Official Report 1054KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17362, in the name of Sue Webber, on ending the war against Scotland’s motorists. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now.
15:22
The Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for motorists, unlike the left-wing parties in this chamber, who continue to treat them with disdain. For too long, road users in this country have faced punitive and ill-considered measures that do little to support our economy, communities or environment in a fair and effective way.
Motorists are not the enemy. They are parents doing school runs, workers getting to jobs, tradespeople running businesses and carers reaching the most vulnerable. They are ordinary people going about their everyday lives.
Motorists are essential to Scotland’s economy and crucial for our connectivity, but they are being punished by the Scottish National Party Government through punitive low-emission zones, controlled parking zones, botched disincentives to car use, endless road works and a constant battle against pothole-ridden roads. Further, there are now the SNP’s ludicrous plans for a 50mph national speed limit.
Will Sue Webber take an intervention?
If Mr Cole-Hamilton does not mind, I will come to him in a second, once I have got a bit more traction.
Despite what the SNP says in its amendment, it is not an exaggeration to describe the situation as a war against motorists. Cars remain the most popular form of transport in Scotland, but hard-working Scots feel that they are increasingly treated as an afterthought. That is what people tell me—this is how they feel—about relentless policies that make their lives harder and more expensive without a feasible alternative being available.
Liberal Democrats believe that we should incentivise people to get out of cars and into public transport, but we agree that we need to improve Scotland’s road network, not least to Inverness and the far north, including the A9, the A96 and the A82. I was surprised to see no mention of those main infrastructure projects in the Conservative motion. Is that an omission?
It is not an omission, Mr Cole-Hamilton. The point is about roads across the country generally. We did not want to specify and single out individual roads because we wanted to make the debate relevant to all of Scotland and not just those who rely on some of our rural connectivity.
The insidious drip-drip effect of anti-car policies is hampering our economy and connectivity, and punishing Scots who are already hard pressed. The SNP must stop viewing car drivers as bogeymen and end its war on Scotland’s motorists by moving away from those damaging policies. After all, the SNP scrapped its target to reduce car use by 20 per cent by 2030 after Audit Scotland said that there was no costed delivery plan or clear milestones. That is a stark admission of failure, but one that was entirely foreseeable. The Audit Scotland report confirmed what many of us suspected: that there was no costed delivery plan, no measurable milestones and no realistic understanding of how such a dramatic reduction could be achieved without crippling those who rely on cars daily.
What we need is a pragmatic shift in approach—no more fines, zones or restrictions. We should be encouraging positive change, through investment in electric vehicle infrastructure; incentives for greener choices, including public transport and park and rides; and proper road maintenance that makes driving safer and more efficient, not more difficult.
SNP ministers need to show some common sense and focus on incentives rather than penalties to encourage motorists to be part of an affordable transition.
The implementation of low-emission zones has hindered businesses, residents and motorists in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee. Fines in Glasgow and Edinburgh are extremely punitive, starting at £60 and doubling with each repeat offence, up to a cap of £480 per day. That places a disproportionate burden on low-income drivers who cannot afford to replace older vehicles. The reality is that the low-emission zones have cost more than £13 million of taxpayers’ money to set up in Scotland but are making a minimal difference to air quality. It is important that ministers review their effectiveness before any new zones are proposed or the current ones are expanded, and we must reconsider the punitive fines.
Unbelievably, the SNP has spent three years and £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on its plan to cut national speed limits on single-carriageway roads from 60mph to 50mph, yet there is no clear evidence that a blanket reduction would deliver significant safety benefits. Such a reduction would impact commuters and significantly impact the agriculture, haulage and logistics sectors across Scotland, placing further strain on productivity.
Scotland’s road network is in a state of steady decline, and motorists are paying the price. Almost 500,000 potholes have been reported to Scottish local authorities since 2021, and Edinburgh has been named as Scotland’s pothole capital, with more potholes that Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow put together.
Resurfacing rather than refilling is the best solution to tackle Scotland’s pothole problem. That is obvious when we consider that almost half a billion pounds has been spent on fixing potholes since 2022, yet our roads are still in a terrible condition. That must be backed by a more co-ordinated effort among the Scottish Government, the Office of the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, local authorities and utility companies.
Too often, road works sites sit idle, causing needless congestion and frustration. When one utility company has finished, it is often only a few weeks, sometimes days, before the next company comes in and digs up exactly the same stretch of road. No wonder it is frustrating for residents and drivers. Ministers must seek ways to discourage inactivity on road works sites and to incentivise finishing road works ahead of time.
Finally, we are calling for greater action to future proof Scotland’s electric vehicle charging network. “Just Transition: A Draft Just Transition Plan for Transport in Scotland” acknowledges that increasing EV car ownership alone is not enough. The charging infrastructure must be put in place if more people are to start using EVs. Motorists cannot be expected to shift to EVs without confidence that charging is accessible, affordable and convenient. I am an EV user, but charging issues were the biggest barrier when making the choice to get an EV. That is the case for many people, especially those who do not have home charging and who rely on the public charging network. Our charging network has different kilowatt chargers, all with differing fees and differing penalties for overstaying. Those factors are contingent on the decisions that are taken by local authorities.
We have lodged a motion that calls on the SNP to finally end the war on motorists. Its anti-car policies are damaging our economy and punishing hard-pressed Scots.
I move,
That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to take greater action to support Scotland’s motorists and to cease implementing punitive measures against road users, which have been described as a war on Scotland’s motorists; recognises the importance of motorists to the Scottish economy and connectivity; acknowledges that the Scottish Government has abandoned its plans to reduce car use by 20% by 2030 and welcomes the recent Audit Scotland report that states that the Scottish Ministers had “no costed delivery plan or measurable milestones” to achieve this target; calls on the Scottish Ministers to focus on incentives, rather than penalties, to encourage motorists to change their behaviour as part of an affordable transition; notes that the implementation of low emission zones has hindered businesses and motorists in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, and calls on ministers to review the effectiveness of low emission zones before any new zones are proposed, or the current ones are expanded, and to reconsider the punitive fines; recognises that road users in Aberdeen have been hindered by the introduction of bus gates, and that motorists across Scotland have been restricted by the expansion of parking charges; urges the Scottish Ministers not to introduce 50 mph speed limits on national speed limit single carriageway roads; recognises that resurfacing, rather than refilling, is the best solution to tackle Scotland’s pothole problem; urges ministers to work more effectively with the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, local authority road works coordinators and utility companies to encourage less inactivity on road work sites and to incentivise finishing works ahead of time; calls for greater action to futureproof Scotland’s EV charger network, and further calls on the Scottish Government to recognise the vital role that motorists play in Scotland.
