 Felly, we have now moved into the public session of our meeting today, so I welcome people to the committee's fifth meeting in 2019 of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee. Can I remind everyone please to make sure that your mobiles are silent? The first item on the agenda is subordinate legislation covering genetically modified organisms. The consideration of one affirmative instrument on genetically modified organisms, deliberately reddlingol, miscellania amendments Scotland regulations 2019—that's quite a mouthful. The committee will take evidence from the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment, and the motion is seeking the approval of the affirmative instrument will be considered at item 2. Members should note that there have been no representations to the committee on this instrument. I'd like to welcome from the Scottish Government, Mary Gouge, on the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment. Helen Stanley, the senior policy adviser, John Kerr, the head of agriculture policy division, and Juliette Harkins, the solicitor and legal director of the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, I have promoted you. Maybe that is wishful thinking. Minister, I would like to ask you to make a brief opening statement and try to limit it to three minutes, please. No problem. I'll try to explain this as briefly and concisely as I can, but thank you very much for having me along to consider this SSI today. I wish to move the motion S5M-15628 and ask that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the genetically modified organisms deliberate release miscellaneous amendments Scotland regulations 2019 be approved. The primary purpose of this SSI is simply to allow Scotland to do what the EU law intends and bring our current legislation up to date. It would provide Scottish ministers with the powers to continue our policy of opting out of growing future EU-approved genetically modified crops and it introduces powers of enforcement in that respect. That is the stated policy of the Scottish Government and this statutory instrument allows that to continue and we will not allow GM crops to be grown in Scotland. The legislation updates out-of-date references and removes outdated provisions in a number of related domestic GM regulations. In particular, the SSI includes provisions that allow for limits to be applied to the geographical scope of EU marketing consents for GM cultivation if so demanded by Scottish ministers or another member state. That means that we can ensure Scotland is excluded from any consents to cultivate future EU-approved GM crops during any transition period. If there is no Brexit deal, Scotland's policy of no GM crop cultivation will continue as this area is devolved and any decisions when it comes to GM crops will be for the Scottish Government. That SSI also introduces appropriate investigatory powers, offences and penalties to enforce the limits on the geographical scope in Scotland. While the SSI itself is entirely connected to Brexit, it transposes current EU legislation into domestic law. As we made clear, we would do in our programme for government. It sits alongside a raft of other SSIs and SSIs to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. The committee will be well aware that in a separate exercise, DEFRA has been drafting EU exit amending SSIs on our behalf for directly applicable EU legislation in accordance with the protocol set out by the Scottish Parliament. Those SSIs are for a no-deal scenario to ensure that appropriate EU rules are in domestic law. That will be important for us to maintain our GM crop-free status. We will also be laying our own EU exit SSI to fix the legislative deficiencies in our principle regulations. Because this SSI is about transposing recent changes made by the EU into our law, we will also have to fix those regulations in another EU exit SSI, which we will be intending to lay later this month. That EU exit SSI will ensure that on exit day, our two current Scottish statutory instruments continue to be operable after EU exit. I hope that that explanation provides some clarity on the purpose and process involved here and that members are assured of the importance of passing those regulations into the law and will agree the motion, but I will be happy to take any questions that the committee may have. The first question will be from Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener, and I will need to declare an interest as a partner in the farming business. It is maybe more of a statement than a question. My position is that I fundamentally disagree with the position of the Scottish Government on GMs in particular. I think that it is holding us back as an industry. I do accept that there is nothing at the moment that we would particularly wish to grow in Scotland, but I think that by turning our back on science we are doing a disservice to our farming colleagues. I think that it is fundamentally the wrong decision to go down this road. I do not expect that I am going to change the minister's views in any way, shape or form, but I just feel that this is the wrong policy. I think that it is always a bad idea to turn your back on science and there is no science as I understand that. I would ask the minister where is the science to back up the position that the Government takes, that the GM crops are all bad and we should turn our back on them. That is my question. Where is the science to back up what you are asking us to agree to? You make comment. Mr Chapman has made an important point, although I will not be asking any questions. I am just convening the meeting. I think that it is important to save any questions being asked at a future day that I am also a member of a farming partnership. I do that just for openness, not because I believe that it is necessary. Thank you. Of course, the member is more than entitled to his opinion on that. That is where we just have a different take on the policies here. The stated policy of the Scottish Government is that we do not allow GM crop cultivation. There is no policy change here in terms of implementing the SSI. We are not seeing any policy change. The SSI also means that if there was at any point in the future the Government wished to not be part of or not to take that opt out, that is also the case. We believe that it is important to transpose the EU directive into Scottish law that allows us to take that opt out. That is our policy position at the moment, and we do not intend to change that. Okay. I suspect that we are not going to get any further along that line of question, convener, so I will leave it there. Stewart, thank you. Thank you very much. Just as an observation, I fundamentally disagree with Peter Chapman, but not on the basis of disagreeing with the science, because we do not oppose that on the basis of science, but on the basis of Scotland being a pure and natural environment for which our wonderful food is produced. It differentiates us from regimes. However, most substantive point, if I may, reading the SSI, it is clear to me—I am sure that that is correct—that that refers to the cultivation of crops. Therefore, it does not apply to animals, and it does not apply to the importation of genetically modified materials. The member is correct, and it relates to the cultivation. Jamie, you had a question. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Just a few quick questions. It says in the paperwork that the policy objective of this order is to provide Scottish ministers with the powers to opt out of growing future EU-approved GM crops. Can the minister outline what advice they have taken that would underpin its belief that it has the power to opt out of such EU legislation and devolve competency? Sorry, in relation to what we currently do at the moment— No, so do you currently have an opt-out? Well, using the transitional powers, yes. We currently opt out of that at the moment. So this is something that—I mean, in terms of what we are looking to transpose from the EU directive, this is also a position that I think the Welsh Government in Northern Ireland intend to transpose this directive as well, so that they have that opt-out to—and this is in use in other member states, I think 19 other member states across the EU as well, and where there are specific regions within countries who have decided to opt out of this. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. Is it fair to say that there are currently no GM crops growing in Scotland, nor have they ever been? Therefore, there would be no substantive change to what happens currently in agriculture? No, there would be no substantive change. That's helpful. My final short question is if you mentioned potential transitional deals of future relationships that the UK might have with the EU, if any of those discussions or part of those discussions was any negotiation around the UK producing GM crops, would it be the case therefore that these would only be growing in England and not in any of the other regions where you believe there's a policy differential? If that was included in any part of future trade deals, that would be a matter of huge concern for us, but as it stands, right now we have the powers, this is a devolved area, so even if we were to end up in a no-deal Brexit situation, we have the powers to make our own decisions in this regard, though there would be elements of this SSI that would still be useful for us to—powers that we would still use in relation to a no-deal Brexit, but ultimately those powers are devolved, but in relation to future trade deals that would be a huge area of concern for us. Do you mind if I ask the other one for the final question? I think that I just make a point. It is an earlier observation that you made, Jamie, on the fact that no GM crops have been growing in Scotland. The minister didn't answer. I think that in fairness to say that there was a trial period of GM crops growing in Scotland which some of it happened on the Black Isle, but there has been none happening since then, just for a point of clarity, and Jamie has to answer that question. Sorry that I didn't come back on that one. I appreciate the convener's clarification on that point, so I forgot my question. No, I was going to ask—is the Scottish Government willing to, whilst it has an existing policy position on what is quite a catch-all phrase of GM crops, is the Government committed to at least maintaining an open mind and open dialogue with the farming industry and have no interest to declare in that respect that, in the future, they are willing to review the policy as and when such evidence is presented to them, either scientific or otherwise? We would always continue to engage with the farming industry anyway. Of course, that is vitally important to my role, as it is to the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy, but that is our stated policy position at the moment. We wouldn't be looking to change that anytime soon, but in terms of on-going dialogue, that is something that we continually engage in, and we will, of course, be happy to continue to do that. The next question is from John Finnie John. Minister, if you are going to turn your back in anything, turn your back in those who would seek to change the status in Scotland and the protection of its natural environment. Can I ask you—and being a simple lad, I go to the explainer to note, which I accept is not the regulation. If I read you this section from it, those regulations give effect to article 4 subparagraph 5 of the deliberative release directive enabling Scottish ministers to take measures to ensure compliance with that directive, and this is the bit, by introducing investigatory powers, offences and penalties. Can you give some further information on that? Is there a timeframe or a need? Will that be one of the SIs or a series of SIs that we are likely to see in the coming months? In terms of a timeframe, I will ask Helen to answer that question, but that section is really just to ensure that, if anybody does breach the regulations that we have, we have the enforcement powers there to actually take action in relation to that and introduce penalties as a result of that as well. I will ask Helen about the timeframes. It's all right, Helen. Don't push the button. It's all done. No, just leave it alone. It will all come on for you. I didn't fully understand what you meant by in terms of timeframes. Once the legislation is in force, any offences and penalties within the legislation will take immediate effect. At the moment, there are no GM crops out there that are commercially viable in Scotland really at the moment anyway, so it's debatable whether or not anybody is likely to create an offence that they would be prosecuted using those new powers anyway. Does the creation of new powers suggest a deficiency with existing arrangements? Well, certainly the opt-out itself were new powers that were given, that were created by the EU, so it's up to member states that wish to use the opt-out to make sure that they have the correct powers within their own legislation, so yes, in that sense, because the opt-out was a new thing, we did need new powers and offences or offences and penalties to be able to make sure that people were compliant with the new opt-out. Thank you. The next question is from Richard Lyle Richard. Yes, good morning. First I can say that in a comment made earlier, Scotland is a country, not a region. Can you correct me, minister, that this has been the Scottish Government policy for years in regard to GM crops? Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. As I say, this SSI wouldn't be changing any policy at all and we would simply be continuing with our current stated policy. Well, unlike Mr Chapman, I agree with the Government policy. Am I correct in saying that if we don't pass the SSI, then by default GM crops could creep into Scotland, debasing our reputation as a good food nation? If that wasn't to pass, through the transitional arrangements anyway, we have opted out, so that is our position and we would still be able to do that, but what the SSI introduces is, first of all, it brings our legislation right up to date. It was a programme for government commitment that we would transpose that directive. As I say, even if we end up in a no-deal situation in Brexit, there are elements of the SSI that would still be important to us, particularly in relation to some of the offences and penalties that are there in relation to the geographical scope of the opt-out. It is a continuation of what we are currently doing, but it enables us to bring our legislation up to date. I thank you for your comments on that, and I certainly will be supporting that proposal when it comes to the vote. I thank you for your next agenda item, Mr Ion. I am sure that Mike Rumbles will use the next question. Thank you, convener. There are no GM crops in Scotland. We have never had any GM crops in Scotland, and apart from the tests, we have never had any GM crops in Scotland. There are no proposals for having GM crops in Scotland. Nobody has come to the committee to say that there is any issue here. All the work that the Scottish Government has done on this legislation, with your team, comes into force two weeks before we are scheduled to leave the European Union. I just have a question. The minister has just confirmed that there does not change anything at all. I just have a pretty fundamental question. What is the Government doing here? I think that I outlined most of that in my response to Richard Lyle on bringing our legislation up to date. That is something that we committed to transposing the EU directive. Other countries are doing exactly the same across the UK. Wales is going to transpose that directive as well. Northern Ireland is looking to do the same, because it is vitally important that we have this in Scottish legislation and that we have that opt-out that we are able to use. We have used the opt-out currently in terms of some crops that have gone to the EU for approval for commercial cultivation. We have been able to use that opt-out so far. Just because we have not had EU crops grown up until now, it is vitally important for us to have this power and to have the enforcement powers there as well. You might only have that for two weeks? No, that is not the case. Even if we end up in a no-deal Brexit, there are still elements of the SSI that we would need and that we would want to have as part of our legislation. Ideally, that is something that we would have brought forward before now, but, since the referendum, the vast majority of the focus has been on making sure that we are ready for a departure from the EU when that comes, and a lot of resource has been tied into it. You will have seen all the SSIs that have come through, the SSIs that are coming through as well, in the areas particularly in the rural economy and the environmental side as well, where we have