 The next item of business is stage 3, proceedings on the seatbelts in school transport Scotland bill in dealing with the amendments that members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2. That is SP bill 7A, the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments to which we now turn. I turn to group 1, commencement of section 1 duty in a call amendment 1 in the name of Gillian Martin, group with amendment 2. Gillian Martin is pleased to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group. The legislative measures in the bill have been arrived at using a partnership approach. The Scottish Government and I have consulted and listened. I am sure that, to all of us in the chamber, the term school transport appears like a straightforward phrase, which does exactly what it says on the tin. However, as I am sure that the members of the rural economy and connectivity committee can attest to, that is a deceptively nuanced area with various overlapping factors and delivery bodies. I will let the Minister for Transport and the Islands outline in more detail the significant engagement that the Scottish Government undertook during the devolution of powers, which allowed the introduction of the bill. It is fair to say that collaboration has been key to ensuring that the legislative proposals are practical and fit for purpose. What we hear loud and clear is that a phased approach to introduction was necessary. It became apparent that it would take longer for councils to adapt and absorb the changes in relation to secondary school transport. In general, more double-decker buses are used in this area—exactly the type of vehicle without seatbelts that this legislation is aimed at targeting. That is why Scottish ministers announced implementation dates of 2018 for primary school transport and 2021 for secondary schools. Local authorities have been working towards those timescales, and councils have signed contracts based on them in good faith. At stage 2, we were aware that accelerating implementation dates for secondary provision could leave the contracts having to be broken or renegotiated. Inevitably, that will lead to significant practical and financial, as well as potentially legal consequences. We have now canvassed local government, and it is clear that five councils find themselves in such a situation. Falkirk Council, Glasgow City Council, West Lothian Council, Stirling Council and Clackmannanshire Council have all signed contracts beyond 2018. Given the lack of precedent with having to renegotiate or break and retender such contracts, it is not straightforward to forecast cost implications. However, we are aware that that will have stark and troublesome ramifications for those concerned. Over the bill's parliamentary passage, we have listened to the views of MSPs that cost forecasts regarding other elements were too high. As such, the Scottish Government helped to prepare the supplementary financial memorandum, which helps to address those concerns and places a formal review period to help to mitigate costs. Therefore, to accelerate commencement dates and to force uncertain and problematic consequences does not seem necessary or sensible to me, especially in times of challenging resources for local government. Although I absolutely understand the motivation for implementing the safety measures for young people as quickly as possible, it is incumbent on us to be mindful of the wider backdrop. That is why I am moving amendment 2 today, to allow for a long-stop date for commencement in 2021 for school authorities that have entered into such contracts. That amendment is to specifically address the issues that I have outlined, rather than being intended to offer any sort of catch-all exemption for such school authorities. As such, it has been deliberately drafted, as narrowly as possible, to allow regulations on commencement to make only a limited exception to the general 2018 commencement agreed to at stage 2. Members might remember that we listened to the views of Parliament on the importance of the legal requirements that are covering vehicles used for school trips, and my amendment on that gained approval at stage 2. As such, under my amendments today, vehicles used for school excursions would still be subject to the 2018 commencement date. The exemption here only applies to home to school transport. That amendment would not allow school authorities to enter into further contracts beyond the date on which the bill receives royal assent, which does not meet the new legal requirement in section 1 of the bill to have seatbelts fitted. There is no possible loophole for school authorities here, and the exemption only relates to pre-existing contracts at royal assent. Furthermore, the amendment only relates to transport for secondary school provision, meaning that provision for primary school transport will not be exempt, and therefore will be subject to the accelerated 2018 commencement date. Consequentially, amendment 1 reinstates the term secondary education in the list of definitions within the bill, taken from the Education Scotland Act 1980. To sum up, members might remember the rural economy and connectivity committee's own stage 1 report that endorsed the commencement dates, which were originally committed to for the bill as, I quote, reasonable and practicable. Now that we know the blatant implications of this, for a number of local authorities, there seems even more compelling case for that approach and for phased commencement of the bill. However, with that phasing, it has been carefully limited, as I have described, and with an ultimate deadline of 2021 in order to respect the decision that the Parliament took at stage 2. Thank you. You just need to move amendment 1. We're not dealing with amendment 2 yet. I've got four members wanting to come in. I'll call you Mike Rumbles, followed by John Finnie, followed by Peter Chapman, followed by Edward Mountain. Mike Rumbles, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Throughout the first two stages of this bill, when both officials and the minister appeared to the committee, I and other members of the committee repeatedly asked how many local authorities already had contracts in place to ensure that our school children travelled to and from school in buses with seatbelts. Throughout the course of stages 1 and 2, the necessary detail information was not forthcoming until now. Now we find that five local authorities have contracts with transport providers that have not insisted that seatbelts are fitted. Those contracts run, we are told, until 31 August 2021. This lack of detailed information from the Scottish Government led some of us on the committee to believe that this bill might actually not be necessary at all. I certainly couldn't understand why the Scottish Government couldn't provide us with this information before now. As it turns out, this bill is indeed very necessary, as are the two amendments that Gillian Martin has tabled, because five councils out of the 32 have been far too slow to act. The last thing that we want to see is that those five councils are being held liable for what would be illegal contracts if those two amendments are not passed. For this reason, therefore, I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats support Gillian Martin's amendments, but it is a poor show that this information was not made known to members considering the bill in committee at stage 2. John Finnie is followed by Peter Chapman. We do not live in a perfect world. If we live in a perfect world, we would not need the legislation. The legislation is very pragmatic, as are the particular amendments 1 and 2. As my colleague Mike Rumble said, they are very necessary. I think that, as a transition, there is nothing to stop and, hopefully, operators will fit seatbelts. However, this is pragmatic, and I know that it is significantly the exclusion of primary pupils, so we will certainly support it at decision time. I am glad that, at stage 2, my amendment to bring forward the date for requirement for seatbelts in secondary school buses was agreed to. However, Gillian Martin's amendment falls short of my intentions at stage 2, and I think that it is right and proper that all school transport, irrespective of contracts, has seatbelts fitted by the end of 2018. We accept that there may be contracts that have been in place before in running to August 2021 and that they may have to be adjusted, but we believe that there need not be many and a small price to pay for the sake of school children's safety and parents' peace of mind. There is £8.9 million set aside in this bill's financial memorandum, and we believe that this is an ample amount for the additional cost implications of changes to existing contracts with bus companies. We believe for those reasons that this amendment impedes the progress of ensuring seatbelts are compulsorily on secondary school transport by the end of 2018, so we will be voting against this amendment for those reasons. I also find myself in the same place as Peter Chapman, unable to support Gillian Martin's amendment 2. During the committee's scrutiny, we heard that the financial cost of the bill was estimated and would be paid to local authorities without being ring-fenced or accounted for individually. It appears that, from the evidence that we have recently received, that only five of the 32 councils have not got seatbelts fitted on secondary transport, that means that 27 councils who have actually gone the whole hog and had seatbelts fitted will be penalised or not seen to have done as well as they have done because five councils have not performed. It appeared to me when questioning the member what the actual cost for ensuring seatbelts on school transport for secondary schools will be. As we have heard from Mr Chapman, it will be £8.9 million that has been set aside. I would give way to the member if she could explain exactly what the cost for is in each of those five authorities, so I can understand that. Yes, it is up to the member to either give way or wind up, but I would give way if she wishes. I would be happy to give way to you. You are asking about the cost, so I will not be able to answer that, but what I have to clarify with you is that you are saying that only five councils do not have contracts with seatbelts. That is not the case. We are talking about five councils who would have to break their contracts, their current contracts, before 2021. There are actually only at the moment 24 councils that have contracts in place that have stipulated to have seatbelts. I think that there has been a little bit confusion here. We are talking about five councils who would have to break a contract in order to fulfil Mr Chapman's amendment at stage 2. I do thank the member for that answer, but this is the problem that we have met right the way through the scrutiny. No exact cost can be given. I am unable to give me a cost today. If I pushed you, how many of those councils, of those five councils, have entered into contracts since this bill was first muted? As a parent, I cannot agree to the delay in the provision of seatbelts on secondary school transport a moment longer than we have to. I do not believe that the people of Scotland will go away this afternoon and understand that seatbelts on school transport for secondary schools will be delayed a moment longer than it needs to. I have to say that God forbid that we have an accident involving secondary pupils in 2019, and the bus did not have seatbelts. I am sorry, you may sigh, but I actually feel this personally and I feel that people of Scotland will feel the same things that I am feeling on this. So please do not mock me for an honest opinion. Please do not mock me. Therefore, I cannot support Gillian Martin's amendment because I could not live with myself if any accidents happened because seatbelts were not fitted. I think that we all agree that this bill is a good thing and that seatbelts should be fitted on school buses as soon as possible. However, we are concerned that if the amendment were not passed, it would mean financial penalties to councils. I wonder if the Scottish Government would sit down with the five councils concerned and their contractors to see if they can have seatbelts fitted earlier than the contract currently allows if there was goodwill on both sides. Therefore, unless we can guarantee that financial assistance would be made available to the councils that are involved, we would be... Jamie Greene. Is it our understanding that the current financial memorandum, the numbers that have been given to us in the Rural Economy and Welfare Committee include or exclude the potential costs of the breaking of those contracts? That is entirely unclear to us, I think. Rhoda Grant. The evidence that we