This issue needs to be addressed now, not 10 years hence.

Thousands of houses are being built all over the country as we speak. They must all have active travel links. We have many houses that are not connected because, as Ben Macpherson said, a lot of our towns and cities were built with car use in mind.

We must have not only ambition but investment.

If it is a quick intervention.

That is interesting. If we are using space that is currently road space and reinventing it as cycle space, people have limited choices. There are different ways in which that can be done. There can simply be a line in the road, and we can keep our fingers crossed that everybody will stick by that, or we can use the type of infrastructure that started to go in during Covid. Russell Findlay is right about repairs, maintenance and cleaning, but we have to look at the choices because, with the nature of our roads, we do not have unlimited options.

No, I need to get on. I have taken a couple of interventions.

We thought that the Scottish Government’s motion is a bit self-congratulatory, and it does not address the key issues that put many people off cycling. It is good that addressing that has been one of the themes of today’s discussion.

Ensuring that children have safe access to cycling is partly about planning and partly about our road infrastructure. However, it is also about ensuring that there is cheap or free access to bikes, and many community groups are working hard to provide that.

During Covid, short-term investment made it easier to accommodate the increase in the number of people walking and cycling as they worked from home and used their local communities for exercise or just to get out into a safe environment. However, we need on-going investment in our communities right across the country.

Claire Baker’s point about coming on to and then off cycle spaces is really important. We need to ensure that, when we retrofit existing roads, that work is done as well as possible, because we need the infrastructure at the local level.

Potholes, which have been mentioned quite a few times, are dangerous for cyclists. I have had several crashes as a result of potholes. It is particularly hard to see them at night, especially when the lighting is not good.

As Claire Baker said, there are particular issues relating to the condition of our paths and networks. That is a critical point for disabled people. If people are to walk as part of their everyday lives, we need to ensure that our pavements are safe for people with crutches or walking sticks and those whose sight is not perfect or who have no sight at all. Recently, when I was recovering from a broken ankle, I tested out the pavements and found that they were not good enough in a lot of our communities. We need to think about infrastructure repair and maintenance.

As our amendment notes, it is important that we think through the different experiences of different communities. It is important to bear in mind Beatrice Wishart’s point that crowded roads put off women in particular. I know from talking to InfraSisters, which is a campaign group in the Lothians, that there are routes that women simply do not feel safe using. They will not use those routes for major parts of the year, so we need better lighting, particularly during the winter months, when people cannot cycle home safely at night at the moment. Some routes are not ideal for walking, either.

I go back to the point about money. Our cash-strapped local authorities need to be given the resources to invest in our existing roads and pavements, which are not as safe as they should be, and in new infrastructure, which is critical. There should be more dedicated cycle spaces and routes to make people feel safer and to encourage them to walk and cycle for more of their journeys. The Scottish Government needs to address that key issue if we are to deliver on the ambition to reduce car travel by 20 per cent. It would definitely be worth the minister reading the really good report by the cross-party group on sustainable transport. We need to provide safe, affordable and reliable choices.

We recently debated buses. That issue also relates to the move to active travel, because people should be able to walk part of their route and get a bus for another part of their route. People should have better options for getting into our towns and cities. There should be park-and-ride services on the edge of cities, faster bus routes into town and better routes for cyclists. If someone in Edinburgh or Glasgow goes on to Google Maps, they might find that, for a lot of routes, it would be faster to cycle—it would definitely be faster than using the bus—and, given the parking situation, cycling could get them as close as driving would.

We need a culture shift, and we need to ensure that employers help to deliver that shift. We need to think about public sector employers. For example, cycling is definitely encouraged in the Scottish Parliament, but there is not a lot of space for bikes downstairs, so there needs to be the infrastructure now and in the future.

Members across the chamber have talked about the superb amount of work that has been done by people who work in our communities to give people access to active travel. For example, in my city, Edinburgh & Lothians Regional Equality Council, which is a voluntary organisation, gives people from ethnic minority communities access to walking and cycling, as well as confidence and social opportunities. At the weekend, I visited the Bike Station, which gives people access to affordable bikes and teaches them repair skills and how to look after their bike—I found that very useful. It also has a bike library, which enables parents to pass on a bike when it is not big enough for their kid any more and get a new one. Such projects are crucial.

There is much more that we need to do. It cannot be on-off. The target of spending 10 per cent of the transport budget on active travel is critical. We have been debating cycling in this Parliament for more than two decades, so it is not a new issue.

There will be a shift when we move to using electric vehicles, which will be really expensive to buy. Electric bikes are slightly more expensive, but electric cars are more so. We need active travel opportunities to be in place now. We need interchanges for buses and trains, and we need decent routes that people can use—

After the delays and grandstanding between the UK and Scottish Governments, we deserve better than this. To get a viable DRS, the UK and the Scottish Governments should get around the table as quickly as possible, especially given that Circularity Scotland said today that the scheme could go ahead.

Over the past two weeks, I have asked the minister repeatedly whether she has explored all the options. The minister will be aware that, over the weekend, I wrote to her urging her to meet GS1 UK, which is the only company in the UK that can provide globally recognised barcodes. The minister has failed to meet GS1 UK, which is a not-for-profit company that has a solution that could, at least, reduce the burdens on industry in delivering the scheme, and, at most, change the conversation on the internal market exemption.

Will the minister commit to exploring every solution and to meet GS1 UK immediately, so that we can get a scheme that works?

The debate has been mostly constructive. It has been really good to hear about the mix of national targets and ambitions and the strong local insights, including the focus on individual communities and what is happening where we live. This is about making sure that we have the national targets and the funding while ensuring that the roll-out is as good as possible.

