 Can I ask members please to leave the chamber quietly out of respect to the member who is about to lead a debate? The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion number 1541 in the name of Mark Ruskell on action on residential road safety. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Mark Ruskell to open the debate. Mr Ruskell, seven minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I thank members who have signed my motion to bring about this member's debate tonight? Can I thank in advance those who will make contributions, including the Cabinet Secretary? I would also like to pay tribute to those many people across Scotland campaigning for road safety improvements from two-concrossings to yellow lines, increased space for walking and cycling and, importantly, the reduction in the speed limit from the default 30 to 20 miles an hour. We have also seen strong national campaigning around the issue of parking on pavements and double parking, and I welcome the decisive contribution that Sandra White's member's bill made to that debate and the resulting commitment from the Scottish Government. Community councils, parent councils, informal neighbourhood action groups are working hard across Scotland, supported by the work of local authorities and organisations such as Living Streets and Sustrans in helping to understand the problems and design the right interventions to encourage safer and more liveable neighbourhoods for all. I have been particularly impressed by the work of schools such as Bridge of Allen Primary, whose junior road safety officers have run with the police an active stop and interview programme with speeding drivers at the roadside. An empowering step-up from the Tufty Club of the 1970s when children were advised to hold mother's hand when stepping out of the house rather than a speed gun. Mr Ruskell, for that intervention, I look forward to taking part in the debate, but you may have to explain to the Minister what the Tufty Club is because I suspect that he might be a little bit young for that one. I would be happy to do that. There is a whole range of interesting YouTube videos featuring the Tufty Club that I have been showing my children and they cannot really believe it. What all of these groups recognise, of course, is that the reduction of speed where people live is the foundation not only for reducing casual team numbers, but in building confidence for all to walk, push, cycle and scoot. When we consider the most vulnerable in our society, children, those with physical disabilities, those with dementia even, we are creating not just safer neighbourhoods but fairer places to live by reducing speed. By reducing speed we are also reducing social isolation by encouraging people to get out and about, to play, to visit, to meet up and even to shop. I would hope that members in this chamber across all parties would now recognise a large body of evidence that links speed with fatality rates, which at 30 mph is 20 per cent, while at 20 mph is only 3 per cent. Scotland is on track to meet its 2020 targets for a 40 per cent reduction in road fatalities from the 2004 baseline. I welcome that, but, of course, there is no room for complacency, especially when we consider that in the UK, pedestrian cyclists and motorcyclists deaths make up 50 per cent of road fatalities overall, contrasting with only two-fifths of deaths in Sweden. It is very clear that a particular focus on vulnerable road users is needed in our approach. It is crystal clear that 20 mph limits work. They reduce average speed across a road network of between one to two miles an hour, which may seem unimpressive, but when you consider that for every one mile an hour reduction in speed there is a concurrent five to six per cent reduction in casualties, I hope that we can all agree that 20 mph limits bring a very real impact on real people. Since the 30 mph speed limit was introduced as the urban default in 1934 after a campaign by Living Streets, which at the time was called the Pedestrian Association, the evidence in understanding a road safety has moved on with Living Streets today among a growing number of bodies from 20s plenty to the British Heart Foundation to break who are calling for us to move into the 21st century by dropping to 20 for residential areas. This reflects a growing recognition that the benefits of reducing speed limits to 20 are multifaceted and extend beyond safety to wider health and environmental benefits. With physical inactivity costing health budgets in the UK nearly £11 billion every single year, we need a step change. That's why, for example, it was a director of public health, not roads, who made the investment in a 20 mph roll out across Manchester. We also face air quality problems from nitrous oxide and particulate emissions, which studies show are reduced, particularly in diesel cars when dropping speed. While data on direct carbon emissions is inconclusive, the impact of even a slight modal shift to walking and cycling over short journeys makes a valuable contribution to our stumbling progress in reducing transport emissions in Scotland. In fact, where councils like Fife have made significant progress in building a network of popular 20 mph zones, they've seen cycle trips increase by 20 per cent, while Edinburgh has also seen cycle trips increase and also permissions for children to play outside double. The progression from the initial advisory 20s plenty zones in the early noughties to the roll out of 20 mph mandatory zones has been welcomed if not at times a postcode lottery in