highlighted that older pupils were cynical about wearing of seatbelts on school transport with one of the young respondents even stating, and I quote, No one puts seatbelts on my school bus as it's uncool. If the driver comes round and tells people to wear them, they just get taken off against once he's driving. Further, the consultation found that 74 per cent of young people were not at all likely or unlikely to wear the seatbelts. If tackled correctly, as First Bus UK said, this is an opportunity to educate children and explain to them the benefits of seatbelts and the need to use them. There is also a lack of clarity surrounding who will be responsible for ensuring that belts are worn. Something with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland also raised in their written submission. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard that it was impractical for the bus driver to monitor the situation while he was driving the vehicle. Regardless of who has the duty of care, guidance and mentoring will need to be put in place. Another matter that is of paramount importance and ought to be confronted is the type of belt that is fitted. There are issues with shoulder-type 3-point belts being inappropriate for children under 12 years old or those that are under 135 cm tall, as they are not safe for younger children. In this case, it would appear that booster seats would also be required. To this end, it is clear that discussions must take place between local authorities and bus operators regarding the most suitable type of belt to be fitted. A further anomaly is the fact that children travelling to school and service buses open to fare paying passengers will not be covered as there is no requirement for those types of buses to have seatbelts fitted. We believe that the option of using service buses needs to remain as the most cost-effective option in built-up areas and to reduce congestion and pollution levels. However, that means that those kids do not have the same level of protection on their way to school. During debate, there were no real answers to that question. The final issue that I have with the bell is the provision of the 8.92 million cumulative costs, which we have already heard about from several people. Given that 18 local authorities have already implemented seatbelts on their school fleets and others are in the process, I remain unconvinced that this sum of money is necessary. Indeed, the authorities who already have seatbelts fitted report that the additional costs were negligible, the costs appear to have been absorbed as buses were renewed and new contracts put in place. There was also an expectation by some members within the committee that, given that those provisions are not being brought into force until 2018 for primary schools and 2021 for secondary schools, by those dates all local authorities already have contracts in place that require seatbelts to be fitted, in which case the bell would be obsolete by the time it came into force. In conclusion, although I agree that the bell is a positive step forward for the safety of our children, I urge the Scottish Government to go further and address the pressing unanswered questions that many have raised today. I call John Finnie and possibly Mike Rumbles to put out a Rumbles alert. I support the laudable aims of the bill and congratulate Gillian Martin on taking it this far. To say that at decision time tonight, the Scottish Game Party will support the general principles. The key phrase—and it was important to start off with that positive, because I will go on to the financial aspects—is the key phrase in the executive summary. The committee remains unconvinced. It was on the one aspect of the money—$8.92 million. The important role of the committee is to scrutinise and to understand who benefits and why. The first instance is that I went to the financial memorandum and it says, and I quote, "...the best estimates of the cost implications associated with implementation of the bill—this is the purpose of the financial memorandum—then goes on to say, "...the best estimates of the timescales over which the cost implications are expected to arise." That is a forward projection rather than a backward looking, and an indication of the margins of uncertainty in those estimates. I am keen to understand as what the committee was about the element of retrospection that may apply in this. We hope to get some clarity in a letter, and this was a letter that came from the transport policy road safety team to our convener. If I read from it, just as there is not a standard cost per pupil or cost per journey for local authorities across Scotland, it is not possible to count individual binary units in terms of buses to quantify the financial impact of the bill. The most appropriate way to calculate that is to use professional expertise—I will come back to that phrase later—to estimate the impact on the overall contract cost borne by the school. It then goes on to say that it is not possible to isolate the precise role that a new seat belt requirement would play in affecting every future contract across Scotland using the cost of upgrades for individual vehicles. Returning to the financial memorandum again at paragraph 22, existing dedicated school transport contracts between school authorities and bus companies are commercially sensitive, and therefore cannot be scrutinised individually in order to provide case studies. Additionally, given the fluctuating nature of contract prices and the number of requirements within them, it is not possible to definitively calculate how that will change in future years. As such, the best estimates have to be based on forecasts from local authority professionals with contracting expertise. That says back to the professionals again. Further on, we hear that what could be included in the cost of tables was that those include manufacturing costs, vehicle maintenance, part replacement of drivers and drivers wages. The MVA model then estimates to what extent those costs are likely to feed into the school bus contract costs. I have to say that if it had not been this particularly large sum of money, I doubt that I would have looked at it as others