Chamber and committees

We have a huge amount to do, not only with infrastructure, so that routes are safe, but to ensure that young people have access to bikes—and to different bikes as they grow and their needs change—and to the skills that they need to maintain them. There is a huge amount to do.

We are still in the early days of becoming an active travel nation and even the most ambitious projects that we begin today will take a few years to bear fruit, but I am determined to see our commitments and our record funding translate into real change on the ground.

In leading European cities, such as Utrecht and Copenhagen, such projects are commonplace and everyday. They are almost unremarked upon and are just business as usual, but getting to that position did not happen overnight; it took decades of persistent commitment across political and funding cycles. It also took an appreciation that increasing active travel is not just about active travel policy itself, and that how we manage wider transport policy is just as important. Therefore, our work on 20mph speed limits and traffic reduction targets matters, as does our economic development policy and how we plan, build and use our places—there is a role for national planning framework 4—as well as the commitment to 20-minute neighbourhoods.

That kind of sustained and integrated approach is becoming commonplace in other European cities, including in places such as Paris, Barcelona and Ghent, which some people might not associate with active travel. We can see our European neighbours transforming and re-imagining their cities and that is what we want to do here too.

That is precisely why we are delivering record investment in this area. I repeat my case that places such as Paris and Barcelona perhaps did not have a strong track record and, unlike Amsterdam or Copenhagen, did not come from the higher starting point that the member talks about.

Where cities have achieved that change, they get more than health and environmental benefits. They find that, once their communities become safer and more pleasant places to spend time, they thrive. That is my ambition: that great environments for walking, wheeling and cycling become the default expectation. It must also be safe and easy to choose active travel in our rural areas and in smaller towns and villages, just as it should be in our cities.

There is still much more for us to do. That is why I published the new cycling framework for active travel in April this year. It supports our vision for active travel in 2030, when we want walking, wheeling and cycling to be the most popular modes of travel for short, everyday journeys. It will shape how Government, councils and active travel organisations will work together to deliver ambitious improvements and to remove barriers to cycling across the country.

The ambition shown by this Government in committing to the highest level of capital funding for active travel anywhere in the United Kingdom, and by far the highest amount in our history, means that we are starting to deliver. That is why I am very pleased today to announce an additional £20 million of active travel infrastructure funding that will go directly to local authorities, regional transport partnerships and the national park authorities. That new active travel transformation fund has been developed over the past few months in partnership with local authorities and others as a step towards reinvigorating our delivery models for next year and beyond.

This morning, I visited the south side of Glasgow and heard from city council colleagues how the fund has enabled the delivery of a project that will extend the already impressive south city way, connecting to the New Victoria hospital and a nearby housing development of 400 homes. That £2.5 million scheme will improve local public spaces, prioritise people over vehicles and improve connectivity throughout the area.

It is certainly not because I do not like the findings. The amendment slightly misrepresents them. The report said that the impact of coronavirus on schools

In 2020 and 2021 ... was a substantial additional factor”,

so it is not reasonable to present that as though it is a reduction in active travel to school more generally.

Several members, including Evelyn Tweed and Beatrice Wishart, mentioned the urban-rural issues. It is true that the easiest way to get emissions reductions alone is through busy routes in urban areas, which can achieve high levels of modal shift. However, it is not enough to imagine that urban areas see active travel and cycling as only for transport and emissions reduction and rural areas see them as only for recreation. That is not a reasonable way forward. It is not true and it does not recognise the demand for active travel in rural areas and smaller towns. I hope therefore that members will welcome the successful bids for the active travel transformation fund from rural and remote areas, including Shetland.

Several members mentioned either their local infrastructure projects or local charities that are doing excellent creative work to encourage active travel. I will be happy to visit as many of those as I can. I am a particular fan of the bike bus movement because it is one of the most joyful ways of encouraging and demonstrating the appetite for active travel.

John Swinney talked about the perception of safety and I recognised his description of that. It was one of the things that held me back from getting back on a bike in Glasgow. He was also right to say that, on climate action, we are approaching the stage at which the challenging tasks that are ahead of us need to be done if we are to get back on track with climate targets. There are those who will the end but do not will the means; we need to challenge that.

