Active Travel
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6476, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s report on its inquiry into active travel.
15:15
I stand here as a case study in active travel. The early commencement of the debate meant that I had to run here from my previous appointment. Not only that, but the additional health benefit of not having been able to consume the pie that I intended to have on the way back means that I have no doubt improved the health statistics.
Order. For the sake of other members who might be misled, I point out that the debate did not really start early. It was timetabled to start when the previous one finished.
Clearly, the time indication that I was given was purely informal and I should be more careful in future.
I thank my fellow committee members, the clerks and colleagues from the Scottish Parliament information centre who contributed to the production of the report, as well as the witnesses—the many people who gave us written evidence as well as those who came to give oral evidence to the committee.
Why did we begin the inquiry into active travel when we did? It was partly because the cycling action plan for Scotland is a continuing piece of work in the Scottish Government and we felt that it was important that the Parliament have the opportunity to contribute to that. However, even before that work got under way, there was widespread recognition that active travel, or walking and cycling—I was correctly chided by one of our witnesses not to use the jargon—is a good thing, with a capital G and a capital T.
Everybody agrees that active travel is a good thing and that we should have more of it. The evidence is increasingly robust that it contributes to many Government policy objectives that are shared across political parties. It has health benefits—including mental health benefits, the evidence for which has become increasingly clear over recent years. Obviously, it also contributes towards achieving the necessary reductions in CO2 emissions and in transport pollution, which continues to be a problem.
Active travel would provide economic benefits and opportunities for the economy if we were to spend relatively small amounts of money on relatively affordable infrastructure improvements and softer measures. It has the ability to reduce congestion and save money for businesses, individuals and households. In addition, well-used public space leads to better communities and a sense of shared ownership of that space through its shared use. Active travel—walking and cycling—can also improve independence, especially for young people. Moreover, as energy issues increasingly come up the agenda and political parties are willing to speak the words “peak oil” openly in a way that did not happen only a few years ago, it can contribute to an energy descent path for Scotland.
This is the first time that a committee of the Scottish Parliament has carried out a major inquiry into active travel. Every other travel mode has received significant attention—rightly so—but active travel has not. We must acknowledge the current situation: we have shared aspirations but there is a lack of delivery and provision is patchy at best. We have a great, admirable record to examine in comparable countries—even countries with similar weather—but have not reproduced it in Scotland. There is also a consistent lack of funding. Repeatedly, when scrutinising Scottish budgets over recent years, the committee agreed unanimous recommendations that active travel must come up the Government’s agenda as a share of transport spending but that has not happened. The inquiry sought to address many of those issues.
It is also important to recognise that people are not defined by their last, or even most frequent, journey. Almost everybody walks. Drivers walk, train passengers walk, cyclists use the ferry and wheelchair users take the bus. Some walkers even pile their bikes on top of a four-by-four and drive about the country looking for somewhere unspoiled by congestion by other four-by-fours. We all share public space—roads, pavements, crossings, shopping centres and routes to school—and have a common interest in resolving any conflicts appropriately. There will always be competing pressure for that public space. At any one time, each of us probably sees the world from the perspective of our immediate transport journeys when we think about our rights and responsibilities.
So, what themes came out of the inquiry? Many of the cultural attitudes to walking and cycling featured in our evidence sessions. I have already mentioned the weather in that regard, which is sometimes perceived as a barrier to increasing walking and cycling. However, that is not the case in countries with comparable weather patterns. There is also an issue about peer reinforcement and how we perceive other walkers and cyclists. That was mentioned particularly in relation to cycling. For example, the contrast between Lycra-clad warriors and ordinary regular commuters was seen as a barrier that makes people feel that they do not want to be a cyclist or to be seen as one. Gender and age issues also came out of the inquiry. It is important to ditch some of the stereotyping in that regard, which unfortunately clouded some of our evidence, and recognise the real factors. For example, who makes decisions about children’s travel to school? As well as mums, many dads do that. However, we all recognise that domestic decisions and domestic work are not equally shared between men and women.
There are workplace issues around the provision of showers and changing facilities, and bike parking. There are also questions about motivation. Just as many people are not necessarily going to respond to a climate change argument that is phrased in terms of parts per million of CO2, many people will not think about the environment as their first reason for wanting to walk or cycle more. Health, fitness and independence are the kind of benefits that need to be stressed.
On education, we found that it was crucial that young people gain an experience of cycling early on so that they build up the confidence and knowledge to use a bike and cycle routes, and establish a cycling habit early on. That training does not currently appear to be adequate, because insufficient numbers of young people receive it. We need all young people to receive cycle training at school as a matter of course. We have asked the Government to consider a more centrally managed scheme that allows for common standards.
There were questions about safety and the perception of safety. A large amount of evidence suggested that reducing speed limits on the roads would have a real impact in promoting walking and cycling, as a result of both real safety statistics and the perception of safety, which is important. The wider adoption of 20 mile per hour zones would be very much welcomed.
Planning and the built environment must have walking and cycling at their very heart. We hear often that there is a hierarchy, but what we see in reality are developments taking place that lock in high carbon options for people. We have recommended that the cycling action plan for Scotland sets out specifically how it proposes to increase awareness and understanding among transport planners and engineers of the needs of walking and cycling.
Improvements in infrastructure are also essential. We need both dedicated cycling routes—by dedicated I mean both integrated with the road space and segregated, because different solutions will be appropriate in different contexts—and well-designed and maintained pavements. Some of the discussion that we had during the cold snap about the maintenance of, and damage to, pavements and the lack of gritting is just one example. While individual improvement schemes to the infrastructure as part of the trunk road upgrade can be welcome, they often stand in isolation and are not well linked to other cycle routes in the surrounding area. Having one or two cycle routes is no compensation for having access to the whole transport network. There are also issues around localisation, making better use of the planning system and thinking about where we deliver housing and public services so that people do not have to travel as much and the roads are safer.
I have to say something about funding. Overwhelmingly, we received strong evidence on the lack of adequate funding, even to reach the Government’s 10 per cent target for modal share for cycling. Repeatedly, our committee has recommended along those lines in our budget reports, but those recommendations appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Currently, less than 1 per cent—some say less than 1 per cent, while the Government says it is slightly more than 1 per cent, but it is in that region—of the Scottish Government’s transport budget is spent on walking and cycling. A representative of the cycle campaign group Spokes told us that they had put together research showing that all the main sources of funding, whether in transport or other budget headings, put us somewhere between £3 and £3.50 per head across Scotland.
It is not easy to identify a single figure for other European countries, but the range of figures goes from £5 to £25 per head. We are clearly way below that level. Cycling Scotland estimates that the figure in Scotland is £3.30 per capita compared with nearly £23 in Denmark and nearly £27 in Amsterdam.
Several witnesses argued that the per capita approach should be taken here. Others argued that 10 per cent of the transport budget should be spent on walking and cycling. The committee has not taken a view on which of those two options—the per capita approach or the percentage share of the transport budget—is the right one. If we examine them, they both result in similar, substantial increases in funding for walking and cycling. The committee considers that the 10 per cent target for modal share for cycling will be meaningless if the Scottish Government fails to match its ambition with a realistic level of funding that is proportionate to the improvements that it expects to be delivered throughout Scotland. The target is a good aspiration, but it will not be met by magic.
The committee has also expressed concern that local authorities will not make active travel a sufficiently high priority, particularly during what might be a prolonged period of economic constraint. If targets for increasing walking and cycling are to be met during such a period, the issue has to be addressed by the Scottish Government. The minister has noted the widespread variation in spending by local authorities. Instead of accepting that as an unavoidable trend, the committee believes that the Scottish Government must find ways in which to address it.
Strong leadership is vital at both ministerial and other levels in Government. We also argue that the role of agency leadership should be considered. Cycling England appears to have had some success in co-ordinating its role and we wonder whether the Scottish Government should consider a similar approach for Scotland. It is crucial to recognise that, if the issue is to become a real priority for the first time ever, compared with other, more expensive and more polluting transport projects that only serve to lock in the existing, unhealthy transport patterns, a fundamental change of mindset will be required. A radical and truly 21st century approach could be transformational in our communities, for our health, for our local economies, and for our ambition to turn our long-term ambitions on climate change into a reality.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s 4th Report, 2010 (Session 3): Report on the Inquiry into Active Travel (SP Paper 413).