15:29
I thank colleagues for the opportunity to set out to Parliament the importance and the impact of our policies and investments relating to road users, infrastructure and wider sustainable transport.
The language of a “war on Scotland’s motorists” is used out of context to maximise political traction. Failing to consider the sensitivities of such language is reckless, given the wider global considerations. I genuinely urge members to consider that during our deliberations today.
The First Minister has spoken about the dangers of the pushback against the climate crisis and the need for unity to make a renewed case for climate action. Talking about a “war” on motorists unfortunately falls into that trap.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take it in a second. I hope that we can reset the level of our discussion in order to find a solution that we can all agree to work on.
Can the minister refer to anything that I said in my remarks today that did not acknowledge that motorists want to be part of an affordable transition?
I am talking about the language that was used in the motion bringing the debate to the Parliament in the first place.
I recognise the fundamental importance of our roads and their users to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of Scotland. That includes drivers—who I hope will drive more electric vehicles—and public transport users. The Conservatives’ deregulation of bus services in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in decades of decline, meaning that there is no viable public transport provision in many communities, especially in rural areas. Poll after poll demonstrates that people want access to high-quality and affordable transport. They want to reduce their travel costs, they want to take climate action and they want sustainable alternatives to car use. I believe that that is the case among members across the chamber.
There was a discussion at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee meeting this week on what more the Scottish Government could do to ensure that we have reliable and affordable bus services. Will the minister talk about what the Government will actually do?
I will try to come to that as I make my way through my speech.
We all accept that we want to have alternatives to car use; as I said, I think that that is what all of us across the chamber want. We need to reduce carbon emissions from transport—especially from car use. The Scottish Government remains committed to reducing Scotland’s reliance on cars and encouraging a shift towards public transport and active travel, alongside a switch to electric vehicles.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Let me finish the point that I am making. Scotland reached its target of 6,000 public EV charge points two years early through a combination of Scottish Government funding, local authority delivery and private sector investment. Approximately 24,000 additional public charge points will be delivered by 2030 through continued Scottish Government funding and increasing private sector investment.
Does the minister regret the failure of all the ministers who came before him to set out a costed delivery plan and milestones to reduce car use by 20 per cent by 2030, and will he set that out?
It is not a case of regretting what other ministers have done. I am standing here today as the minister who is contributing to the debate that has been brought before us.
I recognise that supporting electric car use contributes to Scotland’s connectivity, which benefits the economy, education, social mobility and leisure right across Scotland. We support meeting environmental challenges with regard to emissions. There is also a role for the United Kingdom Government, which could reduce the VAT rates that are paid on public charging points to 5 per cent to help to support an equitable and just transition for those who cannot charge electric vehicles at home.
Bus connectivity is being further enhanced by free bus travel for more than 2 million people in Scotland, which provides an alternative for those who can make the switch to public transport. Although I have noted the historical decline in buses, they still account for the vast majority of public transport journeys, with around 334 million journeys made annually. Responsibilities for local road provision and some local bus services lie with local transport authorities, which will be able to have more control through transport legislation that puts more power into their hands.
The low-emission zones that Sue Webber mentioned are key to improving air quality, protecting public health and encouraging more sustainable transport options, and they have been implemented in more than 320 cities across Europe. In Glasgow, where a low-emission zone has been in place since 2023, air quality benefits are already being accrued, as the average nitrogen dioxide levels in the zone are down by approximately 20 per cent compared with 2022.
The Scottish Government welcomes the independent role of the Scottish road works commissioner. However, we have concerns that the punctuality of bus services is being hampered by road works. I have met the road commissioner to discuss the concerns that have been raised by bus operators. I have also met the bus operators and I am meeting local authorities. I intend to continue that collective conversation so that we can find solutions. I will continue to engage collaboratively with the Scottish road works commissioner and the road works industry to find reasonable solutions to help in that area, which include incorporating bus data into the Scottish road works register and providing more consideration of bus services—
Minister, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close and to move your amendment, please.
—and the code of practice for co-ordination of road works.
Presiding Officer, I will finish my remarks there.
I move amendment S6M-17362.4, to leave out from first “calls” to end and insert:
“believes that language used out of context to maximise political traction and which fails to consider the sensitivities of such language is reckless, given wider global considerations; further believes that demonising car users is unhelpful to rural communities in particular, which, as a result of a deregulated bus market, often have no alternative to using a car; acknowledges, however, that Scotland needs to reduce carbon emissions from transport, especially from car use; welcomes that Scotland has reached its target of 6,000 public EV charge points two years early through a combination of Scottish Government funding, delivery by local authorities and private sector investment, with approximately 24,000 to be delivered by 2030 through continued Scottish Government funding and increasing private sector investment; recognises that supporting EV car use contributes to Scotland’s connectivity, and further recognises the value that connectivity has in helping to support the economy, education, social mobility and leisure across Scotland; notes that connectivity is being enhanced by free bus travel for over two million people in Scotland, which provides alternatives to car usage for those that can make the switch; respects the responsibilities of local authorities for local road provision and maintenance, and some local bus services, and that they will be able to have more control through transport legislation, which puts more power into the hands of local transport authorities; is concerned at the ongoing impact of UK Conservative administrations’ deregulation of bus services in the 1980s and 1990s; recognises the need for safe, clean and, importantly, reliable punctual bus services, which can be improved through bus infrastructure, and that improvements can be made in public health by creating low emission zones, as has been done in over 40 areas across Europe, but does have concerns that the punctuality of bus services can be hampered by road works; welcomes the Scottish Government’s approach through engaging collaboratively with the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, who oversees road works, with roads authorities, which have responsibility for coordination of works, and with the road works industry, which is responsible for duration and quality of works, to find reasonable solutions to help in this area; agrees that further investigation is needed of the role that those undertaking the works play in the quality of road surfaces after works have been completed; further agrees to await the results of the National Speed Management Review consultation, noting that an estimated 10mph reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads can reduce deaths by 23% and serious casualties by 18%, and that there is a need to make Scotland’s roads safer to cut the number of people being injured and killed on the roads, and welcomes the roll-out of 20mph limits across all local authorities on roads determined by them.”
15:35
We are having a very short debate that is attempting to cover many aspects of transport policy. We have already heard from the Conservative spokesperson and the Government minister, who have given an overview of some of the key dividing lines that the Tory motion is trying to create.
Parts of the Conservative motion are worth considering: the problematic implementation of the LEZ in Glasgow, the state of Scotland’s roads and the cost to motorists of potholes. However, it is a stretch to describe the environment as a “war” on motorists and to seek to create division on an issue on which we, as a Parliament, are agreed: the need to reduce emissions to improve air quality and meet our climate change targets.