Scotland. Where these have been introduced and public support is high, with one survey showing 68 per cent support post introduction. But this piecemeal roll out has come with challenges, complexities and costs, which could be addressed by the introduction of a 20 mph default limit in residential areas. Let's take the traffic regulation order process a time consuming and cost the approach for councils to establish a patchwork of small, discrete 20 mph zones. Zones where the transition from 30 to 20 in residential areas requires signage, speed bumps, which are of course unpopular with drivers. It costs seven and a half times more per mile to regulate with speed bumps than it does with a neighbourhood wide 20 mph limit. It's also harder for the police to enforce a patchwork of 20 and 30 zones where drivers can claim confusion surrounding the point at which they left one zone and entered another. When I visited Bridgival and Primary, like most schools, it's in a residential area, but it has its own 20 zone. But these school zones typically only extend a few hundred metres beyond the gates, ignoring the fact that on average children travel nearly two kilometres to school. If we're convinced of the benefits of 20 at the school gate, then why not extend these benefits to the whole route of the average school journey through a neighbourhood? It's no wonder that a more universal approach to establishing 20 mph as the default residential limit was unanimously welcomed by council representatives at a recent Scottish conference discussing the best way forward to secure progress. Edinburgh courses begun at city-wide roll-out, but I think some of Edinburgh's early challenges in rolling out a coherent scheme that's easily understood by road users have been hampered by this piecemeal TRO approach. A far simpler, more elegant approach for councils across Scotland would be to flip 30 mph with 20 as the default limit in residential areas, allowing councils to then exempt key roads through settlements that genuinely require a higher speed limit of 30 mph. Presiding Officer, this Parliament has taken bold steps in the past, such as the smoking ban in public places. If we're convinced of the benefits of 20 mph in residential areas for the safety of our people and the wellbeing of our places, let's take a similar step and use the powers of this Parliament to make it the default limit for Scotland. Thank you. I now move to the open debate. Would all members make sure that they press the request to speak buttons? Speeches are four minutes. Alex Johnson will be followed by Clare Adamson. Mr Johnson, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing this motion forward and to offer what I would hope he would understand is my conditional support. It is clear that changes that have taken place, particularly the introduction of the 20s plenty zones, have had a significant effect in improving road safety. And that we have, as we've moved forward with considering these zones and their application, found ourselves in a position where there is growing pressure for increased areas to be covered by these 20 mph zones. I have no objection to the use of 20 mph zones in built-up areas, and, of course, they have a particular value outside schools and other public buildings, especially where children may be close to the road and, at times, perhaps not entirely under the control of their parents for the younger ones. It is nevertheless important that we take a clear view on how best to progress this. And it does worry me that on occasion we find ourselves moving forward into a situation where there an assumption is made that if it is a good thing to reduce speed, then reducing it further and extending these zones must, of course, be better. I'm not entirely convinced that that is the case, and I would like to take this opportunity to raise one or two concerns I have. As I pointed out, this is not necessarily in direct opposition to the proposals that Mark Ruskell is bringing forward for discussion tonight. It is nevertheless a situation where I think we need to talk about some of the potential negatives in order to understand better how we progress. What concerns me are key issues, such as, for example, drivers approaching areas of danger should be considering their speed as they approach that area of danger. It worries me that the extension of lower speed limits into much larger zones means that drivers will not lower their speed as they approach a particular area, such as a school or another public building. For that reason, I do believe that variable speed limits have a value in continually reminding drivers that they should be travelling at a speed appropriate for the area they are in. Perhaps towards the end, but I do have a number of points I want to get through. Large 20-mph zones are less likely to provoke that response from drivers in key areas. It is also important that we deal with the issues of observance and enforcement if we bring those greater limits in. By observance, I mean that drivers need to buy in to the measures that we are bringing forward. A speed limit ignored is arguably even more dangerous than having no speed limit at all. If drivers are already exceeding the speed limit in a given area, suggesting reducing the speed limit is perhaps a naive response. The other thing that I want to talk about is enforcement, and appropriate enforcement of speed limits is vital in my view. It must take place in areas of danger, not in areas where the limit is most likely to be exceeded or broken. For example, we all know in rural villages that they are much more likely to catch somebody breaking the speed limit 20 years before the end of speed limit sign than they are outside the local school. It is important that, when enforcement measures are taken, those are applied in the areas of danger, not in the areas where the greatest number of offences might be committed. I am afraid that you are in your last minute, and you are indeed four-minute speeches. There is the clock. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this at greater length in the future. I congratulate him on bringing this matter forward. I think that it is worthy of discussion, but it is one that I will have my concerns to express. Thank you very much. I am sure that Mr Ruskell looks forward to it. Clare Adamson, followed by Jenny Marra. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I apologise if I have to leave before six o'clock this evening if the debate hasn't finished at that time. I too congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing this debate to the Parliament today as the convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness and well aware of a number of the research areas in which he discussed today about the appropriateness of 20 million-hour safety zones. We do have a lot of tools in the bag that we could be drawing on to improve road safety. Parking issues are already mentioned. There are also the opportunities from graduated licences. The smart box technology, which gives advice back to young drivers and commercial drivers about the appropriateness of their driving over the course of their working day and actually target them with less aggressive driving techniques. Of course, I was listening to Mr Johnson and I suppose that the one thing I would say to him is that for me it's not so much the drivers that are over the limit, of course that's a huge issue, but really the research that shows what the difference can be in terms of the significant injury of risk and the damage to cars at different speeds. The most recent statistics provided by Rossba on this show that a fatality risk at 20 miles an hour is 1.5 per cent, but at a speed limit of 30 is it 8 per cent. I find that quite a staggering statistic that it's so much more dangerous for a pedestrian to be stuck at 30 miles an hour than it is for someone at 20 miles an hour. As someone who comes from North Lanarkshire, I know that North Lanarkshire Council was one of the first councils in the country to introduce the 20-mile an hour speed limits on domestic roads, on residential roads as well as around our primary schools. The statistics from that council alone show what a great impact that reduction had on the number of fatalities and injuries to people in the North Lanarkshire area. It was questioned in 2001 that the Scottish Executive issued to the circular which allowed guidance from mandatory and advisory 20 million our routes and our areas, and since that time we have seen improvements in road safety in that area. In fact, my colleague Bruce Crawford, I believe, received an award for his efforts in getting Stirling Council to introduce the 20s plenty road advice in their residential streets as well. We have come a long way. That is, of course, not a unique problem for Scotland, and I would draw people's attention to the European day without a road death, which was called Project Edward, which was introduced across the European Union to challenge driver behaviour and get people to look at the consequences of their behaviour and how that might needlessly be causing devastating accidents. As someone who lost my niece across the road as a teenager about eight years ago, I find that when we talk about those statistics we have to get to the very bottom of what this is, and it is about real-life tragedy for families. I would mention young Lenin Toland, a five-year-old boy who lost his life on the 11th of September, walking home from school in an area where there were parked cars and where there was an access across the pavement to a car park. Of course, the circumstances will become clear in time, but every one of those incidents is a complete tragedy for the family. Although it is inconvenient for drivers and all the rest of it, I think that the safety of pedestrians, particularly our children, has to be paramount as we look at those issues. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I start this evening by commending Mark Ruskell for bringing this important debate to Parliament? I would like to speak on behalf of my constituents tonight, a group of whom I have been campaigning for a 20-mile per hour limit on one of their streets in the city of Dundee. The minister will be aware of this case as I have written to him about it, and he has replied, but I wanted to use this opportunity to talk through a few of these issues. The nub of which, I think, is really to try and seek clarity from the Government on the strength and implementation of the guidance. I know from the minister's letter that he is keen on balancing this 20-mile per hour policy with the discretion of local authorities. I think that there is quite a unique case here because the street that I am talking about is a street that I am very familiar with because it was a street that I used to access as a pupil going to my high school, St John's High School. Johnston Avenue, the street that I am talking about, was not only access to my high school, it is now access to an additional primary school, Kings Park, and Kings Park secondary school as well. I might be wrong about this, but perhaps it is the only solely residential street