15:27
Patrick Harvie opened his speech by referring to the health benefits of his rather speedier-than-expected journey to the chamber.
As you might already have guessed, Presiding Officer, if I am seen to be masticating before you, it is not because I am eating, but because I am chewing a Fisherman’s Friend. I hope that the smell of menthol does not unduly distract members from this important debate.
I welcome this afternoon’s debate on active travel. It comes at a significant time because we are about to publish the first-ever cycling action plan for Scotland. The debate is a welcome and timely final check on the contents of that plan. We will, of course, listen carefully to what is said today and consider it in finalising the plan. To adumbrate what our plan will contain, I say that it will set out an ambitious vision, it will present continuing investment in the national cycle network and it will see the Government looking to work in partnership on cycle networks throughout the country. It continues our partnership working on road safety for cyclists, which the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee mentioned in his opening remarks. It will seek to facilitate the co-ordinating role of Government in working with local authorities because, at the end of the day, if there is no local commitment to action, it is unlikely that there will be successful local delivery. We will also seek and identify opportunities to include active travel in planning guidance, and we will continue to invest in community cycling initiatives. I will return to a number of those themes later in my speech.
As members will know, the Scottish Government has been working in partnership with all stakeholders to identify ways in which we can encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport instead of private vehicles more often, particularly for shorter trips. The ambitious targets that the Parliament adopted on climate change a year ago, and our vision for bikes to achieve a 10 per cent modal share by 2020, mean that the making of short trips by bike or on foot—by walking or, in the convener’s case, running—should be encouraged.
Let us be clear about the scale of the task: if we were to switch a third of all journeys of less than 5km that are made by car to bikes, we would achieve the 10 per cent vision in the cycling action plan for Scotland. If we switched to bike half of all the journeys of less than 3km that are made by car, we would achieve an 11 per cent modal share for cycling. However, if that is the approach that is taken, it is clear that delivery on those numbers would not happen overnight. We must work in partnership to change travel behaviours for the greater good of Scotland.
I intervene if for no other reason than to allow the minister to do some more masticating.
The minister referred to modal shift, but does he recognise that in some areas mixed-use travel is necessary? In my constituency, we need to allow people to use public transport for part of the journey and to be able to cycle along the cycle routes in the Borders. When I have put that to bus companies, they have said that from an engineering point of view, it is difficult to put bike racks on buses. What is the Government doing with the wider public sector to ensure that when contracts for bus services are put out to tender, part of the process involves consideration of the use of bike racks and other means that would make it easier for people to use public transport in combination with the cycle routes in which we are investing?
Jeremy Purvis has touched on an important issue. It is worth saying that the Traveline Scotland website provides information about bus services that already have the capability to carry cycles, and about how cyclists can access that capacity—which is, in fairness, relatively limited both in its geographical spread and in the amount of space that is provided. From memory, I think that such provision is largely available in the Highlands rather than in the Borders.
Jeremy Purvis asked what role the Government can play. Our role has been to encourage and persuade. Support for mixed-use travel increases bus companies’ opportunities to cater for commuters, to support tourist traffic and to access new revenue streams. There is good practice that shows that it is possible to provide for cycles, either in a basic way by allowing bikes to be put in the hold of buses, or by providing specific facilities on board buses. I have seen such capability only this week.
We will work in partnership on that issue and more generally to change travel behaviours for the greater good of Scotland. We need to provide communities and individuals with the right information to help them to decide to use active travel for shorter journeys, or as part of the mixed-mode journeys to which Jeremy Purvis referred.
As part of our national performance framework, we have outcomes and targets that will help local authorities to meet their single outcome agreement targets, which will enable Scotland to achieve economic sustainable growth and health and environmental benefits across the country. It is vital that local authorities play their part in delivering change. I am pleased that throughout the development of policies on active travel—such as smarter choices, smarter places and the soon-to-be-published cycling action plan for Scotland—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been a supportive partner.
I want to expand on the policy areas in which the Scottish Government agrees with the committee’s recommendations. We will, of course, ensure that the committee receives an advance copy of the CAPS document ahead of publication.
At the inquiry into active travel, I gave assurances that the committee’s recommendations—and those from this debate—would be considered for inclusion in the final plan. I believe that we will succeed in meeting that commitment and I will expand on the recommendations that the Scottish Government will take forward.
First, on cycle training, the committee asked for a carefully co-ordinated and managed scheme with national standards. That will be taken forward and managed centrally by Cycling Scotland, in partnership with key delivery agencies such as Road Safety Scotland and the active schools network. The new approach will integrate the three levels of cycle training and will offer cycle training for children starting in primary 3 through to second year at secondary school. Training and support for volunteers will also be part of that. Cycling Scotland and partners will also develop a delivery plan for, in particular, delivering more on-road cycle training, which will be formulated by the end of 2010.
Secondly, on planning, the committee sought for active travel to be at the heart of new developments. The action plan will promote existing guidance to achieve more well-designed and accessible cycling facilities throughout Scotland. I await with interest the output of the inquiry, in which the committee is currently engaged, on the relationship between transport in general and land use.
I was pleased this morning to see published the document, “Cycling By Design”, which provides a comprehensive guide to contemporary examples of best practice in cycling design. Its primary focus is the establishment of guidance for practitioners throughout Scotland to ensure consistent and appropriate design. Transport Scotland currently requires consultants and contractors who are working on trunk road projects to follow that guidance. That will help raise the game of everyone involved.
Thirdly, on leadership, in integrating cycling with public transport we will strengthen partnerships, lead on investigating how other countries achieve traffic-management measures to integrate active travel, and seek opportunities to ensure that active travel is an integral part of planning decisions, which of course will help to improve health, regenerate communities and make roads safe for all.
The minister mentioned leadership and attempts to reproduce the success that other countries have achieved. Will he have time in the rest of his speech to address the central question of funding? We have heard time and again from many witnesses that if we do not address that with rather more than a 16 per cent increase in funding from such a low starting point, we will not have a chance of reaching the targets that the Government is setting itself.
Funding is certainly an important issue, which is why we have seen the budgets for cycling across Scotland rise year on year during the time of this Administration. I recognise that the budgets have risen, not the expenditure. The expenditure saw a one-time diversion from a cancelled scheme, but the budgets have been rising and continue to do so. I will comment further on that in my concluding remarks at the end of the debate.
We are in a period of financial constraint and we are keen to hear at all budget debates suggestions from members on which policy areas should be given priority.
I observe once again that I see quite different outcomes in different parts of the country where the expenditure is similar. It is perfectly possible to get much more for some of the money that is spent.
I look forward to a productive discussion on how we can increase active travel and improve the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Who knows—it might even address my throat.
15:38
I congratulate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on the thoroughness of its inquiry and the clarity of its report on active travel—cycling and walking. I am a member of the committee, so I hasten to add that I am not being self-congratulatory. For the avoidance of doubt, I congratulate all other members here present on at least actively travelling to the chamber, even if it was only from another part of the Parliament building.
The committee considered progress in delivering active travel and barriers to progress, and sought to identify further actions by Government, councils and other relevant bodies that would make further progress. We received 175 written submissions and held five oral evidence sessions.
Some committee members visited Copenhagen, and others visited Dumfries. I went to Dumfries. I do not know what privations my colleagues suffered in Copenhagen, but notwithstanding the driving rain and the one-way traffic system in Dumfries, I had a very informative visit.
Given that the member visited Dumfries, and in the light of the intervention during my speech, does he wish to know that the number 81 bus between Lockerbie and Dumfries is capable of carrying bicycles?
I am delighted by that intervention. Allowing for the fact that the minister is clearly unwell today, I missed his usual self-congratulatory tone. I am delighted to hear that the germs have not yet laid him quite that low. I take note and will try to make that bus journey some day.