had an awful lot of legislation to be dealing with. Ideally, it would have come forward before now, but we think that it is vitally important that that legislation is in place and that we do that before we leave the EU. Can I just ask a further question? The minister has repeatedly said that we have got transitional arrangements that we have opted out. Could the minister be more clear on what she means by that? That would be helpful. What happened with the directive 2015-412 had contained transitional provisions that allowed member states to opt out of one GM crop that was already approved for cultivation in Europe and a number of others that were pending authorisation at that time. Scotland, as part of the UK, was one of the countries that said, well, we want to use those transitional provisions to opt out of the one GM crop, which was a GM maize, and those others with pending approval. However, those were transitional arrangements that we had to apply to the commission back in 2015. There was a deadline for doing that. What the transposition now allows Scotland to opt out of future EU-approved GM crocs, i.e. ones that may come on stream over the coming months. That is my point. That comes into force two weeks before we leave the EU, so we will not be subject to the EU rules. We will, if there is a transition period. Why do not we wait and find out? I do not think that we can wait. I do not think that this is something that we can be waiting to see what happens. I am much rather that our legislation is a fixed date and it is ready to go regardless of the situation. There are no proposals for GM crocs. What is the point of this? I just say that that does not mean that there will not be in the future. I think that that is why it is important that we have those powers in place so that we can use them and that they are ready to go, especially with the SSI that is to come, which will correct any deficiencies in this if we leave the EU without a deal. I think that we cannot be waiting to see what happens and we need to make sure that our legislation is fit for purpose. I am going to draw this part, if I may, to close Mr Rumbles and move on to the next question for more and more. I think that you have examined that about as far as you can take it. Maureen, yours is the next question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I think that it is important to put on the record that our word-leading plant breeding and crop research institutes will not be affected by that. I think that there is sometimes a mixing up of GM crops and plant breeding, which is very unhelpful. Minister, you may be partly answered my question, which was about other devolved nations here that Wales is taking forward this legislation. I am not sure how Northern Ireland can, although I believe that it wants to do so. There are now 19 countries in the EU, including Germany, which I think was one of the first to have that legislation. Is it not that this is the norm within the EU, whether we are leaving or not, rather than the exception? Yes, I would agree with that. I think that Belgium has a similar situation to the UK, but it is a region of Belgium that has decided to opt out of that as well. It is absolutely right that there are 19 countries, so the vast majority of those in the EU have decided to use that opt-out. Northern Ireland would be looking to do that as soon as it has an assembly in place. That appears to be all the questions in Lester any more. There are no more questions. We will move on to agenda item 2. This is the formal consideration of motion S5M-15628, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, to recommend that the genetically modified organisms to the Liberative Release Scotland amendment regulations 2018 be approved 2019. I'm pretty sure. Sorry, my note says 18. I suspect it may be 19. My mistake, I'm sorry, it is 2019. I'd like to invite the Minister for the Rural Affairs and Natural Environment to move the motion S5M-15628, and ask if you have any further comments to make. I'll move the motion, but no further comments to make. Are there any comments from members, Mr Lyle? Yes, I certainly agree with this. I think that it is a policy that the Scottish Government has been following for years, and I compliment the minister on our presentation. I totally disagree again with the members who say that we should be allowing GM crops. Scotland is a good food nation. Scotland has excellent food, and as far as I'm concerned, I intend to ensure that it stays that way. I was hoping that we weren't going to get statements and we'd be able to move to it, but as Mr Lyle's made one, I will have to ask other committee members. Mr Chapman, followed by Mike Rumbles. I say that I fundamentally disagree with this policy. I think that it is short-sighted that an average GM crops are cleaner than the old technology, because they always use less fertiliser, they use less chemicals and they are more profitable to grow. I think that it is standing in the way of our farmers moving forward and being able to compete in the world marketplace, so I fundamentally disagree. Hold on, sorry, committee members. With the greatest respect we've been here before, I recognise that everyone has different views, and I have explained to you that I do find it difficult to hear when everyone else is talking at the same time. I've never stopped people coming in with their views and I'm very happy to do so, but I cannot have you all doing it at the same time. Mr Chapman, I think that you've made your point there. Mr Rumbles, I'm happy for you to make your point, and if anyone else wants to make a brief point, because these points have been made, I'm happy if not, I'm going to then move to question whether we agree the motion. Mr Rumbles. Thank you, convener. This is the debate now on the motion, so I think that we're all entitled quite rightly to make our points. The point that I want to make in this debate on this motion is that I shall be supporting the Scottish Government in this. My questions earlier on to the minister are over whether we actually needed to go down this route considering that, as I said earlier on in my question, that this takes effect just two weeks before we leave the EU, and this whole legislation is opt out from EU legislation, which would no longer apply. I find that a little strange. I think that this is a really important issue, and I think that for the future we need to have a debate about the science and GM crops and everything else, but I think that at the moment it's quite right that we maintain the status quo. I think that the Scottish Government has done an awful lot of work on this. I'm very skeptical whether it was necessary, but since it's before us, I shall be supporting it. John Finch-Saunders Thank you. One and the question of whether it is necessary or not, as Mr Rumbles has just suggested, the reality is that this committee is doing a huge amount of work on Brexit, which we do not know if it is needed or not, because the totally incompetent Westminster Government has not got a clear picture. I don't know why Mr Rumbles particularly picks on this point, because the same applies to a lot of other things that we're doing and a fully support that we need to do it. Secondly, Mr Chapman talks about the science, but the reality is that the science is incomplete. We have had seen many proposals and work around genetic modification and such like, but we have not yet seen the long-term effects of those on what happens to land and crops and other things over 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. The science is not complete, and I think that it's misleading on Mr Chapman to say that we're going against the science. Thank you. John Finch-Saunders The next comment is from John Finch-Saunders I think that I did say that, to my mind, a lot of this is heavy-duty legislation, but I'm kind of confusing, but it has far greater clarity than liberal Democrats' position on anything. That's reinforced today from the confusing position on Mr Rumbles. Are they for GM or are they against GM? However, what isn't, of course, surprising at all is to hear from Mr Chapman the fixation with profit. That, of course, is at odds with what I thought the committee ironically had all collectively agreed when we did our salmon inquiry that the precautionary principle should apply. I think that it's quite appropriate that the Scottish Government has taken the contingency that it has. I fully endorse it, and I fully endorse the precautionary principle of continuing to apply. John Finch-Saunders Thank you. Anyone else wish to make any comment? The one comment that I would make is that, if I may, just not about the motion, and I'm going to give you minister a chance to come in and make comment, but if you want to respond to any of the comments that you made, obviously, your officials can't come in at this stage, it's just that political comments are best not served in the committee. It's best to do that in the chamber. This is a look at the actual facts of the evidence. Minister, if you'd like to make a comment, if not, we'll move to considering it. I'm happy for you to move to considering it. Okay. The question, therefore, I believe that is in front of us as a committee to decide is that, whether we agree to motion S5M-15628, be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. Mr Chapman has said that, therefore, we will need to move to a division. Okay. Therefore, I have to ask, could those in favour of the motion please raise their hands and keep them raised? Those, thank you. Those against the motion, that's one. And those who abstain, I'm abstaining as convener. So, therefore, those in favour are eight, those against are one, those who abstain two, therefore the motion is agreed. I'd like to thank the minister and her officials for coming in this morning and I briefly suspend the meeting to allow the panel to depart. Could I ask committee members to remain in the room as if possible so we can move straight on to the next item? Welcome back to the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee meeting. I want to move on to agenda item 3, which is the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, and there are six notifications. We have received six consent notifications in relation to the UK SIS as detailed on the agenda. These are the common fisheries policy, CMO regulations and organic products regulations. All the instruments are being laid in the UK Parliament in relation to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. The common fisheries policy is categorised as partly category B. Category B means that the transition from an EU to a UK framework would be a major and significant development. I wonder if any member has had any comments, Stuart. Just a very brief comment in relation to the common fisheries policy amendment, etc. I very much welcome the fact that each left open the competency dispute about the determination of fishing opportunities to another matter. I think that that is a pragmatic and sensible approach for the two Governments to currently take in relation to this order, and I welcome that that is the approach that is taken. Are there any other comments? Therefore, the question that I have for the committee is, does the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government to confirm that it is content for consent for the UK SIS referred to in the notifications to be given and to note and request a response from the Scottish Government on the wider policy matters that have been identified? Is that agreed? That is agreed. Therefore, we will now move on to agenda item four, which is the restricted roads 20mph speed limit Scotland bill. I would like to invite members to declare any relevant interests. I am the honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which is an interest in roads. This is the committee's first evidence session on the restricted roads 20mph speed limit Scotland bill. The committee will now take evidence from academic health, environmental and third sector perspective. I would like to welcome Rod King, the founder and campaign director's 20s plenty for us, Stuart Hay, the director of Living Street Scotland, Dr Adrian Davis, Professor of Transport and Health at Edinburgh Napier University, Bruce White, the public health programme manager, Glasgow Centre for Population Health and Gavin Thomson, who is air pollution campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scottish environmental link. I do not know if you have all given evidence here at the committee before, but the way that works is that you do not need to touch any buttons on the consoles in front of you, they will be activated for you. If you want to come in and it is quite a big panel, try and catch my eye and I will bring you in at the appropriate moment. Now because there are five of you, you might not get to answer every single question, but I will do my best to bring you in. What I would also caution you is that hopefully we will get relatively short questions, which may be prompt short answers, which will allow more of you in. If you see me waggling my pen, that probably means that you should wind up because ultimately it gets so quick that it may fly off in your direction if you are not paying attention to me, so please do not speak and keep speaking and look the other way. If in the unlikely event that you all look away when the questions answered, one of you will get nominated, so there is no hiding. On that basis, I would like to start off with the first question, which will be from Colin Smyth. Colin Smyth. Thank you. Good morning to the panel. I think that this is probably the most straightforward question that you are going to get during the course of the meeting. It is simply to ask the panel why you support the proposal to reduce the default speed limit on restricted roads from 30mph to 20mph. As it is such a simple question, we will start on my right and your left with Rod and work along the panel with a short answer from each of you. I think that we have to start off with what we have now, which is a 30-mile-an-hour limit, which was set in 1934 and very much plucked out of the air is seeming reasonable. We have to ask ourselves whether that is appropriate for nearly a century later when we have so many more aspirations for the way we want to use the roads, public health, active travel, just the ability for people to move around independently under their own steam. A 20-mile-an-hour 30kmph is a developing standard across the world as the safe and appropriate speed limit and speed for where pedestrians and cyclists mix with motor vehicles. We support it for the same reasons, and it is about creating times and places that are safe and feel safe for people who want to walk around or cycle or for kids to play. 20 is the only way to achieve that 30-mile-an-hour, which is not appropriate if you want those conditions in your towns and cities. Adrian Johnson Good morning. Notwithstanding what has been said, one of the key things here is reducing the numbers of deaths, serious injuries and slight injuries that predominantly in cities at least happen to people outside of vehicles, people that do not present much of a threat kinetically to other road users but suffer disproportionately. Scotland has agreed and is trying to implement Vision Zero, which means that there are no fatalities and life-changing injuries. 