The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09294, in the name of Claire Baker, on air quality in Scotland. I ask all members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. I must indicate at the outset that this afternoon’s debates are tight for time.
14:42
Poor air quality is a daily experience for too many people in Scotland. Those who live, work or go to school or nursery in streets with high levels of air pollution will feel an impact on their health, and that impact will be all the greater for those with on-going medical conditions.
Our air quality breaches legally binding European air quality limits for nitrogen dioxide and tougher Scottish air quality standards. For the people who live in affected communities, the situation is unacceptable. However, the fact is that, in many ways, modern air pollution is invisible.
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change might stress the fact that emissions have fallen significantly since 1990 but he knows as well as I do that that is mainly due to the closure of steel plants. Our society has changed from one in which the air was polluted by heavy industry or the burning of domestic fossil fuels—and it is clear that improvements have been made in those areas through tighter regulations and new technologies—to one in which urban air pollution is like passive smoking. Such pollution is invisible and is having an impact on the most vulnerable.
This morning, the Scottish air quality website, which reports on air quality monitoring sites, reported elevated air pollution levels at three locations across Scotland: Falkirk Banknock; Edinburgh’s Salamander Street; and Dumbarton Road in Glasgow. The official classification of air pollution levels at those sites is moderate but the levels of PM10, which are small particles, have been recorded at more than 50 micrograms per m3. If that average stays above 50 for the rest of the day, it will be a breach of the daily average limit, and only seven breaches of that limit are allowed each year.
As a result, while we discuss the issue in the chamber, poor air quality is having an impact on people’s health. There is evidence that it reduces life expectancy, and links with cancer are being investigated. Poor air quality particularly affects those with respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and has a more significant impact on children. Moreover, those who sit bumper to bumper in cars should know that these pollutants can seep into their cars and make the air inside more polluted than that outside.
I know that many members across the chamber are concerned about this issue, because they frequently question the Government about it.
I acknowledge the work that Friends of the Earth is doing to raise awareness of the damage that is being done by poor air quality in urban areas and to help to push that issue up the political agenda.
Although particles and pollution travel, the majority of poor urban air quality is caused by road traffic. Addressing poor air quality needs political will, commitment and, crucially, resources—not just financial resources, but capacity in the Government and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to drive that forward and make progress.
I am not suggesting that meeting the European Union targets or the Scottish standards is easy—although it is becoming difficult to find an environment target that the Government is meeting. However, the European Commission has launched legal proceedings against the United Kingdom because of a lack of progress in cutting nitrogen dioxide levels. Glasgow is cited as a city of particular concern. Other European countries are failing to meet the target, but the lack of a convincing strategy from the UK, to which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland contribute, has raised concern. Furthermore, the tougher Scottish standards, which were enabled by the Environment Act 1995, have never been met. The 2005 nitrogen target and the 2010 small particles target were missed. Therefore, there is not a lot of confidence around that those targets will be met under the current plans.
We need, of course, greater investment in and a focus on modal shift to make walking, cycling and public transport options more attractive for people. The Government has a target of increasing cycle journeys to 10 per cent of all journeys by 2020 and improving air quality as part of making them more attractive. There are on-going concerns that the active travel budget is not funded at a level to make those aims achievable. We need to see more integrated transport options.
Our bus network has huge potential to deliver more in that area. Passenger cars produce nearly 60 per cent of all the CO2 emissions from road transport across the UK, compared with the 5 per cent from buses. In a city centre, a journey by bus can result in half the CO2 emissions per passenger of those from a journey by car. Buses are often seen as the problem, but they should be seen as part of the solution. They need to be reliable, quick and pleasant, but they are often snared up in city traffic. More needs to be done to avoid congestion and to invest in bus stop infrastructure and real-time information.
Measures such as the green bus fund and the bus investment fund are welcome, but cuts to the bus operators grant make progress more difficult, as they are resulting in fewer routes and are restricting people’s options.
I highlight the change in the focus of the bus operators grant to avoid bus operators having an incentive to burn fuel. I hope that Claire Baker welcomes that, as it will contribute to better air quality by reducing the opportunities for buses to simply sit and burn fuel.
The experience in communities is that what has happened is leading to fewer routes and higher fares. That is working against the policy that encourages people into buses, and buses are still the poor neighbours of trains in respect of public subsidy, although they have more passengers.