Around 2 per cent of Scots who commute do so by bicycle and around 1 per cent of Scottish school children cycle to school. Those figures are, comparatively speaking, not much to write home about and represent a decline from previous generations. As we have heard, the Scottish Government has an ambitious target of raising the modal share for bicycle travel to 10 per cent among commuters. I would have presumed that the cycling action plan would be at the heart of that agenda, but it is not ready yet. Let us hope that that target is not another broken promise in the making.
On the reasons why people do not cycle, it is interesting that the evidence says that the weather is not much of a factor. There are cultural issues, to which the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee referred. Not everyone fancies being a Lycra-clad warrior; looking around the chamber, I think that very few of us would look good in Lycra at the best of times. By far the most compelling reason that was given by witnesses, who referred to survey evidence over the years, is the fact that although many people have bicycles, they are fearful of using them regularly because they do not feel safe on the roads alongside the other traffic. That is at the heart of the matter and raises the question of providing the funding to retrofit our roads infrastructure in order to create the perception that cycling is a safe option.
In committee and again today, the minister has been quick to say that councils have a big part to play in this agenda. He said that the effectiveness of council expenditure has been variable and drew the committee’s attention to the fact that one council apparently spends as little as 8p per head on active travel. Frankly, it is hard to expect much in the way of progress from that expenditure—it sounds like a box-ticking exercise on the part of that council, which the minister has not yet named and shamed. The minister implied that it is about bangs for bucks, and the convener cited the figure of around £3 to £3.50 per head as our general median spend on the agenda and compared that to some rather arresting continental-Europe figures. However, I do not want us to get hung up on the notion that our being seen to spend more money necessarily means that we are getting somewhere. The minister has a point when he says that the money needs to be spent effectively and on the right measures.
Leadership has been mentioned, and I note that the minister—probably because he is not feeling well today—did not give us his usual list of how far he has walked and how many steps he has taken as part of this agenda. My natural modesty impels me to refrain from that type of thing, but it is relevant to mention in this context that, most days, I walk my four-year-old son to nursery school. I do not do that in order to give political leadership on this issue; I do it as a parent. However, I am equally sure that, if I decided to start driving him to the nursery school, the public reaction would be against me as a politician rather than just as another commuting parent doing the school run.
Leadership is important, at national and local levels. People are fed up with politicians who do not practice what they preach. This agenda in particular hammers home that message. On infrastructure, we need more of the right sort of physical provision. Another example of the tick-box approach that was brought to our attention involved the trunk roads authority—the Scottish Government’s agents—which had built a section of road and plonked beside it a section of cycle path that did not connect up with anything in the way of active travel infrastructure at either end. That is an example of money not being spent effectively.
I would like to focus on an issue that emerged in evidence and which is particularly close to my heart. Michael McDonnell of Road Safety Scotland, whose work I first became aware of many years ago when I was part of Strathclyde Regional Council, told the committee that
“in many parts of Scotland the final stage of on-road training very often does not take place either because the education authority, the roads authority, the road safety unit or even the headteacher does not want to do it, or because the parents are not prepared to allow it.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 8 December 2009; c 2413.]
That is why I would strongly commend to the chamber the committee’s suggestion that it is extremely important that we salvage cycle training in Scotland for future generations by moving towards a national scheme.
15:47
My intended opening to my speech was similar to Charlie Gordon’s, as I was going to thank a lot of people who were involved in the preparation of the report. I would like to thank Patrick Harvie, in particular, for driving the issue forward. Patrick Harvie, as one of the Parliament’s two Green members, has a mandate to take forward such matters in the parliamentary context. I think that he has done the right thing in using the opportunity that was afforded him by his convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to bring forward the issue and put it on the parliamentary record.
I also want to thank the clerks and the other members of the committee. I should also confess that the reason why I am making this extended thank you is that I was not always present during the taking of evidence. That was partially due to the fact that I was paying particular attention to another project at the time. However, we must take account of the fact that a great deal of work was done.
I was present at a couple of evidence-taking sessions and was particularly impressed by the organisations that represent the interests of cyclists and walkers, but particularly of cyclists, in the Scottish context.
This is certainly an issue that is of some concern to a lot of people. However, I can make the brash claim that active travel, as an economic driver, is something that the Conservatives invented and brought into policy. In support of that position, I quote Norman Tebbit, who said that, when his father was out of a job, he
“got on his bike and looked for work”.
As we hit the depths of another economic recession—perhaps the biggest since the 1930s, when Norman Tebbit’s father got on his bike—we should perhaps take account of the opportunities to save money that active travel delivers for many people, in addition to the opportunities that it gives Government to spend more, which is why I want to talk about the issue of cost, in particular. Perhaps one of the biggest changes that has taken place since the inquiry began is that we now know exactly how bad the state of the country’s finances is and the damage that will be done to the spending power of the Scottish Government over the next two or three years. As a consequence, we understand that there is a significant and serious need to consider how we spend money. If we spend on anything, we must get value for money.
Although it is important that we support active travel, we must remember that we cannot afford to devote resources to it if there are people in Scotland who are without homes or jobs. I am not prepared to put forward the “Let them eat cake” argument. It is up to the active travel lobbying group to make proposals and to lobby strongly for them against competing financial interests.
Would Alex Johnstone, as a good Conservative, be interested in comparing other major elements of the Scottish Government’s transport spend over the next few years? Does he believe, for example, that the Forth road bridge compares favourably with comparable bridges elsewhere in the world, or does he think that the money could be freed up for other priorities?
I have recently had the opportunity to debate that matter in the chamber, and I believe that the proposals for the replacement Forth crossing are financially appropriate and acceptable. However, a case can be made for investing in the roads in Scotland that are in a desperately poor state of repair—some are so bad, in fact, that many cyclists cannot ride on them. There are also sound arguments for concentrating investment on new rail opportunities, which may benefit us equally, if not more.
That is why I suggest that the cycling lobby must take the opportunity to continue to argue its case fluently and consistently, to ensure that it gets the hearing that it deserves.
One thing that has impressed me about the inquiry and the report is that there are opportunities out there that need not cost huge amounts of money. We must promote the ways in which we can improve the environment to encourage cyclists to feel safer and to take greater opportunities to use bikes to cut the amount of travel by motorised means. Leadership, through the Scottish Government and local authorities, is the way to achieve that.
I know that I am getting on in years when I hear Charlie Gordon talking about taking his four-year-old child to school. He makes me feel really old, because I am a grandfather. I remember that from the age of eight I used to cycle 3 miles to Glenbervie primary school and home again at the end of the day. I would be reluctant for any child to cycle to the same school today, given the massive vehicles that drop off children outside the gates because the parents are too afraid to let their children cycle to school. It is a vicious circle.
Now that Alex Johnstone’s party is in Government in Westminster and is responsible for the Post Office, what is his view on the Post Office’s decision to pension off its bicycle fleet and replace it with vans?
I will not express any opinion on that, other than to say that if I get the opportunity to discourage that change, I will take it. We must take into account, however, the fact that many of our postmen have to cover very large areas on very poor quality roads. I am not entirely sure that I would be willing to volunteer to do that job by bike.
The report is important, but I am concerned that we do not make the mistake of asking for huge additional resources to be ploughed into active travel when that has not been judged fairly and accurately against alternative uses for limited finance. I give the report the benefit of the doubt, and I welcome the forthcoming publication of the Government’s cycling action plan. We can achieve a lot, and we should, in these difficult times, take the pragmatic approach to ensure that active travel—cycling and walking—is on the increase in years to come, rather than perpetually decreasing, as seems to be the case.
15:54
From the outset, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has taken an active interest in active travel and during the annual round of budget scrutiny we returned repeatedly to the need to allocate a greater share of the transport budget to active travel. As a result, I was pleased when we agreed to conduct an inquiry into active travel. Like others, I thank the clerks and fellow committee members for their work. Most of all, though, I thank those who gave evidence for providing us with a wealth of knowledge and for bringing such enthusiasm and optimism to the subject. Indeed, I think that all committee members have been infected by that enthusiasm—although Alex Johnstone was not present often enough to get infected by it. I am less sure that the minister has succumbed, but perhaps this afternoon we can persuade him that something really good can be done in Scotland.