20 miles an hour and dampening down the kinetic energy in the system is important for that. It is also, as a public health physician, clearly important for increasing population health, reducing the disease burden and the cost to the national health service. Bruce Johnson Good morning. I am just adding to what Adrian Johnson was saying that there is a great benefit in reducing casualties. Currently, on 30-mile-an-hour roads, 60 per cent of casualties or 60 per cent of serious and fatal casualties are vulnerable road users, walkers or cyclists. We also know that there are inequalities in who is likely to be a casualty. They are higher in more deprived areas among adult pedestrians and even higher again among child pedestrians. A cross-Scotland bill like that would help to address those inequalities. Kevin Stewart Good morning, everyone. I am very happy to be here with you this morning. Just quickly to round off then. From my point of view, reducing the default speed limit would improve the flow of traffic, reduce congestion and emissions and encourage more active, healthier, travel choices. All of those would have positive impacts on air quality. As an air pollution campaigner, that is why I support the bill. Do any of the panel know what percentage of the current 30-mile-an-hour roads in Scotland are restricted roads, which will therefore be covered by the bill? I have asked this question and I believe that it is quite difficult to get that data from local authorities, because it relates to the number of traffic regulation orders that are out there and nobody has collated them all. There are a few supplementaries on this. Richard, I seem to have you down as a supplementary and then Stuart and then Mike. Mike, you go first. I am referring to a publication on the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, which we have got and is publicly available. Since we are considering changing the criminal law, because there is a crime that we are talking about here, breaking the speed limits. In it, it refers to research on the pilot of the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit in the south of Edinburgh, which said that the average speed of vehicles on streets provided with the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit has dropped by an average of 1.9 miles per hour, from 22.8 miles an hour to 20.9 miles per hour, which means that, before it went down to 20, the majority of motorists were not breaking the law, but reducing it to 20 miles an hour with the average still exceeding that limit means that most motorists, or the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit, are breaking the law. Any comment? Who would like to comment on that? Adrienne? First of all, there is a bit of science just to explain here. In the peer-reviewed literature, the science of speed and kinetic energy, for every one mile-an-hour average reduction in speed, you get a 6 per cent reduction in collisions. This is about kinetic energy. We certainly know that the slower people go, the more time there is to be able to make a decision to stop. So this is, you know, the faster you go, once you get over 30 miles an hour, things get a lot more dangerous. Of course, at 30 miles an hour, people often drive well over 30 miles an hour, so it is about thinking about the kinetic energy and the impact. A one-mile-an-hour average speed reduction, or 1.9, whatever, is often the way that the press portrays this. We see it time and again, as though it is not really worth it. However, that is not understanding the science about the kinetic energy and the significant drop in collisions. We have seen data from Portsmouth, which was the first authority in England to implement 20 miles an hour across a whole city. Calderdale, Bristol City, Warrington, reported significant reductions in casualties as a result. Those two links, you can see the link between them. If you reduce the kinetic energy, the likelihood is that you reduce the number of injuries. As a coder to that point, I would like to point out that Scotland was the first place in the UK that implemented 20 miles an hour. 75 sites across 27 local authorities at the end of the 1990s showed significant reductions in casualties as well. Scotland was the first place at this start, but we have good evidence that these small-average reductions are important. I did not address my question, which is about criminality. Most drivers now would be criminals. Roddyn Lennsdale? I think one of the things to remember is that when you're setting 20 mile an hour limits for most roads, you're including a lot of roads where the current speeds are already low and possibly below 20 miles an hour anyway. You have three tranches of roads, those residential roads that have low speeds, the ones that have medium speeds about 20 to 24, and the ones that tend to be a little bit higher, the faster roads. Now what the research shows is that you actually get a mix of reductions in speeds. You'll get no reduction on the slow roads already. You'll get some reduction on the medium speed roads, but you'll get a three, four miles per hour reduction on the faster roads. Again, research shows that after the implementation of 20 mile an hour limits, the vast majority of people, and we're talking about 80 per cent or so, are travelling at less than the speed at which there will be any enforcement eye. They're travelling below 25 miles an hour. There is good evidence that that changes, but the thing is that if you set a national consistent limit and you get that public consensus, then you actually affect the compliance right the way across the spectrum of speeds, which obviously helps. Just one final supplement on that. My whole point is about compliance, actually. That's the point. Anecdotally, we've got 20 miles an hour in Edinburgh, and when you drive in Edinburgh, obviously sometimes the traffic, you can't drive more than 20 miles an hour. Obviously, there are people breaking the 20 mile an hour speed limit and quite a large number of people. It's about compliance. What is the point of having a law which most people then do not observe? Stuart, do you want to come back on that? To be aware, the behaviour is no different than a 30 mile an hour limit. In fact, the statistics I've seen is that people behave worse than 30 mile an hour. In that sense, people don't do that. It's really about seeing limits are a limit, and it's about people driving for the conditions. In an urban area, in a residential area, people should be anticipating that there will be children, sight lines are limited and they should be driving around about 20 miles. Some drivers are doing that already, and the point about introducing a speed limit is to start to shift the behaviour of those others. You can do that partly through education, so people are aware of the new limit, partly through engineering where necessary, and finally through enforcement for probably the hard core that really don't get this. Just as a follow-up before I bring anyone else in, the 20 mile an hour speed limit in Edinburgh has been quite interesting. If you drive along at 20 miles an hour as a driver, the thing that you notice more than anything else is the bicyclists who are doing 30 miles an hour or 40 miles an hour down the hill. A point that you made, Adrian, about injury. Injury is about developing a kilojoules of energy at a point of impact in a limited area. A bicycle will do that more effectively on a point of impact because it will be very narrow where they hit. I know that bicyclists are a problem, but do you think that that will make people wonder—the car driver is saying, well, I'm being overtaken by a bicycle—that it will make it easier for a car driver to come to terms with it? Should we not be thinking about bicycles as well? Adrian, do you want to come on? I think that this is an outlier question, if I can put it that way, because it's a minor point. I mean, getting up to 30 miles an hour, I think that it will be quite difficult for most people on bikes. I think that the point of science is about mass and speed. There is an equation about that. It's a mass of the vehicle that's going to do more damage. Being hit by an HDV is the one that you really don't want to get hit by because you'll be dead. I think that there is a bit of difference with respect, Chair, that the mass is the most important size of the vehicle as it being a bike is less. I don't think that's a main point for us today. Most people are hit by motor vehicles. As convener, I will take your point that I shouldn't ask outlying questions, maybe not. Stewart, I'll let you come in with the next question. I do want to just deal with the numbers question before my question, if I may, and address perhaps Dr Davis alone. If you have 10 vehicles trampling through his own, nine of them are doing 29 miles an hour and one of them is doing 40 miles an hour. 10 per cent of them are breaking the speed limit, but the average is 31. So averages are the wrong way of looking at the problem. It should be median, it's not averages. Is that a fair observation on my part? If I can answer that by, if you are travelling at 29 miles an hour or 30, then the person that's trying to do 40 can't do 40 because they're behind you in the queue. So one of the things that we've talked about in the literature about 20 mile an hour speed limits is about pace cars. When people abide by the speed limit, then it forces other people to abide by it. Sorry, I'm just exploring the arithmetic because the thrust of the previous question has been about average speeds and average speeds are determined and the 40 mile an hour can be at the head of the queue, not the back of the queue or the middle of the queue, that the average doesn't tell you that on average everybody, if the average is above the speed limit, that doesn't tell you that half the people are breaking the speed limit. I just wanted to get that in the record if my comment is correct as a mathematician I speak of course. Okay, so my way of answering that and I hope it's not obvious will be that the, one of the things we find across the different authorities where we've got post implementation data is that the really high speeds come down the most and that's one of the dramatic things. When we had people previously doing 40, they may be now doing 28 which is well above the speed limit but they are doing a lot less than 40. That's the best way, Mr Stevenson, I can answer that question with the data that I have on my head. Let me move on to my most substantive point, which isn't restricted to the Professor. That is simply about the bill being on restricted roads only. In other words, not A roads, not B roads and not roads where there is not lighting that is 185 or less meters apart from lampposts. In a sense, that comes back to the question that Stuart Hay couldn't answer, that have we any sense of what that really means in the real world? Now, Stuart Hay said he didn't know but we have any sense really as to what part of the road network this will apply to. Bruce. My understanding from Edinburgh is that it's about 80 per cent of the roads in Edinburgh are covered by the 20 mile per hour limit, so there's 20 per cent that are. Right. Can I come back and just home in to be precise? Is that 20 per cent of the distance or 20 per cent of the number of roads? I think it's 20 per cent. 80, sorry. I'm not certain. I think it might be 20 per cent of roads, but I'm not. Unaffected. Yes. I think some of those will be the decision that they were restricted roads, but actually the speed limits should remain at 30 or whatever it was. Right. Given that the bill is just about restricted roads, is that too restrictive in terms of what we're trying to achieve in policy terms? Rod. I think what the bill seeks to do is to set the right national consensus for most roads which will be appropriate. What it doesn't do is take away any ability for the local authority to use its flexibility, and that's where the local authority, when looking at the area which it feels should be appropriate at 20 mile an hour, may have 90 per cent of roads which are restricted and clearly come into that. Another 5 per cent of roads which are unrestricted and they want to stay at 30, but maybe another 5 per cent of roads which are not restricted, but they would wish to actually become 20 mile an hour. Then what they can do is a traffic regulation order to make them into a restricted road which enables them to accommodate those. Jamie, you want to come in with a supplement? Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. I think it's fair to say from the opening comments that every member of the panel here this morning is in favour of the legislation and it's quite a short bill, but I'm quite, it's quite striking, sorry, by the principle of the bill then. It's quite striking, however, that nobody in the committee can answer very fundamental and simple questions. That's how many roads or what percentage of road mileage will be affected by the legislation that would have been asked to pass. On the example of Edinburgh, there seems to even still be uncertainty around how many roads are affected in a current zone, never mind any future zones. In order for us to fully look at the consequences of this bill, it's entirely appropriate that we get a sense of the scale of it, yet no one seems to be able to answer that question. Why is that so? That's chaired, followed by Rod. I think that there is a... You can't do exact numbers, but what you can say... You know how many roads there are and we know how many road mileage there are. No, but basically that means counting up all the 30 mile an hours in Scotland that have an order to them, so that's what's affected is the number of 30 mile an hour. What we've got is a very developed network and these streets have all been assessed at 30 mile an hour. Most of them would go down to 20 mile an hour and a few where it was deemed appropriate by local authorities would be retained at 30 miles an hour and those sorts of roads from Living Streets point of view would be places like industrial estates, some distributor roads where there is not a lot of pedestrian activity and that's their sort of primary function, but it would cover all your residential areas and it would cover areas where you're going to have a lot of pedestrian activity such as parks, it would cover everywhere that has a school, so I think we know where the bill's going to have impacts. What we don't really know is how many of the exclusions we would be created because that's a different process. Rod, do you want to briefly come in? I'm just conscious that we're on question 1 and you've got a lot of more questions to answer. Rod, if you'd like to come in briefly and then I'd like to move on to the next question. The reason why none of the members of the panel actually know is because the DFT and the UK Government doesn't know, Transport Scotland doesn't know, most of the local authorities don't know because the mix of restricted, non-restricted traffic regulation or roads has just been built up over the time and there is no central database, so that's why we are ignorant. So there's no data and no one's done any mapping as to the road mileage that currently exists in the country, in any part of the UK, and which percentage of that is classified as a restricted road? In the UK, in terms of London, there is a map of every road and every speed limit, and that's public, but there isn't for the rest of the country, but there is an aspiration to do that, I believe, on behalf of the DFT. OK, the next question is mine. My question is, instead of imposing a default national speed limit of 20 miles an hour on restricted roads, would it not be preferable to allow local authorities to impose 20 mile an hour speed limits where they consider it appropriate to flick it the other way around, so instead of a default, allow local authorities? Who would like to head off on that? Gavin, do you want to go on that? Thank you. The thing to say is that at the moment we've touched on how local authorities should have power to create exemptions, but by putting the onus on local authorities, and they have to go through a cumbersome process, so it takes a long time to implement 20 mile an hour limits. That bill would speed up that process, and it would be much more efficient in terms of resources, but I think also, and some other panellists might want to touch on this, it's about creating a norm as well, that the lower speed limit is becoming the norm rather than the exception. I think that's really important when we're talking about behaviour, change and travel choices. Definitely, it's at the point on the norm, but as far as Bill goes, it could have simplified the process of making it 20 miles an hour, so maybe somebody wants to comment on the norm. Rodi, I know you want to come in. I'll try and balance if I may. Bruce, would you like to come in? I think that there's an important inequalities angle to this. Across Scotland there are a mixed bag of 20 mile per hour limits, some in some authorities like in Edinburgh that the city is covered, in other cities there's very few 20 mile per hour limits, and we know that there are casualties on 30 mile per hour roads, and we know that bringing in this kind of bill would reduce the number of casualties and fatalities and would also increase levels of active travel, walking and cycling. There's a current inequality, if you like, in terms of the distribution of where 20 mile per hour limits are distributed, and we know that there are higher levels of pedestrian casualties in more deprived areas. I think that the point that Gavin made about social norms is really, really important. If we have a national limit as such, albeit with some exceptions that local authorities can dictate, then you create an environment of a lower speed environment, a more considerate environment for all road users, particularly for vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists who are most likely to be casualties on 30 mile per hour roads. I am going to widen this question now and bring Peter in with his next question, which may then allow you to come in, Ron. Thank you, convener, and good morning, gentlemen. As an alternative to lowering the default speed limit to 20 miles per hour, the RIC has suggested the use of variable speed limits with a 20 miles limit only during peak times. I can imagine the scenario of somebody at 3 o'clock in the morning driving through Edinburgh, no other car about, nobody walking about. Is it fair under that scenario that