in Scotland that has access to a primary school and two secondary schools and the amount of pupils that that involves. Residents on that street have been told continually by Dundee City Council that it cannot be a 20-mile per hour limit because it is a road of strategic importance. I welcome Dundee City Council's consultation that they have been doing a thorough consultation on the 20-mile per hour limit across the city, and they have identified areas of particularly residential areas where they want to move to the 20-mile per hour limit, particularly welcome in communities like Ardlar, where a girl was thrown in the air just earlier this summer by a car as she was getting ice cream from a van on a Saturday evening. I think that if the Government is serious about this policy and making sure that the minister's letter says that the guide aims to ensure greater consistency on setting 20-mile an hour street speed restrictions throughout Scotland and encourages local authorities to introduce them near schools in residential zones. I would argue that the street that I am talking about is a purely residential zone. It is quite unique in having access to two secondary schools, one primary school. I invited the minister to come to Dundee. I know he said he would meet with the residents of Johnson Avenue if time in his diary permits. I would like to extend that invitation again. The evidence on this road, Presiding Officer, is really quite breathtaking. There is often speed in over 40 miles per hour that is used as a through road for council vehicles and for buses. For the residents of that road, it should be done. If I can make one further observation, Presiding Officer. Please make it briefly. I will. I do have four minutes, yes. This may be purely observation on my part and I wonder if the minister has any evidence on this. From the driving that I do around Scotland, I have noticed that 20-mile per hour areas seem to be in more affluent parts of our community and I wonder if the residents there are more successful at making their voices heard and imposing stricter speed limits. I would be interested in any evidence that the Scottish Government might have on that. Thank you very much. To be followed by Alison Johnston and Ms Johnston will be the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I thank my colleague Mark Ruskell for bringing this important issue of residential road safety to the Parliament? Elements of this debate have been hotly contested as I'm sure everyone is aware and no more so than in Edinburgh over the last couple of years. But let me first of all acknowledge the positive and welcome trend highlighted by Mark Ruskell's motion that recognises the significant drop in casualties in Scotland's roads over the last decade. As has already been said, these numbers continue to improve. Fatalities and casualties show a steady drop among children in particular which is welcome news. But as long as deaths and injuries continue to happen on Scottish roads, we cannot be satisfied with the way things are. Every death is a tragedy. The community campaign groups that Mr Ruskell highlights in his motion should be commended for the hard work that they do to promote safety in Scotland's roads. He points in particular to 20-mile per hour speed zones and to campaign groups such as 20s Plenty. In Edinburgh, of course, we are live to this particular debate with the roll-out plan currently being implemented across the city. Intended eventually to result in 80 per cent of Edinburgh's roads adopting the 20-mile per hour end of January 2018. Phase 1 started over this past summer period. As well as covering roads directly outside this building, it extends well beyond the city centre towards more rural communities such as Currie, Bolerno and Rathaw. As has been pointed out by my colleague Alex Johnston, however, simply lowering speed limits is not enough. I am aware of concerns that have been raised already at local level about enforcement of the new 20-mile per hour limit in the apparent absence of adherence to higher speed limits on arterial routes. The one should not go without the other. All options should of course be considered when it comes to possible actions which may improve road safety. However, I am not certain that a blanket 20-mile per hour policy in Scotland's urban city areas should be accepted without question. In addition to the concern about lack of adherence to higher speed limits and the questions about enforcement, there is also the question of the effect of a blanket urban 20-mile per hour policy on driver concentration, for example. Clearly there are areas within residential and urban zones where 20-mile per hour is the appropriate speed limit. Indeed, we have had these zones around schools in many cases for many years and I think few would argue against that. The desired effects are reached by if I might continue. The member sent his last minute. Yes. The desired effects reached by concentrating both the driver's attention as well as police resources in specific areas can eliminate significant risk to certain groups of people. Whereas a blanket roll-out may have the effect of diverting the attention of the driver away from the significance of adopting slower speeds in areas such as around schools. In Edinburgh we also risk grinding the traffic of the capital city of Scotland to a halt with resultant effects of increased congestion and increased pollution. That is good neither for business, the economy nor the environment. If you stop right then, that's a good place to stop. I will do so, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will do so, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you. Collin Allison-Johnson, the last speaker of the open debate, followed by the minister, was Johnson for Minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to begin by congratulating my green colleague Mark Ruskell on bringing this issue to the chamber this evening. I will admit at once that I too remember the Tufty Club and that also made me think about the green cross codeman, but perhaps the minister can consult YouTube after the debate and learn more. I think that one important thing to consider while we're discussing this issue is who are our cities for, who are the streets for. I think that very often we consider the motorist, which is obviously quite right, but we have to think about streets as a shared space and a space along the sides of which we all live. I think that there's a real opportunity here to address the way we use them and make them more accessible to more people. We all know streets where currently the speed limit is 30mph and for that reason parents are very cautious about letting their children out to play because while it's 30, there's every chance that a car will come built around the corner at that 30mph, which will just catch out someone who's not quite ready for that speed on that otherwise very quiet residential road. I think that there's a real opportunity here to ensure that more people in Scotland have more access to streets. While we're speaking about the progress that is very welcome in Edinburgh and has been led in part by green councillor colleagues just up the road, I'd also like to highlight the play out initiative where streets on certain days in the capital have been closed to cars. One that I'll mention is Abbotsford Crescent. I attended it. It had a day, it was called play out and this is a through road up near Brunsfield and both ends of the street were cordoned off. They had a couple of barriers that the police were involved, they consulted with residents and the impact of that one street being closed to cars on that day was quite remarkable. Neighbours were out and they commented themselves that it was everyone from two-year-olds to eight-year-olds the atmosphere changed and actually I was speaking to one of those people today and that's something that they want to see rolled out. They want that to become a more frequent occurrence because let's face it a lot of our streets are quite quiet on a Sunday but I do think that this move to a slower, more considered traffic speed is something that we should welcome. We're asking that the Government rolls out on-road cycle training for all. That's fine while your child is out with a professional trainer and they're getting the input and the experience that they need but many parents simply would not allow their children to cycle on the road unattended in current circumstances. I think that there are many groups here that we owe our thanks to in pushing this agenda forward Living Streets, Sustrans, Twenties Plenty and cycling organisations like Spokes too. We know that in some roads there's a very city on workday mornings. 20 per cent of vehicles coming down our main arterial routes are bicycles and I think that that could be increased massively. In this very city Professor David Newby at the Royal Infirmary has been doing fabulous work highlighting the links between air pollution and heart disease. You're highly likely to have been sitting in busy traffic in the hours before you have a major heart incident. Those are things that we have to take very seriously indeed. Clare Adamson's expertise in this area she's pointed out that reducing speed reduces casualties. This is something that we have to take very seriously. I think that there are so many opportunities and benefits if we focus on this agenda. The benefits are indisputable if we flip 30 to 20. I would ask the Government to use all the powers that it has in working with our local authority partners across Scotland to pursue this agenda. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much, Ms Johnson. I call Hamza Yousaf to close the Government. Seven minutes, minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Lowering speed is a crucial component in reducing risk on our roads. For that reason, I very much congratulate Mark Ruskell for securing this member's debate. I thank the members across the chamber who made some very nuanced points but also presented some challenges that they threw across the chamber towards the Government and ones that I will reflect on as the Minister for Transport. Members spoke very passionately and consistently about the correlation between speed and casualties. That is well established. It is almost indisputable now because of the weight of evidence that exists. On top of that, the climate and the reduction of CO2 emissions was also mentioned by a few members as well. As discussed at the UK Climate Change Committee last week, vehicle speeds directly impact on emissions and community health and can help promote active travel. I want to take this opportunity if I can, to highlight some of the activity that the Scottish Government is doing and undertaking to help to ensure speeds are lowered on our roads. I have to confess I have never heard of the Tufty Club I will go on Google after this. It's a shame because I thought with the introduction of Ross Greer to this Parliament and Kate Forbes that frankly I was the elder statesman but clearly not the case. What we have produced in government is Scotland's road safety framework to 