did. Indeed, the letter was in specific response to a question posed by my colleague John Mason. Paragraph 28 again says, due to confidentiality arrangements with local authorities finance directors, COSLA was unable to share forecasts broken down by individual local authorities and to share the specific methodology that each had used to calculate its figures. I find that quite damning, particularly given the… Having said that, I take reassurance that, indeed, the member said that there will be a further explanation coming from COSLA. The minister himself talked about more robust evidence, because I think that that is very important. It would be… I do not know anyone who does not support the aims of this ball. Of course, we are here because of modest evolution, modest evolution that has facilitated that. Some of the concerns that I have heard colleagues said, of course, could be addressed if construction and use, many of the factors that Mr Stevenson referred to, were devolved. Society of changes will drive that on. Smoking has changed, the wearing of seatbelts. Indeed, I was involved in a serious road accident myself many years ago. It would not be here worked for seatbelts, so I am a big fan. The rural implications have been taken on board and touched on the issue of community contracts, dual contracts. When the member talks about tailoring her practice, it picks up on the issue that rural communities, where fair-paying passengers are also included, will not miss out on that. School excursions that were told by the member are covered by a robust risk assessment, but the reality is that everything should be covered by a risk assessment. We need to understand the financial implications of that, but I am very happy to lend support to the ball. Thank you very much, Mr Finnie. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by Emily Todd. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to congratulate Gillian Martin for bringing forward this bill. It has, of course, as we have all heard this afternoon, a single purpose, that of introducing a legal requirement for seatbelts to be fitted on all dedicated home to school transport in Scotland. This is a commendable aim. I am only astonished that this was not already a requirement for all our dedicated school transport and that it has been felt necessary to bring forward a bill to make this the law of the land. All 32 local authorities in Scotland enter into contracts for school transport. It is, as I say, astonishing that all 32 councils have not already made this a requirement in their contracts with individual operators. On introducing the bill, Gillian Martin informed the committee that only 18 councils have so far made it a requirement for all their contracts for home to school transport, while another six require it for some contracts only. It would seem that our local authorities have been somewhat slow to say the least to ensure that their contracts contain the requirement to have seatbelts fitted on dedicated school transport. However, as I said earlier in an intervention on the minister, every time the committee has tried to get up-to-date information about how many local authorities have this requirement stipulated in their contracts, and, more importantly, how many have an intention to do so in their contracts, we seem to draw a blank. We have asked the Scottish Government for this information, and so far the information has not been forthcoming, and I simply do not understand why this should be so. I was heartened to hear the minister say that when I intervened that in the summing up, he should have that information available, and it would be delightful if he could. The committee also flagged up the issue of the financial cost of the legislation, and we have heard about that. The financial memorandum stating that the Scottish Government believes that if the bill is passed, it would cost a sum of up to £8.92 million. That is £8.92 million of public money for a bill that may simply incorporate into law a requirement that may already be implemented across Scotland by the time the law comes into force. Like John Mason, Jamie Greene and others, I question whether it is a good use of public money to spend such a sum unnecessarily. Other members, I am sure, will outline other concerns, as they have done already, about the level of public money being allocated to this process. Of course, Jamie. I just wanted to clarify for the record that I am not questioning whether any Government money is spent on this. Yes, it is, Jamie Greene. I am being told that Swinley-Carson is a bit of a dispute up here. I must not get names wrong again, Mr Greene. I will be rebuked by Mr Tomkins. It must be the beard, but mine is not grey. I forgot what I was going to say. I was clarifying, and I apologise for taking up your time, in that I am not questioning that any money is spent on this issue. I think that it is important that child safety is absolutely paramount. It is a question of how that money is implemented. I agree with that entirely. I am not questioning that there might be a need for some money if there are still buses to do that, but I am questioning the amount of money of £8.92 million to be spent on this. It seems odd to me that it is necessary, but I have to say that I am supportive of this bill. However, if the aims of the bill have already been achieved, then that should be a real success in itself. At this point, I must make comment about a report in this morning's press and journal about this bill, where I am quoted. This quote is taken from the committee's very first evidence session on 15 March, when I questioned the two Government officials supporting Gillian Martin's bill. I put it to them and I quote, the bill is purely about the technical aspects of having seatbelts fitted. It is not about any other issue related to whether kids are safe travelling to and from school on buses that have seatbelts fitted. If we are to take legislation through, we should be comprehensive and attack the potential problem that we all see right across this chamber, rather than go off at half cock with a bill that does not cover people's worries. My colleague on the committee, Richard Lyle, then said that the