I do not really need to rehearse the reasons why we should encourage active travel, although I could mention health and wellbeing benefits, sustainability, beating congestion, independence and financial savings—in fact, all those and more. Our inquiry focused on active travel not as a leisure pursuit but as a transport choice; in other words, instead of being an end in itself, it was about travelling with a purpose, be it to go to work, school or college, the local library, the shops, the brownies, the scouts or the sports pitch. Of course, any improvements will also benefit people who wish to walk and cycle just for the fun of it.
Where are we starting from? As Charlie Gordon pointed out, at the moment only 2 per cent of people cycle, only 1 per cent of children cycle to school and 12.5 per cent of people walk to work. The Sustainable Development Commission has said that
“Transport is the poorest performing area for sustainable development”
and that within that poorly performing area
“active travel is in relative decline”.
That is not a very good starting point.
Our report focuses mainly on why Scotland is performing so poorly and, more important, on what can be done to improve matters. However, first of all, we had a quick reality check. Was there something distinct about Scotland that meant that we should not aspire to a more active travel style? What about the hills, the weather or the Scottish temperament? I reassure the chamber that we concluded that Scotland has the potential to embrace active travel.
What are the barriers? As Charlie Gordon pointed out, the widespread perception is that cycling is unsafe. SPOKES, the Edinburgh cycle group, told us:
“It is a prerequisite for extensive cycle use for everyday journeys by a wide spectrum of the population that the road system looks, feels and is safe and welcoming for using a bike.”
That can be achieved only through investment in infrastructure in order to deal with particular pinch points and difficult junctions, to provide dedicated cycle lanes where necessary and to reduce speed limits in residential areas. I certainly think that 20 mph should now be the norm in such areas. In the longer term, the planning process must pay heed to the needs of walkers and cyclists.
It is also worth noting that there is safety in numbers. The more cyclists and pedestrians who are out and about on our streets, the safer the streets become. Road safety must also be addressed through a more co-ordinated package of cycle training, and I welcome the comments that the minister made on that subject this afternoon.
With regard to increasing uptake in walking, Elaine Sheerin spoke with great zest about the Gorbals healthy living network and highlighted walking’s social and safety aspects, while the Scottish Association for Mental Health pointed out that
“there is a growing recognition that being physically active is strongly associated with mental wellbeing”.
I emphasise that point, because I think that it has been overlooked in the past. Having more people out and about on our streets has a positive impact on personal and community wellbeing, and we need to find some way of factoring the less-tangible benefits into our spending decisions.
Walking is human-scale activity. It is not only active but interactive: it allows us to relate to our communities in a way that is impossible if we simply drive everywhere. Walking is a sociable pursuit that gives us time to pay attention to our companions and to meet and greet neighbours. We notice more of what is going on around us and we feel better connected to our community. If the school walk replaces the school run, we will have the time to listen to our children’s achievements of the day and to hear about their worries. Children, teenagers and the elderly all rely heavily on walking; surely they deserve to have a good environment in which to go about their business.
Our committee concluded that the two most significant barriers to improving our record are lack of leadership and inadequate budgets. Leadership is needed at local and national level. Recently, I attended a walking and cycling conference and encountered a room full of exceptional people who day in, day out champion active travel but who are often not supported enough by political commitment from either their councils or national Government. Those people know what needs to be done and have the enthusiasm to make a difference. I want us to harness that enthusiasm for everyone’s benefit. One of those people was Mark Kiehlmann of East Dunbartonshire’s Cycle Co-op, who was recently given the Scottish and United Kingdom volunteer of the year 2009 award by the Cyclists’ Touring Club. He is now organising the inaugural Bishopbriggs cycle festival, which will take place this Sunday. I wish him well with that.
However, enthusiasm alone will not bring about the changes that we want. We cannot escape the fact that a fairer share of funding is required. Sadly, since the Scottish National Party took over, total cycling investment has fallen each year. The minister’s response is disappointing because it appears to be complacent. It is incredible that he thinks that his vision of a 10 per cent modal share for cycling by 2020 can be delivered with funding at the current level—he is kidding himself. The SNP is a serial offender in promising big but not always delivering. Surely the SNP has by now cottoned on to the fact that achievements do not happen by aspiration alone.
To improve take-up of active travel, we will need an investment programme that is sustained for many years. After the next spending review, I would like the funding that is available to the Government’s sustainable transport team to increase steadily. A shift in priorities in the existing transport budget would mean that many people would opt to travel actively. The minister must match his ambition with the investment that is needed to bring about results.
16:00
As has been said, walking and cycling are the most effective and efficient methods of recreation, exercise and transport. Both activities can fulfil all three of those purposes at the same time—a walk to work is a form of transport, but it is also exercise and can be much more relaxing than ending up stuck in a traffic jam.
The committee’s report notes early on the evidence from one witness who said:
“Active travel ticks almost every policy box that Government would like to see ticked.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 1 December 2009; c 2343.]
That much is certainly clear from the rest of the report and from the experience of many of us in our daily lives.
If we want Scotland to be greener, active travel cuts down carbon emissions. If we want Scotland to be wealthier and fairer, active travel is a social leveller, and fit and healthy workforces are more economically productive. If Scotland is to be safer and stronger, huge community benefits will come from having more pedestrians and cyclists out and about. We can create a smarter Scotland if people learn more about the environment and the world around them as they travel by bike or on foot. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that more people cycling and walking will help to deliver a healthier Scotland.
Consensus exists about the many and varied benefits of active travel, but it is clear from the report that good words and intentions are not enough. Practical action that is backed by leadership and appropriate funding needs to be taken to get more people walking and cycling. It is agreed that the Scottish Government’s proposed target of a 10 per cent modal share for cycling in Scotland’s transport profile is ambitious but worth aiming for. An ambitious target helps to focus minds and reminds us of the importance of getting this right.
It is clear that we need a better culture that translates general awareness that walking is good for people into a habit that allows individuals to make a positive choice for active travel that is not swayed by the vagaries of Scotland’s weather, which we have perhaps experienced in the past few days. I welcome the submission from NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which covers a large part of the South of Scotland region. It said:
“High levels of walking and cycling can only be achieved when the nation views walking and cycling as the foremost means of local transport playing a central role in everyday travel activity.”
The wider population are willing to become more active travellers but, as the committee outlines, that needs to be supported properly. The right infrastructure and support could help us to reach a critical mass of individuals who are seen and keen, which makes involvement all the more easy for others.
Throughout the South of Scotland, I have worked with constituents who want to become more active travellers but who find barriers in their way. Often, imagination and political will are needed more than hard cash is to overcome those barriers. For example, cyclists who want to travel between Biggar, Symington and Thankerton face a dilemma. They can choose to cycle on the main road, which is heavy with fast-moving traffic, or they can take the designated cycle route, which is longer, narrow, twisty, more remote and often poorly maintained. In effect, they must choose between the worst of both worlds.
I was struck by the committee’s finding that mothers have an important role to play in encouraging their children to walk or cycle to school. A Thankerton mother raised the cycle route issue with me, just as a mother in Lanark raised with me South Lanarkshire Council’s decision to remove lollipop people, which acts as a disincentive to walk to school. Many children travel between the communities that I mentioned to go to and from school and many end up in cars because neither route for cycling is acceptable to their parents.
The committee’s report talks of the need to join up policies and to take proper account of active travel in planning statements and decisions. Sorting out such issues throughout the country, for which a more joined-up policy approach can be effective, does not have to take extra funding—just common sense and imagination.
Innovative use of existing or third-party resources can make a difference. Just a few weeks ago, the Heritage Lottery Fund gave a first-round pass to a £2 million bid for funding by South Lanarkshire Council and a range of partners for a project to conserve the area of great landscape value designation from Chatelherault to New Lanark, following the Clyde valley national tourist route and the Clyde walkway. I wish that partnership success in securing the funding in the final round. Maintaining and developing areas that might be used for recreational walking can provide an inspiration for people to walk more regularly as part of an active lifestyle. I certainly found that when I joined Biggar ramblers on one of their organised walks a year or so ago and when I walked the west Highland way and Perthshire’s cateran trail.
