Chamber and committees

Okay. Thank you.

Good morning, minister. I want to move us on to section 75 of the bill and discuss definitions of “incapable” and “mental disorder”. The committee has heard a number of views on future proofing the bill and its interaction with capacity law, in the context of possible reforms stemming from the Scottish mental health review, and it has been suggested to us that the bill cross-refer with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 with regard to the definition of “incapable” instead of its having its own, very similar definition. Do you agree with that? Would that provide an effective mechanism for allowing incapable adults to offer a view on situations that affect them, or would changes to trust law ultimately still be required after any reforms to capacity law?

It sounds as though there are risks either way, regardless of whether a distinction is made. The issue becomes about where the burden should land. You said that one way of avoiding the problem could be for people to change and update their will, which is an administrative burden, obviously. However, the alternative is a different group of people being faced with that burden.

I want to take us back briefly to the question about the definition of “incapable”. I remember that the committee heard another view. As I have said, the suggestion was made to us that, rather than having a new, albeit similar, definition in the bill, the bill could refer to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 so that, as that is updated, the definition in the bill would automatically be updated. However, STEP Scotland raised a potential concern with us about tying the definition to that act, because

“Scots law applies to trustees of Scottish trusts even if they are not Scots law jurisdiction persons.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 16 May 2023; c 34.]

That means that, if we have the definition in the bill, we would at least be clear that it applies to trustees of Scottish trusts.

Have you considered that suggestion? Should we be concerned about it, or would it not cause issues? Would it be quite straightforward to simply link the definition to the 2000 act?

It sounds as though you are considering making a change to the bill along the lines that have been suggested. Do you think that there are any policy drawbacks to making that change?

Thank you.

I would like to move us on to sections 16 and 17, which are on the trustees’ powers of investment. Yvonne Evans and others have suggested that, partly because of Scotland’s increasing emphasis on net zero goals, that sections 16 and 17 should be amended to explicitly allow trusts to make environmental, social and governance investments, particularly when those might underperform compared with other investments. We have heard mixed views on that. Does the bill allow trustees to do that already?

Minister, does the default position that you have explained—that is, that individuals would not be personally liable but that there would be exceptions—mean that the Government does not propose to amend section 65 in any way?

But you are not currently proposing anything.

I would like to make some progress.

We know from research that active travel is associated with a lower likelihood of having diabetes or hypertension. Research also demonstrates positive mental health benefits from active travel. A study based in London found that, compared with commuting by car, walking to work is significantly associated with higher life satisfaction. In fact, commuters who maintained cycling to work for a year reported lower sickness absences and improved mental health compared with commuters who travelled by non-active means.

It is not only our health that improves through active travel; the health of our environment does so, too. Changes in active travel have significant life-cycle carbon emissions benefits. Research has found that an average person who exchanges one car journey per day for cycling for four days a week would decrease mobility-related lifecycle CO₂ emissions by about 0.5 tonnes per year. That is roughly as much CO₂ as would be captured by 25 trees in a year. Imagine if we all made that switch—we would be a forest of millions.

With fewer cars on the roads, we will rid our environment of the relentless drone of traffic and quicken our nature recovery. We saw that during the pandemic. At first, we noticed the quiet, but we then heard the birds and other wildlife as they reclaimed the outdoors.

As much as we know that we ought to take better care of our health and our environment, it is hard to begin to think about that when the immediate reality is financial hardship, low pay, high prices and increasing demands on our time. The issue is not just that public transport is too expensive; it is too often impractical. When you are on a zero-hours contract, who has time to plan a journey with multiple changes? When you are working in healthcare or hospitality, who can be sure that they will finish work before the last bus to get home? When you are in insecure housing and are forced to move every six months, who has time to book three months in advance for the cheapest deal? When you are juggling childcare and caring responsibilities, whose plans will not change at short notice? It is no wonder that so many of us still opt for the reliability and convenience of a private vehicle. Once we are reliant on private vehicles, where would a walk or a cycle fit in, other than on a rare day off?

Let us remember that access to, and experience of, active travel are impacted by our gender, our ethnicity and whether we have a disability. We know that a lack of lighting in public parks and some streets means that women are less likely to walk or cycle after dark. We know that uneven paths and pavement parking can make it harder for people with disabilities to get around, and we know that people who are from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately impacted by air pollution, as they are more likely to live in areas of environmental deprivation. Therefore, our encouragement of active travel must be inclusive while we seek to redress social as well as economic inequalities.

The truth is that the current choice between private vehicle or active travel combined with public transport is not a fair one. What we are experiencing is a problem with our whole transport network, the planning system and our political culture because when Government retreats, private commerce fills the void and, rather than build what many need, it builds what a few can profit from.

So, who profits from us being in this impossible situation? The oil companies, the multinationals, the private developers—the list goes on. Who pays? Our pockets, our families’ health, our neighbours’ business and our polluted environment.

The Scottish Government’s commitment to increasing active travel spending to 10 per cent of the overall transport budget is welcome—we made the same call in the Labour manifesto—but we cannot stop there. We must account for the reality that economic and social inequality has created by implementing a gendered approach and a diversity approach to transport infrastructure that ensures that safety, convenience and affordability are properly addressed, particularly for people with protected characteristics including women, black and minority ethnic people and those with disabilities. We must end the cuts to local authorities and invest in insourcing so that we treat active travel as the vital public service that it is, with well paid, unionised public sector workers at its heart.

A recent study showed that mothers participating in active travel led to more active children and young people, which contributes to long-term habits that are good for the young people and for our planet. Those are benefits that will build up over time; if we take the opportunity to invest now, we will reduce strain on our health, our health service and our roads.

That is why it is disappointing that in February we heard that only 3,650 bikes had been given out to school children so far. That figure is significantly below the 145,000 families who should be eligible. In order to ensure that infrastructure investment has the greatest impact, we must follow it up with support and promotion to encourage behaviour change.

Active travel policy must be about more than just encouraging people to walk, wheel and cycle at the weekend; it must fit within an integrated publicly owned transport system, so that it becomes the best choice for commuters. It must be rolled out alongside reductions in speed limits around our education centres, so that every child and young person has a safe and healthy journey to school, college or university. It must also enhance our natural environment so that every active journey comes with the benefit of wildlife and natural beauty.

Greater participation in active travel is the culture change that we need, not just to protect what we have and to combat climate change, but to make all of our lives a little more joyful as we travel and work alongside each other.

I move amendment S6M-09328.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises the importance of local authority transport and planning funding in allowing all new and existing developments to include active travel infrastructure, tackling potholes, cycle parking, and ensuring safe pavements and travel for all; believes that active travel policies should be more conscious of protected characteristics, including women, disabled people and BME people, and notes the recent report highlighting the decrease in children travelling to school in an active way.”