that driver should be restricted to 20 miles per hour? Roderick, do you want to come in on that? I think that it's a very big question, which you'll put to motorways, to rural roads, or will you only apply it in those places where people are, where we know that a 20 mile an hour is appropriate, where people are mixing? It actually doesn't stack up, and it's not consistent when you look at the broader range of speed limits that we have. I think that's answering that question. It tends not to work. You'd have people spending in terminal arguments about whether it should be 7 o'clock or 7.30. It comes back in and so on. It's much clearer if you say that a speed limit exists at 24. Can I come back on something about the question that you made about carrying on and just local authorities doing it? That really treats 20 mile an hour as an exception rather than a rule. It actually continues the current situation where the public consensus is that you can drive 30 miles an hour on most roads, but you know on a few odd authorities, they do set it at 20 miles per hour. It endorses non-compliance. It's not a very smart way to do it. It's the way that's been done in England predominantly, where now 33 per cent of the population live in authorities that have more or less a default 20 miles an hour, but you can have adjacent authorities that don't have 20 mile an hour limits. It's not a smart way to do it. A much smarter way to do it is the way that this bill proposes. That's bringing it into line much more with Scandinavian countries where there is a 30 kilometres per hour or 18 and a half miles an hour default for most roads. That sets both a social consensus and it actually sets a civil liability consensus as well, because if a driver is doing more than 25 miles an hour and a 20 mile an hour limit, then that driver is 100 per cent liable for the consequences in a crash, regardless of the negligence of any pedestrians. Even if people are not complying to a 20 mile an hour law, they are actually can face sanctions in civil liability as well. I didn't want to follow that up about this issue of a blanket approach right across rather than allowing local authority to do it. In a tactical briefing to us this morning, which came as a surprise to me and I think other members of the committee, it seems that when an A road goes through a village, I represent many people in the rural Aberdeenshire, so when I look at all the villages across rural Aberdeenshire, the main roads will not be affected by this legislation, but we're told this morning that every single road that leads in every village, that leads off from this main road that goes to all our villages, every single one of them is going to have to have signage put up to say that this is a 20 mile an hour road. The cost to Aberdeenshire council alone will run into, I don't know how much, have you any comment on the feasibility and the cost of having this blanket approach across the country? The primary responsibility of local authorities when setting speed limits is to take into account the needs of vulnerable road users. I will ask whether that main road needs a 20 mile an hour or a 30 mile an hour limit. If a 20 mile an hour is appropriate, then the local authority can set a traffic regulation order to actually make that part of the road a 20 mile an hour limit, and then you would not need any signs at side roads. I'm going to let the question on cost just ride a little bit, because I know John wants to come in with more detailed information on costing and say, perhaps we could... All right, I'm going to bring in Stuart, and then I know Peter wants to come in with a follow-up. I'm not looking for a long answer, but perhaps where the answer might be. Based on what Rodd said, a third of English authorities essentially have a blanket 20, implying that a third of English authorities are for two thirds don't. Do we see differential accident and health outcomes? If we have that evidence that a third is one approach and two thirds are not, is there evidence available that would help us? Who would like to come in on that? Adrian, do you want to come in on that? I think that this is picking up on a point that I made earlier, that the evidence from towns and cities that have implemented 20 miles an hour and done the evaluation, Bristol's done the single most detailed evaluation and shown the reduction in deaths calculated and serious and slights, Warrington, Portsmouth originally, as well as the Scottish original data. We do have good evidence that reducing from 30 to 20 miles now brings about a reduction in the deaths and the serious and the slight injuries, if that is the point that Mr Stevenson is... Well, do forgive me, I accept that, but we know that there's a whole series of different interventions that different authorities will do to try and drive down. So, looking at what's happening in one is, of course, part of the answer. I was merely looking to see if the shape of the graph in ones that have not done it is different from those. It's not about Bristol comparing Cheshire or somewhere. So there are always, with decent evaluations, you need a comparator. You need to be able to show what happened when, if you didn't do it. So the calculations were done in the Bright study for Bristol that showed that there was a drop and the same for Calderdale as well, that there was a drop relative to the areas that didn't do the implementation, all other things being equal, which is always a difficult issue. Peter, and then we're going to move on to the next question. I'm going to explore my question a wee bit more, in particular with Mr Haye, because Mr Haye said that it was important to drive through the conditions. So I remind the panel, this is somebody at 3 o'clock in the morning in Edinburgh, no cars about, nobody walking, is it fair to ask that driver to be running at 20mph or is it not perfectly reasonable to say that at that time 30mph would be perfectly okay? So it's about driving through the conditions. Stuart, bring you in and then Gavin. I think that you have to consider the conditions at that point, which is visibility is reduced because it's night time, your stopping distances are different. On certain days of the week you might have people that might have had a drink wandering around as well. So there's a whole lot of factors that you need to take into account when you're bringing it in. Another point about this is if you bring in, do you sign these? And it causes confusion for drivers and you just have to look at the problems that are being created on bus lanes where there's different times and different places in the controversy around that. So you'd be repeating that issue if you had a variable. I think it's much clearer to say it's an urban area, the correct speed is 20mph. I was going to make a similar point or just expanding on that that there will be pedestrians out and about in the middle of the night and there might not be that many, but we can never predict where there will be pedestrians and where they might need to get to and they deserve safe streaks the same as someone walking about at peak time or rush hour. I think we'll move on to the next question, which is Jamie Greene. I think we're sort of moving in different directions, apologies if we're going over some old ground on this, but I don't think anyone's suggesting that night time pedestrians should face less safe conditions than daytime pedestrians. I think the premise of Mr Chapman's point was just around a sensible approach to quiet roads and speed restrictions applying at different times of day, depending on the conditions. I think that that's a fair point to raise, but I want to go back to something that Mr Thomson raised and it's further to the convener's own question around the status quo under exemptions versus what would happen in the future. Is it correct to say that you said that the current process of local authorities that have 30mph roads that want to change them to 20mph roads is cumbersome or onerous on them? Did you say that? What makes you think that the bill will change that? Can you point to the section of the bill that makes it clear to us that that process will be easier or less onerous? It's a one-page bill, so it should be easy. What makes me say that to begin with is the pace of change of local authorities that I have implemented 20mph limits that has taken many years that has to be done through the TRO. Simplifying it as the bill does makes me... Sorry, sorry. How does it do that? Just to explain to us in simple terms. I can't do that. Fine. The point being, the standard point here though, is that moving from applying from a 30 to a 20, it will be different going from a 20 to a 30, and it's still unclear to me as to why that will be better, easier or more simple. It's open to anyone in the panel that wants to answer that. Stuart, do you want to come in? I think that you take the example of Edinburgh in terms of how you did that. There's very few 30mph streets left in the area that's being deemed appropriate. Under the new law, you would only be concentrating on those streets and retaining those at 30mph rather than taking all the streets that needed to be 20mph, so you have a much shorter list of streets, which means that there's less scope for objections if the TRO process works much more easily in terms of advertising and all those sorts of things that you would do. I guess that no one's really explained to me and it may be a question for the owner of the bill, but how will the new process differ technically from the current process? Edinburgh is a different example because they already have a blanket 20mph approach, therefore by default there are fewer roads to exempt, but if you look at a scale of 0 to 100 per cent where no one applies for an exemption from the 20 restriction up to go back to a 30, up to 100 per cent where everyone does it, does anyone have any idea of the scale of local authorities and the volume of TROs that may be needed to move from 20 to 30 in relation to the volume that currently exists from 30 to 20 to make it comparative? Some of those answers are really in the detail which we don't have the data to, but if I can say from the experience of UK implementations, you're looking at about 80 per cent of the roads in an authority which are currently 30 would get a 20mph limit, so traffic regulation orders have to be done for every one of those roads. For every one of those roads you have to decide where you're going to put the 20mph repeater signs which are required, that requires administrative engineering work and then outsourcing that engineering work. You have to do the consultation which is appropriate for a traffic regulation order, and if you're going to do a successful implementation of 20mph across all of those areas, then you have to do the media, the social engagement, the education, and so on, which will make that effective. Those are all the things that are imposed upon local authority when you are putting in 20mphs and as an exception to the national norm, but when you change that national norm then this completely changes. Instead of having to do the traffic regulation orders on 80 per cent of the roads, you're probably looking at 5 per cent of the roads. Instead of looking at the signage on 80 per cent of the roads, you're looking at perhaps 5 per cent of the roads. You're actually looking at what's the best mix of engagement and social media engagement and education between what the local authority does in terms of owning the communities owning those benefits and what is a national consensus that 20mph is the right speed to do when you're in the presence of people. That's changed the premise of the argument to go from a volume-based argument rather than a process-led one. The idea that the new process will be more simple is a different argument from saying that because there will be less of them required, it will therefore by default be easier. It's not the process itself that's changing, it's just that you think that the volume will be different. The volume will be very different, but you won't be setting out to do exceptions to the national warm. You will be going with the flow. No, but you will, because if you want to go from a 30 to a 20mph, you're seeking exemption from the national warm, so you will still need to go through some form of exemption process, surely. Sorry, if you're going from 30 to 20mph. Yes, so if the blanket has changed from 30 to 20mph and you want to make that road a 30mph, as many local authorities may choose to do, they will still have to go through an exemption process and simulate what they currently do, so I can't get my head around what's different. Well, technically there would be no difference, but the volume in terms of the resources for the local authority would be hugely different. It's like 5% of roads instead of 80% of the roads, so that's a sixteenth of the resources that's required. Which answers my original question, it's the process that's not changing, it's the volume that will change. I think you've made that comment and I do need to bring in some other members, Jamie, who are lining up. Richard Lyle, with a brief question. A brief question, we're all talking about cars, what about buses? Buses run through housing estates, they do it in that area, so you are now going to reduce, you're going to actually increase the problem, make a problem for timetables, you're going to add to their time because they can only do 30 now, they can only do 20, and I've got other questions that will come on to that in a second, but so what happens to bus timetables? Does anyone specifically want to go with that? Rodda, I'm conscious that you've been at the forefront of the argument, Adrian, and then Gavin briefly. Okay, I'll give you a brief example from the city of Bristol, which I know in considerable detail, so the main operator is first in Bristol, they opposed the 21 hour programme when it originally started with a pilot just like Edinburgh, and then they did the analysis and they worked out that it wasn't the speed limit that was delaying them, it was the boarding of passengers and buying tickets, they didn't have to change their timetable, the average speed issue is relatively small, there may be some need for some adjustment, but it's rather a small issue relative to often in the way that people board buses and the delays that are there, and that's an issue about ticketing types. Did you want to say something briefly? I'm grateful that Aeneitha is where 20mph has been implemented that has improved the flow of traffic, and so it's not necessarily true that while buses might be now travelling, their top speed might be lower, the overall journey time might not necessarily be longer. Mark Ruskell, you wanted to come in with a question, I assume, you don't want to answer something because you'll get a chance to answer that later, so it's a question from you to the panel. So we have seen some roll-out of 20mph zones across Scotland in quite an inconsistent way. If this bill didn't go through and we were to stick with the existing system that we have, what do you think would be the progress that we could make in Scotland under the existing system in terms of the roll-out of 20mph? Who would like to get... Bruce, would you like to say something on that or are you... Yeah, I mean, as I've said earlier, I think it's a piecemeal process just now that we're going through in Scotland, so if we think that 30mph limits on restricted roads in our towns and cities is something that we would like to change if we want to have a lower speed limit to save lives, to get more people walking and cycling, feeling it's safe for their children to walk and cycle to school, then doing it on a national basis would have a national public health impact. Scotland could be in the forefront of another public health intervention, not unlike the impact of the smoking ban, for instance. I think that it's that large. Would anyone else like to come in briefly on that, Rod? I think that you would just be adoring on the button there. I think that one reality that you would have to accept is that I mean, the Scottish Government is being posed this question is what is the right speed limit for residential roads, and it's in a position to say whether it's 20mph or 30mph. If it decides against 20mph, then it is, in fact, endorsing 30mph on every restricted road, which you have unless local authority thinks otherwise. You will endorse a national consensus that it's okay to drive at 28mph, 29mph on those housing estates, those high streets, those places where people want to walk and cycle, with all the consequential effects which there will be to endorse that higher speed of driving. It will certainly have a negative effect for our public health as far as active trouble is concerned and the livability and well-being of Scottish communities. I'm happy to bring in Adrian, and then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go to the next question. Adrian, so if you want to come in very briefly. Quite quickly, yes, so it does reiterate what Rod said. Scotland is leading in many ways on the climate change act and the bill that's before the Parliament at the moment. It has strong ambitions for physical activity and improving population health for increasing physical activity. 