The motion refers to road users solely as motorists, but bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians all use roads. Its car-centric focus does not recognise the need to balance the needs of all road users and reduce the reliance on the personal car.
The Government’s dropping of the target to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent car is a disappointment. It was an empty promise, which was not backed up by the leadership or the action that would be required to achieve it, as Audit Scotland has made clear. It is not enough just to set targets without any way to reach them, a costed delivery plan, measurable milestones or the governance in place to track progress. To tackle the climate crisis and transform our transport system, we need the headline to be backed up with work that will make it a reality.
Transport remains our single largest source of emissions, but rather than a reduction in car use, we have seen record levels of vehicle ownership and an increase in kilometres driven. The key to reducing car use is ensuring that people have transport choices, and that means an awareness of the reality of the choices and the limits that people face.
According to the Scottish household survey, a quarter of our households do not have access to a car, and that figure rises significantly in our cities and among lower-income households. For those people, public transport is not an option; it is a vital service that allows them to live their lives. However, under the Scottish Government, bus routes have been axed, rail fares have been increased and users of ferry services have endured chaos.
Is the member aware that many bus companies are facing extreme financial pressures as a result of the Labour UK Government’s imposition of increased employer national insurance contributions? That is resulting in increased fares, a reduction in services and disinvestment in the bus fleet. What does she say to the Labour Government about the impact of that, which will undoubtedly affect bus services in Scotland?
The member will probably agree that the decline in bus services in Scotland happened long before Labour came into government. For years under the SNP, we have seen a reduction in the bus routes that are available to communities and more people do not have access to a bus. I do not accept the argument that has been put forward.
We recognise that people are often too reliant on cars to get to where they need to be. Public transport links are lacking and, without private car transport, some people would be cut off. Part of that is a failure to invest in regional solutions, and some bus networks have been dismantled as local authority funding has been hollowed out. We need to look at how to ensure more local involvement in delivering bus services for those areas.
Will the member give way?
I am quite pressed for time, but I will do so if the minister can be very brief.
On the member’s point about certain areas not having bus services, is that not more to do with the fact that it is a deregulated market? In addition, irrespective of how much public money we put in, we have no control at all over timetables or fares.
I agree with what the Government’s amendment says about deregulation and the impact that that has had. However, the SNP Government has done little to reverse that. Legislation was introduced, but we have seen no activity because of a lack of funding in local authority areas to progress that agenda, which is something that I think that we agree on.
We need to look at how to ensure more local involvement in delivering bus services for those areas so that alternatives to the car are being provided. However, when the car is the only option, we need to work to reduce reliance on it. Concessionary travel schemes encourage the use of public transport, particularly buses, for certain groups. However, to persuade more people out of cars, public transport has to be reliable, affordable and accessible. That is why Scottish Labour has pledged to remove peak fares for good as the first step in delivering a fairer pricing structure, which would mean that more people could afford to use public transport and that it would be competitively priced compared to driving, particularly when a family is travelling.
The reality is that price increases are pushing people into cars. We need to foster an environment where the car is not the default. We need to not just make it feasible to choose an alternative method; we need to make that a positive choice. That means not adding significant costs, in terms of money or time.
Part of that is about addressing the crumbling road network that is a result of the long-term underfunding of local authorities. The issue of potholes has already been covered. As a member of the cross-party group on music, I point out that the implementation of the LEZ scheme in Glasgow has been difficult for the night-time economy there.
Ms Baker will need to conclude and move her amendment.
I will just say something about electric cars. We need to do more to increase the attraction of electric cars.
Thank you. I ask Ms Baker to move her amendment.
We need to do more to make sure that we have a transport strategy that works for all our communities.
I move amendment S6M-17362.1, to leave out from first “calls” to end and insert:
“highlights the Scottish Government’s dropping of the target of a 20% reduction in car use by 2030 and the recent Audit Scotland report, which states that the Scottish Ministers had 'no costed delivery plan or measurable milestones' to achieve this target; recognises that, while car ownership has increased, many households, including a greater proportion of those on lower incomes, do not have access to a car; further recognises that a failure to reduce transport emissions will have a detrimental effect on the climate and on people’s health; acknowledges that a reduction in car use is only realistic and inclusive if there is a viable alternative option, and calls on the Scottish Government to scrap peak rail fares as a first step to making public transport more affordable and accessible to all.”
We are a bit pressed for time this afternoon. I call Mark Ruskell to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
15:40
It is clear that there is no war on the motorist, and it is a bit silly to suggest that there is. However, I absolutely think that, every single day, motorists face congestion misery on our roads, so we should be tackling congestion. We can do that only when the costs of public transport fall relative to those of the private car and when better reliability, punctuality and frequency make bus and rail the natural choice for commuters, where they have that choice available.
Facts are really important in this debate. I ask members to reflect on the fact that, since the Parliament was established, the number of cars on the roads has increased by 38 per cent and mileage has gone up by 16 per cent, while the cost of motoring has decreased by 19 per cent, rail fares have increased by 31 per cent and bus and coach fares have risen by an eye-watering 102 per cent in real terms. It is clear that successive Governments have prioritised car dependency, and that people who choose or rely on public transport are continually being disadvantaged by Government policy.
Transport is the biggest climate polluter, and private cars pollute the most. Actions are needed to reduce private car usage and demand—otherwise, other parts of our economy will have to pick up more of the burden in getting to net zero. A traffic reduction target, backed by deliverable actions, is needed now more than ever. Dropping the 20 per cent target is a real backwards step that sends out the wrong message, removes the focus and undermines the partnership action that is needed on the ground to prioritise public transport and active travel.
Will the member take an intervention?
If there is time in hand, I would welcome that.
There is very limited time.
Okay—very briefly.
Does the member not accept that the target was dropped because it was absolutely unachievable? Does he accept that the new guidance is clear that only a 7 per cent reduction is needed, and that we are working to bring together the kinds of initiatives that will allow us to do what all members in the chamber want to achieve?
I ask the minister to reflect on what Duncan Cameron from FirstGroup told Parliament just yesterday. He said that dropping the 20 per cent target represents a huge missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for partnership action and to have a clear focus.
Targets without measurable actions are doomed to fail. Despite the fact that a draft route map to reduce congestion was published jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities three years ago, the plan is yet to be agreed. When the plan comes back to COSLA at the end of this week, it will be gutted and all the meaningful action will be taken out of it. All the actions that local authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council want to put in place to start to tackle congestion and deliver investment will be left out of the plan.