Building active travel considerations into policy decisions at an early stage can save on the need for costly investments later or the appearance of barriers that could otherwise have been avoided. The minister might be aware of concerns that new rolling stock on the North Berwick line, which runs through East Lothian in the South of Scotland region, has insufficient space for bikes. That problem is not dissimilar to the one that was discussed previously in relation to buses, and it probably affects train routes other than the North Berwick line. Some people would argue, probably with some legitimacy, that space for bikes on trains has been a problem ever since guard’s vans were done away with in Scotland. However, that is not the fault of the current Scottish Government; sadly, nor can it be tackled without full control over all aspects of our railway system.
The Cyclists Touring Club Scotland noted in evidence to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee that the main barrier to cycling has been the lack of finance over many years. The problem is historical. The report recognises that funding must be secure for the long term and targeted at measures that produce results. We live in difficult economic times. Nowhere does the report suggest that growing the Parliament’s fiscal responsibility and powers might help to provide some of the financial flexibility that is needed for investment in issues such as active travel. The report cites international examples such as the Netherlands and Denmark. I remind members that those are both independent countries and, dare I say it, free to prioritise walking over nuclear weapons, or cycling over servicing massive public finance initiative debts.
That aside, active travel ticks all the boxes. The committee is right to say that it deserves support and a joined-up approach. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to encouraging people in our communities to walk or cycle wherever and whenever they can and I am sure that it will take on board many of the committee’s recommendations. The issue is also about giving the Parliament power—we need to go the extra mile by transforming the control that we have over our resources. That is the best way in which to transform travel in this country.
16:07
As a member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, I am pleased to take part in this debate on active travel. The committee’s report brings together a great deal of evidence about walking and cycling. It restates what some might see as being rather obvious, but that restatement is necessary to underline the importance of the actions that are recommended in the conclusions.
Transform Scotland, among other bodies, welcomed the inquiry and its conclusion that
“active travel has huge potential to benefit the health of the people of Scotland as well as contributing to meeting Scotland’s ambitious climate change targets”,
but—and it is a big but—that will not be achieved without “ambitious increases in resources” and
“Stronger, more effective and sustained leadership”
from the Scottish Government.
It is agreed that active travel has positive impacts on a wide variety of policy areas, including the environment, social inclusion, public health and even local regeneration. It crosses over many portfolios and therefore should have a much greater profile in Government planning. However, attitudes to active travel will change only if walking and cycling are viewed as safe and convenient alternatives to other transport modes. The committee’s report recommends a variety of measures that could increase participation in walking and cycling, including improvements to infrastructure and a new, nationally co-ordinated cycle training scheme.
I briefly pay tribute to the organisers of the big fit walk. On Friday, some members joined school pupils from Falkirk at lunch time in a walk around Holyrood. The walk is only half an hour—it does not have to be something huge—but it is really important. Almost 12,000 people from throughout Scotland are already registered for the big fit walk. That is a great effort on a tiny budget. However, the scheme relies on active schools co-ordinators to help bring it together and to launch it.
As has been said, the Scottish Government has set a target of 10 per cent modal share for cycling in its draft cycling action plan, but currently only 2 per cent of people cycle to work and only 1 per cent of children cycle to school. By contrast, in the Netherlands and Denmark the share for cycle journeys is 27 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. We have a long way to go.
I read the equality impact assessment consultation on the cycling action plan for Scotland with great interest. It makes the connection well between cycling and health—physical as well as mental. However, it does not yet mention gender—I presume that Engender and others have not yet had the opportunity to reply. As Aileen Campbell said, it is women, and mothers in particular, who make most of the choices about how children travel. That cannot be ignored if the 10 per cent vision is to be achieved. I look forward to seeing a comprehensive equality impact assessment.
As has been said, fear about road safety is probably the most significant factor that discourages people from participating in active travel. One way to address the problem is through education and the training of cyclists and other road users. In Scotland, cycle training is provided by a volunteer network, supported by road safety officers, active schools co-ordinators and school travel co-ordinators. I welcome the promise that work will be done on a co-ordinated approach to training but, sadly, far too many young people still grow up receiving no practical cycle training. It is crucial that young people gain experience of cycling to build up confidence and establish a cycling habit early in their lives. An agreed minimum standard of training has to be given to all young people, both girls and boys.
As in other places, we have a range of initiatives to promote cycling in Dundee. In addition to every school having a travel plan, there is the sustainable travel in Dundee east project, which has received funding from the climate change challenge fund to develop sustainable transport. Along with the Dundee travel active project, it encourages Dundonians to walk or cycle more to improve their health and environment. However, the project is concentrated only in the city centre, Hilltown, Stobswell and West Park. I welcome the allocation of half a day a week to the remit of a cycle officer. However, I am keen to see more action, not just from Dundee City Council, but throughout Scotland. If we are to have a really effective national campaign, it must be led nationally in the way that transport safety campaigns have been. We need a much more co-ordinated and joined-up partnership approach.
A witness from Sustrans told the committee that there was
“almost an acceptance that although we will have plans and policies, there will not be any funding to take them forward”,
and
“a sense of contributing to a library of excellent policies that would not have the funding to see them through.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 1 December 2009; c 2344.]
The promises have to be delivered on, both for our health and for our environment. As the report says, the target of 10 per cent modal share for cycling is excellent, but it is “meaningless” without the necessary resources and leadership.
Is the member aware that Sustrans will receive nearly £1 million extra this year compared with last year?
I will comment on funding if I have time.
Active travel must be at the heart of new planning developments, rather than an afterthought. People’s attitudes to walking would improve if paths, streets and public spaces were improved.
We have to consider seriously supporting and resourcing active travel, and I welcome the 16 per cent increase in funding this year. However, with proper cost benefit analysis, active travel is the direction in which we must move in the future. After all, even with that increase in funding—it is an overall increase; it is not just for Sustrans—the figure is still less than 1 per cent of the total transport budget.
I commend the report and look forward to the minister taking action on its recommendations.
16:14
As an active member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee who took part in much of the inquiry, I, too, thank those who made the inquiry possible. I welcome my being able to visit, during the climate change conference in Copenhagen, cycling organisations and the organisation that promotes cycling in that city. Copenhagen has a lead of nearly 70 years on us. For a long time, people have made decisions in Denmark and the Netherlands about improving cycleways and making it easier for people to use cycles; indeed, they have made the use of bicycles possible to the extent that around a third of people in the city of Copenhagen travel to work or school by bicycle. If we could have the amount of investment that has been made there over the years, that would make up for those 70 years and would be an admirable target for us to aim at.
It is always interesting to hear people demanding that more money be spent, especially members of parties who not long ago talked about having vast cuts in total budgets. We are likely to see such cuts, so there is the question of rebalancing budgets. What would money be taken away from? Patrick Harvie might say in response to that question that we should stop building a motorway and spend the money that would be saved in a way that would allow us to see a better bang for our buck. That is a possibility, but there are many things that we can do to move forward in these difficult times, and I will concentrate on two or three of them.
It is clear that national co-ordination of cycle training is most likely to get things started again. I will use my village of Evanton as an example. As members have said, schools used to do cycle training, but headteachers and parents preferred that to start in the upper primary. In Copenhagen, we found that, because many families cycle for fun, cycle training had to be provided only for the children of immigrants who had no experience of cycling. That suggests to me that cycle training must start at a much earlier age so that, by the time children are in mid-primary, they are confident enough to be able to cycle to and from school in a reasonably safe environment.
At the beginning of this decade, there was the safer routes to school programme. In my village, there were discussions about how we might facilitate walking and cycling. However, an issue was raised in the committee that I will bore my fellow committee members with again: how can cyclists who are doing a right turn be prioritised over on-coming vehicular traffic? Councils and Transport Scotland must find some way of reducing speeds or putting in the means by which cyclists can get a chance to cross lines of traffic. In our case, that is needed so that parents are confident that their children can cycle to school.
Although walking and cycling issues are not unknown, when I go on my bicycle at the weekends for newspapers and the messages from our local store, I do not see many cyclists. There was an old gentleman—sadly, he passed on two or three years ago—who cycled all the time, but I do not see as many youngsters or their parents cycling regularly. A hilly environment—part of our village is on a hill—is a disincentive to cycling, but somehow or other, we must get through to people the health benefits of cycling.