20mph now is necessary, though it may be insufficient on its own. There are other measures that need to go with it. It's a great opportunity to move forward to help address many of the problems that Scotland faces. It would be a missed opportunity, but my last point is that we know from the science that it's very clear that at higher speeds you're going to kill more people. We have an opportunity to try to reduce the number of people who were killed and have life-changing injuries, and that's a big, big opportunity for Scotland. Okay, which neatly brings us on to the next question from John Finnie. John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I had a question on road safety, and I know that you've all referred to that in your submissions, and thank you very much for that. I'm particularly drawn to Professor Adrian Davis's submission, where he talks in relation to the enhancement of road safety. In a quote here, firstly, what is road safety? Road safety can be defined as quote here, freedom from the liability of exposure to harm or injury on the highway. You go on to say that this is in contrast to what's commonly been the misunderstood to be road safety, and as researchers noted almost three decades ago, road safety usually means the unsafety of the road transport system. Forgive me again, just with another quote that happens to be Professor Davis, road safety is more about the avoidance of being injured. It must be also addressed the perception of risk of harm and freedom from harm in its manifestation at the individual, community and societal levels. Can the panel outline what they see as the road safety benefits, including from the proposals in this book, please? And to give everyone a chance, Adrian, I think that you sort of almost started to answer that in the last question, so maybe I'll come to you last. Would anyone else like to kick off on that, Rod? Do you want to outline some of the road safety benefits that you feel briefly, if I may, so everyone else can come here? It is a problem this, what do we mean by road safety? It means different things to different people. Community roads can become a lot safer if children don't walk on cycle to school. Does road safety include the fears of a parent in allowing their child to walk or cycle to school? Does road safety include the fears of a 75-year-old who normally walks for the shops once or twice a week but decides that the speed of traffic is such and getting across the roads now is such that I don't think that I can do that anymore? Both of those decisions will reduce the casualty statistics on the roads because of those people choosing not to walk or cycle or go to the shops. So road safety has to be extended beyond that. It has to make communities and individuals feel more able to walk and cycle on those streets and lowering the speed of traffic does that. On the wider aspects of road safety, as well as the strict casualty aspects of it, and widening it to emissions, which I'm sure Gavin will address as well, it has huge benefits. I think that you have to look at what the best countries are doing in terms of road safety and they take a safe systems approach, which says that accidents will happen, mistakes will be made, what are the factors that deliver bad outcomes, and one of those factors is speed. So if you can eliminate that as a factor, you will get better outcomes in terms of road safety. Scotland is trying to move in that direction. We're about to review our road safety framework. At the moment, in terms of progress, it's been really good, but that progress is plateauing and 20 mile an hour is one of the few big ticket items that we still have in the locker that we could deploy to bring those statistics down. I think that's what we need to do as a nation. Bruce, and then I'll come back to Adrian. We've all been involved in studies, or quoted studies, which have shown reductions in road casualties from 20 mile per limits in those various examples from Bristol and other cities across the UK. What those statistics are based on is police recorded casualties, and we know they under record casualties. There's a recent paper by Rachel Aldridge, which suggested that the number of casualties on the roads was actually five times higher than police recorded casualties. So that gets into probably those work where casualties, or maybe more minor casualties, might not have involved all involved speeds, but it gets to the point about safety and perception of safety on our streets. If we feel that our streets are safer, we are more likely to be out on those streets, we are more likely to cycle on those streets, we are more likely to allow our children to walk to school, to cycle to school. I think that, in some sense, some of the estimates of the casualty reductions are underestimate and get into this area of how do we become a more active nation as well. Adrian, I'm going to bring you in. Gavin, I'm not going to bring you in on this one, because I think that you'll be the first on the next one. I'm pretty sure that you will be, Adrian. So briefly again, to echo what Rod King had mentioned, so we've essentially the point, the question from Mr Finnie was really addressing road safety through fear. We just removed pedestrians and cyclists from the roads, which is what's happened increasingly over recent decades, then you can achieve your casualty reduction targets and traditional road safety practitioners ago. That's fine, but it's not if you want to achieve the public, important public health outcomes and hopefully address the climate target reductions that we need to have. There's other aspects relating to social inclusion. Stuart Hay mentioned about what we call community severance. People don't feel they're able to go out if you're in your 70s trying to get across the road when you can't get across the road because you're fearful for the environment out there that people are driving too fast and you're walking too slow. There are a whole welter of benefits that come from slower speeds, which absolutely do include the casualty reduction and savings to national health service and the misery and the suffering that come from that, but that goes well beyond the traditional road safety. It's about freedom from fear. John Finnie. Thank you, convener, and thank you, panel, for those answers. Some of you alluded to something that, in your replies there, that also features in all your responses and is about active travel and the potential for this 20s plenty for us, a quote from your good selves. Look at any city place that has successfully encouraged active travel and you will find low speed limits of 20mph or 30km on most streets. People would understand that, if people are confident to walk and cycle on the streets, there would be an increase. Is there any assessment being made of that, or are you able to quantify from experience elsewhere what any reduction would result in by a way of increased active travel, please? Probably not you then, Gavin. Do you want to lead on that? I'm happy to bring Rodd and then bring you in on the back of it, if that's all right. Rodd, do you want to start off then? I think one of the issues is that 20mph isn't a silver bullet for active travel. It isn't a silver bullet for active travel. No one actually expects a big change, but what it is, it's a foundation for active travel. It provides a foundation for all those other initiatives that you're going to do on active travel, whether it be cycling, training or whether it be making certain dangerous junctions better or maybe it's better off-road cycle paths, better walking facilities, wider pavements or whatever. It's a foundation for all of these things. That is what is happening when I said that those, if you have an approach to your community which says, we'll make active travel easier, then 20mph is one of the things which you do. Right. Because it's never in isolation, that makes it a little bit to quantify that difference in active travel, but Adrian will probably have more on that. I promise, Gavin. I'll let him in. I'm going to be good to my promise, Gavin. Just checking my notes. One study that looked at 20mph zones in London came out last year, said that 5 per cent of residents surveyed, said that they were walking more and 2 per cent, said that they were cycling more. Within those stats, it's important to say that if we expand 20mph limits to be, as I mentioned earlier, the norm, then we can expect those figures to rise as well. Creating behaviour changes about people seeing it, demonstrating it in their communities and then gradually over time changing their travel choices. Breeze, you wanted to come in. It was to give you a specific example. Prior to Edinburgh's 20mph olymp being brought in, there was a pilot in South Central Edinburgh that some people may be aware of, and there was before and after surveys of residents over 1,000 households. Some of the stats from that are the proportion of children walking to school increased marginally from 63 to 65 per cent. The proportion of older primary school children allowed to play unsupervised outside their home or on the pavement or on the street rose from 31 per cent to 66 per cent. People considering how safe their street was increased from 71 per cent before to 78 per cent afterwards. People considering traffic speeds in the local area to be safe improved the proportion of children cycling to school increased from 4 per cent before to 12 per cent afterwards. People who have overall support for the 20mph olymp being increased from 68 per cent before to 79 per cent after. That is a specific example for South Central Edinburgh. The next question is from Richard Lyle Richard. Richard Lyle Richard, thank you. No one can dispute that the speed limit will improve. We know that speed kills, so basically that's accepted. A point that I clarified to Mr King that we're talking about. We don't know what speed limit is on a particular road. Most new cars now actually have it on the dash that it comes up with. We're in a 30-zone, we're in a 40-zone, so I'll just put that on the table. A committee recently done a piece of work on air pollution in this Parliament. Air quality is important to people. Living streets, Mr Hay, you said that evidence in carbon reduction in air pollution is mixed and inconclusive. Mr Gavin Thomson from Friends of the Earth Scotland said that reducing the speed limit would improve the flow of traffic, reduce congestion and emissions. The RAC, which is what they call the motorist friend, says that the potential impact on urban congestion from reduced speeds and the eventual longer journey times may increase emissions. What impact would you expect the reduction and default speed limit on restricted roads to 20mph to have on vehicle emissions and local air pollution? Can you highlight any relevant research in that area that might be of interest to the committee? I'll let Gavin Goh follow by Stuart Hay as you are both organisation equated. Great, thanks very much. I'll get on to the research. As I mentioned earlier, the evidence base suggests that 20mph limits improve traffic flow. Importantly, from an air pollution point of view, you have less stop-start, less acceleration and deceleration, which means less particulate pollution. Those are tiny particles that should breathe in and cause a lot of damage. A lot of the work that we do on air pollution is about particulate matter. When you have less acceleration and deceleration, less stop-start of traffic, you get a lot less particulate pollution and improving the air quality from traffic. There are also studies, so I would point to the Transport and Environmental Analysis Group in 2013, which showed the reduction in knocks from 20mph drive cycles, and the evidence on pm10 is a bit more mixed. I would also point to a 2017 study that looked at 20mph speed limits in Wales, and that one draws out that the improving traffic flow leads to decreased particulate pollution—in other words, decreased air pollution. I would probably cite Edinburgh as a good example, so we've now got 20mph. I don't think that there's been any real problem with air pollution getting worse. I think that I believe that the still is gradually improving and that 20mph has not affected that. Looking in the future, one of the main sources of air pollution will be particulates from braking. At 20mph, you're not braking as hard, so we're going to start to bring down particulates. We're going to see that, and the type of vehicle is increasingly going to be hybrids that run at lower speeds, so there will be less emissions from them. In the future, the prospects of 20mph working in complement air quality will really work. I think that there's not that many studies that have been done on that, and we shouldn't assume that it will be worse, because it's about how people drive their vehicles. Mike, you want to come in with a supplementary, and then I'll come back to you, Richard. On this very point, thank you. Both Stuart and Gavin have talked about quite rightly, particulate emissions being better with 20mph, but most people think of exhausts, particularly. In the briefing that we've been given by SPICE, it says that detailed research conducted by the co-operation of the City of London concluded that exhaust emissions are broadly similar with either a 30mph limit or a 20mph limit. Any comment on that? Gavin, do you want to come in, and then I'll bring in you, Rod? I'm familiar with the study that's cited, and it points to the evidence being a bit mixed between 20mph and 30mph, and it depends on the car and petrol and diesel. One of the things that we would stress and draw out from those answers is that it doesn't necessarily relate to the driving styles, which change when the speed limit changes. That study is based on drive cycle exhaust emissions, which is more laboratory testing, but when the speed limit is reduced and the driving patterns tend to change and you have less accelerations and decelerations, less fuel consumption, which impacts on exhaust emissions as well. Rod, you want to... I think that the background is that most fuel consumption and emissions is actually through acceleration and replacing deceleration, if you like. At a constant 20mph, most vehicles will get about 90 miles per gallon, which tells you how much fuel they're using at that study at the state. The Imperial College London report showed that it was mixed, because if you look at petrol cars, there was a slight increase in NOx and PM10 emissions, but in diesel cars, there was a slight decrease in NOx and PM10 emissions. The point is that for diesel vehicles, the NOx and PM10 emissions are 10 times higher than petrol cars. Therefore, the 8 per cent savings that you get on the 10 times of the diesel emissions were very beneficial compared to the slight increase that you got on the petrol engine. We calculated that, based on those results going to 20mph, the equivalent reduction in emissions is given the mix of diesel and petrol vehicles on the road to taking half the petrol cars off the road completely, which gives you an idea that you will get a reduction in emissions. However, the very important thing that the report said categorically was that there would be no increase in emissions from moving to 20mph limits. Peter, you want to come in and then I'll come to you, Adrian. Just on fuel consumption, a modern car travelling at a steady 30mph will use less fuel than a modern car running at 20mph. That's just a given fact, I'm sure that's correct. I think that I've seen figures of something like 10 per cent fuel consumption 10 per cent higher at a steady 20 per cent compared to a steady 30 per cent, because you're in a lower gear, obviously. Does anyone want to come back? I did promise Adrian, so I'll be in trouble if I don't. I don't want to break the flow of it, because my point is about social norms, which I'd like to bring in. I've got a degree in automobile engineering, so I always enjoy those questions. Tass has been showed that, for most cars, it's all dependent upon the gearing whether there will be a difference between 30 or 20 miles in our steady speed fuel consumption. However, it is marginal to the difference. I'm a point about with a 90 miles per gallon. None of us get 90 miles per gallon from our cars, because most of the fuel that we use is not in just keep going at the same speed, it's actually when we're accelerating and decelerating. The slight variation between the steady state fuel consumption at 20mph authority is not personal at all to the emission effect that there will be, which will really come from taking out all of that acceleration from 20mph to 30mph, and