received in committee that the money in the financial memorandum was to be distributed to councils under the normal formula, which meant that those who already had been proactive and fitted seatbelts to school transport were not going to be unduly penalised compared to councils who had decided not to do that at an early date. I do not think that I could suggest that councils who had not done that would get financial assistance that other councils who had already made that decision would do, and neither could we impose further cuts on councils who are already forced to cut services because of austerity. Therefore, reluctantly, we agree with the amendment, because I think that it is a pragmatic way forward while pushing for earlier resolution to that. I think that, of course, the chamber is already aware that there is some history to the measures that we are debating today, as Ms Martin alluded to. They came about following the devolution of competence on the issue via section 30. Order took forward aspirations first tabled before the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. In that vein, it is a very compelling example of how a kernel of an idea has progressed through a democratic system towards legislative change. The Scottish Government made good use of the time taken to progress the legal and administrative procedures for devolution of competence. We used that time to engage with partners and undertake appropriate groundwork to help to prepare and shape measures that would be workable upon implementation. As Ms Martin has already outlined, when introducing the amendments, there is no uniform model for the organisation of dedicated school transport. Indeed, there is not a bespoke model of vehicles such as, for example, the iconic yellow school bus in the United States. Yet, to a large extent, it is this flexibility that makes the system work. Scotland's 32 local authorities are a diverse patchwork, so by allowing school authorities, particularly councils, to tailor their provision, they are best able to meet the needs on the ground in their particular area. Of course. Mike Rumbles. I think that the minister will take the intervention. It is a contentious point, because throughout stages 1 and 2, I and other members of the committee asked repeatedly whether we could have the information and how many councils had contracts in place already, and we were not given that information. For that information to come forward now, at this late stage, when we are finishing stage 3 on this whole process, is not a satisfactory situation, and I wonder if you would reflect on that. Yes, of course I will reflect on that. I get the point that he is making. We have a good constructive relationship with our partners and local authority, with COSLA, but we cannot force that information if it is not forthcoming. I reflect on his point that it would have been better to have had that information at stage 2. It is a very valid point to have made, but we are in the place that we are at. We now have the information that Ms Martin has provided about those five councils. The variety of provision on the ground has meant that collaboration has been key to ensuring that legislative proposals are practical and fit for purpose. That is why, from a very early stage, the Scottish Government undertook such close engagement with groups such as local government, the bus industry, parenting and education bodies. The seatbelt on dedicated school transport working group was established in 2014 and enabled such discussions. It was through that dialogue that it became clear that a phased introduction period would be a sensible and prudent approach. When my predecessor Keith Brown announced the plans for future legislation in 2014, ministers were clear that implementation dates of 2018 would be in place for primary school transport in 2021 and for secondary school transport. We have heard from Ms Martin that the glaring consequences of accelerating those dates could be. Looking back at the parliamentary passage of those measures, one of the issues that we have spent most time examining and revisiting in committee sessions in this chamber is the costs. To add in a measure that could potentially drive up the financial implications seems at odds with the broad thrust, of course. Jamie Greene I thank the minister for taking intervention. The minister talks about the glaring consequences of bringing forward the introduction of the legislation, but no one in the chamber has heard the specific costs associated with doing that. You have identified a risk, a risk that has been identified, but no cost has been associated with that risk. What is the cost? The costs are, of course, in the financial memorandum, but if he is asking specifically about the cost of breaking contracts, of course, if those contracts have not been broken, it is difficult to quantify a cost. Clearly, the point that Ms Martin rightly is making is that there would be a cost—I do not know anybody who has ever broken a contract and there has not been a cost attached to him. His colleagues on his left and his right, of course, as businessmen, in their own right, if they had broken a contract in their businesses, there would be a financial implication to that. You are absolutely right to ask the question what that might be, but let us not break necessarily those contracts to put those councils, as Rhoda Grant rightly said, under financial increase to burden. Let me make some progressive, if I may. Of course, I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by all, including Mr Chapman and Mr Mountain, that all of us in the chamber would like to see those proposals implemented as quickly as is practicable. Indeed, since the introduction of the bill, I have heard many people questioning why that was not law. Already, as John Finnie said in his remarks, yet we cannot ignore the practical implications on the ground. I will take forward Rhoda Grant's suggestion about whether the Government can be involved in facilitating discussions on goodwill. I would have to be wary of that in the sense that, obviously, the Government cannot renegotiate contracts, and that is not what you are asking. However, certainly, if we can facilitate discussions in that regard, then I do not see why the Government cannot look to do that. As we have heard, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee endorsed the plans for phased commencement dates in stage 1 reports. Since then, we have learned that there are potentially very stark consequences for the five councils involved. Taking together with the history of consultation with local government and industry, I think that there is a very compelling case here for a limited and narrow exception. That is an important point, and it is very limited and very narrow exception to the full accelerated commencement of the bill, as Gillian Martin has described. That is why the Scottish Government strongly supports those amendments. I call Gillian Martin to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 1, please. I move amendment 1. No, you just wind up and then at the end of that, you decide, you tell the chamber whether you are pressing or withdrawing. I was trying to be helpful. Obviously confused. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will know this is my first time doing this, so I would like to press amendment 1. I do not need to wind up. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division, and as this is the first division, it is the stage 1. I suspend for five minutes. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote amendment 1, in the name of Gillian Martin, is yes, 98, no, 0, abstentions, 0, that amendment is therefore agreed to. I move on to group 2, promoting and assessing the wearing of seatbelts. Yes, I call group 2 promoting and assessing the wearing of seatbelts. I call amendment 3, in the name of Neil Bibby, group with amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Mr Bibby, please, you know what you are doing at last, to move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group. When Rhoda Grant brought forward similar amendments at stage 2, her intention was to make clear who needs to promote the wearing of seatbelts by pupils on school transport, given what was thought was some uncertainty over where that part of a school's legal duty of care towards pupils should follow. I want to hear what Mr Bibby has to say, even if some of you do not. That is very rude to you, Mr Bibby. Proceed. Rhoda Grant was assured that, although there were technical legal difficulties with the amendments as proposed, the Scottish Government did not object to the proposed changes to the bill in principle, and so we have worked with them and Gillian Martin to revise the drafting in order to answer their concerns. To explain the amendments individually, amendment 8 inserts a new section after section 4, creating a duty on Scottish ministers to publish statutory guidance about the steps that a school authority may take to promote and to assess the wearing of seatbelts by pupils on its dedicated school transport services and the corresponding duty on school authorities to have regard to such guidance. That would leave it to the Government in consultation with school authorities to decide how best to encourage the wearing of seatbelts and to use the guidance to cite good examples of the kinds of practices and procedures that schools should have in place to do so. As Rhoda Grant said at stage 2, it might be that the guidance could recommend that there may be monitors and buses to ensure that seatbelts are worn if resources are available, but alternatively it might ask authorities to engage in an education programme with young people to promote the wearing of belts. In the amendments as drafted at stage 2, the specific word monitor was used regarding the wearing of belts, which was queried as potentially implying the need for bus monitors on each journey. That has been replaced in both amendments 6 and 8 with the word assess, which, as Rhoda Grant suggested at stage 2, was what was meant in terms of school authorities measuring the wearing of belts by pupils. The minister's concerns at stage 2 over the practicality of consulting every school authority have been remedied with a requirement to consult representative bodies before publishing the guidance. That would, for instance, include the Scottish Council of Independent Schools rather than having to consult every single independent school in Scotland. The added discretion to consult others as appropriate also means that the Government has the ability to consult among others young people themselves, as the Scottish Youth Parliament made clear to the committee at stage 1 of the bill. It would be far more effective for young people to be proactively involved in promoting and assessing the wearing of seatbelts rather than being forced to wear them by a third party. Amendments 5 and 6 add an extra requirement to the self-reporting duty in section 4 of the bill. The section obliges school authorities to publish an annual statement on compliance with section 1 of the bill, the duty to have seatbelts fitted on dedicated school transport services. The extra requirement created by amendments 5 and 6 is that school authorities should also include information in that statement on what they have done to promote and to assess the wearing of seatbelts by pupils on their dedicated school transport. Amendments 3 and 4 and 7 are consequential amendments to rename the compliance statements as a seatbelts statement, since it will now cover information broader than just compliance with the bill. I move amendment 3. I should say from the outset that we will be supporting the seatbelts to school transport bill that is brought forth today. We welcome the constructive manner that has been taken in the chamber on the issue, but also in committee and rural economy and connectivity committee. If I could turn specifically to the amendments laid before us by Neil Bibby today, I am pleased to say that we will support them. We considered them very carefully. There were initially some reservations around some of the wording, particularly in amendment 8, if I could draw our attention to the insertion of a substantial piece of wording around the guidance on the wearing of seatbelts. In particular, section 8 was point 2 in that a school authority must have regard to such guidance. I felt that perhaps there was some weakness in the wording of that in terms of what specifically that meant for schools. What additional duties would we be placing on schools themselves? Is that the teachers of the schools, the headteachers, the drivers of the buses, the monitors, senior pupils? I felt that whilst there was some ambiguity to that, and I would be welcome to hear perhaps