We need to reflect on the fact that progress on road charging has been absolutely non-existent in Scotland. We are 22 years on from the introduction of the congestion charge in London, which is now just accepted as part of everyday life and which raises significant revenue for public transport investment. It is time to support local authorities that want to introduce road user charging, such as those in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I do not have any time—sorry.
We need to deliver the right models for those local authorities to cut congestion and raise money. Encouraging people to choose to leave the car at home is not only good for the climate; it is about cleaner air and safer streets, a healthier society and a stronger economy. There is lots of evidence from around the world—including from Europe and other cities across the UK—on where reducing road congestion has been beneficial for the economy. However, we need champions to lead the debate with facts. We need a cross-party effort, not just here at Holyrood but at Westminster and in our town halls.
The issue is also about fairness. Car-dependent transport systems drive economic and socioeconomic inequalities. One in five households in Scotland does not have access to a car. Car use is lower among women, disabled people and older people, and those groups are likely to rely more on public transport. Simply pointing to a growing number of EV charging points really patronises the people who cannot drive.
We can do better. The Government needs to empower the councils that are ready and willing to take action now to create vibrant and inclusive places where the car is the guest and communities can grow and thrive.
I call on Alex Cole-Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
15:45
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Liberal Democrats in this debate. Liberal Democrats are certainly committed to tackling the climate crisis while building healthier and more connected communities. Those are not mutually exclusive—two things can be true at the same time—and some of our communities, as I alluded to in my intervention on Sue Webber, are not connected in the way that we would like them to be, which is a Government failure.
There is no question but that reducing the number of cars on the road cuts carbon emissions, improves air quality and reduces congestion, while making our towns and rural communities safer and more pleasant places to live. At the same time, it is important that public transport and active travel are realistic, accessible alternatives. Too often in Scotland, travelling by car is cheaper and easier than public transport, which is completely the wrong way round. We will not make any progress while that remains the case.
We need local bus and rail networks to be fit for purpose and affordable, but the Government has presided over fewer and fewer public transport journeys each consecutive year, particularly in left-behind rural and semi-rural areas where people often have no option other than a car. It is right that we encourage active travel by creating safe, direct walking and cycling routes, which mean that more people feel able to leave their cars at home, whether that is for the school run, daily commute or trip to the shops. It is a win-win for cutting pollution, promoting tourism and improving people’s health.
However, I understand the frustration that communities feel, especially when they are affected by measures without having any say on them. We need to win hearts and minds.
I am a massive fan of the idea of low-traffic neighbourhoods. I am really interested in what has happened in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, but I am also interested in the five layers of consultation that were behind that. The City of Edinburgh Council tried to impose a low-traffic neighbourhood on my community of East Craigs during the pandemic without consulting people in the 7,000 homes that would have been affected, which really set back hearts and minds.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I need to make progress. Forgive me—I have only four minutes.
By doing that, the council set back the interest that community might have had in improving what was already quite a low-traffic neighbourhood.
Lib Dems have also made it crystal clear that the dualling of the A9 is an absolute priority. At our spring conference in Inverness, my party backed the campaign to dual the A9 and made it a manifesto promise for next year’s election.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am really sorry, but I must make progress.
Dualling the A9 is about saving lives—it is not a charter for motorists but a charter for road safety. Every year, the A9, A96 and A82 have a body count that would result in our diggers being out widening the roads if we saw it on the M8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The A9, in particular, remains one of the UK’s most dangerous roads. After John F Kennedy pledged to get to the moon, it took NASA only nine years; it has taken the SNP nearly 20 years to make glacial progress towards dualling the A9, which the SNP promised to do when it came to power in 2007.
The issue is so important, not only for the Highland economy but for its users’ safety. Since 1979, 335 people have been killed on the A9’s Perth to Inverness stretch. In 2022 alone, 13 people died. We cannot just let that continue to happen, which is why I, Sir Ed Davey, Angus MacDonald, Andrew Baxter, who is our Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch candidate, and David Green, who is our Caithness, Sutherland and Ross candidate—
Mr Cole-Hamilton, please resume your seat for a second. I appreciate that an election is coming up, albeit not until next year, but we are not in a hustings. We are in a Parliament, and I hope that members will act accordingly. Please conclude.
It is just a measure of the passion that we all feel and why we signed the pledge in the Inverness Courier to dual the A9. We know how vital that is, not only for our Highland economy but for the safety of the road users who are trying to get to it.
We move to the open debate. Back benchers will have speeches of up to four minutes.
15:49
It has been said that the epitome of the SNP’s war on Scottish motorists is the low-emission zone, and the exemplar of the folly of those schemes is the Aberdeen LEZ. In force since June 2024, it swiftly claimed the record for resulting in the most fines issued in a month, with more than 6,000 slapped on north-east motorists. It was a significant contributor to statistics showing that the Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee LEZs collectively resulted in the issuing of 58,000 fines for drivers, which were worth more than £6.3 million, in the first six months of operation of the schemes.
Many people from across Scotland have contacted me to raise concerns about the regressive social impacts of LEZs, suggesting that they disproportionately impact those in lower-income households, who are more likely to have older cars, to have jobs that require their physical presence and to travel to and from work at times or places where public transport is less frequent or indeed absent.
The minister proudly said that there are LEZs throughout Europe, but he failed to mention Madrid’s LEZ, which a court annulled last year because its economic consequences disproportionately impacted low-income residents. However, the response to a freedom of information request to Aberdeen City Council, whose postcodes were generating record numbers of fines, showed that no such analysis was being done.
Furthermore, many constituents and businesses have raised with me concerns about the impact on Union Street and Aberdeen city centre, with reports of reduced footfall as a result of people choosing alternative shopping options or just not going into town. My authority for that is reports that I have got my hands on from traders in towns surrounding Aberdeen, which suggest that their footfall and businesses rocketed after the introduction of the LEZ and the bus gates. One councillor in the shire said:
“Of course it’s massively helping our ... hospitality and retail outlets which are seeing a marked lift in business”.
However, when I asked Aberdeen City Council what research it was doing on the impact of LEZs on footfall, spend and consumer choices, it said—you guessed it—that it is not collating that data.
Members might recall that the stated aim of the SNP’s LEZs was to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. When I asked the council when it would be measuring the air quality in the LEZ so that, presumably, it could show the intended reduction in emissions and justify its draconian measures and the appalling economic and social impacts, I was told that there is no published information, nor is there any data comparing emission reductions—if any—in the LEZ with increases in emissions from diverted traffic through additional miles travelled by vehicles. The council has introduced an LEZ, but it has no idea whether it has achieved any emission reductions.