I will make a suggestion that members may agree with. Just as we have had transition towns for environmental purposes and fair trade towns, we could have active travel or walking and cycling villages and towns as a means to get people to discuss in their local communities how they might go about making the advances that can be made without a massive amount of physical investment being required. I hope that that idea is taken seriously. If it has legs—or wheels—it is possible that the organisations that are always after us for more investment might be able in a practical way to engage people in parts of the country other than the big cities in the process of becoming part of the active travel movement. There might be considerable interest in doing that in Scotland.
I will talk a little bit about people being able to get their bicycle to where they want it to be. In some cases, that involves taking it on a train and using it at the other end. In my part of the Highlands, people want to commute into the large centre of Inverness, and it would be wonderful if they could do that by train. The committee heard evidence from the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership’s railway development officer. When he was asked about the need for more bike space on trains, I was appalled to hear him say that that was not physically possible and that we just need more trains. In our area, single-track provision and a lack of passing places means that the railway would be completely unable to accommodate more trains. If someone books a bike space to travel the length of the far north rail line—a very long journey of four hours over 120 or 130 miles—there is less space for others to do that over the piece. In the next round of the ScotRail franchise negotiations, we should try to ensure that more bicycles can be carried on the rail network. If we are not to get new rolling stock, one of the simplest possible things would be for carriages to be redesigned so that they can take double the number of bicycles that can be carried at present.
Having made those few points, I pass on to another member who might have other fresh ideas.
16:21
It has been an interesting debate. I am sure that we all aspire to promote active travel in Scotland, although whether we do so in practice is a different matter. There is no doubt that, in helping to promote a healthier lifestyle, we need to encourage more people to walk and cycle. That is something that many of us in Scotland need to do. Having read the report, I think that it is a good one. Like others, I congratulate the members who were involved and the clerks and other officials.
The Government claims that it is including the majority of the committee’s recommendations in its active travel plans, where practicable. I am concerned slightly about the “where practicable” bit of that. I am also concerned about the Government’s statement that
“funding beyond this financial year will be dependent on the UK Budget”.
I ask the minister to give the strong reassurance that the money will be found to take forward at least some of the committee’s key recommendations. If it does not do that, we will see further deterioration in Scotland’s health.
I noted recently that the Spokes annual funding survey shows that the two years in which the greatest investment in cycling was made were the last two years of the previous Lib-Dem Labour Administration, when Tavish Scott was the Minister for Transport, due to the big boost that was given to funding for Sustrans. Since the SNP came in, total cycling investment has fallen each year, thanks in part to the cut in funding for Sustrans and the transfer of regional transport partnership capital funding to councils. Although the Government put money into smarter choices, the result was a net loss of funding for cycling and walking, because the money that went into smarter choices was cut from the funding for Sustrans. Basically, smarter choices was really a transfer of funding for walking and cycling to funding for walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing—not exactly what I call an investment.
As the minister stated, the cycling action plan for Scotland aims to deliver the Government’s vision for cycling by 2020. However, it does not take 20:20 vision to see that, without any secure funding, that is a blind statement.
Other members have referred to key points in the committee’s report. The key recommendation relates to funding. The committee called on the Government to reverse the recent decline in funding and asked for an increase in funding to help the achievement of the targets that have been set. The committee heard strong evidence about the lack of funding for active travel. Patrick Harvie put the figure at less than 1 per cent of the transport budget—other members have referred to that. We need only compare the per capita figures to show the Government’s poor actions in that regard. As Charlie Gordon said, the figure of between £3 and £3.50 per head is a lot less than many other countries that promote cycling more effectively and efficiently put into active travel. Alison McInnes said that investment has fallen each year. Some of the figures that I have highlighted seem to bear that out.
I am concerned by the minister’s responses. To some extent, he is avoiding the funding issue and not giving the Parliament the clear details that it needs.
Another key issue to which many members have referred is planning. The committee noted that the CAPS document sets out in specific terms how to increase awareness and understanding of active travel among planners and engineers. Patrick Harvie was right to say that cycle routes are not well enough linked to existing routes and destinations. The minister set out an ambitious vision in that regard, which should include provision of a network, safety, a co-ordinator role and planning guidance. Appropriate design guidance is required. A vision is all well and good, but where is the funding to back it up?
Speaking of funding and of the minister, another key subject is leadership. If the Government is serious about meeting its 10 per cent target for cycling, it must not leave it to local government to provide clear leadership but must help to provide such leadership itself. I was interested in Patrick Harvie’s image of the Lycra-clad warrior. I would like to see the minister cycle to work as a Lycra-clad warrior—that would be quite a sight.
Safety is another key area that has been touched on significantly. Patrick Harvie referred to safety and the perception of safety. Many fair points have been made, especially on the issue of how today’s busy roads affect children cycling to school or other places.
Many of us must try much harder to practise what we preach. I take myself as an example. As part of my journey to work in the Parliament, I regularly walk to and from the railway station, which gives me at least an hour’s walking each day. That is not a lot but, according to my doctor, it is a reasonable start. Mr Johnstone did a lot of walking as part of the recent project to which he referred. I was helping with a similar project, during which I happened to mislay 5kg somewhere about my person. That is not a bad start, and I hope that the decline will continue.
Yesterday evening, I had an interesting chat with a constituent of mine, Maureen Wrightston. She is a retired lady who takes a group of, sometimes, 18 people—from a membership of nearly double that—on various bus trips, with a walk at the end and, no doubt, a pub stop on the way back. That is an active and able way of ensuring that people use public transport, their bus pass and their walking boots to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle in their retirement. I hope that the minister, too, will consider using his bus pass to meet and walk with friends. I used to cycle miles in each direction to work both at Rosyth dockyard and at Sky Subscriber Services.
It is essential that we take forward some of the report’s key recommendations. My main concern is that the finances are not in place to do that. I ask the minister, when he sums up, to give us stronger reassurances that some of those recommendations will be taken forward and brought to fruition.
16:28
I thank my colleague Alex Johnstone, who has led on the subject of transport infrastructure and climate change in this session to date, for all the work that he has done. I know that he will continue occasionally to contribute on the issue in the chamber. I look forward to enjoying in more detail the minister’s contributions. I have heard much about the minister from other people and look forward to seeing whether even half of it can be true.
I also look forward to participating in debates with Charlie Gordon. My first experience of Mr Gordon was in October 2007, when he hurried into the chamber rather excitedly and transfixed Conservative members by telling us that he had just been at the Labour Party conference and that we were going to get a drubbing in the general election. Since then, we have occasionally traded insults and whatever else across the chamber. However, I am a former Glaswegian businessman, and one of the things that I most respect about Glasgow City Council—irrespective of the political complexion that it has had—is that it has always understood the commercial beating heart of the city and the need for transport and other issues of that character to be dealt with effectively on a practical basis.
Does the member accept that there is no such thing as a former Glaswegian? Once a Glaswegian, always a Glaswegian.
It was the “businessman” aspect to which I was attaching the word “former”—I absolutely agree with Mr Gordon.
I come to the debate as someone who enjoys walking. My holiday this year will in part be spent in the Swiss Alps, where I like to go trudging around. I see lots of people who cycle when I am in Switzerland—they tend to take their bikes up to the top of the cable-car and then enjoy the ride back down.
I am slightly agnostic, however, when it comes to a legislative drive, with a substantial budget behind it, to encourage something that I think is common sense. I will return to that point in more detail later.
I come to the debate after several years of speaking within the health portfolio. Not on one occasion but on several, we have had debates on the demographic time bomb and on the huge issues to do with dementia and obesity that will affect us. When I see the minister’s target of 10 per cent for 2020, and as I approach being a pensioner myself at that time, I am confronted with the image of bewildered, overweight elderly people—in an environment that, by that time, Patrick Harvie tells us, will be riddled with hurricanes and buffeting winds—battling the elements as they seek to cycle about, no doubt then having to be fished out of the canals into which we are also putting a considerable amount of investment.
