Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am enjoying the member’s contribution about the benefits of franchising. Will he acknowledge, though, that what he is suggesting needs leadership not only from the Scottish Government but from councils? Councils need to engage with the Scottish Government and say that they want to use those powers and the community bus fund, and that they want to develop a vision, perhaps in the way that Andy Burnham has done in Greater Manchester.

I thank members from across the chamber who signed my motion to secure the debate, and I look forward to everyone’s contributions and the minister’s response.

Last week, I hosted a reception for Scottish bus week. Here, in Parliament, we had bus drivers, passenger groups, bus champions and transport organisations, who are all passionate about improving Scotland’s bus networks, and the room was alive with ideas. I want to especially thank Kevin Stewart for engaging and listening so well and reflecting that passion during his speech at the event, and I am sure that the whole chamber wishes Mr Stewart well.

In my region of Mid Scotland and Fife, I have seen the same thing: communities full of ideas of how to improve services where they live. We should take note of what those organisations and communities say, because we spend a lot of time in the chamber talking about what is wrong with bus services in Scotland, but we spend less time setting out how we want to transform our bus network. At the heart of our vision for better buses should be a few central principles.

First, buses must be reliable. One of the most common inquiries that I have from constituents about bus services is about short-notice cancellations of services. Whether it is McGill’s in Stirling and Clacks or Stagecoach in Perth and Fife, folks are finding it harder and harder to rely on buses to commute to work, head to school or meet up with family and friends. Cancelled services erode passenger confidence in bus services, particularly in rural areas where people can be left without any other option to make their journey.

Passengers and regulators such as the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland should be able to hold bus operators to account, but too often they are hampered by a lack of available evidence. Therefore, we need a Scottish equivalent of England’s bus open data system, which shares live data on bus fares and service information. We have the equivalent powers available in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, and it is time to make them a reality.

Today’s debate is, of course, on the most critical issue of our time. It is worth spelling out what the overwhelming scientific consensus says will be in store if we do not alter our ways of generating, using and exporting energy.

In March this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its final report in a series of six reports. That was the culmination of nearly a decade of study by hundreds of researchers. It is brutally clear. It states:

“Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards”.

The clearest path to keeping global temperatures within safe limits is to rapidly phase out fossil fuels. The researchers say that that is needed in the near term, that renewable energy must be urgently prioritised, and that some of the consequences of not heeding that advice are “increasingly irreversible losses” across ecosystems on land and sea, increasingly insufferable heat in urban areas and in our oceans, and a starkly different future for our children and grandchildren. The scientists say that our climate’s future depends on our choices now and in the near term.

Scotland is not hiding from the seriousness of those choices. The Scottish Government’s draft energy strategy sets out a way forward.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government will no longer support unlimited recovery of fossil fuels. The development of the Cambo field has been halted, and the UK Government must now use its reserved powers to do the same for all new licences, including for Rosebank.

I welcome the debate. It comes after world bicycle day on Saturday, when we celebrated what I believe the Dutch call fietsgeluk, or bicycle happiness—a state that is perhaps typified by Graham Simpson and his rambling journeys around the countryside together with his lead-out man, Brian Whittle.

It is clear that the record-breaking levels of investment to create dedicated spaces where we can walk, wheel and ride in safety are starting to deliver. If we build it, they will come, and I am very encouraged by the minister’s announcement of the transformation fund today. It will really help to build the capacity in local authorities, which has been dwindling in recent years.

We heard some examples from Stirling from Evelyn Tweed. In Stirling, we have the new railway station concourse and the routes around town and out to the university. They represent the most significant step in redesigning the city’s transport infrastructure that we have seen in more than a generation. I know that the minister visited Stirling recently.

The green shoots that are starting to appear around the country are testament to the work of a movement that has been relentless in its goal to reclaim the streets for people. I pay tribute in particular to Ian Findlay, who was such a wonderful advocate and an inspiration personally to me and to many others who joined him in that important mission.

Of course, the debate on active travel is about much more than simply modes of transport. Ultimately, it is about designing places that are friendlier, safer and healthier—places that feel accessible regardless of people’s mobility, age, income or ability to drive. It is about places that are nice to spend time in—green, beautiful and sociable spaces.

We can ask people to walk, wheel and cycle and we can train and support them to do so, but if the streets are dangerous—if pavements are blocked and traffic is too congested or too fast—they will not do so. Even segregated infrastructure cannot possibly join up every single journey from door to door.

A key litmus test here is our schools. If young people and their families who live within just a couple of miles of places find it difficult to walk, wheel or cycle there, we clearly need intervention and investment. The streets where we live, work and play have to feel safer, with the car being a guest, and a polite and respectful one at that. Getting the foundations right is vital.

I highlight two simple national interventions that will be transformational for communities across Scotland: 20mph speed limits and the enforcement of restrictions on pavement parking—two issues on which I have enjoyed working closely with Kevin Stewart over the past couple of months. I very much wish him well for the future.