Liam Kerr made an important point about the low-emission zone in Madrid. Another good example from Madrid is how efficiently it has built its metro system—I think that it is the most cost-efficient system per mile anywhere in the world. Could we do more in Scotland to benchmark excellent infrastructure projects such as the Madrid metro and build more such infrastructure here?
We could definitely do more in Scotland. Unfortunately, we will never do more while we have an SNP Government in place.
People will begin to suspect that, far from being about emission reductions, LEZs are about the SNP introducing schemes to generate money for councils, which it so woefully underfunds, from exorbitant fines on drivers. The reality is that Aberdeen’s LEZ is hammering businesses and our great city centre, is disproportionately hitting those of lesser means and is unlikely to be having any significant impact on emissions. Alongside the Aberdeen bus gates, it is the embodiment of virtue-signalling, ideologically led and unevidenced policy making on the hoof. The sooner both schemes are consigned to history, the better for us all.
15:53
In a move that would make the US President proud, the Tory party has lodged a Trumpian word salad of a motion calling for an end to the Scottish Government’s so-called war on motorists, using the low-emission zone in Aberdeen as an example of bad policy. For some, it might come as a bit of a surprise to find out which party was in control of Aberdeen City Council when the low-emission zone was proposed. It was, of course, the Tories. Now, the same Tories demand that the Scottish Government prevents councillors, including Tories, from embarking on such schemes in the future.
Just so that we have a debate that is based on facts and not fiction, let us consider the history of the Aberdeen low-emission zone. On 6 February 2020, Aberdeen City Council’s city growth and resources committee unanimously agreed to the move, along with holding public and stakeholder engagement, on options for a city centre low-emission zone. We already know that the Tories were the party in charge, along with their Labour allies at the time, but who was the committee convener? I will give members a clue: he is sitting on the Tory benches, or he was earlier. It was Mr Douglas Lumsden MSP. The Aberdeen LEZ was proposed by a Tory-led committee in a Tory-led council.
However, it does not stop there. In response to the Tory plan for a low-emission zone in Aberdeen, the co-leader of Aberdeen City Council said:
“the unanimous decision today is to be welcomed as we are committed to reducing emissions across Aberdeen and particularly in the city centre.”
Who was the council leader who was so supportive of the low-emission zone? Of course, it was Mr Douglas Lumsden, who showered praise on his own low-emission zone.
Yet again, it does not stop there. Only a month later, armed with his plan for a low-emission zone, Douglas Lumsden presented the annual Aberdeen City Council budget and proudly stated:
“We approved a low-emission zone for the city”.
He added:
“This is our”—
the Tories’—
“commitment and contribution to delivering an ambitious low emission zone within the heart of our city.”
It is more than a little rich for the Tories to demand today that the Scottish Government protects motorists from low-emission zones when they were proudly calling the Aberdeen one theirs in 2020.
Let us be crystal clear that Mr Lumsden and the Tories not only proposed the low-emission zone in Aberdeen but also started implementing the work. A year and a half later, in October 2021, when Mr Lumsden was on the council as well as here in Parliament, he proudly said that it was
“good to see work continuing on the project.”
We in Aberdeen are not unforgiving. In his 2020 budget speech announcing his funding of the low-emission zone, Mr Lumsden proudly stood up and told the Lord Provost of Aberdeen that he would “make no apology” for his low-emission zone. He could always take the opportunity to apologise to the Parliament today if he now thinks that the LEZ was such a bad idea.
You need to conclude, Mr Stewart.
Is that not just another example of Tory hypocrisy, opportunism and nonsense?
15:58
To bring some common sense back to the chamber, I echo what Sue Webber said in her opening remarks. The SNP has indeed declared war on Scotland’s motorists. Whether it be low-emission zones, roads crumbling away with potholes being unfilled or proposed reductions in speed limits, the SNP is making life more difficult for people who choose to own a car.
Will the member give way?
Oh, this will be good.
It is. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, vehicle excise duty for new cars has risen from £1,200 to £2,605, and car insurance premium tax went up from 5 per cent in 2010 to 12 per cent in 2017. Which party is it that has a war on motorists, again?
It is the SNP that has a war on motorists, and I will explain why in a second.
I represent a commuter region. Many people who live across the central belt of Scotland travel to and from our major cities for work, school and university. Good transport links, affordable prices and reliable public services are essential for those towns and villages. However, whether it be in relation to train, bus or car, the SNP has punished Scotland’s commuters.
Two of the busiest motorways run through central Scotland—the M74 and the M8—and they are designed to be the easiest routes to travel on to reach Glasgow or Edinburgh if people live in North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire or Falkirk. However, constituents regularly write to me to tell me how congested those roads are, especially during the rush hour. The journey from the Newhouse roundabout to Edinburgh city centre can take up to two hours in the morning despite the distance being only 31 miles. The SNP needs to announce a plan to alleviate the pressures on our busiest roads. It cannot simply remove the choice of driving from people who want to drive just because it cannot reach its own emission targets.
However, it is not just commuters who have felt the force of the SNP’s war on Scotland’s motorists. Donald MacLeod, owner of Glasgow nightclubs the Garage and the Cathouse Rock Club, believes that Glasgow’s low-emission zone restrictions have had a lasting impact on the night-time economy. Glasgow was once regarded as a retail powerhouse, being a desired location that many of my constituents would regularly visit for social and retail use. However, many parts of the city are now derelict, with boards on shop windows and “closing down” signs outnumbering the businesses that are struggling to stay open.
Since the introduction of the city’s LEZ, the dramatic drop in footfall across the country has turned Glasgow into, in Donald MacLeod’s words, a “low economy zone”. That is the real, lasting impact of the SNP’s anti-motorist agenda. It is bad for business and bad for economic growth.
Donald MacLeod and other business owners have called on Glasgow City Council to lift the low-emission zone restrictions in the city from 6 pm to 6 am to help to revive Glasgow’s struggling night-time economy. That is just one of many suggestions that have been brought forward by business owners who are desperately trying to find solutions to problems that have been created by Governments.
I return to the point that I made at the start of my speech. If there was good, reliable and affordable public transport, it would not only help to reduce emissions naturally but also provide Scotland’s commuters with a choice, and people might make the switch. They do not have that choice at present, and that is why the SNP needs to get a grip on public transport and provide a network that people have confidence in.
16:02
Although I sympathise with some elements of the motion, its framing is deeply facile and disingenuous. The reality is that transport in Scotland is a critical issue that affects national life, as it connects people to jobs and economic opportunities. That velocity of movement and connection between people generates growth and prosperity for the communities that we are elected to represent. That is why it is so important. Distilling it down into the idea of some sort of war is not entirely helpful.