point that Mr Rumbles and the convener make are quite valid. Who will be liable for enforcement if there is to be any enforcement? In this morning's P&J, Gillian Martin is quoted as saying that she was shocked by Mr Rumbles stands. Shocked. I am both relieved and pleased that his words have been met with no support. Listen to the debate, of course. Gillian Martin, if you read the whole article, I am sure that you did. You will realise that I received a letter from a very supportive coach company who provides quite a lot of dedicated school transport for Aberdeenshire, which you represent as well. I think that they echoed my concerns about your approach here. When you were mentioning that you did not think that the bill needed to go forward because it was going to happen organically already and it was a foregone conclusion. They wrote in support of the fact that the bill has to be legislated. I think that the shock that I had was shared by them. That was a long intervention, Mr Rumbles. Do not fast yourself, you are getting that extra minute. Can I just say that it is a very strange report, a newspaper report, that is two months after the committee has stated, but I have to say that I find it very strange that you took that position, because what you can hear around the chamber is that only what I am saying is echoing what every other member seems to be saying, that there are issues with this bill. I am a Liberal Democrat colleague, support Gillian Martin's bill, and I congratulate her, despite what she said about me in the PhD this morning. I congratulate her on the bill. There is much room for improvement, and that is the whole point of the stage 2 process and stage 3 process. I hope that she will reflect on the concerns of members as expressed in the committee and in this chamber, in this debate today, and bring amendments to improve the bill, because that is what we are talking about. We want this bill to pass, but we want it improved. This is all about the safety of our children, and we have to get it right. Thank you, Mr Rumbles. I call Marie Todd. We follow Alexander Burnett. Mr Burnett will be the last speaker in the open debate. Miss Todd, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start by echoing others in offering condolences to the people who were affected by the last night's events in Manchester and to commend the emergency services for their response. I want to also congratulate Gillian Martin for bringing this bill forward. Before I travelled down last night, I was thinking about what to say in today's debate. I have three children who get the bus to school every day, so I decided to ask them for their thoughts at the dinner table. The first thing that I was told was that nobody uses seatbelts. They told me that children get teased for wearing seatbelts on the bus. It is not socially normal to wear a seatbelt. My children would not dream of travelling in a car without wearing a seatbelt, but it turns out that they would not dream of wearing a seatbelt on a bus. My dad happened to be down visiting us, and the thought that nobody uses seatbelts even when they were available really got to him. My dad used to be a fireman in Ollipol, part of the retained fire service that covers so much of the highlands and islands. He told us about an accident that he attended more than 30 years ago when a tour bus went off the road. It had swarved off the road, probably to avoid a sheep or a deer. It landed on its side, and people were thrown free of it because they weren't wearing seatbelts. Unfortunately, the men from Ollipol had no equipment to lift the bus, so all they could do on this occasion was wait for the team from Inverness to arrive and comfort the people involved. Seven people died on that accident, and it was one of the worst that my dad attended in his lifetime of service. He was horrified that my children thought that seatbelts weren't needed on a bus. It's a simple truth—wearing seatbelts can and does save lives. I have no doubt that we, as lawmakers, should try to ensure that seatbelts are available and that they are used wherever possible. Of course, it's clear that seatbelts on buses aren't always used even when they are available, and that's an area where we need to change the social norm. We need to get to the point where, like in a car, it's unusual not to wear a seatbelt on a bus. I think that we'll all acknowledge that no single piece of legislation will change a social norm like this one, but legislation has a role to play. We've seen that legislation has helped to bring about these changes in the past. When I was a child, like Gail Ross, the norm was not to wear a seatbelt on the cars, and that changed incrementally with legislative changes. It wasn't until 1983 when I was 10 years old that it became law for folk in the front of a car to wear a seatbelt, and even then seatbelts often weren't fitted in the back of a car. That only became law in 1986, and the law changed to make you use them in 1989. It was pretty common when I was growing up to have five or more kids in the back of your car—none of us wearing seatbelts. When I was really young, my personal favourite spot in the car was standing between the two front seats, chatting to my parents. That was my dad, the fireman driving. That shows how things can change. That social norm has completely reversed, and frankly, because of developments in technology since this change, we cannot not wear seatbelts in the car anymore, because now if someone isn't wearing their seatbelts, the car beeps endlessly and irritates us into wearing them. I think that the questions about how to enforce this law are fair. Bus monitors and technology may both have a role. Ultimately, I think that the bill is about changing a social norm. In rural areas such as the Highlands and Islands, where I represent, there is a much higher risk for children travelling on buses. Often the bus journeys that take kids to school will be significantly longer on roads with higher speed limits in the more urban areas. I think that all parents would agree with the Scottish Parent Teacher Council when they stated, that the principle of the bill is absolutely right, that when parents send their children off to school and entrust them to a local authority, the local authority is in local parentis. I cannot take my children anywhere in a car without strapping them in. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that local authorities should be in any other position. I thank you very much. I now call Alexander Burnett. Then we move to closing speeches. Mr Burnett, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I echo the words of the chamber and send my condolences to those affected by the recent attacks in Manchester. As the Prime Minister said this morning, Britain's spirit has never been broken and never will. On today's debate, can I start by welcoming this bill to the chamber? It is great to see that we are finally starting to debate issues within the jurisdiction of his parliament that can have a positive impact on people's lives. I think that we all across the chamber are in no doubt about the unnecessary danger drivers and passengers put themselves in by not wearing a seatbelt. Indeed, it was a Conservative Government that made wearing seatbelts law back in 1983. It seems unthinkable today that seatbelts were not compulsory in all vehicles back in the 1980s. I think that we will all look back to school buses with the same feeling in the coming years. This is a vitally important bill that will protect children from serious injury, so it is important that we get this right first time. That is why, on this side of the chamber, we will support the bill in principle. Unfortunately, Ms Martin's bill has severe limitations and some major omissions, as I have already discussed. Firstly, the bill will only cover school transportation between homes and primary education. Anyone who has children at school, including myself, will know that a major part of travelling and education is done outside of those two locations. For example, any after-school curricular activities—by the way, they are now chargeable, thanks to reductions in sport Scotland funding—will include bus journeys to facilities. How can it be the case, then, that child safety on the same roads changes depending on where your final destination is? Are we seriously saying that the risk on the same stretch of road can change if you are travelling for a different purpose? That is simply unacceptable and quite ludicrous drafting. A major blunder in the writing of the bill put passengers at unnecessary risk. It is no wonder, then, that the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents was clear in their submission to the consultation that the legislation should apply to all school journeys. I hope that this common sense approach is picked up by the member. Secondly, although the cost for implementing this policy should not be a hindrance, it is vitally important that, unlike the Labour Welsh Government, when they brought in similar legislation, extra funding should be given to local authorities to carry out the necessary changes. Local authorities in Wales had to fund those costs at a time when council budgets were being cut, and Scotland's councils can ill afford the same fate. We know that it is normal SNP practice to make promises that others have to pay for, but I think that councils across Scotland would like to hear from Ms Martin where they should find this money. My final point on his policy is on education and the importance of seatbelt usage. Just because the seatbelts are available does not guarantee that pupils will wear them, and that is why I am glad to see my own council, Aberdeenshire, has a leaflet for parents and pupils on school transport, including a section on the responsibility of each passenger to properly wear a seatbelt at all times. In summary, I welcome the bill as far as it goes, but it is clear that it has not been properly thought through. I hope that Ms Martin can give consideration to all those points before the next stage. Thank you, Mr Burnett. I ask Ms Grant perhaps to convey to Neil Bibby that it is open for Labour as disappointing not to have the pleasure of his presence at closing speeches. No doubt he will send an appropriate apology to the Presiding Officers. I call Rhoda Grant to close for Labour, please. I also congratulate Gillian Martin for bringing forward the legislation and associate myself with some of the comments that people have made about the difficulty of this debate, especially today. Debating on children's safety today is probably our best response. Protecting children as they travel to school is something that we can all agree on. There is very little argument about the general principles of the bill. Many others, like Mike Rumble, said why has it taken so long to have this legislation for school buses, because we have had legislation for cars and has been a lifesaver. We have built and improved on that with baby seats and booster seats. It must be very strange for children of this level of protection in their family car, but none in school transport. It was not opposition to the bill that we debated, but some of the issues surrounding it. Some of those issues were about the limitations of the bill, as many members have said. It was simply dedicated to school buses alone, those that took children back and forth to school, but it does not cover school trips and children using public transport to get there. My colleague Neil Bibby suggested that it should have gone a lot further, maybe along the lines of the Welsh bill. There are also concerns that the bill, while ensuring that school buses had seatbelts on them, there was nothing in the bill to say whose responsibility it was to make sure that children wore those seatbelts. While in normal circumstances it would be the driver's responsibility, that is obviously impossible when driving a school bus and checking seatbelts at the same time. Daniel Johnston and many other members echoed that it did not go far enough, and it seemed strange that a bill cheered seatbelts to travel to and from school, but not for organised school trips. The Scottish Government's response to that was a bit disappointing, saying that there were more rigorous risk assessments taking place for school trips than there were for normal school transport. I think that we need to address, in stage 