This is also about car management. The report on proposals and policies 2 does not have a target to reduce car use or journeys. The not far? leave the car campaign is fine as far as it goes, but it will not achieve the step change that is needed. We need to engage the public, which is another reason why the Friends of the Earth campaign is so welcome. Some of the options out there might not be popular, but there are many that are carrots instead of sticks.
Urban air pollution needs to be tackled in partnership with local authorities, which have responsibility for monitoring air quality, declaring problems and producing air quality action plans. Currently, there are 35 air quality action plans in Scotland, but they are failing to deliver the reductions. I know that the Government is reviewing the local air quality action plans, and I am pleased that one of the outcomes is expected to be the increased monitoring of fine particles. I hope that the outcomes will include a plan to introduce a Scottish standard for those.
We also need to consider whether the appropriate obligations are on local authorities, but we need to be honest about the difficulties that they face in achieving the targets. Although they have the statutory responsibility to manage air quality, the statutory obligation for meeting the air quality target is on the Scottish Government. Local authorities often work in historic environments that were not designed for modern travel or population numbers; they work on short electoral cycles, which can make some of the more unpopular decisions and options difficult to deliver; and we cannot forget that they are working under significant financial pressures.
We must ask whether the Government gives enough direction and levers to local authorities to deliver. The minister will point to welcome projects and pilots, but in replies to recent parliamentary questions the Scottish Government has confirmed that improving air quality is not an expectation of the single outcome agreements with local authorities or community planning partners.
In addition, the Government has not included the need to meet air quality objectives in the second Scottish planning policy or the third national planning framework. We need to ask whether existing tools are being used effectively. For example, I walked from the station this morning past hotels outside which coaches were sitting with their engines idling; and I live opposite a primary school where cars will often sit with their engines running for 15 minutes until the school closes. There is a power that local authorities can apply to use to fine vehicles that are idling, but I understand that only six authorities so far have applied to use that power.
RPP2 is the underpinning strategic document, but it is not a particularly convincing set of proposals for action in this area. For Scotland to meet its annual emissions targets, it needs the EU to set the target at 30 per cent and all the policies and proposals to be introduced. There is an overreliance in RPP2 on proposals, and the concern that failure to meet early targets makes them harder to deliver in later years is justified.
There are opportunities to strengthen the policy direction to give more tools to partners to make a difference, and we should take them. The proposed low emissions strategy must be the focus for renewed emphasis. It must be robust and provide a clear timetable for action. We need to have the ambition to no longer have a need for air quality management areas. The Government has announced the strategy, but we have little information on what it will include and whether it will be consulted on. Given the weakness of RPP2 on transport and the lack of focus on air quality in the planning policy, the strategy must give added impetus to delivery in those areas.
I welcome the amendments from other members, but I do not fully understand the need for the Conservatives’ amendment to take out from my motion reference to the European Commission’s legal action, which is a statement of fact. However, as I have outlined, I agree with the amendment’s analysis of RPP2.
Although I am sympathetic to the Greens’ amendment and support calls for more investment in low emission travel, I am cautious about the amendment’s proposed mechanism of proportionality and the consequences that it might have for big infrastructure projects. Such consequences might be the intention of the Greens, but there are concerns around what that would mean for a big rail transport project, for example, and the potential for big projects on either side of the debate to skew how proportionality would work. However, I look forward to Patrick Harvie’s contribution to the debate.
The Government’s amendment asks me to put faith in a strategy that I have not yet seen, so I will listen to what the minister says further on that.
Air pollution remains Scotland’s greatest environmental health threat. It affects people and communities every day across Scotland, contributing to and causing poor health and impacting most on the young and the vulnerable. However, it is a problem with a solution that is in our power, and we should work together and be bold enough to tackle it.