Active travel can sometimes be polarised and opportunistically opposed. Sometimes it even gets caught up in culture wars nonsense such as conspiracy theories about 20-minute neighbourhoods and low-emission zones. We need to challenge that perception.

Ben Macpherson commented on how Edinburgh might have changed for the worse as a city if it had done what others did in indulging too much in the road-building obsession of the 1960s. That is what the active travel debate should be about. It is not just about one particular bike lane on one particular route; it is about a long-term vision of the kinds of cities, towns and communities of all sizes that we want to live in in 10, 20 or 30 years. I hope that we can bring that positive vision forward. It will require on-going investment, which is tough, particularly in times of heightened pressure on resources. It will also require a willingness to challenge and change the status quo. Our approach to delivering active travel is preparing the ground for the record investment that we are committing to that will lead to healthier communities, generate jobs, reduce costs on household budgets and revitalise local economies.

I begin by thanking members for contributing to the debate today, in particular those including Graham Simpson, Mercedes Villalba, Beatrice Wishart and Mark Ruskell who chose to use part of their contribution to offer their best wishes to Kevin Stewart in light of his announcement today. I hope that the whole chamber will join together in wishing him very well in recovering from the issues that he has been facing.

It is clear that there is a broad consensus on the benefits that active travel can bring, even if not all members are quite willing to accept the reality that it now comes with a higher level of political commitment and a higher level of funding than ever before. I will not have time to address every member’s contribution, but let me start with those who moved amendments.

Graham Simpson started with a personal example of how active travel can end up supporting local businesses of one kind or another with a bit more cash going into their tills. That is something that we need to recognise—it is not just a change of culture on our roads but something that can benefit small businesses when they see that greater footfall from active travel. He also reflected on the fact that we need to see a change in driver behaviour in many parts of the country.

However, Graham Simpson’s amendment deletes a significant amount of the motion, including the recognition of the level of funding that we are putting in, such as the active travel transformation fund, so we will not be able to support it. I know that the Conservatives do not necessarily like hearing fair comparisons with funding in the rest of the UK but, even in the Scottish context, it is a higher level of commitment to active travel by some margin than Scotland has previously seen and the Scottish Government is determined to continue that.

I will certainly look into the specific local projects that Graham Simpson mentioned, but it is relevant that the clear commitment to providing long-term increased investment—such as the active travel transformation fund—direct to local authorities will help them to have confidence and increase their capacity and skills to deliver active travel projects.

Mercedes Villalba also offered support for our active travel objectives. I share her view of the need to address, for example, congestion and air pollution. I hope that we are all able to welcome the groundbreaking progress that has been made in putting in place the first low-emission zone. It will be, and should be, only the first.

Mercedes Villalba also restated many of the multiple benefits from active travel: reduced greenhouse gas emissions; improved road safety; the nature recovery that comes with quieter streets and cleaner air; public health and much more. Her arguments on the costs of transport are also important. Let us recognise that, although active travel is the cheapest way of getting about, if the cost of the repair that somebody faces having to make to their bike is much more than the cost of tomorrow’s bus ticket, it might force them back on to a more expensive and less accessible form of transport.

We need to ensure that we are addressing access to bikes as well. The Scottish Government is doing that. Members know that the free bikes pilot was implemented to develop the best models of giving free bikes to young people, because one size will not fit all. We are also working with Bike for Good on the option of a bike subscription model and, later this year, with Cycling UK, we will launch an open fund to support bike share schemes, because there are multiple ways of giving people access to bikes, not just ownership.

The member, like others across the chamber, will be aware of the additional pressures that come from the current financial situation, including inflation and its impact on the Scottish budget, and the need to ensure that there is scrutiny.

One of the reasons for increased scrutiny of active travel is the increased level of budget. As something comes up the scale of spend, it requires additional scrutiny across the Scottish Government’s budget. I am very grateful for active travel partners’ understanding of the additional pressures that that brings to bear, and the extra work that they have done to provide the information that allows us to clear a huge amount of the spending that we have already committed to. They know that this Government is fully committed to a hugely increased budget, unlike those elsewhere in the UK.

Without casting aspersions on the motivation of the right-wing press for the stunt that they undertook, I hope that the party that often casts itself as the supporter of individual liberty will respect the fact that the matter is one of individual choice. I fully respect Russell Findlay’s decision to wear a helmet, if that makes him feel safer, and I hope that he respects my choice.