Patrick Harvie laid out the terms of the committee report, and he noted something that I was not aware of: that this is the first time that the Parliament has given significant attention to, or debated, cycling. He drew attention to the fact that per capita investment on cycling in Scotland was about £3.30. As he was speaking, I looked down and noted that my copy of the report on the subject costs £8.10, which I suppose is some sort of relative reflection on the matter.
I have to suggest that the minister’s masticating habits are something that he might better confine to the privacy of his diary. In his speech, however, he drew attention to the smarter choices, smarter places programme, which was also mentioned in his letter to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Seven councils are participating in the programme: Dumfries and Galloway, Dundee, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Falkirk, Glasgow and Orkney.
This is where I have some difficulty. In East Renfrewshire, the money is being used to employ a number of individuals who are wandering around the town of Barrhead knocking on doors to discuss public transport options with residents. When people see how money is being spent by the council that has the worst record in Scotland for investment in the infrastructure of roads and pavements, the wish of the public at large to encourage cycling or walking more broadly can be undermined by a perception that it is not actually a priority use for the cash in hand.
I largely agreed with Charlie Gordon’s central point, whereby he drew attention to the elephant not in the room: the Government’s cycling action plan for Scotland, which we have to see and understand before we can really appreciate whether the report’s recommendations, many of which are commonsensical, are going to have the required drive and leadership behind them. Marlyn Glen spoke about that issue of leadership in her speech, and much depends on it. A lot can be achieved through leadership, co-ordination and partnership, even if the financial resources to support the project are not as others would wish them to be.
Alex Johnstone drew attention, perhaps unwisely, I thought, to Norman Tebbit.
Never unwisely.
Well, perhaps not. It reminded me of a debate that I was involved in many years ago with Labour Party members. My colleague stood up and said, “I can see you think I’ve never got my hands dirty, but I have—working on my daddy’s building site.” That was not necessarily the most helpful contribution to add to our side of the argument. Anyway, Alex Johnstone made an important point when he said that the cycling lobby must argue its case.
Christopher Harvie made the apposite point that, while we are talking about the subject, practical actions are being taken by parties elsewhere that are going in completely the opposite direction. We should be aware of that as we proceed.
I understand Rob Gibson’s point about training in school. My sons went through this. It was a choice between being trained in cycling proficiency for an afternoon in the playground in the summer term and spending the time in class doing other work. It is not a big surprise which of the two options they took, but did that encourage them to become lifelong cyclists thereafter? No, it did not. We must be measured in our belief that, simply because we offer training to individuals, they will, as a matter of course, choose to cycle. The social trends among many young people have changed and they do not cycle as a matter of course in the way that I remember our generation doing.
We are happy to note the report. Our Liberal Democrat coalition partners were almost the most enthusiastic—if not a bit too enthusiastic—in wanting more money to be spent on active travel. I will have to have a word with Nick Clegg about that. We look forward to the plan that the minister will produce, but we must be realistic. We are trying to encourage people to travel actively as a personal choice. We should not say that the lack of investment underpins an excuse for people to avoid doing so.
16:35
It has been a good debate. The convener comprehensively outlined the committee’s deliberations and recommendations. He nearly succeeded in sticking to that, apart from one sally about the Forth bridge.
It was remiss of me not to mention in my opening speech the excellent support that the committee had—and always has—from its estimable clerks. I hope that they will forgive me for that initial omission.
The minister is clearly not well—I am talking about his physical health—but, even allowing for that, he has not convinced us today that he is doing enough to achieve his ambitious 10 per cent target for cycling.
Alex Johnstone confessed to having been distracted during the committee inquiry. He may have been unsuccessful in his effort to reach another place, but I presume that he now feels that it is no loss what a friend gets.
Alison McInnes was her usual reasonable and emollient self for most of her speech but, in the last two minutes, she fair perked me up when she started to slash and burn the Scottish Government’s track record on active travel. She came over all British.
Marlyn Glen told us some interesting and, to me, new information about what is going on with the active travel agenda in Dundee. I found that helpful.
Rob Gibson transported us to the city of Copenhagen and the village of Evanton. I have been to Copenhagen, albeit not on parliamentary business; I have never been to Evanton, but there is time enough yet. He made an interesting suggestion about designating some towns as active travel towns. That would be similar to the current pilot project under the smarter choices, smarter places agenda. There may be some merit in that suggestion. He also has a valid point about rolling stock design in Scotland. We are locked into rather too rigid and narrow an agenda in that regard. At the next opportunity, we really must revisit that matter for the reasons that he described.
Jackson Carlaw made an interesting and arresting point about my alleged statements in the chamber in October 2007 when, apparently, I returned from the British Labour Party conference. I have never been to the British Labour Party conference in my life, although I have often been to the Scottish Labour Party conference. He may well be mixing me up with an equally good-looking member of the Labour team, who apparently predicted that the Tories would not win the general election. Well, of course, they didnae really win the general election, but we have already heard today about how they managed to take office at Westminster virtually by default.
I take issue with Jackson Carlaw on a more serious point, when he criticised work that was clearly associated with smarter choices, smarter places. He described door knocking in Barrhead.
On my glamorous visit with Shirley-Anne Somerville to Dumfries as part of the committee inquiry, we were told about the work on smarter choices, smarter places in that town. Frankly, knocking on doors is a part of the work. There are many people out there who vaguely feel, “Well, I would maybe travel by public transport, or maybe walk or cycle, but I’m pretty sure it’s not possible because I’m not sure about X, Y and Z.” Frankly, I think that many people need information that is tailored in great detail to their individual needs and aspirations. That is of course very resource-intensive work, and no one pretends that it is the only way forward, but it certainly must be one of the shots in the locker. However, the report’s recommendations make it clear that there are also issues to do with funding, retrofitting infrastructure and designing new infrastructure, and training the next generation of cyclists, which is important.
Jackson Carlaw talked about cycling as something culturally that we might do when we are younger but stop doing when we get older and perhaps wealthier, though certainly not wiser. I feel that the roads are palpably more congested these days. They feel less safe to most people, so we must drill down into that issue to try to remove the barriers to people taking to the bike again. However, I am like many others who have spoken in the debate in that, when I was a young man, I used to cycle to work. No, I probably would not do it nowadays. However, as Alex Johnstone was kind enough to point out, I am still young enough to succeed at other things.
16:41
Four Fishermen’s Friends in, we come to the end of a very engaging and interesting debate. As Patrick Harvie pointed out, the inquiry was the first committee inquiry into active travel, and, as such, it is very much welcome. He picked up a theme that we heard in a number of contributions to the debate, which is that safety and the perception of safety—in other words, the perception of a lack of safety—are clear inhibitors to people moving on to cycling from other modes of travel. That is certainly something of which we will tak tent.
Patrick Harvie also talked about active travel not being a high enough priority in local authorities, so central Government should dictate to them what they should do. Actually, I think that there is quite an effective relationship with local authorities. We must foster that and ensure that good experience is shared around the local authority system, because local delivery is crucial to what will work.
Charlie Gordon developed further the barriers to people going into cycling. I have temporarily forgotten who suggested that seeing the minister in Lycra was not necessarily an outcome to be greatly desired, but I agree with whoever said that. Frankly, when I cycle—I do more walking than cycling—I do not tend to wear Lycra. There are many other ways. I am of the old bicycle-clip brigade, which is my standard uniform. I am quite content with that.
Charlie Gordon also talked about leadership and the minister’s personal travel. I am happy to tell him that I have already used the train and the bus today, and I will be walking to the station at the end of today’s parliamentary business. I am slightly puzzled by Jim Tolson’s suggestion that he gets an hour’s exercise between here and Waverley. He must be doing it more often than me. [Interruption.] Ah! I have had the explanation. Apparently, Dunfermline is getting the benefit of his delicate little feet as well. Would that we all took the approach that Jim Tolson does.
Charlie Gordon also talked about infrastructure, and there is a very important point in that. I spoke yesterday to a conference for disabled people about getting access to our systems. A survey that has just been completed has discovered that there are 35,000 barriers across Scotland to allowing people in wheelchairs and with other disabilities to make use of our network on foot or by wheels. We face a formidable challenge in that regard that has existed for a long time and which every Administration has a duty to do something about.