bear in mind that you use twice as much energy to get 30mph to 30mph than you do to get to 20mph. Did you want to come in briefly there? I appreciate that, convener. Thank you very much. I should declare an interest as I'm co-covener of the cross-party group for cycling, walking and buses. I'd just like to ask any of the panel members who feel it's appropriate to answer about their view on the impact of what I understand could be more active travel on emissions, whether those are air pollution emissions or, indeed, greenhouse gas emissions. Adrian, I've stopped you so far, it's your turn. You have a point about social norms to make if we can fit it in, but very much to your point about emissions. Emissions is a really interesting area where there is a disconnect between public understanding and science, so studies, time and again across, certainly European studies, have shown that, often particularly in urban environments where the intensity of the pollution is greatest, the pollution is concentrated inside vehicles, which is a really interesting point, which I think you have to unpack because of the lack of understanding of that, people think they're protected in their new cars when they're not. The fall away of the dropping of the pollution is quite significant once you move away from the centre of the carriageway, which is where the peak of the pollution is. Pedestrians get lease pollution, cyclists get a bit more, but it's in vehicle, in urban areas, where most of the pollution is, and that's an interesting point about lack of knowledge of it. As I say, the fall away is quite significant to the point of trying to describe that to someone. If you're on the top deck of a bus, you're getting less pollution than someone sitting on the lower deck of the bus. That's the point about how fast it falls away, but it is a serious issue in terms of exposure. For the active travellers, they're still getting the pollution, but the science is very clear that the cardiovascular benefits of being physically active as well as mental health and wellbeing stuff is much more significant than the risk of the pollution to your health. That's been studied many times now in the period literature. Richard, I'm going to come back to you for a follow-up and then move on. Can the panel set out why you think, given uncertainty about emissions, impact of what the impact of a proposed 20ml on our speed limit, what benefits do those benefits outweigh concerns about air pollution? Do you honestly, seriously all think that a 20ml on our speed limit would improve traffic flow? Richard, you're going to have to apologise to Jamie Greene later for taking his question, but we'll go right down the line if we may. Rod King on that. Rod, do you want to start off on that? It will certainly reduce emissions, I think that I'll be fairly sure of saying that. There is evidence that when you reduce speeds and control speeds rather than being a free-for-all, you'll actually get more traffic through. I think that I've read that the ideal speed is actually 17mph in networks where you have a lot of junctions of incoming traffic and so on. Of course, it's well known in circles such as the M25. If you want to get more traffic on it, then you actually reduce the speed, because that allows you to get more through flow by reducing the speed. Where you do have congested conditions, reducing the speed does actually enable you to get more through flow. I think that we need to consider one of the biggest barriers to walking and cycling is the perception of safety. If you improve people's perceptions of safety, they'll walk and cycle more, they'll drive fewer cars on the road. The cars that remain will be more efficient, because there's fewer of them and there's less congestion, so you get a virtuous circle, but you don't get that virtuous circle unless you can change perception of safety. To do that, you need the 20mph to begin with. I think that we should try to keep in our minds that this is a road safety intervention, but it's also a behaviour change intervention and behaviour change. Human beings do not like changing their behaviour, so it will take time and it will take time to create a new social norm, but that is what I think will happen over time. We've seen it with drink drive, so drink drive was perfectly acceptable in the 70s. We've moved to a position that is now your social outcast if you drink and drive. We have to do that with things like speed as well, so it's no longer acceptable for people to be seen and known to have a bit to break speed limits. We can create a social norm, and that does ask one of the questions that was put in the consultation about changing how we achieve 20mph. It requires some enforcement and some campaign activities that I would label as social marketing. If we do that, as Stuart Hayes said, we get the mode shift that we want that releases the public health benefits. Bruce, briefly. I'll take this back to safety to start off with. NICE, the WHO, OECD, the Faculty of Public Health, all support 30km per hour, or equivalent to 20mph, slightly less. As a safe speed in urban roads, particularly where there could be conflict between cars and walkers and cyclists and other vulnerable road users, NICE also publishes guidance on air pollution. In that guidance, they strongly support 20mph limits for smooth driving and speed reduction. Just briefly, while the picture for exhaust emissions from changing 30mph to 20mph might be mixed or have a degree of nuance, when we look at air pollution as a whole, including tyre wear and brake wear, it's pretty clear that 20mph limits would improve air quality. Finally, on the question of traffic flow, I'm only going on the evidence base, which is pretty clear that 20mph or 30km per hour equivalent reduces idle times and gear changing and the accelerations and decelerations that we've discussed. I'm afraid we're going to have to move on to the next question, which is Maureen. Thank you, convener. Can I move on to the social benefits comments in written evidence about the reduction on restricted roads to 20mph and our increase in the livability of neighbourhoods, particularly for residents and local businesses? Can you maybe expand on what that means? Does that mean that children are going to be playing football across the road or what exactly does it mean? I'm all for residents and pedestrians reclaiming streets, but what exactly are the social benefits and what tangible differences are we going to see in our streets? I think that with 20mph it's part of a wider picture on how we change our streets. It's an essential ingredient in that, the feel of our streets changes, people are happier to spend more time in them, especially in town centres. For instance, there's not as much traffic noise, there's not as much perception of danger from that side of things. I think that we have some way to go before we'll see kids playing in the streets. I don't think that 20mph on its own will do that, but I think that it's a step towards that. I'm going to bring you in, Rod, and then I am going to have to go to the next question. I'm afraid. I think that it's important because what we're talking about is the public spaces between buildings, which we call streets, and we mustn't forget that they are public spaces. There is some very clear evidence from Appliard in America, Josh Hart in Bristol, around the community cohesiveness and communications that there are and how dependent they are on the traffic conditions, on the road that separates those people and defects their ability to make visits to neighbours, to actually walk to the shops and actually be in that community as a person. The point is that when you walk, you talk with people. That does have a very beneficial change in that cohesiveness and how people feel about the community. The Appliard research showed quite clearly that, where you had increased traffic, you had reduced communication between neighbours and that collective feeling about being a community. Get those speeds lower, do something that is symbolic about making communities better and that will help. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next question, which is from the Deputy Convener, Gail Ross-Gail. I have two areas that I would like to cover, but I have been told that I need to roll into one question to save time. Apologies, it might be a long question. It's about awareness raising and enforcement. We've had some evidence in to say about that awareness should be along the terms of the drink driving campaign, the social stigma and things like that. Obviously, there's the safety aspect and the environmental aspect as well. What form do you think the awareness campaign should take? For the enforcement side, obviously—well, not obviously, but maybe—you're going to get people that will say, I wasn't aware. We have the implementation period as well to allow local authorities to get the signs in place. How do you think that the police should handle those instances if they should arise during that period or, indeed, after the implementation period? I'm not sure how strictly the police are enforcing the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit around Edinburgh, but maybe you'd like to kick off on that. Rod? Perhaps I'll cover the enforcement. We could look at best practice around the UK and at worst practice as well. The worst practice is for the chief constable to say, we're not going to enforce the 20-mile-an-hour limit, because then you send out huge measures to non-compliers that either are not going to get caught, but this isn't a proper speed limit anyway. The level beyond that, which is worst practice, is to do some enforcement or, so that this is seen as a speed limit just like any other. We could be any road, anywhere, but we could be enforcing the limit whatever it is. We see best practice, which there is in places like Avon and Somerset Police, where the first of all they have speed awareness courses on 20-mile-an-hour, which means that when they actually do put people on a speed awareness course, they get an administrative feedback from the course attendee, which helps pay for the enforcement process. They also publish where their speed camera sites are going to be each week, and that comprises 20-mile-an-hour and 30-mile-an-hour sites and 40-mile-an-hour sites. Again, spreading that consensus, there are actually 20-mile-an-hour limits being enforced just like any other. It's not a case of having a police monitor on every corner, but it's about establishing that as, what I would say is, beyond the social consensus, it's an establishment consensus as well, that 20-mile-an-hour is a legal limit and if you get caught, you will face a restriction, whether that's a course or it's actually a fixed penalty notice. That's the experience that we have. Can I just clarify, Rod? Are you suggesting that speed awareness courses, because they're not in Scotland at the moment, are they? You're suggesting that that would be a good practice? I'm saying that. That's a method that is used in some places in England in order to provide a restriction on someone without necessarily giving them points on their licence if it's appropriate. The other option is that there is the ability for the police to delegate responsibilities for enforcement to local authorities or other agencies, and that's been explored in some areas. Until you said yes there, I thought you were going to give a politician's answer. Adrian? 20 miles an hour being a behaviour change intervention as well as a road safety intervention. One of the examples, and thinking about the drink drive example, I think that it's been running for a long, for decades now in terms of trying to relieve the scourge of drink driving. West Midlands Police Force is a really good example. I did cite it in my written evidence that, with a relatively small force, they are, by their tactics, able to make quite a big lot of noise. They deliberately go out to make a bit of a lot of noise in communities, so they'll often go around school areas and other population-specific settings, and they will go and deliberately book people for speeding and other infringements. They will, in the case of a school, tell the head teacher and ask them to put it out through their social media networks, and then they'll create a dialogue, create quite a bit of noise from people who say, you should be going out, they're catching real criminals, et cetera, and they'll come back and explain why, exactly why you are a criminal in the way of the action that you have been caught for. That creates a consensus that the police are out there, and it means that, within the level of capacity that the police have, they can create quite a lot of impression that you will be caught if you're going to speed. Now, we do need more police enforcement, but I think that there is a bigger discussion for probably longer than this session about a national awareness campaign and the constituent ingredients of that, which I've mentioned before, need to have a strong social marking element about what you gain from what we take away. If we're taking away your right to go to 30, but to be at 20, there's a lot of benefits that we've talked about that are there, and we do know that most of the population in consistent studies across the UK from British social attitude survey, et cetera, show we have a clear majority support for 20 miles an hour. John Mason, if I may, will move on to the next question, which is, John Mason. Thank you very much, convener. I'm interested in the financial memorandum and some of the costs of all this, and I realise that that may not always be people's speciality subject, but it does relate back, especially to some of the questions that Mike Rumbles was asking, because I think that there's a kind of interconnection there. The financial memorandum specifically mentions Angus, and I'd a quick look at Breachin, and so you've got, I think it's the A935, runs through that town, and as things stand, it would be at 30, and I counted on Google at least 40 side roads there that would all need a 20 zone and a 30 round-all in and out, so there's a considerable cost to that, and the council has made an estimate of that. It would be cheaper, presumably, just to have 20s all round the town, and every road in the town stays at 20. In many ways, that would be simpler for people to understand, and the child who's playing in one street doesn't know that the next street is a different speed limit. Would that be cheaper, do you think, to implement and get people to understand and all the rest of it? Why is it only restricted roads that we're looking at for 20? There's no reason why we shouldn't be looking at the trunk road network in terms of bringing some of the high streets that are part of the trunk road network down to 20 mile an hour, and to be honest, Transport Scotland have attempted to do that, and one of the challenges they've faced is the fact that the local authority then has to bring down all the side streets, so the problem is almost reversed at the moment. If they can work together, we can't do this cheaply, and that's the whole point. I think that it's not a change of policy for Transport Scotland, so I think that your point is a valid one. This overall should be a cheaper approach than taking out all these different orders, and we should end up with less signs, rather than more signs, if we plan this out on a network basis as a national programme. I should say that, as a national speed limit, there is a bit of an honest on the national government to bear some of the costs as a national initiative. I mean, to be devil's advocate, to my own point, would the transport industry be very opposed to 20 zones on major routes through small towns? I would say that those are relatively short sections of road, and it has been done before, so this isn't new. It's just been technically difficult to do it. There is actual support in communities to do this. The average speeds on some of those streets, where you have shopping streets, you've got loading, you've got pedestrian crossings and stuff, will not be particularly high most of the time, so the impacts on business are probably going to be pretty marginal. Mr King? I think that the beauty of this bill is that it probably does it at the optimum level, and the optimum level is to say, we'll address the restricted roads, and they leave the A-B roads to local authorities to decide, because that gives you that flexibility which you need. It's like national consistency combined with local flexibility. I think that's what's really good about the bill. I think that it's been the other way round, and the bill had said that we're going to change all roads, which are within urban environments or village environments, to 20 miles an hour, then you would have had separate questions being asked about whether that was appropriate. I think that this gets a fine balance between the two, and I commend it for that. Okay, that's fine. I think