Chamber and committees

I welcome the debate and commend the minister for the personal energy that he brings to this important topic. From my extensive discussions with him over the course of the period in which he has been in Government, I know how seriously he takes the issues, and that he is providing the commitment and leadership that are necessary to advance the agenda.

One of the comments that the minister made in his opening remarks suggested that we must make active travel easier and safer. The more we think about how that can be turned into a practical reality, the better we will serve the interests of the policy agenda.

I took part in a local cycling exercise in the city of Perth. It is a place in which I do not normally cycle; I normally cycle in country areas on very quiet roads. I found cycling in the city of Perth to be a very unnerving experience because of the interplay with, and the volume of, fast-moving traffic. There are significant obstacles to people feeling that it is safe to cycle in particular contexts. That should underpin a lot of our thinking, because it all matters in terms of getting people out of cars and on to the other modes of transport that will help us to reduce carbon emissions.

Since I have been citing him as the principal source of moaning and complaint today, I must give way to Mr Simpson.

I am trying to encourage people to establish a relationship between our strategic commitment to tackling climate change and their being prepared actually to do something about it ground. That is my point.

Let me move to some of the local issues that I told Mr Ruskell I would talk about. One good example that I see in my constituency is that some developments can enable active travel. For example, when the Perth flood defence scheme was put in place, an extensive cycling network was created. It goes off road around the North Muirton area and gives wonderful access to the city.

That will be complemented by the completion of the cross-Tay link route. I know that Mr Ruskell is not a fan of that particular development, but it will create a park-and-choose space where people can park their cars then choose how they access the city from quite far out of the city, in a rural area.

I make the plea to the minister, as I did when he came to visit my constituency, that the Government look seriously at community aspirations for stronger regulation to enable communities to access land for community projects for active travel development. I have a number of examples, particularly in the Coupar Angus, Blairgowrie and Alyth triangle, where great community groups want to establish cycleways but are being thwarted by their lack of ability to progress land acquisition or to deal even with land-access issues, on which public authorities have stronger powers than community organisations.

When I visited constituents the other week, we cycled along the cycle route beside the A90 dual carriageway between Perth and Dundee, on the stretch between Walnut Grove and St Madoes. It is quite literally just a pavement at the side of the A90. For people who cycle along it, even those who are of sturdy determination, it is quite daunting and intimidating. We need to think about how we can develop spaces and routes. St Madoes is a growing commuter community for the city of Perth. There is an opportunity for people to use that route to access the city, but the infrastructure is not quite there. I have written to the transport minister about the issue, and I hope that Patrick Harvie will engage on the matter.

The Government is taking the right steps. I very much welcome the investment that it has announced today and the commitment to active travel. I hope that they will help us to get the modal shift that is necessary to support our ambitions on climate change.

Does Mr Kerr not think that the chances of achieving that objective might be helped by the £20 million transformation fund going directly to local authorities and regional transport partnerships? That is the very wording that his silly amendment tries to delete.

They do not.

Mr Kerr’s reaction to my point illustrates one of the dilemmas. The Conservatives come here unprepared to increase tax but wanting more spending. They come here demanding that we empower local authorities and then demanding that we tell local authorities what to do. Does that not just tell Parliament that the Conservatives are hypocrites on these issues?

Will the member give way?

That is a concern. I will speak soon about some issues in the Perthshire area, where my council colleagues are now taking back the initiative to ensure a far more sustained approach that will secure greater levels of participation in cycling and active travel, which are essential to reducing carbon emissions.

A key point that is at the heart of the Government’s agenda and the minister’s agenda is the creation of a common purpose between Government, local authorities, regional transport partnerships and communities. The Government cannot do this on its own, so it is not appropriate to land it all on the Government, because many decisions must be taken at the local level. That makes the stance that has been taken by the Conservative Party in today’s debate just a little odd, because the amendment that was lodged by Graham Simpson would delete the motion’s reference to the active investment that the minister is making today in local authority provision. Having made the plea that the Government support local authorities with funding, the Conservatives now want us to pass a rather silly amendment that would take away any reference to that particular point.

Mercedes Villalba made a strong point about the importance of improving air quality. The intervention that I wanted to make on her was to ask a bewildered question about what on earth the Glasgow Labour Party was doing in the run-up to the introduction of the Glasgow low emission zone last week, when Labour members suddenly said that they thought that there were problems with the zone, despite their having made a manifesto commitment to delivering it.

I am not citing those examples to make unnecessary trouble for myself in a parliamentary debate—I always try to bring people in the chamber together—but I think that they are stunning examples of the problem that is faced by us, by the minister and by the whole climate action agenda. It is that we need to get people to establish a degree of consistency between our vigorous strategic agreement on the importance of tackling climate change and the specific things that we have to do about it on the ground. I cite the deposit return scheme, in respect of which there is a massive problem that has become an obstacle, and the workplace parking levy, which we have been told we cannot do. Many other things have been cited, but here we are, in an active travel debate, with the minister putting money on the table to help things to move forward while folk moan about it.

Will Liam Kerr give way for a second time so that we can have a debate?

Does the member welcome the fact that, on the most recent data, a record number of young people—95.7 per cent—are leaving Scottish education to go to positive destinations? Does that not in any way register on Mr Kerr’s view of the world as being a good thing?