As everyone who has spoken in the debate has said, active travel is central to our health and wellbeing. Keeping people active will potentially help us to address poor health and the increasing number of people who are obese. Colleagues have cited powerful statistics.

Active travel is critical if we are to give people affordable and safe routes to services, schools, education, retail and work. Having a joined-up approach is key to our sustainable travel ambitions and to ensuring that Scotland can meet its net zero targets and tackle the climate crisis. In addition, as Mercedes Villalba said, we need that approach to support our nature recovery. Her points about air pollution were really important.

As we move towards the summer holidays, active travel should also be part of our tourist offer, not only for people who live in Scotland but for those who come here, given the beauty of our country and the hospitality that it offers. I was thinking about that as I travelled to Parliament this morning.

If we are to deliver on all our ambitions, we need investment and expertise across the country, in all our councils. That has been one of the criticisms throughout today’s debate. Councils need the knowledge, the staff and, critically, the funding to make things happen—and not just in existing communities. As our amendment says, we need to ensure that, from day 1, active travel options such as walking and cycling are included where there are new developments, including housing developments. There must also be investment in buses. If we are to give people an alternative to using cars, those options must be there from day 1.

The minister has chosen to make this statement about the constitution and is using it as an excuse to divert attention from the utter mismanagement and uncertainty that her scheme has caused. She has already delayed the scheme to address the fact that she had not listened to businesses at all, and she threatened to cancel it two weeks ago.

Stakeholders have told me that, despite repeated requests, they have been unable to meet the minister or her officials when they have had solutions to offer. Will the minister now tell me, in answer to the question that I asked her last week, whether she examined options that would have prevented the need for an internal market act exemption altogether? That is a missed opportunity, because repeated requests to meet have been turned down by the minister and her officials. Will the minister now tell us, in the light of her statement, exactly how much has been spent on the scheme and whether the deposit costs for cans and plastics will have to go up?

When I saw Keith Brown’s motion, I thought that I could predict what the debate would be like and, thus far, it has lived up to my expectations. In my view, the debate has focused on the constitution rather than on delivering for the people of Scotland.

Scottish Labour is the party of devolution. We campaigned for it, we introduced the legislation that made it a reality and we used its powers to the max from day 1.

Two decades on, we need better government—I agree with previous speakers on that—but we also need stronger accountability in Scotland. I say to my SNP colleagues in the chamber and, indeed, to the Tories that—whether it relates to our NHS, access to mental health support, the two-tier dental system, failures in educational attainment, or the delays in using our social security powers, setting up a Scottish energy company or, most recently, the DRS—the people of Scotland are clear that they want both of Scotland’s Governments to work together. That is what grown-up Governments do in Europe, even when they have totally different politics. [Interruption.] I do not think so.

I will comment on the section of the motion with which I agree. I recognise that the Tories have put massive pressure on the devolution settlement, particularly following Brexit. Through its work, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee explained that tension and made a powerful case for change. Scottish Labour is focused on rebuilding our relations with our European neighbours, and providing a replacement for the Erasmus scheme would definitely be a start. [Interruption.] No, thank you.

I, too, express disappointment about the section 35 order in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, because such an order was supposed to be an enabling mechanism, not a blocking mechanism. That principle was agreed by all parties. It is interesting that, in 1998, the Tories moved an amendment to the Scotland Bill to require UK ministers to publish legal advice in such circumstances. However, the UK Government has so far refused to publish its legal advice. If it did so, that would make life a little more interesting.

Collette Stevenson mentioned the DRS. The UK and Scottish Governments should have been working together quietly to carry out the necessary work to secure an exemption for the DRS under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Single-use plastics have been exempted, for example. However, it is clear even from the Scottish Government’s publications that months went by without the heavy lifting happening. Those months were wasted, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. That is not the case just for the SNP-Green Government; businesses are under massive pressure in planning ahead, and the situation is a huge disappointment for those of us who want a workable scheme. In her statement today, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity took absolutely no responsibility for the Scottish Government’s action—or lack of it in some cases. In the past few weeks, I have met stakeholders who, despite repeated requests, have not been given the opportunity to meet the minister responsible for the scheme.

Therefore, we need to improve devolution and to have better-quality government in Scotland. Crucially, we need the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, even though they disagree with each other, for the betterment of Scotland. They should not just grab headlines by having a fight with each other. [Interruption.] No, thank you. I have less than a minute to go.

I totally agree with the point in the motion about the cliff edge that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill would have created. I am proud of the work of that our Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee did to make the case for change. Labour argued strongly for a U-turn from the Tory Government, which it eventually delivered, but it took not only a lot of campaigning from us but cross-party lobbying and lobbying by businesses and stakeholders.

We delivered devolution and we appear to be the only party that is still interested in transforming the settlement to make it work. As colleagues have said, we have been here for two decades and we need to transform the UK. On that point, I appreciate the opportunity of the debate.

We need to move power out of the centre to strengthen democracy in Westminster and Holyrood and to empower our local authorities and communities. That has not been mentioned, but it—not leaving our councils cash strapped for more than a decade without the resources to provide the basic services that our constituents need—is core to devolution. That is the transformative change that people throughout Scotland need.

We need Scotland’s Governments, whether or not they agree, to co-operate where it matters in the interest of Scotland’s people and businesses. We need to elect a UK Government to get on with that job and the constitutional transformation that we need, which will not be delivered by the Tories, the SNP or the Greens.

I put on my record my apologies for cutting it fine with my arrival today.

Given the fantastic opportunities that were highlighted at the All-Energy conference and the need to tackle both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis, what discussions does the minister have planned with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to support local authorities to deliver council and community co-operative led heat and power schemes, given the huge benefits that that could deliver to our constituents?