in the closing message from Mr Bibby if he could define what he thinks or how he thinks that might manifest itself in practice. However, that being said overall, we have absolutely no problem with the concept that the Scottish ministers must publish guidance around the steps in which schools must take around promoting the wearing and usage of the seatbelts, which will have to be fitted as a result of the legislation. As a result of all the above, we will be supporting all of Mr Bibby's amendments today. The Scottish Green Party will support all Neil Bibby's amendments. Likewise, it has been very constructive engagement. Education is a key role in this. It is perhaps unfortunate—certainly our party's view is unfortunate—that we could not include enforcement on the face of the bill because we do not have those powers. However, education is very important and significant in the role that young people play for the reasons that Neil Bibby outlined. I thank the member for being in his amendments before the chamber today, and working with the Scottish Government on them. It is clear from Labour's endeavours that they share the aspirations of Ms Martin at schools. The Scotland school children should actually wear seatbelts when the Parliament has gone to the trouble of ensuring that they have been fitted as a matter of law. Keeping our young people safe on the journey to and from the classroom and on-school excursions is not a part of that issue. I am sure that all of us in the chamber today want the best for school pupils on those journeys. The work undertaken on the amendments proposed by Rhoda Grant at stage 2, which led to those proposed by Neil Bibby today, shows how that consensus can take us forward. It has been raised many times throughout the Bill scrutiny that any legal requirement for children between three and 14 years of age to wear seatbelts on larger buses and coaches is a reserved issue. We know that the Department for Transport had previously indicated a desire to transpose relevant elements of an EU directive that would create such a law. If the UK Government chose to act, there would be such a law. However, the most recent correspondence I have had, the likelihood of that is not particularly high. However, we have been clear that the Bill represents a great opportunity to raise awareness of the safety benefits of seatbelts and always plan to implement guidance to help facility that. Therefore, Scottish ministers are prepared to accept the explicit requirement for them to publish such guidance created in amendment 8. It is right that there should be a corresponding duty on school authorities to have regard to such guidance. Since the issue of pupils' safety on transport is something that school authorities treat, that is a matter of the utmost importance. We fully intend to engage widely in the creation of the guidance, and I believe that Ms Martin will spell this out in more detail. Therefore, the Scottish Government is willing to accept the requirements and consultation contained in amendment 8. Regarding the requirement in amendment 6 for school authorities to publish details on the steps that they are taking to promote and assess seatbelt wearing, we feel that the wording is far clearer and avoids the ambiguity associated with the term monitor, which is suggested in stage 2. I welcome all the work that the committee has done in considering the bill, and I particularly commend Rhoda Grant and our Labour colleagues in their willingness to work with us on reaching something that is mutually agreeable, as the Scottish Government supports those amendments. I also welcome Neil Bibby's sentiments here and his work, as well as others in his party, in particular Rhoda Grant in helping to shape the bill. As the transport minister set out, the Scottish Government appears willing to accept the legal duties that are placed upon ministers by this group of amendments. Moving forward on that consensus, I would like to reiterate the importance of us all working together to ensure that young people wear seatbelts on dedicated school transport, whilst it may not be in the gift of this Parliament to change the law and reserve matters. We should not allow that to lessen our aspirations here. It is often raised that the wearing of seatbelts in cars has become second nature to youngsters. Indeed, that came through in the Scottish Government's public consultation on those measures, and we know that the habit of wearing seatbelts can be further encouraged to schools, parents and carers to take an active role in promoting their use from an early age, for instance through lessons and road safety educational events. That is why I do not see the bill as a narrow legal instrument, but rather a key piece in the wider jigsaw of road safety initiatives in schools. Acting as a catalyst, this can help to get the issue of seatbelt wearing and the safety benefits that that brings up the agenda. I am aware that there are a raft of measures going on across the country to help to alleviate risks in the school run, such as reduced speed limits around schools, safer routes to school programmes and bicycle safety training for pupils. The measures in the bill and better practice in getting pupils to wear seatbelts can make a vital contribution to those efforts. Extensive dialogue is taken place with local authorities, parenting groups and other stakeholders in relation to guidance, publicity and educational materials. Road Safety Scotland, which produces materials available to every school in Scotland, has also been engaged. There is a wealth of good practice and innovative approaches already happening in Scotland, not least from the councils, which already require seatbelts in all dedicated school transport. I am aware that the Scottish Government will be using that as the basis to work with stakeholders and create effective materials and approaches. Councils can and do implement measures such as CCTV to monitor journeys or codes of conduct for pupils and parents to sign, so the requirement to consult with the various school authority sectors and others that Neil Bibby's amendments create will be key to exploring those issues. By setting out the options that are open to school authorities and highlighting good practice solutions that they may want to implement, it will be possible to highlight innovative solutions whilst allowing for tailored solutions. In all of this, there is one group that we must not forget to consult with—the young people themselves. I am aware that the Scottish Government intend to undertake such engagement soon and it is welcome that Neil Bibby's amendment is allowed for that. I support those amendments. Thank you, I call on Neil Bibby to wind up in press or withdraw amendment 3. I thank the minister, Gillian Martin, who we have been working with on those amendments. As Gillian Martin and John Finnie said, we do not have the power of enforcement but we can take measures to promote the use of seatbelts on school transport. In terms of Jamie Greene's point and the guidance in amendment 8, as I said before, it would be left to the Government in consultation with local authorities to decide how best to encourage the wearing of seatbelts and to use the guidance to cite good examples of the kind of practices and procedures that schools should have in place to do. I wind up in press. be it to amendment 3, Mr Bibi, move or not move. M oy nám. The questions of amendment 6 be agreed to,until gade? The nám isavilion ese tugnut,loglennu sah, and açılngylchedd Interestingly Build, that the questions of amendment 1 have been agreed to at the court of evidence and the safety of the death of our people. The decision to be agreed to at the court of evidence and the attitude to ensure safety of our people. eraill there? That is not agreed, there will be a one minute decision . That olem consideration amendments, and I'll have a short pause before we move on to the debate on the bill. I will move on to the debate on the bill. As members will be aware at this point in the proceedings, the�� report of Parliament made that At that point, the proceedings, the Presiding Officer, is required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. Put briefly, that is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. If it does, the motion to pass the bill will require support from a supermajority of members, that is a two thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view, no provision of the seat belts and school transport Scotland bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. We will move to the next item of business, and that is a debate on motion 8706, in the name of Gillian Martin, on stage 3 of the seat belts and school transport Scotland bill. I would ask all those who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Gillian Martin, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. It has been a privilege to bring this bill before Parliament and to take forward this important issue to stage 3 proceedings today. I would like to thank all those who have contributed in different ways to the legislative scrutiny, but particularly to members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for their detailed consideration and constructive and helpful recommendations. The safety of Scotland's young people is a responsibility that we all share. It transcends party interests, and it has been heartening to witnesses' support from across the political spectrum for those measures. I am particularly grateful to all those who took the time to contribute oral and written evidence to the committee sessions. That input is vital to effective parliamentary scrutiny, and it is clear that those in wider society share the chamber's aspirations on those measures. You will be aware that this Parliament secured competence on this issue through a Scotland Act order. We have those powers, and I believe that we have seen a clear appetite to act on them and implement this legislation, just as we know that the Welsh Assembly has done on very similar terms. Turning to the detail of the measures before us, there can be few matters more pressing than the protection of Scotland's children and young people. When parents send their children off to school every day, they rightly expect that comprehensive measures are in place to keep them safe from harm. Those considerations are not confined within the four walls of the classroom. They exist on journeys to and from school, and they exist when youngsters are out on excursions too. That is why the proposals before us today are so important. We know the crucial role that seatbelts can play in a road traffic accident. This has been well established in numerous globally recognised studies. Likewise, as the representative of a rural community, I know just how seriously parents and communities take the issue of home-to-school transport. Some of the distances can be long, and the need for supported journeys can be vital. The need to strive for continual improvement is self-evident. Just as teachers and education providers take action every day to keep young people safe, those of us in elected positions also have to play our part. Our influence over lawmaking and policy setting is just as key. Additionally, I have seen for myself just how responsible school pupils can be and how they embrace measures to encourage them to buckle up. From my visit to the fantastic cooking primary school in Midlothian, way back at the introduction of this bill, to my visits to schools across my constituency, I have been impressed and energised by the brilliant attitude of pupils towards road safety initiatives. I am sure that members are aware that the endeavours in this bill align with public feedback on the matter. What I have heard loud and clear through this bill's progress is that people want it to happen and that they are surprised that the law is not already in place. That has been echoed from stakeholders at committee sessions to members of the public that I have spoken to, even as early on is today on Twitter when we knew that this bill was being read, far away from the Hollywood bubble. Indeed, a national consultation by the Scottish Government in 2016 showed respondents overwhelmingly thought that those measures would contribute to road safety. Local Government itself has shared those sentiments. Councils have seen the importance of ensuring seatbelts are required in contracts. We know that at least 24 councils have already done that on some or all of their contracts. This will have risen to 24 by the start of the next school year. It is very welcome that we have seen school authorities preparing for this legislation. However, I want to ensure that it becomes universal across all school authorities as a matter of law, future-proofing, so that good practice does