I recognise that there are flaws in the delivery of public policy in this area and that there has been a tendency to focus on punitive measures at the expense of proper long-term strategic investment. For example, Glasgow, which I represent, accounts for 20 per cent of Scotland’s economy. The Centre for Cities estimates that the underperformance of the Glasgow economy costs Scotland £7 billion a year, which is largely down to the dysfunctional nature of its public transport system. Although Glasgow’s public transport system performs relatively well at a UK level, it is severely underperforming relative to its European peers. That must be addressed.
The Government has worked with Glasgow City Council on the development of measures such as the connectivity commission, which was established seven years ago but on which no further progress has been made. Other cities around Europe have moved far ahead in investing in metro systems, extending trams and delivering the regulation of buses, such as in the case of Manchester. I worry that the pace of improvement is nowhere near where it needs to be.
There are three main reasons why this is important. First, Glasgow’s economy is underperforming relative to its peers by an amount that is equivalent to 4.5 per cent of Scotland’s gross domestic product. There is a huge prize to be won if we unlock that potential. If we can get Glasgow to a level of competitiveness with European cities of a similar size, such as Munich, we can unlock huge opportunity for this country.
Secondly, Glasgow has the lowest rate of car ownership in the UK. According to the 2011 census, 41 per cent of Glaswegians do not own a car—that is well above Britain’s average of 26 per cent. That makes Glasgow more dependent on the performance of its public transport network and accentuates social inequality in the city, which is already problematic.
That is not helped by the fact that Glasgow has a major motorway running through the heart of the city, which reduces incentives to improve public transport, because it means that the richest and most prosperous people in the city region can enjoy the benefits of private car ownership, which are not accessible to the poorest households.
Thirdly, transport choices have environmental implications, which means that air pollution is a bigger problem in urban centres such as Glasgow than it is in more rural areas. Poor air quality disproportionately affects the poorest people in Glasgow and the poorest neighbourhoods, which border the M8 motorway that runs through the heart of the city.
Will the member give way?
I would be happy to.
Will the member recognise and celebrate the fact that Glasgow City Council has spent more than £500,000 of the money that it has made from LEZs on tree planting in order to improve the environment in Glasgow city centre?
That is good, but it is a tokenistic measure. In the grand scheme of things, £500,000 is a drop in the ocean. Glasgow needs £500 million or £5 billion—that is the scale of investment that we are talking about. That is the amount of money that we need to bring into Glasgow to build the Clyde metro and to deliver the scale of investment that other European cities enjoy. We need to get real about the issue—we need to go big or go home. The Clyde metro remains a nebulous project, and we are nowhere near fulfilling the true potential of the city.
I do not understand why there is such a negative feedback loop. There is ever greater congestion on our roads, and buses are performing less efficiently because of that rising congestion. We have a doom loop of increasing problems. The biggest capital investment in Glasgow’s transport system is the more than £150 million that is being spent on patching up the 1970s motorway viaduct that runs through Cowcaddens.
The Government’s approach is simply not coherent. It needs to adopt a much better approach in order to unlock the true potential of the city of Glasgow, which can benefit Scotland as a whole.
16:06
Earlier this year, the Scottish Government was forced to abandon its target for reducing car use by 20 per cent by 2030. It was an ambitious goal that, unfortunately, could not be met. The measures that have been taken in an attempt to reach that target do not equate to a war on motorists, as some would like to characterise it. If we are to tackle the climate crisis, we must reduce car emissions by making public transport more affordable and accessible, while maintaining the road infrastructure that so many still rely on. There must be more carrot and only as much stick as is needed.
It is of the utmost importance that we reduce our reliance on cars while ensuring that our roads are safe. The £36 million that the Scottish Government is investing in road safety this year is a welcome step. It is vital that that funding supports behavioural change and helps local authorities to improve their road infrastructure.
The Conservative motion mentions the national speed management review. Rather than being a golden bullet, that is simply a tool to ensure that all speed limits are fit for their purpose. We know from international experience in France that a reduction in speed limits can reduce casualties. I am sure that members take road safety seriously, and our policies must reflect that.
Of course, cars will always have a place in our transport system, especially in rural areas of the country, but the environmental impact of widespread car use cannot be overstated. Cars account for 39 per cent of all transport emissions and 12.4 per cent of Scotland’s total emissions. That is a reality that we cannot ignore. We must move towards zero-emission vehicles and build a sustainable public transport network.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I have only four minutes.
As we try to change travel behaviours, we must take the public with us. We cannot allow the narrative that we are engaged in a war against the public’s interests to lie. Instead, we must prove that such action will benefit lives.
The Conservative Party’s opposition to low-emission zones is deeply irresponsible and not in the least surprising. Let us be clear: no member would let children drink dirty water, so why should we let them breathe polluted air, especially after a study by the University of Dundee found that respiratory admissions for children were significantly higher in areas with poor air quality? Placing politics above public health would be shameful, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has shown leadership in this area.
The Scottish Government has also made progress with the country’s electric vehicle charging network. We now have the highest number of public EV charging devices per head of population of any UK nation. However, electric vehicles remain expensive, especially during a cost of living crisis. That is why we must focus on developing more incentives, such as affordable EV loans, to help families to switch to an eco-friendly alternative.
Public transport is key in reaching our net zero targets and for our economy. We have already seen the benefits of a public interest approach to transport. ScotRail’s nationalisation has delivered major improvements, including higher passenger satisfaction and fewer compensation claims compared with other UK rail companies.
Unfortunately, the scheme scrapping peak rail fares did not produce the desired shift in travel habits. However, that should be a message to the Government to continue to work to incentivise such a shift.
Progress must also reach our rural communities. In rural Scotland, often a car is not a convenience but a necessity. Bus services are not so frequent and passenger satisfaction is lower than it is in the central belt. If we are serious about reducing car use, we must work with local authorities to invest in and improve rural bus routes to ensure that rural communities remain connected. Public transport is a lifeline for some of those communities.
Describing the Scottish Government’s aim to reduce car use as a war is a gross mischaracterisation. It is not a war. It is a necessity in order to meet our climate targets and to improve transport for all in Scotland. The road ahead requires balance, supporting behavioural change with investment and encouraging greener choices through affordability while maintaining our road infrastructure to ensure the safety of all our constituents.
We move to closing speeches. I call Mark Ruskell to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
16:10
We have been subject to a blizzard of local press releases and election pitches this afternoon. I agree with Paul Sweeney that the motion that we are debating is somewhat “facile and disingenuous”. We need a more measured debate on the subject. I ask the minister to acknowledge that, on transport policy, we are taking one step forward at a time and then, often, one step back.