2, who's responsibility it is to wear those seatbelts. Neil Bibby pointed out that neither was it a responsibility for someone to ensure that the seatbelts were worn, but there was nothing in the bill to say that the seatbelts should be worn at all. Liam Kerr talked about behaviour on school buses. As we look back to my school days, I know what behaviour on school buses used to be like, but we had evidence to say that young people now have smartphones, and they are not so much creating a riot on the school bus and texting probably someone who is sitting a couple of seats up and the like. We asked the Scottish Government about councils role in local parenths and their duty of care about wearing the seatbelts. It acknowledged that councils did have a duty of care, but it said that it would be for the courts to decide if they were liable if a child was injured because they did not have their seatbelt on. I do not think that that is good enough. Councils, parents and pupils need to know who's responsibility it is. At stage 2, we need to have some clarity. We also heard from the youth Parliament that it was not something that they would like to see done to young people, that young people should be encouraged to be proactive, that young people should be educated and informed about the benefits of wearing their own seatbelts from a very early age. In that way, there would be no need for supervision, because they would deal with their own safety proactively. A lot of members talked about the social norms. We have seen that happen in the past, and I think that it can happen again in the future. Many members talked about whether the bill required at all. Nobody is against the general principles of the bill, but it was clear from evidence that the majority of councils had already made the provision for seatbelts on school buses as stipulation of their tender documents. Those who had not done it were working towards it. Therefore, it is likely that all councils will have stipulated the requirement in their contracts prior to the bill even being enacted. That was where the call for whether it was required at all came from. There were also concerns about the financing of the bill and the financial memorandum. Daniel Johnston talked about £80,000 per bus. That was a figure that was new to us, but it does sum up the concerns that we heard at the committee about the cost of it. I have often seen in this Parliament where we have been looking at financial memorandums and estimating the financial cost of a bill rather than overestimating it. It is a new one on me. There is widespread support for the principles of the bill, but it may not be required at all. I look forward to strengthening it in stage 2 and 3 to make it a better bill that will make a real difference to our young people. I call on Liz Smith to close to the Conservatives. Many members have spoken about the poignancy of debating the bill today. I do not think that we should forget that it also comes hard on the heels of a lot of the debate that we have had about the safety of school buildings, because it reinforces exactly why parents have a right to think that their child will always be safe and that their parliamentarians will always be guardians of that principle. However, I come to that in a slightly different manner as somebody who is a very regular driver of school minibuses and who has seen all the improvements that have taken place in school transport since the 1980s, when I first secured my minibus license. Although all those changes have been very much welcomed, progress has been, as Daniel Johnson cited in the debate, somewhat gradual. It is important that the debate this afternoon takes place to ensure that all that school transport and all children are safe. I thank Gillian Martin in that context, because it has made us think carefully about exactly what we mean. I pose the question about the importance and rationale of when we want to legislate. In placing a duty on our local authorities to ensure that a seat belt is fitted to every passenger seat and every motor vehicle that is used to provide a dedicated school transport service, there is the presumption that there would be a universal requirement backed by law to make the necessary changes. In that regard, that is why the Scottish Conservatives, such as other members, have been supportive of the bill in its principle. We also believe that it has important benefits in terms of educating children about the importance of wearing seat belts. I think that Marie Todd gave us a very special reminder of just what it can mean when circumstances dictate that there could be very considerable danger if these seat belts are not worn. I note withstanding the fact that we have that support for the main principles, we have some concerns about the basic provisions of the bill, as we consider that perhaps it has not been thought through on some key points. First among those is that the bill should go much further when it covers school excursions, not just on daily commutes between home and school. Again, I come back to the point of somebody who drives a school minibus. I would be very concerned if I felt that the circumstances in which I am driving children had slightly different safety requirements simply because I was not taking them to and from their school. I just want to outline that as where I think that there is a major concern about that. Under the definition of an educational excursion, it is my understanding that the bill would not cover that. Therefore, if pupils are going to undertake extracurricular activities—which we obviously hope that they will do—either before or at the end of the school day, my understanding of the legislation is that that is not covered by local authority legislation because it is not core provision in education. Perhaps the Scottish Government should look again at the method by which the Scottish Government's own road safety consultation is seeking to make the adjustments in that, because it is something that we would have to ensure that the bill was compliant with that legislation. Otherwise, I think that we are in danger of getting ourselves into a circumstance where we would have some problems. I am grateful to