not come and go. The chamber will be aware that the legal duty in the bill covers local authorities, granted school providers and independent school providers. It includes home-to-school provision and, following my stage 2 amendment, also includes vehicles used for school trips and excursions. Again, I thank members who expressed their views on that matter. Edward Mountain. Sorry, I just want to push a wee bit on the financial implications. You stated that 24 councils already have seatbelts on it. You stated that the amendment to ensure that school to activities buses will now have to have seatbelts on it. Is there a financial cost in either of those? That was never bought before the committee, and I wonder if you could clarify it, because it still remains unclear to me. Can I remain members to always speak through the chair, please? I'm sorry, Presiding Officer. The revised financial memorandum has taken into account all the measures that were taken at stage 2 and all the consultation around the differences that the committee actually wanted to be implemented in the year. They are quite evident in the revised financial memorandum. In terms of vehicles, it will include taxis, minibuses, coaches and buses. Some of those are already covered by existing UK laws requiring seatbelts. In general, it is the larger and often older coaches and buses where changes will be required and that the bill is fundamentally aimed at. However, as members who have followed the bill will be acutely aware, one thing that jumps out about school transport is that Scotland has how varied the delivery is. There is no uniform approach, no one-size-fits-all formula for organisations. There are around 2,500 schools in the country that are spread across a diverse range of geographies within our nation's local authorities. We are therefore looking at everything from pupils on double-decker buses going to school in a busy urban centre to children in more rural areas such as Aberdeenshire, where my constituency is, travelling long distances and coaches on higher-speed country roads. That is why flexibility is needed and the bill has been drafted to allow for that. From leaving options open in relation to additional support in those pupils to allowing for the use of adjustable straps, booster seats and lap belts for smaller children. We heard during committee evidence of the varied and innovative measures that school authorities use to help with the issue of seatbelt wearing. From bus monitors to behavioural codes to CCTV, the bill again leaves the door open in that regard. Through guidance and publicity, the Scottish Government has pledged to offer ideas and examples of best practice. School authorities will be able to utilise that to tailor the best approaches for the individual needs. On another matter, and this may answer Edward Mountain's earlier comment, I am aware that the issue of costs has been a salient point throughout parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister for Transport and Islands will outline the Scottish Government's recent actions in more detail. However, members will be aware that a supplementary financial memorandum was tabled. That adds a review clause altering the headline costs from £8.9 million down to £3.83 million before any further financial support is automatically released. There is again shows how Parliament has helped to influence its final proposals. As such, I urge members to support the seatbelts of school transport Scotland bill for the benefit of young people across the country. I move the motion in my name. I now call Hamza Yousaf. Up to six minutes, please, minister, and I'd appreciate brevity. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. As Parliament will be aware, the Scottish Government supports this important and very worthy bill to keep our young people safe on the journey to school. Like Miss Martin, I would like to extend my gratitude to the committee for their very considerate and detailed scrutiny. I would also like to thank stakeholders who gave their view to our public consultation. We have also played a crucial role. Their endeavours have gone a long way in aiding us as parliamentarians, and it is right that they are noted. As has been said many times in this chamber, this Government will never be complacent when it comes to road safety. That is why we are taking forward a whole raft of initiatives as we move towards the ambitious casualty reduction targets that we have set ourselves. However, there can be no group where those efforts should be more acutely focused than our young people. The measures in this bill will go a long way to strengthening the comprehensive package of measures to keep them safe on the school run. And, of course, on the excursions away from the classroom. Thankfully, travelling on buses and coaches for children is comparatively safe. However, the statistics still show that young people are sometimes still being injured, and it is right that we bolster our approach. Additionally, the safety benefits of seat belts, as Miss Martin said, are undisputed. As I said in exchanges during the amendments earlier, the section 30 order process devolving the powers that this bill takes forward has given us ample time for dialogue and consultation. As such engagement and co-production have been the very hallmarks of this Government's approach to formulating the measures, it has been a bell and braces approach and I have been very encouraged to see Miss Martin taking that foundation and moving it forward. We should be commended for the work and the detailed work that she has put in but also the engagement that she has taken around the country and the very detailed consideration that she has given this bill. The seat belt on school transport working group brought together representatives such as parenting and education groups and local government but also bus operators too. Gillian Martin has already pointed out that dedicated school transport provision is something of a tax work picture. Our preemptive dialogue with experts in the field allowed us to structure and refine measures so that we could introduce a clearly focused bill, and Parliament has built on that. Some of the costs in the conversation and around the costs, the financial forecasts have also been scrutinised by the parliamentary committee. Of course, we welcome that scrutiny and it has helped us to have a sharper focus. I should point out that the costing exercise for this bill did follow a robust and established new burden process for calculating the financial implications of statutory duties on local authorities. That has now been put in place to ensure that councils are not left out of pocket and that we all in the local government are not immune from the challenging backdrop around public finances. That new burden approach has been used for other pieces of legislation such as the Social Care Self-Directed Support Scotland Act 2013 and the Carer Scotland Act 2016. However, since stage 2, we have re-engaged with local government and submitted a supplementary financial memorandum. That goes back to the scrutiny of the committee. There are always challenges with forecasting cost estimates over a significant number of years. Given the original forecast covered a 14-year period, which accounted for two home-to-school contract cycles, this document contains a review clause after one contract cycle. The traditional new burden approach for local government finance does not involve the continuation of funding after local government stops incurring costs as a consequence of new legal duties. As such, the Scottish Government intends to review this in 2023, therefore altering the headline figure from £8.9 million down to £3.83 million without further evidence of incurred costs. It should be noted that, when taken as an annual figure, that equates to just under £24,000 when divided by 32 councils. Of course, in practice, that will not be the model for administering distribution of those funds. It provides, though, an illustrative example of division at a local level. On the guidance, there is currently no legal requirement that children between the ages of three and fourteen were seatbelts where they are fitted on buses and coaches. This is a reserved area of competence that the UK Government had previously indicated. A desire to transpose relevant elements of the EU directive that would create such a law. During the committee scrutiny process, I wrote to UK ministers seeking formal clarification of any timescale for implementation. We hear that there are currently no fixed plans. However, the bill does represent a good opportunity to promote successful approaches to ensuring children were seatbelts and to raise wider awareness of this issue. Extensive dialogue has taken place, as I have said, with local authorities, parenting groups and, indeed, other stakeholders. This will continue, of course, as we develop guidance and awareness-raising campaigns accompanying any final act. Those will be created following consultation with school authorities. Importantly, as Ms Martin has already said, young people will be shaped by the legal requirements that Mr Bibby's amendments have added today. I believe that the bill successfully takes forward the devolved powers that we have secured on this issue. I hope that all of us in this chamber agree to pass it today. The Scottish Government supports this bill and supports Ms Martin's motion. Jamie Greene, five minutes please. I open with a brief apology to the chamber over the initial confusion at the initial amendment. I am pleased to say that we were happy to vote for the amendment that kept us on our toes and perhaps got some MSPs out of our offices. To listen to this very interesting debate, I am participating in it whereas it may not have done before. Indeed, it was a cunning plan on my behalf. I do welcome the opportunity to open for my benches on this debate. I have participated in the very sessions in the rural economy committee over this. I should stay from the outset and congratulate Gillian Martin for the constructive approach that she has taken with the committee and all parties to get this bill into the place that it is in today. I have absolutely no doubt that, as a new member navigating through the legislative process, there has not been an easy one, so she should be proud of that achievement. We will, of course, be voting for this bill today. We believe that it will help to improve the safety of children travelling on school transport. One of the early comments that we made on this was that the initial incarnation of the bill only applied to commuting to and from the place of school. We felt very strongly that it should also include school trips, and I am very pleased to see that that has been included in this final stage of the bill. We know that around 100,000 school children every day will benefit from this, and it is important that the availability of seatbelts will go to some way towards encouraging good habits in relation to safety on buses. I commend Labour for its additional work in strengthening the bill with its amendment on the production of guidance. That was a valid and wise introduction to the bill, and we were pleased to support that. I am equally pleased to see that the Government accepted that today. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the First Group, which operates a number of bus services, agreed in their written consultations to the committee. I was very pleased to see that the bill garnered wide support from not just industry but many third sectors and parents and schools themselves. I would like to draw attention to a quote from Inspector Grant Edward of Tayside Police, who, during a crackdown on the failure to wear seatbelts, said the following quote in the media. He said, it is easy to get the impression that you are travelling safely when you are sitting comfortably inside a moving vehicle. That is an illusion that is instantly shattered if, for whatever reason, the vehicle stops sharply. The wearing of seatbelts has been high on the agenda in cars for such a long time, but not on buses, so it is right that we turn our attention to that. On average, 45 children in Scotland were injured whilst on a bus or a coach in the years between 2010 and 2015. That is 45, too many in all our eyes. Also, the World Health Organization identified that the inclusion of seatbelts reduces the risk of fatalities by 25 per cent and minor injuries by 75 per cent. Of course, we are not without our concerns entirely in the process. I think that it is pertinent that we turn to the financial memorandum, which has been reproduced. It details a cost of around £765,000 annually as a cost of the bill following the legal commencement of it. I think that my first reservation, and I may have expressed this in committee, is that there was no point in the process whether any guarantees that any money given to local authorities through the cosly arrangements or existing block arrangements would be guaranteed to be spent on seatbelts. Indeed, there were no guarantees that any of that money would be ring-fenced specifically for the purposes of fitting or retrofitting or future fitting of seatbelts. That is still a concern that I have, albeit perhaps too late, to do anything about it in the legislation itself. My second point of concern on the finances was around the 11th hour change to the financial memorandum, which leaves us very little time to further scrutinise it as we are sitting here at stage 3 in the debate. I think that if we on these benches have any ambiguity over the numbers, for example, we are yet to get any definitive figure on the potential cost liability of what would have happened if any existing contracts had been breached or had to be broken as a result of the legislation. That is something that the bill team in general should have had more knowledge in sight of. In closing, despite those obstacles to ending in a positive, we will be supporting the bill today. It really is a step in the right direction and it will be fundamental in improving the safety of school children on public transport. It is a clear example of what Parliament can do when it uses the wide-ranging powers that it has been given at its disposal. This legislation truly will help the lives of Scots across our country. I thank Gillian Martin for bringing it to us today. I thank Gillian Martin for her efforts in steering the bill through Parliament and her willingness to work with other members across the political divide. I think that we all want to thank the committee for its endeavours as well and scrutiny. Of course, I recognise the sterling work of committee clerk Spice and other staff members who, as usual, do all the heavy lifting that goes unseen. I acknowledge that this is perhaps a modest bill. As I said at stage 1, I would prefer something more substantial and wide-ranging, but there are a number of factors that mitigate against this, not least of which are that key elements remain reserved. That said, the bill will make an important contribution to the safety of our children and we can never minimise or diminish anything that does that. In a sense, like others, I should declare an interest. I am a father of two young children and that has given me a heightened focus and awareness of everything that children relate particularly to safety. As Jamie Greene said at stage 1, the information suggests that just 45 children per year are injured on school buses and coaches. However, as I have said previously, any injury that brings harm to a child is an injury to many. I recognise that fitting seat belts to school transport may not eliminate that risk entirely, but it is very much a step in the right direction. The bill has been improved with the consideration and adoption of amendments at stage 2 and stage 3, in particular, like Jamie Greene. I welcome that transport used for school trips must now have seat belts fitted. This is the right thing to do given the significant number of such journeys every year. It is all very well having a law that says that seat belts must be fitted, but if no one actually wears them, there is nothing that can be done about it. I referred previously to the committee's description of a secondary pupils as a tough audience to convince them to wear seat belts. The 74 per cent of pupils who responded in one school said that they were not at all likely or unlikely to wear seat belts, or I suspect not untypical. As with other social changes, whether it is smoking in public places or use of mobile phones when driving, change can take a while, but once accepted, it becomes the norm. We still have some way to go with the wearing of seat belts on buses. Not just amongst children, I have been on coaches where seat belts are fitted and was astonished at just how few passengers wore them. Adult passengers should be setting the example not just for their own safety but for that of their children and grandchildren, and we need to educate and encourage children to wear seat belts. My amendments will hopefully address that. However, while education, encouragement and examples of adults are critical, it is not enough just to leave it to choice, those responsible for the provision of school transport need to face up to their responsibility. The issue is a reserved matter. As the minister said at stage 1, the minister has pursued this and the matter of compulsion with the UK Government again. I urge the minister not to give up on this and to keep formally pressing the UK Government again. I welcome publication of his letter in any responses that he has received. I think that that would be helpful. Like other members, I have concerns about the financial implications of implementation. We cannot step back from doing the right thing and the Scottish Government must work with local authorities to ensure that costs associated with implementation are met. While I worry about any delay in implementation, I commend the flexibility that was advocated by Gillian Martin to try to minimise any unnecessary costs or breaking contracts that early implementation would involve. In closing, Labour is pleased to support this bill. This Parliament can take some small but important steps towards improved safety and school transport for our children. I therefore have a pleasure in recommending the bill to the Parliament. We move to the open debate. Speeches of four minutes, please. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Edward Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like Neil Bibby, I congratulate Gillian Martin on bringing forward the bill, but getting it to this stage where I think we may now reasonably anticipate that it will be passed later today. Bring your bill forward is no small matter. I have taken five bills through Parliament thus far, but not as a private member's bill, where you have to do so much of the work yourself. As a Government minister, the four bills that I took forward in that capacity, I had this vast team doing all the heavier lifting for me. When I brought forward a committee bill in the last session again, the team of clerks were doing the work, but for a member bringing forward a bill, the burden is substantially greater and the reach of understanding and attention to detail that was required is quite substantial. Gillian Martin deserves substantial thanks indeed. There is also one part of the system that has not been mentioned so far, which I think is proper to mention. That is the Public Petitions Committee. Over a very long period of time, and there have been considerable number of petitions that have been brought forward, considered in great detail, UK Government ministers have appeared in front of the Public Petitions Committee on the matters that are in the general area that we are dealing with here today. That committee has played a very significant part in digging the soil, putting the manure in there where the crop that we harvest today has grown. Travelling in any vehicle of any kind that is fitted with a seatbelt and not using it is rather like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. It is briefly exciting, but ultimately disastrous. Colleagues, the one thing that we are unable to do is enforcement of wearing. Like others, I travelled on a bus of that age. I think that I am now on my fourth bus pass. That is how old I have now got. I actually do not recall ever being on a bus where anyone barred myself has been wearing a seatbelt. I just do not think that that has been the case. I want to acknowledge and thank colleagues at Westminster for providing us with the powers to do what we are doing today. That is very welcome, and that is good cross-parliamentary working. It would be nice if they found the time and method to create enforcement. By all means, that is not a Scottish issue. If enforcement were present in the terms of whether it is required to wear a seatbelt with the vehicle that you are travelling in, it has a seatbelt. It is that simple. That is all that you need to say. That would be of equal benefit to people right across the United Kingdom. I encourage colleagues of whatever political persuasion or whatever government to consider whether they might consider doing that at Westminster. Then they would be catching up with what Wales has done and what we expect to do this afternoon. We have had a wee bit of a debate about costs. That is so trivial. I am not prepared to join that particular debate. In matters of safety, we just do it. I will be delighted to press my button at 5 o'clock to just do it. I am delighted that the seatbelts on school transport bill has commanded support from all parties and is widely supported by parents across Scotland. I have to say that when this matter first came forward, I was rather shocked to discover that the law did not already exist and that children went to school without wearing seatbelts. I think that I, like many parents, believe that when we say goodbye to our children and let them go on the bus, they would fit their seatbelts as they did in the car when we took them to school. I therefore believe that the bill is entirely necessary and voting for it today is the right thing to do. Therefore, I would like to welcome the fact that Julian Martin has brought it forward and that I also commend her for doing so. I would also like to welcome the fact that the Scottish Government, through the minister, has said that he is going to work on ensuring that seatbelts are fitted as soon as possible and I do urge him to do that. I do remain deeply uncomfortable with the amendment, which allows an exception to be made to the original implementation date for secondary school pupils from 31 December 2018 to 2022. When this bill passes, as I believe it does, I believe that it is morally unacceptable for some bus companies who have entered into contracts with local authorities the day before the bill pass gets royal assent, not to have seatbelts fitted in their buses until 31 August 2021. I would ask them to reflect on whether they think that that is acceptable and whether they agree with me that it is morally unacceptable and make urgent steps to get seatbelts fitted. If this is not just a minor technical detail, it means that some secondary pupils will be going without the safety option of wearing seatbelts until 2021. I feel strongly and I would ask people to reflect and those when meeting bus companies and bus operators in their constituencies who provide transport urged them to consider this. It is no time to drag our feet on this matter and I will be supporting the bill. I would like to make one other comment. I have found it particularly difficult during the process of this bill to follow the financial memorandum and the financial costings. I do believe, like Mr Stevenson, that when it comes to the safety of children it is important. That is why we voted against the amendment. I wish that we had found ways, which we would have done if the memorandum had come earlier, to ringfence the money, as Mr Greene has said, to fitting seatbelts on school bus transport, because that 3.83 million would go a long way to providing seatbelts on every school bus. In closing, along with the parents and people of Scotland, I welcome the seatbelts on school transport bill and I will vote to support it. I remain deeply saddened that some secondary pupils will not have the option to wear a seatbelt on school transport until 2021, but I believe that we have taken a huge step forward. Thank you, Mr Mountain and those who have applied brevity. As those things happen, I now have a couple of minutes in hand. Just warning everyone so that Gillian does not have to spend 15 minutes summing up at the end. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by John Finnie. On that note, the bill is an excellent proposition, but I have one complaint. It is difficult to fill four minutes on it, because here is my thought process when I was thinking about this debate. Children are good, seatbelts are good, therefore children on minibuses are good. At that point, I almost feel like sitting down, but do not worry, Presiding Officer, I will not. I will try to waffle on for a little bit longer, and I might even take some of Mr Mountain's time to… Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr Johnson. It is not acceptable for a front bench to be empty when someone is making a speech. Could I ask that someone in the SNP group sorts this immediately? Having been a colleague of Clare Adamson's on standards with me, I think that it is long ago… Sorry, Mr Johnson. I know that you are desperate to get talking, but I would suggest that people were not really listening because they were a wee bit surprised. If you would like to start again, I would appreciate that. I hold my humour in great regard, but even I do not think that many of my jokes bear telling twice, especially in this place. I would like to pay thanks to Gillian Martin. I think that it is worth noting that this is the first member's bill to come before this place, and I think that she has done an excellent job bringing it forward. As I said at the very outset, this is fundamentally a very good idea. I think that she is absolutely right in her opening remark that this is fundamentally about child protection, and I think that it is only fitting that the first member's bill to be brought forward addresses such an important point. On a personal note, Gillian Martin is a colleague on the education committee, and one that I have quite constructive and positive dialogue. We do not always end up making our arguments on the same side in every debate, but it is a great pleasure for me to be able to support so warmly the proposition that she has brought forward. I hope that that does not sound sycophantic, but the other point is that someone who is just at the early stages of bringing forward a member's bill is very much reflecting Stuart Stevenson's point. I recognise the huge amount of work that goes into a bill, not just on behalf of the member, but of their staff, the various other groups that support the bill, and it is a huge effort to get here. I think that we should acknowledge that work of all the people who have worked on this bill and who have worked with it. It also touches on personal experience. Neil Bibby and others have pointed out that, as a parent, that is hugely important. It is the first thing that I do once I get out of the house and I have the children in the car and I am making sure that those seatbelts are on. I do not have the benefit of being a parent, so I do not know the answer to the question that I am going to address to the member. Has the member worked out how to persuade his 14-year-old offspring that, when they are out of sight of parental control, they should always wear a seatbelt on any vehicle that they are travelling in that has one? Or is this something that eludes the member, as I suspected, to eludes most of us? Daniel Johnson. Can I please put it on the official record and reassure my wife that I do not have a 14-year-old child? I think that the member raises an excellent point. One that I would like to come to later on, but I think fundamentally that we must take forward this bill and build on it to make sure that we do exactly that. There is obviously an issue and a gap in the law. The points that have been raised by other members about the work that should be carried forward, both working with Governments and other places, but also just in terms of the other things that we can do to ensure that people do not just have seatbelts but wear them, are of fundamental importance. I think that that really brings me on to the next point that I was wanting to make. I recognise very much that when I was a child it was not the law that you had to wear the seatbelt at all. I am old enough to remember when the law came in, certainly in 1989, in terms of requiring children to wear seatbelts. Indeed, it was 1991 when we were wearing seatbelts. The original law in terms of adults wearing seatbelts and cars was 1982. We have come a long way, but we need to do an awful lot more. It is not just about the law, it is also about culture and behaviour. I think that one of the things that I reflected on in thinking about this debate is that very often we make changes in the law in response to tragic incidents and events. In some ways, I think that maybe the thing that we have to thank James Martin most is that that is not the circumstances that we are in. We are actually getting ahead of those things. We have got an opportunity here today and one that we are going to take to actually pre-empt such a tragic incident. That is very important. It is also very important because I think that we also need to do that. It is winding up. I have lost track of how much time I had. I think that this is very much catching up, but just on the points that other members have raised, we should not use the law as a set of instructions. One of the things that we must seek to do is move further and faster than the law. This is not prescriptive, and we must encourage local authorities to go further. Finally, we must work with authorities in other places because there are still too many exceptions. There are still too many exceptions, especially around older vehicles, and we should get rid of those as far as we can. John Finnie is followed by Mike Rumbles. My colleague Stuart Stevenson alluded to the petitions committee in the role that it played in that. The background to the bill was, of course, a petition on 9 November 2007 that was brought by Lynn Merrifield on behalf of King's Seat Community Council. I am sure that they will reflect on the value of the building, a law-making building. The important thing is that we make good law, and we make good law by scrutinising and scrutinising intensely. As a member of the rural economy connectivity committee, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. There was a lot of scrutiny that went into the bill and no apology for that. That is appropriate. In 2015, we got the power to bring forward the bill. Disappointing that we do not have the power to compel an enforcement was after the UK. I was hard to hear comments about that from Neil Bibby and more from Labour, because we are fettered. That is another example when we are fettered. It caused me to reflect on what the role of the building is in other ways. Community safety is extremely important and child protection is extremely important. There is a role for the state in that. We all have our roles and responsibilities for that. The UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities, schools, parents groups or individuals. By passing that tonight, we will send a very clear message. Of course, a requirement in any organisation is to assess risk and put in place measures to address the risk. It is significant that many members have said that this is reflected by the general public that people thought that the bill was the law anyway, but it was. I said in speaking to one of the amendments that it is not an ideal world that we live in. That has manifest itself in some of the areas of concern that people had around the bill, which were the financial matters. Of course, I was very concerned that what we were doing was rewarding failure so that the authorities that had acted diligently on the bill were not going to be recipients of money and others may be. I think that there has been a balanced stock. It is a pragmatic approach that has been taken. Some of you may know that I was a police officer for 30 years. During that time, I saw many improvements. I saw design improvements in respect of vehicles, road engineering and, of course, the wearing of seat belts. The biggest change was driver behaviour. That shapes everything. The amendments that the Scottish Labour Party brought forward, initially at stage 2 by colleague Rhoda Grant and today by Neil Wibby, are very welcome because this is about sending a very clear message about the role that education plays in this. We should lead by example. I was recently in a coach, and I was surprised to see that I was also the only person who was wearing a seat belt. We have seen changes. Another example is the wearing of seat belts. Daniel Johnson alluded to the fairly recent change of smoking in vehicles and the realisation that that has an impact on children. That was a piece of member's legislation that was passed in this Parliament in the last session. I hope that another safety measure, namely my colleague Mark Ruskell's 20-mile-an-hour proposal, will gain support in the chamber if it gets that far indeed. We must see an increased use in public transport. There is a decline in bus numbers. This morning I was at Alexander Dennis. They are acutely aware of that. They want innovative design to encourage young people to be the future bus users. They are going to do that at first and foremost, whilst at school, they remain safe on the buses and that buses are a pleasant place to occupy. There is a lot of thought going into design. It is all going to count for nothing if, at this stage, we do not ensure that young people wear the seat belt. I commend the good work that Gillian Martin has put into this and the Scottish Green Party will be happy to lend their support tonight. I am terribly sorry that I nearly forgot about Gail Ross. How could I? I called Mike Rumbles to be followed by Gail Ross. I too congratulate Gillian Martin for bringing forward this bill and for seeing it through to this stage. This is all about the safety of our children on school transport. As Gillian Martin said and others have as well, and I absolutely agree when I have spoken to parents about this, most people think that this is already the law. It is not in place, but it will be soon, thanks to Gillian Martin's efforts today and the months preceding this. The committee has worked really well together during stages 1 and 2, just as a committee should work together well under the able convenorship of Edward Mountain. Amendments were made to improve the bill. I am not normally noted for that, but I overheard the minister's comment. I would say that sensible amendments were made during stage 2, such as already referred to school trips that were included, not just a home to school and back again. When the committee took evidence on this bill at stage 1, we were initially told that there were only about 100 buses that currently transported children to and from school that were not fitted with seat belts, but that all of our councils were making very good progress to ensure that all our school transport would indeed be fitted with seat belts very soon. Therefore, that led to a question about whether the bill was necessary at all, and I think that I even asked that question. If every council was implementing this already, why was the bill necessary? Well, it is necessary, because we have just found out at this late stage at stage 3 that there are still five councils that will not be doing this now until 2021. Being polite, Deputy Presiding Officer, this is only what I can call a very poor show from these five councils. We are talking about child safety on our school transport here. This is not news to those councils. This argument has been on for years, even before Gillian Martin presented her bill. I would have thought the moral thing to do. Here we are passing legislation to make sure and enforce the law by 2021 that these are done. I would call on those companies providing transport to our secondary school children that we have just exempted in the law to 2021. Do not wait for the law to force you to do it. Do it now or as soon as you possibly can. Jamie Greene. I am intrigued by the members' comments that safety is permanent. If that is the case, why did his supporters support the amendment that would delay the introduction of secondary schools? Mike Rumbles. We supported it because we thought that it was a sensible approach for the law to be doing that. What I am saying is that there are two elements here. There is the law that you are making now, but there is a moral obligation that people have. We cannot just excuse people because the law says that they must do it by 2021. I am calling for them to do it now or as soon as they can practically do it and their budget and balance books allow them to do it. Do not wait until the law forces them to do it in 2021. The only upside of that is that it does indeed show that this bill is actually necessary to make sure that it happens. Again, I congratulate Gillian Martin for bringing it forward. Deputy Presiding Officer, I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats fully support this bill and I thought that we were right to do that because of the financial issues that were still outstanding supporting Gillian Martin's amendment. We will be voting for the bill, but I just want to end by saying that this does not absolve those bus companies from their moral responsibility to do the right thing and do it now before 2021. I do now come to the last of the open debate speeches. That is Gail Ross. Gillian Martin has come a long way since her first appearance at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee to answer the first set of questions that we put to her about the proposed bill, and we broadly welcomed the introduction of the bill. We noted the positive responses from all the stakeholders that gave evidence both in person at the committee