I give the example of bus use. Free bus travel for under-22s is a fantastic scheme and I know that the minister backs it. He recognises the benefit that it has brought to young people. It has also increased bus use by 29 million journeys. However, at the same time as we have been rolling out that successful scheme, we have seen bus journeys decline by 20 million because of road congestion and the failure to tackle traffic congestion, which we are discussing this afternoon. That is undermining the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been invested in bus users and the bus network every year.
We need to see what, back in the day, was called policy coherence—that is, where one policy is not undermining another one. We cannot have a transport policy based only on having more of everything that everybody wants. Choices have to be made. That is why we have a transport hierarchy and it should be guiding investment. When the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee this week, it stated clearly that competition from cars was the primary influence on bus use. Unless we tackle that issue and level the playing field, we will not see a rapid increase in bus use.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time, unfortunately.
Choices need to be made. I ask the minister to reflect on the construction of the cross-Tay link road: £120 million is being invested in that transport infrastructure to benefit motorists. However, there are already starting to be congestion issues around Perth and Bridgend, which that bridge was meant to resolve.
We need to move away from going one step forward and one step back. We need to address the issues.
This is not a new debate. Back in 2006, the first ever climate inquiry in this Parliament recommended road user charging. It set the Executive a timescale of 10 years to get it right—the Executive had until 2016 to bring in a fair system of road user charging. That date has passed and we are now nearly 10 years on from 2016—it is nearly 2026 and we still have no more progress in Scotland on road user charging.
It will take calm heads and cross-party working in order to make progress on this. Perhaps it will take the kind of leadership that was shown by Douglas Lumsden when he was a councillor: behaving rationally, taking your party-political hat off and looking at the issues that need to be addressed. We see that kind of leadership in councils from time to time. The conversation with COSLA is really important because it is clear that there are those in local authorities who need, and want, to tackle traffic congestion using a range of measures.
I urge the Government to make progress in areas in which there is consensus. A regulatory review is looking at powers of road charging. We could be looking at simplifying the traffic regulation order process or decriminalising road offences. I think that there are areas of consensus among councils and the Government that we can use to make progress.
I welcome the minister’s support for the re-regulation of buses. I would urge him to make that process as simple as possible. It is clear that we need public transport to be run in the public interest, and we can only really achieve that if we have public and community operators in that mix.
This is a short debate, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject between now and the end of the parliamentary session.
16:15
The language that is used in the Tory motion does not reflect reality, and it has been criticised a lot around the chamber. However, some good points have been made. It is clear to a lot of us that the SNP Government dumped its target of a 20 per cent reduction in car use because it knew that it was not going to deliver and it did not have a plan.
Several colleagues have talked about the need to lower carbon emissions across the country if we are to address the climate emergency. We are now seeing extreme weather, which is leading to increased flooding and forest fires in Scottish communities. Transport is a key sector where we face a challenge in reducing our emissions, but we need to do that in such a way that people will have better choices and more affordable, accessible and reliable public transport services that they can use.
We need to think about how we can have safer roads. I will come back to that point, which has been raised several times. We need to think about people’s health and improving air quality.
To pick up on what Mark Ruskell said as he finished his winding-up speech, we do not have the bus and train services that people in Scotland urgently need. That is a key message from young people. They love the idea of the under-22 bus pass but, as one of them said in a meeting that I was at, it is not much use if people do not have a bus to use it on. We have opportunities, but we are not delivering on them.
As Claire Baker powerfully argued in her opening speech, reintroducing peak rail fares after passenger use had increased by 6 per cent was a mistake, because it will stop people using the trains, and it means that they will have to revert to using a car to get to work. Three price hikes in just over a year disproportionately punished those who chose to use the train instead of driving, and that has meant that roads are more and more congested. People have to use cars even when it is not necessarily their first choice and even when it is not affordable for them, because they simply cannot rely on buses, particularly if they have a bus route but the buses are delayed by traffic congestion.
There is a real challenge here. In many of our rural communities or on the edge of towns, people do not even have transport services at all, and we do not have a connected system between bus and rail.
This is not about a war on drivers. The debate should be about how to provide people with real, affordable choices—with more efficient and reliable public transport choices across Scotland—and with opportunities for safer active travel, especially for shorter journeys. Instead of increasing car use, we could reduce car use and have fewer cars on the road, and we could make it easier for people who drive not to get stuck in traffic queues.
There has been a lot of debate about low-emission zones. They are reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality. One thing that was interesting in Edinburgh was learning from Glasgow’s experience of working with businesses before the LEZ there was introduced. The other thing in Edinburgh—
Will the member give way?
I am down to the last minute of my speech.
The SNP has let Scotland’s roads crumble. That is probably one of the few things in Sue Webber’s opening speech that I agreed with. Scotland’s road repair backlog for potholes has now risen to an eye-watering £2.6 billion. That means that the roads are not safe for people who are walking and cycling. It is not good for bikes and vehicles, as potholes damage tyres and increase people’s costs.
In Edinburgh, the Labour-led council had to make difficult choices in its budget because of years of underfunding by the SNP Government, but the cross-party council rejected the cuts to pothole funding suggested by the SNP councillors. We need to get that cross-party work right.
With better choices, more and more people would actually have a choice of when they use their car, instead of experiencing more congestion and delays. Anyone who has driven on the Edinburgh bypass will know that it regularly grinds to a halt, because there are far too many vehicles on it.
You need to conclude.
We need more joined-up thinking between public transport organisations, with more choices for people. That is not happening at the moment.
16:19
I genuinely express my gratitude to members across the chamber for their valuable contributions and for the consensus on the work going forward, which I and the cabinet secretary are very happy to do.
We have to accept that we are predominantly a rural and sparsely populated country. I recognise that opportunities to change the mode of transport in remote rural communities are limited. Switching to electric vehicles will be of higher importance in those areas than it is in the cities.
However, it is clear from members’ contributions that we agree on many things, including the provision of high-quality affordable transport options in order to reduce travel costs and take climate action, and the need to offer a sustainable and affordable alternative to private cars. I encourage continuous productive engagement among members in the chamber who are prepared to do that.
It is widely accepted that LEZs are an effective and necessary tool to reduce pollution and, therefore, to protect public health—
Will the minister give way?
The four cities involved, and the Government, can rightly be proud of the introduction of LEZs. I also recognise, and am thankful for, the investment that responsible businesses and vehicle owners have already made to continue to make LEZs work—
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
As I said earlier, Glasgow has invested £500,000 of revenue from LEZs in tree planting and greening projects and in broader climate action.
Will the minister give way?
At this point, I should applaud Kevin Stewart for hitting the Tory hypocrisy on the head on the LEZ in Aberdeen; I wonder where Mr Lumsden is right now.