John Mason for explaining his concern about the extent of the costings of that. In light of what Mike Rumbles said, and one or two other members this afternoon, I think that we have to be very clear not only about what the costs are but the modelling of those costs. I would be much more comfortable if I felt that we could get the right information. Minister, I think that you are going to agree to look into that in a bit more detail and provide us with some additional information that, quite frankly, I think that we ought to be able to have at stage 1. Another point that I want to address quickly is that, while the bill specifies what the responsibility would be of granting independent schools, I think that there is greater clarity that we have to have about special schools transport, since that is very often used to carry children whose schools have different governance structures. In other words, special schools might have independent governance, and they might also be used by local authorities. I think that there would be a big question over where liability rose on some of that. Of course, they are using very technical equipment, technical wheelchairs, which can be used by children who are attending a granted or an independent school, but also by children who are attending local authority. If I was driving that minibus, I would want to know where the responsibility lay for that. I am not sure that that has actually been explained. I know that my time is up, Deputy Presiding Officer, but we are very keen on the basic principles of this bill, but we do have quite a few concerns about thinking it through to make it compliant with other legislation and to look at what the opportunities might be for ensuring that we cover all the possible loopholes, which I think are quite considerable. Thank you very much, Ms Smith. I call Hamza Yousif to close the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you to those who have contributed in the chamber. I think that a very constructive debate is very helpful and useful. That is, of course, the purpose of such debates, to highlight concerns where members who are taking those bills forward or the Government who is taking the bills forward to come back with more robust evidence considering other issues around the bill. I will try to do my best to whizz through some of the issues, but there have been some key themes mentioned by almost every member across the chamber to see if I can address some of those. In relation to why the legislation is important, I thought that Liam Kerr could have asked that question to Mike Rumbles on the theme that councils are moving towards this many councils already implementing seatbelts as a stipulation in their contracts for school transport. I will reiterate that point, although that might be the case. We still have a number of councils that are not there, just for Mike Rumbles's information. We have 18 councils, and that still remains the figure. Six who have said, looking at some of the provisions, namely those six being Dundee City Council, East Lothian Council, Orkney Islands Council, West Lothian, Renfrewshire and Weston-Bartonshire. However, I would add the appropriate caveat, the obvious one that, of course, we have just had local elections and new administrations perhaps coming in in some of those areas, new leadership. Again, I do not imagine that they would roll back on their commitment or desire to see seatbelts fitted on school transport, but just to say that those are the latest figures that we have. It is important that we do future proof as well when it comes to this important legislation. As I said, the debate was very constructive. One of the other key themes that came across from members across the chamber was on school trips as well. I welcome very much the views that are expressed in the chamber today and whether the measures should cover vehicles used for excursions during the school day. Liz Smith mentioned that in her speech a moment ago. I did not know that she had a minibus licence. Next thing we have a Parliament day out, we know who will be driving the bus. As I said, there are stringent risk assessment guidelines covering the provision with stipulate seatbelts. Feedback is that this is rigidly adhered to. However, in principle, I see no objection with the intention of legislating further on school trips as many members across the chamber. Having had discussions with Liz Smith, I am sure that she will speak for herself in a moment. She is also favourably minded. Therefore, Scottish Government officials have been in touch with teaching unions, with local government and other stakeholders, to ascertain what the practical implications would be of extending legal duties in this area. We will take that dialogue forward, and Parliament will be kept appropriately informed. On the issue of enforcement and compliance, the requirement to publish an annual compliance statement in the public domain such as on a website or a report before a council committee offers transparency but also remains proportionate. There are already established recourse mechanisms that are applicable to the legal duties such as a referral to the SPSO, which is confirmed that it has remate to investigate the issue in relation to local authority schools, and for civil legal action in the event that there has been a failure to comply. Given that stipulating seatbelts is already seen as good practice for school authorities and there are clear precedents for how that is implemented and works in practice, those measures should be proportionate. The First Minister will take that intervention. Would he agree in that discussion that he will have to look at where the liability would lie, particularly with schools that would obviously have different governance structures? It is my information that that could be a potential problem. I was just coming to that very, very point that I thought the point made about independent schools, grant-funded and needed schools, that there is an issue, a question there, that we will come back to and we will examine and we will explore. I think that it is a point well made by Liz Smith and also one that we are cognisant of, one that we are aware of on this side