2020. It was a document that was referred to or alluded to by a number of members where we set out a vision where there's no fatalities on Scotland's roads and while that remains an ambitious target I know I want to live in a Scotland where that ambition is realised. Underpinning that vision are challenging casualty reduction targets and again they've been alluded to by some members but I might just point out some of the specifics. Fatalities reduced by 44 per cent that's from a 2004 a baseline but with 162 people killed on our roads in 2015 there's no room for complacency. Members have said it and I will say it and repeat it and reiterate it that one person killed on our roads is one person too many. I thought Clare Adamson was very brave and I appreciate the fact that she shared her own personal story and her own personal loss with her niece eight years ago but it was an important reminder to us that behind these statistics is a human life and lives are families that are absolutely devastated by the impact of these fatalities. The framework outlines 96 commitments which include measures to highlight the benefits of driving lower speeds in relation to road safety, health impacts, fuel efficiency, creating a space more equally shared as Alison Johnstone spoke about and encouraging more active travel choices. I won't go through 96 commitments at all but I would recommend that those members and the public have an interest in reading and flicking their way through that important document. There's a clear commitment to encourage local authorities to introduce 20mph zones or limits in residential areas and that perhaps is the crux of Mark Ruskell's conversation and the intention to bring this debate to the Parliament and the debate that we're having on it and alluded to in the example she gave of Johnstone Avenue. Do we go for the blanket approach that the Government is not convinced on doing because of the consultations that we've taken with local authorities? They prefer that they have the discretion of where to roll out 20mph zones and the uptake of that has been fairly good as I've mentioned and has been mentioned at Edinburgh City Council, certainly leading the way to Mr Ruskell. Would you not acknowledge that the TRO process is very complex and burdensome on local authorities and that it may be simple just to say to local authorities where you decide where you want the main 30mph arterial routes and actually exempt those from a default 20mph limits rather than trying to create endless networks of 20mph zones that are very costly and time consuming to put in place? I think that Edinburgh example is a good one actually. It doesn't seem to have been as cumbersome as perhaps the member is suggesting. I will reflect on the TRO scheme and look to see where we can make it easier and we can make it less cumbersome. The feedback from local authorities was that they want to have the discretion. I'm not always saying that they have got it and they'll always get it right in the same way. I'm sure that we would appreciate that the Government doesn't always get things right either. I think that the TRO scheme is better. Having it in the hands of local authorities who should know their local communities better is a better approach. As I said, Edinburgh is taking the lead but it's certainly not at all by any stretch of the imagination. It's the only ones who are driving forward or moving forward perhaps better on this agenda. We know that Glasgow City Council introduced at a city-wide centre 20mph zone from 21st of March 2016. Dundee City Council's consultation has already been mentioned by Jenny Marra. Of course, great advances are being made by Fife as well where the member has an interest as well. Ms Marra. Thank you minister for giving way. Does he think that all roads with access to a school should be 20mph? Minister. Again, it's for the local authorities and it's their discretion but we are encouraging local authorities for those areas that have a residential zone in the residential zone and those that are in new year's schools. Of course, it's sensible for them to enact a 20mph zone but it must be up to the discretion of the local authorities. I want to come back to the point of Johnston avenue, which Ms Marra wrote to me about and which I answered and I will in the future as time and diary allows that particular street to meet with the member's residents of that street. To me, again, the local authority I don't know the ins and the outs my assumption would be that the local authority would know that area better than anybody else and indeed in consultation with the residents would look to put forward the appropriate measures. What I will do in the back of what she said because she gave a more detailed description of that street, what I will do in my next conversation with the Dundee City Council is going on, what the thinking is and I'm happy to report back to Jenny Mann. I know I'm at the end, Presiding Officer, of my allotted time. Safe to say that we see this in the Scottish Government and I'm very proud of the progress that's been made in 20mph zones. I thank Mark Ruskell for bringing this debate to the chamber. I'm more than happy to have a further conversation with him about some of the complexities in the current system that he's spoken about and any other suggestions because, as I said, the heart of this is safety for the people of Scotland and in particular, if I can say, for children in Scotland as well. If we can make our roads safer I'm open minded to any plans that can help us to achieve that. Thank you very much.