Road safety is a key concern, and our aim is for Scotland to have the best safety performance in the world by 2030, yet in 2024, there were 167 road fatalities—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take interventions if I get time.
Will the minister give way?
I will take interventions if I get time—right now, I want to get through these points, and I urge members to listen.
Road safety is a key concern, and our aim is for Scotland to have the best safety performance in the world by 2030, yet in 2024, there were 167 road fatalities—an 8 per cent rise from 2023—and the early signs suggest that 2025 is following a similar trend. The evidence is clear that reducing the national speed limit on single carriageways by 10mph can reduce fatalities on those roads by 23 per cent and serious injuries by 18 per cent. That is a step that will save lives while maintaining journey times—
Will the minister take an intervention? Come on.
Unlike the Conservatives, we are awaiting the outcome of the national speed management review public consultation before proposing any changes. The review is complete, but it has not yet reported. The public consultation had more than 19,500 responses and there were more than 26 public engagement sessions, so we will wait for the outcome of that review before we make any decisions. I urge members on the Conservative side of the chamber to consider that point as we go forward.
This is not a war on motorists—it is a responsible Government action to protect lives, improve journey time reliability and future proof our transport network—
Will the minister give way?
Very quickly.
I call Finlay Carson, briefly.
Is it true that the minister would rather see a reduction of 10mph on routes such as the A75 Euroroute than the Government doing the right thing and investing in that road to make it a dual carriageway?
I dismiss the point that the member makes. I have stated the point behind the review, and that is the basis on which we will be working.
Scotland has one of the most comprehensive public charging networks in the UK. We have reached our target of 6,000 public charge points two years early, and we have more rapid public charging points per head of population than any other part of the UK except the south-east—
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry—I do not have time today.
I welcome the introduction of the UK Government regulations on public EV charging, including those concerning charge point reliability. I urge all charge point operators to adhere to those regulations and to ensure that drivers receive the level of service that they rightly expect.
I will try to make a couple of points very quickly. First, I am quite sure that members on the Conservative side of the chamber will celebrate the fact that Fiona Hyslop is in Tomatin today to mark the start of the works. I also remind members, when we talk about the delays in dualling the A9, that the Parliament forced the SNP to transfer funding from the A9 to the trams network quite a number of years ago—that is a point worth making.
Mark Ruskell said that we need to give local authorities more opportunities to make public transport work. I absolutely agree, and the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives them those opportunities. On road congestion, I agree, which is why I am continuing to engage with the Scottish road works commissioner.
I see that I am coming to the end of my time, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I will finish there.
I call Graham Simpson to wind up—you have up to six minutes.
16:24
The debate has been interesting; I use that word to be generous, because the debate has not really told us anything that we did not know already. We already knew that there are parties in the Parliament that are anti-motorist, and that includes the governing party.
Sue Webber’s motion covers all bases, as did Miss Webber, but there is a lot to say. We have billed the debate as “ending the ‘war’ against Scotland’s motorists”—it can feel that way sometimes.
Before I get to the various points that have been raised, I start by praising the cabinet secretary. At last week’s Public Audit Committee meeting, she was honest enough to admit to me that the target to cut car miles by a fifth by 2030 is dead in the water. In fact, it was never possible, because to do so would mean taking even more punitive measures against motorists than we already have, and it would require an improvement in public transport provision, which is the carrot that we need to encourage people to use their cars less. According to Transport Scotland, public transport use would have needed to increase by 222 per cent. Given that the Government has reintroduced peak fares on trains and is not off the starting line with integrated ticketing, that is not going to happen.
As the Auditor General said of the now-axed car reduction target, there never was a delivery plan. He did not say that the reason for that is that the actions that would be needed to achieve the target would be unpalatable. Our motion calls on the Government to incentivise people to use their cars less, which is entirely right. I do not want to drive everywhere, but most of my journeys are by car, as I have no viable alternative. If I need to get about in Edinburgh, I often use the excellent public transport system, or I walk or cycle. In East Kilbride, where I live, and in the rest of Central Scotland, the public transport system is not so great, as Meghan Gallacher and other members from the region know very well.
The member makes an excellent point about East Kilbride and the fact that the recent investment in the so-called upgrading of the East Kilbride line to Glasgow will not dual track the route, so the frequency of travel cannot be extended to a useful turn-up-and-go timetable, which would allow users to turn up and get the train within a reasonable time.
That is entirely correct, but I am looking forward to the line reopening on 18 May.
We tend to think of motorists as people who jump into their cars for a journey but, surely, the term refers to anyone who drives, which they might do for a living, as Sue Webber said. Bus drivers, lorry drivers, van drivers and tradesmen are all motorists and are all vital to the economy.
Will the member take an intervention?
Like you, minister, I do not have time.
Members should always speak through the chair.
Although it is true that transport is the biggest-emitting sector, it is also true that the economy cannot function without it. People and goods need to get about and we should be making it easier, not harder, to do that. That is why it is essential that roads such as the A9 and A96 are fully dualled, and that the M8 is improved, as frustrated driver Meghan Gallacher called for. It is why the SNP’s move to cut the national speed limit on single carriageway roads to 50mph is wrong—the right approach is a local approach. There are some such roads on which driving at 60mph is crazy. The SNP should change those speed limits, but not everything else.
Measures have already been put in place to make life difficult for people. Low-emission zones, which penalise those who cannot afford newer vehicles, are an example. Glasgow went first, started its enforcement in June 2023 and botched it. It was followed by Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Liam Kerr has told us in no uncertain terms about the impact of the LEZ in Aberdeen.
Will the member give way?
I am about to mention Mr Stewart, as he gave an unusually amusing speech and revealed my colleague Douglas Lumsden to be a cheerleader for LEZs. Mr Lumsden is back from his tour of LEZs—that is good.
Members would think that the nonsense would stop there, but they would be wrong. We now know, thanks to evidence supplied by COSLA and Transport Scotland to the Public Audit Committee last week, that Scotland’s largest councils—Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council—want to continue to wage war on their citizens, with plans to introduce road pricing. The Glasgow transport strategy commits Glasgow City Council to lobbying the Scottish Government to introduce national road user charging, which would allow for regional schemes. Edinburgh wants to go down the same route, if necessary—and you can bet your bottom dollar that it will consider it necessary. However, that can happen only if we give those councils the power to do so, and we should not.
Scotland is a diverse and very rural country. People need to drive. We should not treat motorists as the enemy, as some in the chamber want to. Cars and other vehicles are essential—let us treat them as such.
That concludes the debate on ending the war against Scotland’s motorists. There will be a brief pause to allow front-bench teams to change positions.
Air adhart
Fishing Industry