Chamber and committees

I am interested in the minister’s mention of schools. He will be aware that primary school kids often cycle to school, but that that tails off when they get to secondary school. What is he noticing now? Is that changing?

I want to talk about Scotland. The fact is that there are organisations out there that do not have certainty about their funding. When organisations such as Sustrans are having to potentially make people redundant, it sends out a very negative message.

In March last year, we debated active travel. At that time, I wished Mr Harvie all the best in his new role and offered to work with him on this policy area, on which we agree on so much. That has not happened, so I make the offer again. I would be happy to have regular meetings with Mr Harvie, so I look forward to his office getting in touch to set that up.

One issue that I have mentioned before—in fact, I mentioned it during that debate in March last year—is the lack of resources in councils, which is hampering progress. That is an issue that I mention in my amendment. Some councils do not have the expertise any more, or they may not have the people to run road safety courses—it could be anything.

There is a great project that was being talked about when I was a councillor in South Lanarkshire that has been stalled, apparently because of resources: the Westburn viaduct crosses the Clyde. Trains stopped using it in the 1980s and it has been closed ever since, but there is a plan in place to open it up and create a walking and cycling route over the river, which would be fantastic. I believe that Sustrans is geared up to go ahead, but there is no agreement on which council—Glasgow City or South Lanarkshire, on either side of the river—would maintain the new path.

The challenge of adoption of infrastructure for maintenance is a significant barrier to delivery. Perhaps the minister can assist in breaking the deadlock for the Westburn project, which could genuinely be transformational.

I start by saying how shocked I was to hear about the resignation of Kevin Stewart as Minister for Transport and his reasons for stepping down. I wish him only the very best in his recovery. I have always got on with Kevin in whatever ministerial role he has performed. [Applause.]

I agree with pretty much everything that Patrick Harvie has just said. That might surprise him.

Is Douglas Ross still there? He is not. I thought that he was about to sack me for saying that.

Will the member accept an intervention?

That is a good example. I am familiar with that route, which I have cycled. I look forward to cycling with Ms Hyslop at a local project that she has invited me to; I hope that we will do that in the summer, which would be fantastic.

I have referred many times to the Government’s well-meant target of reducing car miles by a fifth by 2030, which is a mere seven years away. So far, the Government has said nothing about how that will be achieved, but we know that the pace of delivery of the impressive active travel targets needs to be stepped up.

The cross-party group on sustainable transport, which I convene, produced a report in November that included five recommendations, which I will run through. They were:

“Provide clarity around policies, expected impacts, and timescales for implementation ... Pursue policies that target unnecessary car journeys ... Consider the equalities impacts of traffic reduction policies ... Ensure greater affordability of public transport services”

and

“Include van traffic as part of the traffic reduction target.”

The report said that we should

“consider the impact of freight on traffic volumes and emissions from road traffic. It must be ensured that reduction in emissions from cars is not cancelled out by an increase of emissions from delivery vans.”

So far, I have seen no progress to meet those recommendations. Nothing that the minister has said today has convinced me that we have any hope of persuading more people to use public transport. If anything, the little progress that there has been on active travel is going backwards.

As you know, Presiding Officer, active travel is good for the nation. Walking for 30 minutes or cycling for 20 minutes on most days reduces mortality risk by at least 10 per cent. Active commuting is associated with an approximate 10 per cent decrease in cardiovascular disease risk and a 30 per cent decrease in type 2 diabetes risk. The cancer-related mortality rate is 30 per cent lower among bike commuters.

It is a fact that a large number of people do not have cars, so we should make life easier for them and encourage those who have cars to use them less often. My amendment would not wipe out the minister’s motion—it would keep most of it. My amendment merely says that the Government should set out some of its plans. If we all want to improve active travel, that is not too much to ask. I urge members to back my amendment; I hope that we can all move in the same direction.

I move amendment S6M-09328.2, to leave out from “; recognises” to “ground” and insert:

“but calls on the Scottish Government to set out a detailed delivery plan that addresses how it will help local authorities that do not have the capacity to achieve the targets; calls on the Scottish Government to set out in detail how it plans to achieve a 20% reduction in car mileage by 2030”.

Can the minister confirm that she is drawing up a modified scheme without glass and does she think that that modified scheme could be up and running by March next year?

I hope that everyone who is taking part in the debate was able to do some active travelling over what was a glorious weekend. I certainly got on my bike—something that Patrick Harvie might wish me to do with a degree of permanence—and it was good.

Recently, my good friend Brian Whittle and I cycled out from East Kilbride towards Strathaven on a cycle route that uses country roads. We did not get to Strathaven because we came across a farm that had diversified into opening an outdoor cafe. [Laughter.] That was good enough for us and for the many locals who were using it.

I have cycled that route many times. All of it is on road, and I have to say that the roads are in an appalling state. In parts, they are dangerous to cyclists. Given that many cyclists have to go on the road, we need to concentrate on making the roads fit for purpose.

Mr Whittle and I enjoyed a few hours of old-codger chat and we will do so again soon, I hope. As you will be pleased to hear, Presiding Officer, we are not middle-aged men in Lycra. My approach, like the minister’s, is that I do not have to wear special clothing to jump on a bike.

However, I have taken to wearing a helmet most of the time. That came about for me during lockdown, when I was cycling a lot more than I had been. It was a result of a couple of things. First, as I have already said, the roads were dreadful and I considered that there was a real risk that I could be thrown off my bike. The roads are worse now, so the risk is greater. Secondly, I felt that if I got a bright helmet, it would help me to be seen by motorists, many of whom—let us face it—have little regard for cyclists.

Too many people do not feel safe on a bike, and that has to change. We need to make the infrastructure better and we need to take people with us on that mission.

Segregated routes are very important. The minister mentioned Barcelona. I have cycled there, and he is right to say that the city did not start off from a good point, but it has put in segregated routes and is perhaps a good example of how things can be done.

Here in Edinburgh, there are some fantastic off-road routes—the city is spoiled in many ways. It is investing heavily in more routes, but the council has too often been heavy handed in its approach and lacking in common sense. I do not want to get too parochial, but I recently cycled across the foot of Leith Walk, where the tramway has been built, and I just thought, “What the heck is going on?” I am not alone. The foot of Leith Walk has conflict written all over it.

All of us in this chamber back greater investment in active travel, be it in cycling, walking or wheeling. We went into the previous Scottish Parliament elections calling for 10 per cent of the transport budget to be spent on active travel, which is, thankfully, now the Government’s position. However, right now, a number of third sector organisations are worried about their funding and there is a fear of redundancies. Sustrans recently said:

“With less Scottish Government funding, we are left with no choice but to make cuts, which will reduce our impact on changing the way people travel every day. As a result, 21 of our Sustrans colleagues in Scotland are now at risk of redundancy and there will be an end or reduction to programmes right across Scotland.”

Some organisations have worked for months without funding. That is not good enough if we are to maintain any sort of momentum.

To ask the Scottish Government what options it foresees for the future of Ferguson Marine after ferries 801 and 802 are built. (S6O-02320)

Well, I would thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but it was not an answer. He did not answer the question, which was on the options that he sees for the future—I do not know what options he foresees. If he wants to return the yard to the private sector, as he has said that he does, investment will be needed. Has he done an assessment of how much investment will be needed?

The Scottish Government has commissioned an independent review into funding and future options for the yard. When will we see that?