The cost that we have committed to is £320 million or at least 10 per cent of the transport budget by the year 2024-25. Over the longer term, the sky is the limit in terms of the transformation that we could make in communities right across Scotland.

As we take that work forward, inclusion must be at the heart of our active travel policy, not just by creating better infrastructure but by working to close the mobility gap and meet the diverse needs of a diverse community. One example is the work of our delivery partners Cycling UK, which has formed a partnership with Spinal Injuries Scotland to develop a fleet of accessible and adaptable e-bikes that let people with spinal injuries and other mobility issues participate in cycling every day on journeys that many cyclists would take for granted—just going to the shops, commuting to work or attending an appointment. We should not accept that accessibility issues mean that someone cannot make an active travel journey.

In contrast with the priorities that held for so many decades, walking, wheeling and cycling are at the top of our sustainable travel hierarchy, which, in turn, informs our priorities for investment and policy decisions.

This year, I am again funding the Ian Findlay paths fund, which is named after the former chief officer of Paths for All who tragically passed away in 2021. The fund supports small local projects to make improvements to existing walking infrastructure and to make connections where there are gaps in local path networks.

I am very pleased to be able to announce today the launch of the £1.5 million active nation fund. The fund will make grants of up to £200,000 available to a range of public, third and community-sector organisations that are looking to scale up successful behaviour change interventions, enabling people to drive less and to walk, wheel or cycle as part of their everyday short journeys.

That is only a narrow sample of the wide range of activity across Scotland that is already happening. A lot of that work is still in the pipeline, and I cannot wait to join thousands of other people in seeing the benefits.

That rising investment has already had positive outcomes. To give just one example, a scheme at Garscube Road in the north-west of Glasgow, which was funded through our places for everyone programme, resulted in a 300 per cent increase in the number of cyclists using the road, demonstrating the demand for safe spaces and connected routes. Also, just last week, research that was funded by the Scottish Government showed that the numbers of children walking, wheeling and cycling to their schools are now higher than they were before the pandemic, with almost 50 per cent of pupils getting to school actively.

Just a few minutes ago, one of the member’s colleagues asked me whether I agree that we should not tell local authorities how to use money that is provided for them. Is he now saying that we should dictate from the centre how money should be used locally? Surely he can recognise that there is a case for decentralising that decision making.

The active travel transformation fund is available for councils to bid for. They can bring their projects forward and that money will be spent on delivering them.

The fund will deliver projects right across Scotland. An example is the £1.6 million to deliver phase 2 of the Alva academy link in Clackmannanshire, which will not only improve active travel for local children but will provide links to key employment centres that support about 1,000 workers. The fund will help to address transport poverty. It will also enable safe travel in rural communities. In Habost on the Isle of Lewis, we will provide £175,000 to connect the village with the local school.

We have been clear in our desire to develop the fund through a partnership approach, both directly with delivery bodies and through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I want to say how grateful I am for the constructive work of our partners, which is helping to ensure that the fund meets local needs wherever possible.

I am afraid that I am coming to the end of my speech and I need to wind up.

It will also revitalise local economies in many places that are still in recovery from the Covid pandemic.

For us to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose delivery model for active travel to meet those challenges and capitalise on the opportunities, we have undertaken a review of our whole approach in the delivery models. The transformation fund is a vital first step in that, and further changes that will follow will require not just support and funding from the Scottish Government but strong leadership and a strong approach to working collaboratively with our delivery partners.

I will finish by reflecting on what Mark Ruskell said about how much of the progress that we are making is possible only because of a movement of people demanding change and looking to reclaim their places for people instead of for vehicles. That is entirely true. On its own, the Scottish Government cannot deliver that without the community leadership that we can empower around the country. I encourage members to continue to engage with their local communities. Together we can ensure that the transformation of active travel reaches across Scotland and that the benefits are felt in every city, town, village and household. To do that, we will need that joined-up approach and the Scottish Government, local authorities and communities will need to work together to address all the issues that members have mentioned, and a great deal more besides.

Once again, I thank members for their contribution to the debate and I encourage them to take the opportunities that the Scottish Government active travel funding brings to their communities by working with them to create leadership and bring forward excellent projects that we can fund for the future.