of the chamber as well. One of the other key significant themes that came out of today's debate from members across the chamber was that, of course, just a few things if I may say, we have heard what the committee had to say on this. We have heard what those across the chamber have had to say about that and therefore we have ridden to COSLA to have a discussion with them to see if we can get a more robust case around some of the finances involved. I would say to members that it is not quite as simple as dividing how much money exists divided by the number of vehicles, 110 that still require that fitting. Of course I will go away. Daniel Johnson, please. I thank the minister very much for giving way. Does he recognise that figure of 110 buses and he is saying that it is not as simple as that? Can he say why it is not as simple as that? What expertise has he made to look at whether or not there might be some sort of direct grant possibilities to just make sure that those old buses, pre-2001 buses, are up to spec? Minister, you have an extra minute. Oh, thank you. Yes, I will tell him why it is necessarily not as simple. Given that vehicles are on the main of course provided through contracts with the private sector, there is a range of commercial influences that might be considered, for example, in an area of more rurality or different geographical areas across the country. There may not be as much provision for a private provider as there would be, for example, in urban setting in Edinburgh and Glasgow, perhaps easier to get private contractors as there would be in a more remote area. The idea that a linear formula can be applied would be incorrect, but not to say that the member does not make a good point, as other members have across the parliamentary chamber. Those costs must be tested, we must examine them, we must explore them and give them further analysis. It should be said that if I have the time to do so— John Mason? I thank the minister for giving way. The financial memorandum itself, paragraph 29, says that the cost of retrofitting would be between £2,000 and £12,500 per bus. So it is not the same figures, but they are pretty clear figures. I thank the member for all his helpful contributions. I said that with all sincerity. I estimated the cost at £202,000 per year from 2018, rising incrementally to £765 per year to 2021, costing that amount annually until 2031. That is the context of the cost envelope. It should be said that that also comes within the cost envelope that independent consultants gave us as well. The Minister for Transport and Islands, the previous ministers for transport and islands, when we took the bill forward, we took the services of independent consultants, and it is within that framework. However, let me not take away from what members have said, be it John Mason, Daniel Johnson, the convener of the committee, Liz Smith, Mike Rumbles and indeed John Finnie himself, who has said that they all have concerns around the financial memorandum. Therefore, we will work with COSLA. We will see what can be done. I would encourage COSLA once they are up and running, new administrations in place, new spoke people in place to engage with the committee directly as well, and hopefully we can get to some final position where everybody is comfortable with the financial memorandum. In closing, I would just like to thank the committee in particular for their consideration, but also for Ms Martin for taking forward the bill and for the members for agreeing across the chamber to support it at stage 1. I call the member, Gillian Martin, to close and give you till 4.57 pheas, Ms Martin, or thereabouts. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an interesting debate, and I think that we can all agree that the provision of seatbelts on all-school transport is necessary and desirable. We all want to do the best thing for Scotland's young people and to keep them safe in their way to school. I just want to say that, as a relatively new MSP, I am taking forward their first, hopefully, to become legislation. I want to thank everyone across the chamber who has spoken to me over the months and weeks about this. I have had some tremendous support from people from all parties over this and some great chats about their experience in their areas as well, which has informed my thinking as I have taken it forward. I particularly want to mention that Dave Stewart from the Labour Benches had a great chat with Jamie Greene, the Conservative Benches and Tavish Scott. I was hanging about in the member's tea room trying to get people to sign up to it in the first place. I also recommend that tactic if you have ever taken the member's bill forward. I have also been overwhelmed by the amount of public support that it has got. I echo Daniel Johnson's point that, more or less everyone that I have spoken to has said the same thing that Daniel Stewart said to me in the garden lobby that day. I thought that that was already a law. It turns out that quite a few local authorities will do it already, that there is an expectation that it has been done across Scotland. I think that that is the issue here. For those of us that are lucky enough to have their local authority already being a way ahead of the curve on this and looking at this on a voluntary basis, I think that it is incumbent upon those of us that have enjoyed that peace of mind when we put our kids on the school bus that have seatbelts to think that that is luck that I live here. I think that it is incumbent upon those who have that peace of mind to work together across the whole of Scotland. I want to thank the committee, in particular, for very constructive comments. School trips have come up quite a lot in the debate, as I expected, because they have come up quite a lot in the committee, too. Although there are rigorous risk assessments in place with school trips, I want to make sure that I take this forward. I am absolutely 100 per cent behind looking at this and putting it in as an amendment at stage 2. However, it is important that we speak to, as we did around the singular issue of having seatbelts fitted on school buses, it is important that we get engagement again just to let