that I'll probably ask Mr Rusko when he comes as a witness to the committee on that point and follow that up. Just another one on cost, if I may. There's between £1 million and £2 million in the financial memorandum for removing repeater signs, because, as I understand it, the present regulations say that whatever the default speed limit is, you can't have repeater signs, but if it's not the default, so it could be 20, it could be 40 at the moment, then you have to have the repeater signs. I think that my community councils in my area are often asking for repeater signs. I've got a new road in my area called Clyde Gateway, which is a dual carriageway. A big sweeping road looks like, feels like it should be a 40 or 50, but it's actually a 30. People have asked for repeater signs, the council says that it can't put in repeater signs. A should we change that rule about repeater signs, and, well, again, B, that would save us quite a lot of money, because Edinburgh could leave them all up. I'm not sure, John, if you're suggesting that you become a middleman for Edinburgh to sell on that repeater sign, but if somebody would like to come back on that, who would like to come back on that? Rod, briefly. These are technical issues about the traffic signage regulations in general directive, which is different from the actual guidance on setting speed limits and so on. There have been numerous changes in that over the years as well. The situation is that repeater signs are currently required if you're not got the national speed limit. If the national speed limit changes, then you wouldn't need the 20-mile-an-hour repeater signs, but you would, actually, for those dual carriageway 30-mile-an-hour roads, which are actually no longer the national speed limit. However, I think that there are opportunities in there, because the traffic TSRGD has relaxed it, and now it's under the discretion of the local authority how many repeater signs it has. How many it has, or whether it has them or not, or both? It needs at least one in an area. It's very obscure, because it needs one in an area, but it doesn't necessarily say how many you need as long as drivers know what the speed limit is. I would say that in other countries, they don't have repeater signs. Again, it's a particular UK phenomena that we want to keep on reminding drivers, because they aren't smart enough to know, well, look, it's a 30-mile-an-hour limit here or a 20-mile-an-hour limit. This is going to complicate it, isn't it? At the moment, if you're in Glasgow, you assume you're a 30, but in future, under this plan, there will be some more confusion, because some roads will be 30 and some roads will be 20. There can be simplification, because if you actually look at changing the TSRGD, which you will have to, because in some places TSRGD refers to not having repeater signs on 30-mile-an-hour roads, and it conflates that with national speed limits roads, so there will be some changes in that required anyway. That would allow you to say that where you have 20 or 30-mile-an-hour roads, it doesn't matter if you have 20-mile-an-hour repeater signs, you can leave them in. That is something that could be worked out in the detail and be addressed by a statutory instrument, rather than necessarily in legislation. John, I'm going to bring in one or two other people and maybe come back to you if you finish. Colin, do you want to come in briefly? The current budget that is going through Parliament at the moment is a £147 million cash cut for local authorities. The Scottish Parliament's information centre says that it is a £230 million real-terms cut for local authorities. Nobody believes that the Government is going to hand local authorities an extra £20 million to pay for this, so is it fair to ask local authorities to pick up the bill for this? Is that their priority playing devil's advocate? What do you think should be cut? Do you think that this is the most effective road safety investment that local authorities could have? I'm quite a subjective commentator. Do you want to come in? I'm going to try and answer Mr Smith's question. In terms of the most effective intervention, we've already had a debate in the wider literature that, yes, it looks like it is one of the most effective interventions that we could choose to try to reduce casualties in terms of cost of the nation. I'll just remind you of a national level to think about the value of a statistical life is over £1.8 million, so if you kill someone on the road, that's a crude assessment, of course. It doesn't include the misery and loss and all the things that are not easily quantifiable. There are some big, big savings to have for the national health service, and there is a question that needs to be discussed at the national level about if there are savings that we can estimate from the studies that have already gone on to the national health service, is there money that can be crossed over to help the implementation of a 20-mile-an-hour programme from what was NHS budgets? I know that my NHS director college would not like to hear that, but it's a viable issue in terms of a question that should be asked. I'm going to duck the answer about the question about who should pay for this, but I would point out that it's clear that there will be upfront costs in terms of more signage being needed and changes to signage. Over the piece, if we see reductions in casualties that we might expect, we're going to see that year on year, year after year, and there's a long-term benefit to savings in terms of casualties and fatalities, but also some of the public health benefits in terms of having a slightly more active population. That is an intervention that is not the only thing that we need to improve physical activity and health in Scotland, but it will help alongside others. It will help where we're building pedestrianised areas, where we're building segregated cycle routes for people to think that it's safe to use them as well, so it will be more effective—it will help the effect of some of those other schemes. Maureen Watt-East, do you want to come in with a question? Yes, it says on the financial memorandum that the annual cost in the first two years to local authorities will be £9 million to £10 million. In its submission, Aberdeenshire Council and I represent part of Aberdeenshire. It says that it will cost them half a million, so half a million times 32 local authorities is £16 million. Is this figure not grossly underestimated and where did it come from? Do you want to go on that? I didn't prepare that figure back. I can say that this will affect different local authorities differently depending on what level of progress they've already made on 20mph. Some local authorities will see a saving if they have a programme already, such as Glasgow, where they're rolling this out. They can do that more cheaply and more efficiently. For local authorities that haven't done anything or have a very small network, it's going to cost them a lot more money in the short term to do this, but they would benefit because this is the cheapest and most efficient way of rolling out the limit. I would actually say that the national government needs to stump up and contribute as a national initiative that will deliver national benefits. If they want to deliver their own safety framework, there isn't a lot of things left in the locker. That is one of the cost-effective options that is there for them to tap into. In rural constituencies where there are lots of trunk roads, it's going to be a big problem. I think that you're indicating. Jamie, you wanted to come in briefly. Thank you, and it's just following on from Maureen Watt's line of questioning. I've had very specific conversations with many local authorities about this amongst other transport issues, and they are grossly concerned about the potential costs of this. In the financial memorandum, it does actually state that some of the total costs of this will be offset by fine income. I think that that's a very odd stance to take, because we don't know what the fine income will be, and it's also predicated on the fact that we're assuming that people are going to break the law. It's not an entirely positive view on the bill. How can we come up with proper conjectures to the cost of this to local authorities and other agencies, including the courts, the Government and the Crown Office, and the police, which we haven't taken into account, either? Surely we should be able to come up with a total figure on this to give us a scale of it. I tell you what, I think that there's maybe a question that the member will have to answer when he brings his bill forward, but I'm happy to bring in Rod very briefly if you want to come in, and then I'm afraid we're going to have to draw this to a close, because we're very short of time. I think that some of these are in the detail and will get resolved. It's only when local authorities start to look at it and actually start to exercise their options and say, well, will we keep that main road at 30 or will we make it 20 as well? I think that's for questions that are further down the line than perhaps where you are now. Certainly, when we look at it from UK implementation today, we're talking about £3 to £4 per head of population for implementing authority-wide 20 mile an hour limits, and that scene is very good value. You've got a great opportunity to load that to national government as well as local government and make efficiency savings by doing that in a national and co-ordinated way, so I think that that's a very positive opportunity to get the best value for money from what is recognised as the right thing to do. I think that that's probably a good place just to stop on the basis that members will get the opportunity to talk to local authorities and also the police as part of the evidence session, so we probably come to the end of this session. I'd like to thank all the panel members for coming, and I hope you all got a chance to put your points of view across. I'm now going to suspend the meeting for five minutes. I failed to include in my declaration my membership to the Institute of Advanced Modest. I'm now going to suspend the meeting for five minutes. I would ask members to be back here at 11.47, please. I'm going to move back into a formal session and to move to a gender item five, which is on the transport bill and is headed recent developments. The committee will have had an amendment to the agenda, which was put out yesterday afternoon to allow this matter to be discussed. I wanted to bring it to the committee's attention that I had a meeting with the Minister for Parliamentary Business last Thursday at his request, and the minister at that meeting proposed that stage two of the transport bill be delayed. Those of you that will remember that it was originally penciled in for late March or April. At this stage, we do not know what that delay is going to be. That delay was partly on resource capacity within the Scottish Government, and partly on the announcement that very afternoon that the Scottish Government will bring forward an amendment to the bill stage two to introduce a working place parking levy. At this stage, it is probably appropriate to bring in John Finnie, who would like to say something. Just to confirm that I did contact yourself and the clerk to advise that it is, in fact, myself that will bring forward the workplace parking levy. The Scottish Government has indicated that it will support that. It really is a courtesy to say that in advance, but also to suggest—in particular, this is, I think, a pattern given the adjust time frame, which I assume has nothing to do with this—that this might afford the committee the opportunity to take some evidence in this. Certainly, I would be very keen to make available the wording of the amendment to facilitate that and perhaps some discussion. I think that that might be helpful. John Finnie, thank you for that. I have a couple of questions, because this is, I think, would be classed as an evolving situation, and there are different bits of information coming from different levels. From the committee's point of view, and I think that the discussion that we should have is about the process of this rather than the merits of this system, so to work out how we are going to manage it as a committee to take it forward. Will you be taking some or consulting on the proposal that you are bringing forward at stage 2? Will you consult before you bring that proposal forward? It is not my intention to formally consult. There has been engagement with local authorities and others, but not in a formal capacity. I thought that that would afford the committee the opportunity to do that level of scrutiny. On that basis, as far as the committee is concerned, if we are going to consult on it, which will be a matter for the committee to decide whether that is appropriate, I believe that the committee would welcome sight of any proposed amendment at the first possible opportunity, so that any consultation, if we were to carry it out, was done with that in mind. I am happy to make that available, perhaps, with some background papers. I actually have some questions now from other members of the committee who have indicated that they would like to say something. There are a few of them lining up. Mike Rumbles was first. Thank you, John. You have answered some of the questions that I was going to ask. It was my understanding that it was going to be a green member such as yourself to bring forward the amendment and that the Scottish Government was not bringing in amendment themselves. I understood that that was the case, and it is good to have it confirmed now formally. I know that John is saying that he will bring it as soon as he can, but it would be helpful to know when he thinks that a date might be available when we could get sight of his proposed amendment. It is essential that we consult on it, that we hear people's views on it, as we would do in the normal process of a stage 1, and then take evidence on it. That is the process that we need to be involved in. John, do you want to say anything to that? Members will be aware that this became part of the negotiations regarding the draft budget. I have to say that, completely independent of that, I would have been bringing forward this anyway. I clearly would have done so knowing some people's views, but not necessarily formally initiating any consultation, as anyone would do. If you like, the amendment, which ordinarily would have been brought here as any member can bring an amendment to stage 2, has developed a status that maybe it would not ordinarily have had had I just brought it. Colin, you want to say something? I think that it is fair to say that this is a very material change or proposed change to the transport bill, and it would be very unfair having gone through quite a detailed consultation process for stage 1 and allowed so many organisations to comment on the bill if we did not do exactly the same process for something as major a change as this. It is important to do that. What is unclear, unfortunately, is that we do not know what the timescale is yet for the stage 2 process based on your comments, convener, that the Government does not know what that timescale actually is, so are we going to have sufficient time in order to carry out that process? I think that it is only fair that we do carry out that process. Richard, I am just going to sort of slow them up and try and answer the questions as we get to the end, trying to slow them down. Richard? Yeah, thank you. From our previous committee on one of the people who gave it, the evidence during the transport bill, everyone knows my view on the workplace park in Levy. Well, I at that time said that I was against it. It is interesting that, basically, based on the greens are bringing this forward. I would like one question answered, if possible, Mr Funny, since you are going to bring this. The workplace parking in Levy, will it be levied on companies or will it be levied on employees? Richard, I am sorry. I did say at the beginning, and I would like to try and stick to it without upsetting every member of the committee, that I do not want to get into the policy discussion. I would like to discuss how the committee would like to handle this and the consultation and the evidence that we are taking. If I could ask you, with a smile on my face, to part that question and ask it later, I would appreciate it. John, you had a question, and then Maureen. I largely agree with Colin's point. On the whole, we have a good process here for legislation, but one of the weaknesses can be that a major amendment appears either at stage 2 or stage 3 and is not consulted on as thoroughly as the issues that we have looked at at stage 1. I agree with Colin that it deserves proper consultation. What I am a bit unsure about, and I suppose that I am relaxed about, is whether we delay completing the stage 1 report in order to now