and also in their written responses. I would also like to thank her, her team and everyone that took part in all the evidence sessions as well. Some did question the need for a bill if a lot of the local authorities were already doing it. There was 18 at the time. We hear now that 24 have taken this step. It is good news but still a lot more to do. As has been mentioned, we asked why the bill only covered dedicated home-to-school transport but not school trips. I am glad to say that that has been taken on board and addressed in an amendment at stage 2. We did feel that it was a glaring anomaly that schools were being asked to provide seatbelts on one journey but not on others. The Scottish Government has provided funding for the fitting of seatbelts both retrospectively and in future. The REC committee challenged those costs and now a supplementary financial memorandum has been produced that lowers the headline costs from £8.9 million to £3.83 million. We have since learned that five local authorities with contracts already in place were facing financial burdens. It is the right thing to do, not to break those contracts. I am finding myself in agreement with a lot of people across the chamber. Rhoda Grant made the point about local authorities and the Government opening a dialogue with the bus companies. I also find myself in agreement with Mike Grumbles that they have a moral responsibility. I do not often admit that but I am quite happy to do so today. Although the law on seatbelt wearing is still reserved to Westminster, Gillian Martin's bill proposes to introduce legislation to ensure that all dedicated school transport vehicles and those used for school trips are fitted with seatbelts. As Daniel Johnson has already said, when I was a child I took a bus to and from school every day and there were no seatbelts on them either. There were no seatbelts on the backs of cars then either. Over time and with changes to legislation we have come to realise what an essential part of travelling safely they are. When I get in a car I also make sure that the first thing I do if my son is with me is to make sure that he puts on a seatbelt. It is automatic, we need to get children into the habit of doing so. The aim is to make this the first thing that kids do on a bus as well. Awareness, education and reinforcement, they need to know that being safe is cool and seatbelts keep you safe. That is a big question. How do schools and local authorities ensure that once the seatbelts are fitted they are actually used and will welcome the amendment from Neil Bibby on a reporting duty on local authorities? I think that that is very important. It is good to reflect that in one of our evidence sessions the Scottish Youth Parliament gave a powerful account from young people themselves and they have advised that the guidance should be prepared with young people and that they need to have ownership of that, whether it is bus monitors, mentorships, educational events. There are many schemes already in place at schools all over the country that are very successful and they should also be looked at. In the policy objective to the bill it stated that over the period 2010 to 2015 an average of 42 children were slightly injured while travelling by bus or coach in Scotland each year, with a further three children per year seriously injured, no children were killed while travelling on buses or coaches during this period. I think that Neil Bibby and Jamie Greene mentioned it and they are entirely correct that one child injured is one child too many. This is a safety measure that is nothing more than common sense. My first question, like many other people to Gillian Martin, when she told me that this bill was coming forward was, does not this already happen? I have supported this bill since it was brought to committee and as a Government, a Parliament and a society we owe it to our young people. The fact that we are now here debating stage 3 of this bill in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament is a very proud moment and I want to thank Gillian Martin for all her hard work on this. Having seatbelts on school transport is vital, keeps our children safe, so from parents and young people across Scotland, thank you. We now move to the closing speeches and I call Rhoda Grant. Four minutes please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a good debate with a lot of consensus and I also want to join colleagues in congratulating Gillian Martin for bringing forward the bill while having the support of Government officials, which is always helpful. It is still really challenging to bring a bill forward. There was a reasonable amount of consensus around the issue but the technicalities of any bill can lose your support and her handling of this ensured that that was not the case. I also take time to thank the clerks and support staff in the committee who worked with us well and also those who give evidence as we put the bill through the committee process. I also want to thank Jamie Greene for facing up to getting all our colleagues into the chamber early. I think that he provided us with some amusement, not sure they are going to be so forgiving. I also thank Daniel Johnston for not repeating his jokes even not giving us assistance. That is all the thanks that I want to make tonight that will be turned to the bill more seriously. Scottish Labour has always supported the bill throughout, because we have a duty of care to our young people and their safety, while in the care of the state must be paramount. Neil Bibby and others talked about the reserve powers about wearing seatbelts. While the bill is about fitting seatbelts on to school transport, it does nothing to enforce wearing them. Implementation of the EU directive and adoption of the bill into UK law would make wearing seatbelts mandatory. I hope that that happens. I join Neil Bibby in calling on the Government to continue its efforts with the UK Government to make that the case. Neil's amendments today will help to change the culture and ensure that seatbelts are worn. Without those powers, we only have the powers of persuasion of young people. Daniel Johnston talked about a parent's duty to ensure that their children are wearing seatbelts and to get that point across to them. Hopefully, that is replicated when children are in local authority care. We need to persuade young people to wear them, and that will require education at an early stage to encourage children and young people to do that, but we also encourage them to do it going forward into adulthood. I think that Gail Ross made the point that the youth Parliament had made to us. That was really important to get young people involved in drawing up those guidelines and encouraging others. John Finney is right in saying that we all have a role to play in that to change the culture. It is important that councils have time to plan for the changes that could increase costs and certainty about the contribution of those costs that might come from central government. Many councils seeing the benefits of seatbelt wearing have already taken the step and paid for it out of their own funds. No one can disagree with that position. Gillian Martin's amendment today ensured that none would have to break contracts and incur additional costs, because councils are underfunded and that is impacting on council services. We have to be very sure that we do not impose more cuts on them, but we continue to push for fairer funding. Mike Rumbles. I am in absolute agreement with you that having given the exemption to 2021 for these councils so that we do not break the contracts, would you agree that there is now a moral duty on those people providing the transport to do something about this? Rhoda Grant. I absolutely agree with Mike Rumbles on that point. He said in his own speech that he would do it now and I would want to echo that sentiment. I also welcome the minister agreeing to do what he can to bring pressure to bear on those companies so that we get this in place as early as possible. Edward Mountain talked about ring ffencing the money attached to the bill for those who had not implemented seatbelts on school buses and were in those contracts, but that punishes those who had good practice and made it a priority for themselves. All councils are under pressure and we need to find ways of rewarding those who have good practice while encouraging others to follow suit. Presiding Officer, you are giving me the evil eye that says have run out of time. I want to welcome the bill and confirm that we will be supporting it tonight and hopefully it goes a long way to making school travel and school trips much more safe for our young people. I call Peter Grant. Sorry, I am now marrying Peter Chapman to Rhoda Grant. Sorry about that. Peter Chapman, four minutes please. Presiding Officer, it is impossible to be against this bill. It is a simple and focused bill that legally requires seatbelts to be fitted to all dedicated home to school buses and school trip buses in Scotland. Gillian Martin deserves thanks and credit for bringing it forward. I am pleased that my amendment at stage 2 that these seatbelt provisions are put in place by the end of 2018 for secondary school pupils was agreed at stage 2. The original intention was that this legislation would come into effect for primary schools from 2018, but secondary schools would have to wait until 2021. I could see no valid reason for this delay and for secondary school children to be put at risk for longer than necessary. I accept that Gillian Martin has modified that to some extent today with her amendment, but I expect that there will only be a very limited number of contracts to which this will apply and that the vast majority of children will be covered by the end of 2018. I also accept Mike Rumbles' point that the companies involved that have not put seatbelts in place by that time, there is a moral duty on them to think twice. This bill requires seatbelts to be fitted to school buses, but there are difficulties in persuading young folks to wear them. In evidence, it was highlighted that older pupils in particular were cynical about the wearing of seatbelts in schools transport, with one young respondent even stating, no one puts seatbelts on in my school bus as it is uncool. If the driver comes round and tells people to wear them, they just get taken off again. The consultation, as Neil Bibby said, found that 74 per cent of young people were not at all likely or unlikely to wear seatbelts. However, as the first bus has said, if the issue is tackled correctly, we will have an opportunity to educate children and explain to them the benefits of seatbelts and the need to use them. We hope that common sense will prevail and that youngsters recognise that wearing of seatbelts is sensible and that it will eventually become second nature. Again, I would say that Neil Bibby's amendments today will help in that process and I thank him for that. Another matter of importance that ought to be confronted is the type of belt that is fitted. There are issues with the shoulder-type three-point belts that are inappropriate and unsafe for children who are aged under 12 years old and those who are under 135 cm tall. It appears that booster seats would be required in some cases. It is clear that discussions must take place between local authorities and bus operators regarding the most suitable type of belts to be fitted. That is outwith the scope of the bill but, nevertheless, it is a detail that needs to be addressed. Further and normally is the fact that children who are travelling to school and service buses that are open to fare paying passengers will not be covered as there is no requirement for those buses to have seatbelts fitted. However, we believe that this option of using service buses needs to remain because it is the most cost-effective option in built-up areas and can reduce congestion and pollution levels. However, the youngsters who use them will not have the same levels of protection on their way to school as kids who use other bus types. Given that 18 local authorities have already fitted seatbelts on their school fleets and that others are in the process of doing so, the process is already taking place regardless of the bill. I welcome that. In closing, I will say again that this is a good bill. The safety of children going to and from school is incredibly important and we support this bill going forward. Thank you, Mr Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been encouraging to hear the strength of feeling in the chamber today on the measures to keep our school people safe. I remember the feeling when I was appointed transport minister the first time I received an email as transport ministers do about the fatality on our trunk roads. It