teachers—yes. Liz Smith. At the point that the risk assessment is not normally anything that has got legislative backing to it. What I was going to say is that it is important that, with that coming in as a possible amendment, we explore the issues that you have mentioned around that as well, because, obviously, that enforcement has had a bearing on the bill as it stands. However, to get the feedback from teachers and from teaching unions on that as well, just to find out their thoughts on it. So far, they have largely been very supportive. Alex Burnett, I try to intervene you just to correct you slightly on something that you said. You said that the bill only covers primary schools. That is actually not the case. I just want to put it on record that it already covers primary and secondary schools. The stand-out contribution for me was Mary Todd, because I think that we are of a similar age. She was talking about the practices of kids in the—did I say 70s, Mary?—where you were travelling in your parents' car, you went belted on the tops, no seatbelts in the back—actually, I am old enough to remember none of the seatbelts in the front seats either. Yes, I know. Now, it is unthinkable. It is absolutely unthinkable that you would not get into a car and just automatically put your seatbelt on the front seat. I remember them coming in in the back seat as well. Yes, there was a period of time where you had to remind the kids to put their belts on in the back seat, but you do not have to do that any more. The teenagers that we have mentioned said that it is uncool to wear seatbelts in buses. They would not think twice about putting seatbelts on in the back seat of cars now. It would be terrific to have the powers to say that we have to make it law. We do not have those powers, but we do have the opportunity to educate more young people about the importance of having seatbelts on in buses. I come from this as well, having a friend who is a head trauma specialist. She has told me many times of the effects of car accidents when people have suffered head trauma. The whole time that I have been taking this bill forward, I have been very cognisant of some of the stuff that she has told me about. This is not just about cuts and grazes. It could be about something an awful lot more serious. I want to pick up in some of the comments that some of the members have made around particularly the implementation of this. We have in my area a lot of road safety issues. It is a very rural area and we constantly are working with our teenagers to make them aware of road safety. A lot of you have probably heard of Safe Drive, Stay Alive for example. Aberdeenshire Council and its schools have done a fantastic job in getting pupils in secondary to have that kind of almost needy going on to bus to put the belts on. What they have done is that they have worked with the pupils so that it becomes the norm. One of the ways that they have done it is by having senior pupils on the bus take responsibility for just double checking that the younger children are putting on the buses and it is something that they do with year heads and head boy, head girl, et cetera—prefects, I suppose, that it used to be called. That is one of the things that we were putting in the guidance as an option. Some people have mentioned bus monitors as well. Now, some local authorities insist on bus monitors. Daniel Johnson was asking me why some things can be counterproductive. In some cases, we have heard that by having a bus monitor on a bus, that can almost be counterproductive for some areas that have found that the school children have almost rebelled against the bus monitor. Another thing is that it is often not suitable for very long journeys, such as in rural areas, to have somebody—perhaps being in a bus from half past five in the morning—to get to an outlying area and then come in so that it is really not big. That is one of the reasons why I do not want to be too heavy-handed on what we stipulate that local authorities must do. We have to be able to give the flexibility to each local authority to decide what is right for them in partnership with the schools and to take on board what they would want. There is nothing stopping local authorities from putting in extra measures. Peter Chapman said that this is a bill that is impossible to be against. Peter and I have gone up against each other many times in political debates, and it is great to hear that we have finally said something that you kind of agree with. A personal achievement of mine—I will go away with a skip in my step—has to pay tribute to the people who went to the Petitions Committee. Stuart Stevenson, my friend and colleague, mentioned Ron Beattie. He came to see me as I was putting forward this bill in initial stages. I thought that he was going to give me a row about everything that it was not. I was preparing myself for that, because I know what a vociferous campaigner has been for all types of road safety. However, he just wanted to say thanks, and he wanted to say that it was a step in the right direction, although, of course, it has been Mr Beattie, not all the steps that he would have liked. I was glad to have had that chance to meet him before his untimely death. Again, we have had—Lun Merrifail has been mentioned by my friend and colleague, Gail Ross, who initially came up with the idea that we should have seatbelts on dedicated school transport. How much time have I got, Presiding Officer? It's really time to wind up now this morning. Well, that's great, because I really don't have much else to say other than— What comes across loud and clear is that seatbelts help protect children, and many people are surprised that there aren't a lot in this already. Those opinions are reflected by the views of the general public to the Scottish Government's consultation. Well, I think now that the Scottish Parliament has the powers to act in this, so there will be quite rightly an expectation that we get on and take action in this. In my view, it would be remiss of us not to do that. Thank you very much, and that concludes our stage 1 debate on the seatbelts on school transport Scotland bill. It's now time to move on to the next item of business.