take evidence and include that in the stage 1 report, or whether we let the stage 1 report go ahead and do the consultation in between effectively stage 1 and stage 2. As I said, I do not have strong views on either side, but I think that we should do proper consultation. I am following on from what John said. I think that we have two options here. This is going to be a substantial part 7 to the bill. Normally, at this stage in a bill, because we have taken evidence and everything, you would probably complete the report and have the stage 1 debate and then consult prior to stage 2. However, given the fact that we have heard from the Government because of Brexit, I think that the intention to delay it came before the budget staff. We have now got a window where we can decide whether we want to consult before we complete the report. I am not sure that I have come to a decision one way or another, probably consulted stage 2, but I think that it is something that the committee should maybe decide and get the views of every single member. That is a very good point. My own view is that we should complete the current stage 1 report, but it is very clear that we are going to consult further. All the evidence that we have been given for the stage 1 report is based on the bill as it stands, and all the organisations may have very different views, but they have not had the opportunity to do that, so it would be unfair to quote evidence given by an organisation that has not had an opportunity to consider the proposal for a workplace park in Levy. Effectively, you are almost having two stage 1 reports, if you like. You might not call it that, but I think that it is important to do that. However, I think that a stage 1 report is based on the evidence that we have in the bill before us, and I think that it is important to do a similar process, in my view, as a thirder, with such a material change that is being proposed. I think that it is going to affect other parts of the bill, so it is completely standalone. Just as a matter of process, I very much welcome the fact that we have a window to look at this before we actually consider stage 2 amendments point 1. I suspect that the parliamentary process would allow us to open up in the stage 1 bill. However, that would then potentially disadvantage people who have participated in the stage 1. The report that we have, we should complete and we should contemplate publishing it. We should then make a separate report on this narrow point and consult on that. Narrow in the sense that it is not about going back to all the witnesses who have already participated in asking their view on this. John, do you want to say something and then I will try and sum up where I think we are going on this? Jamie? Do you want to respond? Just to make a few points, I think that, first of all, from the outset, I will say that I am not going to pass any comment as to the merits of the amendment or the policy around it. I think that that is a debate, not for this arena, it is for another day and I am happy to park that side. My comments are more on the process by which we should follow. Again, those are just my views. If this is a substantive addition to the bill—by addition, I mean a new section, for example, or a new concept that has not previously been taken evidence on—my position is that I do not think that the committee should be entertaining the prospect of including it in the transport bill. I would argue whether the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is the place for this policy and this piece of legislation. One could argue that the Government should bring this forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation that would be assigned to the appropriate committee to which the subject matter is relevant, if however the committee is of agreement—sorry—when the clocks whisper in my ear. I am absolutely listening to you and I am used in my previous occupation to have one radio coming in one ear and one coming in the other ear. I can do that. It is when people are shouting over each other that I find it difficult. So, Jamie Crack-on, I am listening to exactly what you are saying. I am enthused by your hearing abilities, convener. My point being is that if the committee agrees that it is willing to accept the additional subject matter into the bill, given that we are at the end of the stage 1 process, my understanding is that the stage 1 report has to be debated in the chamber by the Parliament and then voted on. In other words, the bill can then proceed. I do not see how the Parliament can proceed on the bill as it is drafted in the knowledge that a substantive piece will be added to it at stage 2 and that we have not taken evidence on in a formal environment. It is imperative that stakeholders are given the opportunity to go through the due process that every other bit of the bill has been given by the committee if it is to proceed. I recommend that I would not support adding to the bill as a matter of principle, but if it does, I would request that we extend the stage 1 process to allow this to be added to the report. John, are you happy to listen to what people are saying and then come back? Peter, and then Mike. Yes, thanks, convener. I have a lot of sympathy with what Jamie has just said. I do wonder if that new piece of legislation does actually fit within the transport bell. I have serious doubts as to whether it does fit. That would be the first decision that we need to take. If it does fit and it does become part of that bell, then it is absolutely imperative that we take plenty of evidence. We have done it for all the other parts of the bell. We need to have time to take substantial amounts of evidence because this is a huge additional piece of information that we need to take on board. How would you actually do it? I do not know, but I do wonder if it is part of that bell at all. I think that what we are dealing with is something completely different from our normal process. If it was a normal process, we would deal with it in a normal way and we would deal with the stage 2. Often people would say at that stage that I have said it myself that the people who have brought forward a stage 2 member that we have not taken the evidence on, we would reject it on that ground alone. However, that is not a normal process. For the first time, we have a situation where there is a political agreement—I am not making the merits or demerits of it, but there is a fact—a political agreement between the Scottish Government and another party in the Parliament, the Greens. As far as I am aware, the finance minister said in the chamber that the SNP members would support, even though we do not know what it is yet, would support the amendment that the Greens bring forward. We have a situation where it is not a normal amendment. In other words, the amendment will come forward and the majority of members of this committee are already committed by the finance minister in the chamber to say that they will vote for it, even though we do not know what it is, we have not taken any evidence and we do not know what the conclusion is. It is not a normal process. I would say that normally we should complete our stage 1 report and have the stage 1 debate and then move on to stage 2. This is not a normal process. We as a committee could appear rather in a strange situation. We complete a report on stage 1 and we then have programmed a debate on the stage 1 of the process. Everybody knows a major issue that we cannot debate in the chamber on this bill. That is why I say that this is an unusual, if not unique situation that I have come across in my experience since 1999. We need to treat it in a special way. As the Minister of Parliament for Business has made clear, he is quite happy that Parliament delays our consideration of stage 1 and therefore the stage 1 debate. If John has said that he is happy to bring his amendment as soon as he has it written down to us for our consideration, we should then go through the process of delaying the stage 1 report while we can consult it, when we can take evidence and then produce our report, then we can have a proper debate in the Parliament on the bill. I am not bothered either way. Are you saying that it should be included in this report or a separate report? I think that we would look odd if we produced our stage 1 report on the transport bill and not being able to refer to it in the report, knowing that there is a major element of the bill. That is all right. I am proposing that we postpone it so that we do it properly. I will remind people—I will go back and check the official record—that during the roadworks part of the bill, a chap came in and raised the workplace parking levy. That is when I made my comment at that time. I do not see the problem of people saying that this should not be in the bill. I look forward to the proposal being brought forward by the Greens and Mr Finney in regards to that. I expect that I will vote for it. I am not presupposing, but I am reminded that it was raised during the roadworks part of the bill by one of the members, because you asked them, have you anything else to say in one of the people who came out with the workplace parking levy? In response to Mike Rumble's point where he made the differentiation about what is the usual due process for how committees pass legislation and commented that this is an unusual process or that this is not a standard process, I think that we as a committee need to be prepared to say to the Government that we will not accept the unusual process. We will continue with the due process because that is how we as committees legislate. I do not think that because a policy decision has been made by the Government, for the Government of the day to then request a member of a different party in a committee to introduce that policy to an existing piece of legislation, please let me finish. By default, they are veering from the due process that we should follow, so I am not arguing against or for the proposition. That is again an argument that we have on a different day and there will be many views and we will have ample opportunity to express those views, but my premise is about ensuring that this committee does what it is supposed to do in the way that it is supposed to do it, so I do not think that we should veer from normal process in that respect. That is why I am saying that we should not accept that this is an addition to the bill. John Finnie, I am going to try and summarise where we are and try to see a route forward through this, John Finnie. I thank colleagues for their comments. The reason that I contacted yourself and the clerk was for these specific reasons. Can I say a few things about that? I know that we are not going to discuss the individual merit. I have had an amendment written about this for considerable time. It features in discussions with another party. I am bringing forward an amendment. I think that you can safely assume that I will be bringing forward other amendments, but I am not flagging them up. I am flagging that up as a courtesy given the profile that the issue is received. I am not wanting anything to circumvent any procedures. I think that that is absolutely important. The other proposals I will bring forward at stage 2 will stand and fall on their merits, as this one will, and it may be that any amendment that is brought at stage 2 that in any way does not fit with some of the work that we have done. We cannot always scrutinise to the level of detail that we want. People could say that, as they could on any piece of legislation, we have not taken enough evidence on that. I absolutely expect the committee to scrutinise this. I have tried to be helpful by flagging this up in advance, and I am grateful that there has been an opportunity to discuss it on the agenda. I will absolutely assist you and the clerks in helping the committee to look at this. I would like to say that, without wanting to cut anyone off, everyone has had a chance to say something on this. First, the bill that we are looking at is a Government bill. Anyone at any stage during a Government bill can bring forward amendments at stage 2. What is important when we are considering this is to also bear in mind the importance of standing orders and the procedures of this Parliament, which I must ensure that, as a committee, we comply with. The other thing that I caution people about is that it is clear from round the committee table that everyone wants to take evidence and hear evidence from people on this amendment. That is the ability that we have. I have logged that everyone wants to consider it. John could, in theory, have lodged this amendment at stage 2 without telling us if it had not come out. We have to bear that in mind. I personally think that, as convener of a committee and a committee member, to bring something in at stage 2 of a debate having not looked at it when you have looked at the bill at stage 1 is wrong from the committee, but that is my personal opinion. If I was bringing an amendment in at stage 2, I would like to see it at least had airway during stage 1. My proposal to the committee is that, first of all, we continue to work on the stage 1 report, which is based on the bill that is in front of us. We will not be in a position to publish that to laugh to recess anyway, so there is some time. I then would like to clarify what the procedures are for this Parliament in relation to this. I then would like to speak to the Government Minister Graham Day, as far as business is concerned, to find out more about deadlines and timings. I then would like to take the opportunity to speak to John Finnie about the amendment and try to get a wording for it. I then would like to come back to you as a committee with what the proposals that would be appropriate, based on those discussions today, to hear evidence on the amendment that we have not yet seen. At that stage, we can decide how we take to the stage 1 report forward, whether to publish it at that stage or whether to hold off. My feeling is that doing so now would be wrong, but I absolutely believe that it would be wrong in any shape or form to prejudge this, and we need to take evidence on it and hear clearly and then make up our mind as a committee on the evidence that we hear on whether it is a good proposal or not, in the same way that we do on all amendments and Government bills. That would be the way that I would propose to deal with it. Does anyone think that I have fundamentally missed anything? I am wrong, so I am happy to hear your views, Mike. Just the word consultation that you never mentioned. I think that when we do this, we need a very short consultation before we invite people to give evidence. Let me see the procedure and let me find out exactly what is being done. I understand that there are a lot of people out there that may have a comment on it. We need to make sure that, when the Government works out the timescale for this bill, we are given time to do our job properly as a committee. You have always made it clear to me, as your convener, that we are not going to be driven by the Government. We are to be driven by the way we look at the legislation and do it properly and not be constrained by Government timescales. I am mindful of that at all times. I do not disagree with anything that you said. I did not want to clarify for the record, however, that it is still unclear whether the additional subject matter or the additional topic should or will be included in the stage 1 report or will be dealt with as a stage 2 amendment. If it is dealt with as a stage 2 amendment, knowing that in advance of completing and publishing the stage 1 report, we are fundamentally missing the point. If we know that it is coming and we know that the subject matter is well rehearsed publicly, it should form part of the stage 1 report to give it the due process that it deserves. For that reason, I would not consent to the overall approach that you mentioned. Well, let's come back after recess when I have more information to consider it, but all we can do as a committee when it comes to the stage 1 report is to consider what is in the bill, as far as we can go. Now, we can caveat our stage 1 report, but I would look to the class for advice for that, and I don't want to make a decision on that until we've discussed it as a committee how we want to handle it might. We can say in our report that we are aware of what was coming down the track because it isn't the public domain by the finance minister in Parliament, and we can comment in our report on that. Indeed we can, but until we have more information in fairness, until we know more about what's happening and the timescales, I think it would be wrong to make a decision on any particular item. I therefore would ask if you would support me in what I'm proposing to do on your behalf, and report back to you post the recess. Thank you very much. We're now going to move into private session.