Alex Johnstone said that walking and cycling are of interest to a great many people. He unwisely referenced Norman Tebbit. I was pleased to hear that Alex Johnstone used to cycle 3 miles to school. I will speak to his wife, Linda, to ensure that he returns to that so that we see less of Alex Johnstone in future. He knows what I mean.
Alison McInnes made the valid point that active travel is best when there is a purpose to it rather than when it is simply a recreation. In other words, it is best when it is embedded in normal life and behaviour. That is a good point. She mentioned the Gorbals Healthy Living Network, which spoke to the committee, and told us that the Scottish Association for Mental Health said that exercise is a huge contributor to ensuring good mental health. I echo that.
Let me nail a few points on investment. There was reference to the extra money that Tavish Scott provided. That was correct, but the money was a one-off £10 million that came when the yellow bus pilot did not proceed and the money was diverted into cycling. I absolutely support that, but I would say that, under this Government, the budgets for cycling have risen from £10.78 million in 2008-09 to £11.53 million in 2009-10, and by 16 per cent in the current year to £13.35 million. Yes, more could be done, but we should not pretend that we have neglected this area of policy.
I am grateful to the minister for giving way to me a second time on that point. I do not think that any of us imagines that, if the Government suddenly provided even a six or eight-fold increase, that would be the most sensible way forward. We need to increase investment in the area at a reasonable pace. However, does he accept in general or in principle that a sustained increase in investment substantially beyond the low level that we have at present is the only way in which long-term progress will be made?
I think that a 16 per cent increase in the current year gives the answer to that question.
Aileen Campbell, like others, talked about rail rolling stock. In the refettling of the 158 fleet on the rail network, we have improved bicycle accommodation, although it is still more limited than it was in the days of the guard’s van—that is true. We will certainly take every opportunity to look at that.
Rob Gibson mentioned safer routes to school and the issue of right turns. He was correct to do so.
Jim Tolson confused or conflated efficient and effective. Effective is doing the right things. Efficient is doing things right. They are not in conflict. They both have to be done.
I belatedly welcome Jackson Carlaw to his new brief. Some Tory spokesmen have set high standards. Bill Aitken once said of me—it was in October 2006—that Stewart Stevenson is a very special person. I look forward to hearing that sort of thing again. He went on to say, “He can trace his ancestry all the way back to his mother.” Presiding Officer, I am sure that that falls within parliamentary language, but only just.
In closing, and to preserve what remains of my voice for the next debate, when I will appear for the Government again, I remind everybody that cycling is fun and healthy. It is an activity that is virtually free for those who have access to a bike. Walking is fun. It is a social activity, as we heard, because we can chat to people. We can meet people in the street and chat to them as well. Learning to cycle safely can help young people to become confident, independent teenagers and adults. Designing our communities to make walking and cycling safe and easy leads to increased visibility of cyclists and pedestrians and helps to drive the dynamic. That is why the publication of “Cycling by Design” today is so important.
Finally, I reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to active travel in all its various forms in the present difficult economic climate. Unlike Jim Tolson, I do not yet know what money will be available to us next year. I thank members for a well-informed and welcome debate, to which we will listen very carefully indeed.
16:50
I welcome today’s debate on the committee’s report on active travel. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, the committee’s clerks for their support and patience throughout the inquiry, and the convener for his opening speech. I am pleased that the minister welcomed our inquiry, gave us an assurance that its findings and recommendations would be considered as part of the work on the cycling action plan and was happy to confirm that the majority of those recommendations would be included in it. The committee looks forward to discussing the plan.
I promise not to mention Lycra or pink bikes, which we heard about during the inquiry. I do not plan to repeat the committee’s recommendations, but I want to highlight a few key issues that have been raised by our report and during the debate.
As others have said, the committee has maintained an interest in active travel over the years and has repeatedly called for increased funding for active travel. A number of members have highlighted the benefits of increased participation in active travel in a wide range of areas such as health, the environment, social inclusion and local regeneration, and the committee understands all those potential benefits.
I was glad to see the number of MSPs who joined the young Falkirk walkers earlier today, and I am pleased that on Friday 12,000 people will take part in the big fit walk—an event that started in Grangemouth—which will make it the biggest fit walk ever. Seven years since the event started, it is still growing stronger, and is a good way of promoting active travel and encouraging children to walk.
The committee’s report focuses on the practicalities of delivering increased participation in active travel, which will not happen without proper funding. I note that the minister said there has been a 16 per cent increase in such funding in 2010-11, but we need to go further. As Marlyn Glen said, less than 1 per cent of the Government’s transport budget is spent on active travel. I agree with Alison McInnes, who said that more money is necessary if things are to happen. She is absolutely right.
In his response to the committee’s report, the minister stated:
“Planning for active travel—to be at the heart of future development and that professionals may need additional training; We will aim to improve active travel education across Scotland, focusing on teachers, developers, planners, engineers and designers.”
He also said that “Cycling by Design”—which was published by Transport Scotland today—
“will provide a comprehensive guide to contemporary examples of best practice in cycling design.”
Projects that have been proven to work must be taken further. The committee considers that the 10 per cent target will be meaningless if the Scottish Government fails to match its stated ambition with proper resources.
The committee heard that safety issues were a huge factor in people’s decisions about whether to use walking or cycling as opposed to other modes of transport as a way of getting about. Safety is an issue for women in Scotland, in particular, who, proportionately, are less likely than men to cycle. They are the ones who usually take travel decisions in households. The committee heard evidence that 80 per cent of transport decisions for children are taken by women—their mothers. Witnesses told the committee that we must address the fear of road danger in a way that speaks to parents, so that they will encourage their kids to cycle.
Charlie Gordon mentioned the small number of children who cycle to school. I understand that Cycling Scotland will lead work to formulate a plan, by the end of 2010, to deliver a co-ordinated approach to training and to increase the number of children who receive on-road cycling training, which is extremely important. Until that is progressed, parents will be reluctant to allow their children to cycle to school. The low rate that Charlie Gordon mentioned will never change unless such training takes place. The committee received 175 written submissions, many of which were from individual members of the public who were concerned about road safety in their neighbourhoods.
The committee made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government on the issue of road safety, including encouraging the wider adoption of 20mph speed limits in locations such as around schools and in residential areas and making improvements to the physical infrastructure of our streets. I welcome the Scottish Government’s proposal to extend the 20mph limit.
It is essential that walkers and cyclists can make a complete journey in an environment in which they are unhindered by physical barriers and respected by other road users. I agree absolutely with the minister’s comments about disabled people, who face increased barriers. Likewise, Rob Gibson’s suggestion of active travel towns makes sense.
Jeremy Purvis and Aileen Campbell spoke about the need for mixed travel use. Anyone who has tried to get a buggy or a bike on to a train or bus will agree that it is very difficult. People should be able to leave home by bike, get on to a bus or a train and continue on to their workplace.
Jim Tolson and Jackson Carlaw talked about leadership. The committee also believes that strong leadership is vital if the Scottish Government wants to achieve increased participation in active travel and its ambitious cycling targets. The committee argued that leadership and drive at ministerial level are essential. In addition, the Government must send a clear message to local authorities and transport agencies that they will be expected to provide leadership at a local level. It is clear that working in partnership across the board will be important, as the minister suggested earlier.
The committee’s role will now be to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Government to ensure that it demonstrates stronger, more effective and sustained leadership. Participation in active travel must be increased. The Scottish Government must do more to realise the many benefits of walking and cycling, not least their important health benefits and their contribution to tackling climate change. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee will continue to monitor that after the cycling action plan is published. I commend the committee’s recommendations to the Parliament.
In its report, the committee sets out a vision for active travel, in which walking and cycling are used as safe and convenient alternatives to other modes of transport. The debate has highlighted the action that needs to be taken to increase participation in active travel. I believe that it is vital that the Government acts on the committee’s report and produces a cycling action plan for Scotland that is ambitious and contains proposals that are targeted properly, resourced and effective.
I welcome the minister’s response and I hope that members will look forward to participating in and promoting active travel in their communities.