Traffic speed is often cited as the biggest barrier to cycling. Twenty miles per hour is the right maximum speed for the majority of roads on which motor vehicles mix with pedestrians, wheelers and cyclists. For every 1mph reduction in average speed, there is a 4 to 6 per cent reduction in road casualties—real lives that are being saved. The extensive Scottish Borders Council pilot has shown conclusively that 20mph benefits both urban and rural communities. That limit is popular, too; no sooner has one community switched to 20 than others demand to go 20 as well.

Some members might remember that, in 2019, I introduced a member’s bill to make 20mph the norm in Scotland. Although that bill did not pass at the time, progress has been made since then. The Welsh Government passed an almost identical measure and, as a result, the majority of Welsh roads that are currently 30mph will have flipped to 20mph by September this year.

In Scotland, all appropriate roads will be designated as 20mph by 2025. Councils have been asked to draw up detailed plans for implementation that are similar to those of Welsh councils. Some, such as Highland Council, have already led the way, rolling out 20mph across 116 communities early, before that deadline. Stirling Council hopes to complete the full roll-out of 20mph by the end of the coming year, with only four communities yet to have those limits installed.

However, there is still some way to go and it is critical that, in the absence of a national legislative change like the one in Wales, all councils commit to implementation in the same timescale so that the benefits of national communication and roll-out can be achieved, and that funding is provided by the Scottish Government.

I have found that the roll-out of 20mph often triggers a community conversation about how we can make our streets safer. I hope that the roll-out of the enforcement of pavement parking restrictions will do the same. The daily frustration that is felt by so many when vehicles block pavements is a barrier that many of us do not fully understand until we push a child’s buggy or walk alongside friends who use a wheelchair. I therefore urge everyone who has a stake in their community’s safety to respond to the current Transport Scotland consultation on enforcement.

This summer, we will see the power of the bike across Scotland. Incredible moments and memories will be made through the cycling world championships. However, I hope that the legacy of that will include greater awareness as well as greater participation.

As a sport, cycling is one of the great levellers. Although heroes such as Wout van Aert have already been seen training on the roads around Stirling ahead of the championship, there is nothing to stop mere mortals such as you and me, Presiding Officer, from hopping on a bike and joining him on the same roads.

However, another cycling hero—record-breaking Christina Mackenzie—was knocked off her bike last September while out training on those same roads around Stirling. The driver did not stop and has not been caught. Christina has made a recovery but, for too many others, a ghost bike by the side of the road is a lasting reminder of recklessness and tragedy. A fitting legacy for these first combined cycling world championships, here in Scotland, would be the delivery of a long-awaited dashcam portal from Police Scotland, and I urge the Government to help to make that happen.

I look forward to a summer of fietsgeluk as we continue our journey towards becoming a safe and confident nation of cyclists, wheelers and walkers.

Last week, Labour’s First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, criticised the UK Government for reneging on a 2019 agreement that allowed Scotland and Wales to establish our own deposit return schemes that include glass. Westminster’s Tory Government wants Wales and Scotland to wait for an English scheme, but what assurances has the minister had that there will actually be a DRS in England? When will it be up and running and will the rules for interoperability be?

I share Mr Swinney’s experience of the difficulties of cycling around Perth. Does he agree that it has not helped that the local council there has taken out a number of cycle lanes over time, thereby making the streets potentially more dangerous?

I have a couple of wrap-up questions. I was particularly interested in Professor Jackson’s comments about Scotland’s colonial history. Is it important that, in the way we project ourselves as a good global citizen, we are more aware of what that colonial history has involved. How do we use that to seek reparation and put into place meaningful opportunities to move those injustices forward?

Looking again at the annex listing laws that the Scottish Government considers are not obsolete, and the wider list of laws on which it appears that you are in agreement with the Westminster Government that they are now obsolete, I can see that the vast majority are in environment policy so I am interested to know whether the Scottish Government has sought advice from Environmental Standards Scotland, given that ESS was established under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 and has a key role in advising the Government on alignment with the EU.

That would be very useful, given that ESS was established as a statutory independent adviser probably for these types of situation. I would have expected the Government to liaise with ESS on this.

I turn to the cabinet secretary’s very useful letter that was sent to the committee last night. Is there clarity over what the process is for laws that involve responsibilities that are shared between the Scottish and UK Parliaments? What is your understanding of that process? Does it have to be absorbed within the processes that are in the common frameworks, depending on what the policy area is, then come down to discussions between individual portfolio ministers, between Governments and across the UK? Do you have clarity yet as to what that process for negotiation is? Is it between you and your counterpart? Is it between portfolio ministers? Where does that conversation now take place? There does not seem to be a codified route for resolving areas in which there is disagreement but shared responsibilities—and therefore, potentially, there is a mismatch between approaches that could be taken in either the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament.

It is on a different topic.