was really quite stark and the detail in that weighs down on you quite heavily, as it did then and as it does now whenever I receive one of those emails. There can be no greater responsibility for any Government than the safety of our citizens and, more acutely, the safety of our young people. It is very encouraging to hear the consensual nature of the debate, but more than the consensus, what has been encouraging has been the constructive scrutiny that the committee members across the chamber and external stakeholders have placed in the bill. I want to thank Gillian Martin for bringing it forward. She has rightly been commended for doing so. She is a new member, not an easy thing to bring forward. She has rightly thanked Transport Scotland officials and other officials behind the scenes who do a power of work to, I should say, the often unfairly maligned Transport Scotland who do a great power of work, generally speaking, as well. I can hear some laughing from a deeply unfair. I thought that many good points were made and I will try to pick up on some of them in my closing remarks. I thought that Daniel Johnson's very salient point that too often law can be made, legislation can be passed, is a knee-jerk to an incident or knee-jerk to a reaction in some respects, rightly lauding everybody in this Parliament for being ahead of the curve in that respect, notwithstanding that. Of course, everybody else, many people saying in their contributions that they were initially surprised that this wasn't law, as many people in the public most certainly are, so important that this law is being passed. The Scottish Government, of course, will continue to take forward a raft of measures to improve safety on our roads and indeed safety amongst children. People often ask me how to make our roads safer. There is not one silver bullet, of course. There are a range and a sweet package of measures that help to keep our roads safe in terms of children. We can think of 20 miles per hour limits near our schools. We know about supporting the safer routes to school programme, funding of bike ability, which is bike training for young people. All of those help to keep our children safe. As I said, I'm delighted to see this bill, hopefully passed, of course, at the decision time today. It's important that Stuart Stevenson gave us the context and only the way that Stuart Stevenson can around this bill, particularly that the issue germinated, the germination of this at the Public Petitions Committee, I think that's important to put that on the record. Right the way through to the Government taking forward the devolution of the power to the member herself picking up the mantle and introducing the bill that we see before us. In terms of the scrutiny, there were some questions that were asked of me, which I'll try to address in these closing couple of minutes, but I have Neil Bibby requested that I continue to push the UK Government on enforcement, of course. If the bill passes, we will assume that it will. I will do that on the back of the bill. I think that he asked me to publish the letters, of course. I would be happy to do that as well. Edward Mountain. Minister, I'm very grateful for you giving way. The reason for my intervention is that we have heard cross-party support so far on the moral obligation on bus companies that might be exempted due to the amendment that's been agreed for secondary transport taking the date through to 2021. Moral obligation on those companies to consider seat belts, would you join the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the Labour Party and say that you and your Government believe that there's a moral obligation on bus operators to bring the fitting of seat belts forward if they can? A little extra time, if you need it, Minister. Yes, I have no problem associating myself with those remarks. I was going to come to that very point indeed. I think that I already said in my earlier remarks that I would take Rhoda Grant up on her suggestion that the Government perhaps should bring the players together with local authorities, the contractors and see if we can find a way forward that doesn't have to wait until 2021. I'm in agreement with Mr Rumbles. I think that we all agree with Mike Rumbles at one point, which is a dangerous place to be, I have to say in this Parliament. On this very salient point that he made, there's a moral obligation when it comes to our young people's safety, but there's also, on the other hand, the practicality of the law. You can separate the legal obligation and the moral obligation in terms of Mr Mountain's question on the moral obligation. I stand with him and others across the chamber in that regard. I wanted to address Mr Mountain's point also on the financial memorandum. I accept what he says in relation to the fact that this information would be much more helpful at stage 2, so let me reflect on that for any future pieces of legislation that we take. I thought the final point to finish on. I know the time constraints, Presiding Officer, with the ones that Gillian Martin made, that consultation on future guidance, consultation on how to best take this bill forward. We must not forget our young people and all of this. The school authorities, parent educational committees as well, but young people are really at the heart of that. I suppose that the final point that I wanted to make was once again in agreement with Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles asked me during the parliamentary scrutiny, the committee scrutiny on that, what do we need this bill? The reason is why we need it is not just that legal and moral obligation, but I actually have to future proof it. Even if all 32 local authorities had it in their contracts for however long those contracts were, that wouldn't give the legal future proofing. It is very important that the bill will future proof it for the future as well. We are strapped in, ready to go if Parliament sees fit to pass the measures before us. To do the Government backs this bill, I urge the rest of the chamber to do the same. I call Gillian Martin to close the debate. You have six minutes, please, Ms Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As always in this chamber, it's been an interesting debate, but as is not often happens, an extremely consensual debate, a hugely constructive one. I want to thank everyone who's spoken today. It's been for me a very special afternoon and thank you for your all contributing. I want to talk about the speakers and some of the points that were made, but before I do, I absolutely have to thank Brendan, Gavin and Anne and everyone in Transport Scotland and the bill's team who got me through this. I couldn't have done it without it and I particularly have to mention my parliamentary assistant Judith, who knows more about seat belts than she ever thought possible. I don't know how happy she is about that, but if she ends up being a question and a question showing that she wins a million dollars or whatever, when she goes back to California, she'll have me to thank, so that's fine. I want to point to Jamie Greene. Was it something that Jamie Greene quoted that came from Inspector Grant Edward of Tayside Police? I think that I'll always remember now that there is an illusion of safety when you're in a fast-moving vehicle. I want to thank him for including that quote in his speech because I think that it's something that I'll remember. Neil Bibby talked about collaborating across the political divide and one thing I would say is that anyone is thinking about doing a member's bill like I have. It's actually been one of the best things about this process is that you really have to go out with your political party comfort zone and actually start really speaking to people and getting people onside, regardless of your own political parties, and it's been invaluable. I think that I've met so many more people, at least passing people in the corridor, and I know you a lot better, and that's been a good thing. He mentioned being a dad as well, and so did Gail Ross mentioned being a mum. I think that that's what it comes down to for a lot of us. It's about the safety of our kids, so you should always have that in your back of your mind when you do something like this. That really propelled me forward in this, because my kids were on buses that had seatbelts throughout their whole school life, and I wanted to be able to give that piece of mind to other parents that didn't have local authorities who had those measures in place. I wonder if the member might also acknowledge that grandfathers such as my late constituency Ron Beatty, who campaigned tirelessly for safety on school buses, also have a role, and Ron was a big hearted character who we miss enormously. Gillian Martin I had the privilege to meet Ron Beatty just at the point when I was coming on to stage 1, and I'm very grateful for the chance, because unfortunately Mr Beatty is no longer with us, and he just came along to wish me luck. I really thought that he was going to give me a hard time that I wasn't doing more. I was expecting that, but he didn't. He just said, go on, get it done, and the words of Stuart Stevenson just do it, perhaps. Edward Mountain I agree that companies that already have contracts in place that don't have seatbelts should. I hope that they've been listening today. Other bus companies are doing the right thing, and I think that they would want their fellow bus companies to do the same. Daniel Johnson Oh, you're about to intervene in me. Daniel Johnson It only costs £50 to buy an inertial real seatbelt. That's all we're asking these bus companies to spend, and I wouldn't know if the member would agree with me. He would just say to those bus companies, just spend that money. Gillian Martin No argument from me, but I agree that bus companies don't have seatbelts in place, and they're putting them out for contract for school journeys. They really need to take a look at themselves and their actual moral responsibility. I was going to mention Daniel Johnson, because Daniel Johnson has been told to repeat himself, will live in my memory, is one of the most bizarre things that's happened today. I think that he should enjoy that moment. Him and Gail Ross talked of a time when they remembered that, as children, there wasn't even seatbelts in the backs of cars, there wasn't even that legal duty to put the seatbelts on, and that's something that shows how far we've come. John Finnie I want to thank John for a lot of his advice. I had some chats with John throughout this whole process. For mentioning Lynn Merrifield of the King's Seat Community Council, who first brought that to the Public Petitions Committee, without her we maybe wouldn't be in this situation today. I also want to mention that there is an EU directive to compel people to wear seatbelts that could be enacted by the UK Government. I think that if anyone mentioned that today that they were worried that people wouldn't put seatbelts on, can I ask you all to write to your MPs and see if we can get this passed before Brexit please, and then we won't have a situation where we're having to cajole people into wearing their seatbelts? Mike Rumbles, my goodness, yet again I'm agreeing with Mike Rumbles, it's becoming a bit of a habit. I wonder how long that will last, and then I've got my colleague saying, I won't milk it. He called on companies to do the right thing, and he's absolutely right. Don't put your buses out if they don't have seatbelts when you've got kids in them. I'll remember you saying that because you are absolutely right. I'll stop now because it's getting ridiculous. I just want to end if I've got time. I don't know how much time I have. I'm looking at it, Presiding Officer. If I could finish there just by thanking everyone for all the help that they've given me in this process. Thank you very much, and that concludes the stage 3 debate on the seatbelt and school transport Scotland bill, and we go straight to decision time. The first question is that motion 8600, in the name of Alison Harris, on the Writers to the Signate Dependence and Newity Fund amendment, Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The final question is that motion 8706, in the name of Gillian Martin, on stage 3 of the seatbelts and school transport Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Oh, sorry. That's good, but we're going to have to actually have a division on this. The question is that we agree or disagree to the motion in the name of Gillian Martin. Can you press your buttons now? The result of the vote on motion 8706, in the name of Gillian Martin, is yes, 102, no, zero, abstentions, zero. The motion is therefore agreed, and the seatbelt on school transport Scotland bill is passed. That concludes decision time.