I move,
That the Parliament is concerned with the level of air pollution identified by the 2013 air quality monitoring results, which show that a high number of areas are in breach of air quality safety standards; believes that air pollution is an aggravator of respiratory conditions, is linked to other serious health conditions and is understood to be a contributory factor in over 1,500 deaths in Scotland annually; highlights the European Commission’s launch of legal proceedings against the UK due to failure to cut excessive levels of nitrogen dioxide; regrets that, in addition to failing to meet the EU standards on nitrogen dioxide, Scotland has also failed to meet Scottish standards on nitrogen dioxide and small particles (PM10); calls on the Scottish Government to increase the monitoring of fine particles (PM2.5) and to introduce a Scottish standard for these; believes that it is vital for the Scottish Government to work closely with local authorities as well as delivery partners to ensure that the necessary action is taken to tackle air pollution in Scotland; notes the Scottish Government’s plan to bring forward a national low-emissions strategy, but believes that, given the scale of the challenge that the country faces, this strategy must be robust, include a clear timetable for action and ensure that national planning guidance and transport policy play a full part in delivery to ensure that air quality targets are met.
I call Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move amendment S4M-09294.3. You have a maximum of seven minutes, minister.
14:52
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Air quality in Scotland is generally good, but there are areas where it is of poor quality and affects the health of some individuals. Policies introduced over recent years to reduce emissions from transport and industry have allowed us to make real progress in driving down pollution levels. The Scottish Government is committed to maintaining and enhancing that situation.
We have come a long way since the smogs of the 1950s. To be fair to Claire Baker, I acknowledge that a lot of that has been down to de-industrialisation. Overall, the air that we breathe today is cleaner than at any time since the industrial revolution. We have achieved cleaner air by regulating industrial emissions, progressively tightening vehicle emissions and fuel standards, and controlling smoke. We continue to make progress in improving Scotland’s air quality. Emissions data released last year show that between 1990 and 2011 nitrogen dioxide decreased by 65 per cent, particulates by 58 per cent and sulphur dioxide by 79 per cent. Further decreases are predicted up to 2030 compared with 2010 levels: nitrogen oxides are expected to decline by a further 45 per cent, particulates by 5 per cent and sulphur dioxide by 40 per cent.
Despite very real achievements, we must acknowledge that areas of poorer air quality remain in some of our local areas. Clearly, much more remains to be done if we are to maintain momentum and deliver benefits. Air pollution disproportionately affects the health of the most vulnerable members of society—the very young, the elderly and those with existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions—and can affect their quality of life. People rightly expect to be able to breathe clean air, and we are determined to reduce emissions still further by working closely with Transport Scotland, local authorities, SEPA, Health Protection Scotland and others.
The Scottish Government demonstrates its commitment to delivering clean air for a good quality of life in the air quality strategy, which sets out the policy framework for air quality in Scotland, with objectives for a number of pollutants of concern for human health.
It sets out the clear links between poor air quality and public health. I understand that current levels of air pollution shorten life expectancy by an average of seven to eight months, at an annual cost to society that is measured in billions of pounds. Across the UK, air pollution causes up to 24,000 deaths per year, which is nine times more than traffic fatalities, so it is clearly a significant problem.
We can all play a part in helping to deliver cleaner air to ensure a less polluted environment both now and for future generations, whether we do that as businesses or as individuals. In that context, it is vital that we communicate our message that personal behavioural choices play a key role in improving local environmental quality. Individual actions make a difference, and we all have a duty to ensure that we get that message across in a way that is relevant to people’s lives.
Much more is being done by the Scottish Government and our partners that benefits air quality. For instance, Transport Scotland initiatives such as the green bus fund, which Claire Baker mentioned, and the plug-in vehicles road map not only contribute to our work to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, but also help to reduce air pollution. That is an excellent example of how we are co-ordinating our policies to deliver win-win outcomes for both air quality and climate change. In addition, we recently provided SEPA with £200,000 to fund the work of the urban air quality group, which is a partnership that aims to support and assist efforts throughout Scotland to improve urban air quality.
Of the various pollutants for which objectives have been set, particulate matter can be singled out for special attention. Particulate pollution has well-documented short and long-term effects on human health. Indeed, it is not currently possible to discern a threshold concentration below which this pollutant has no effects on human health. Both short and long-term exposure to ambient levels of particulate matter are consistently associated with respiratory and cardiovascular illness and mortality, as well as other ill-health effects.
We have responded by adopting the most challenging air quality objectives in the UK. Objectives have been in place for particles of 10 microns or less in diameter, commonly referred to as PM10. However, recent reviews by the World Health Organization and others have suggested that exposure to a finer fraction of particles—PM2.5—gives a stronger association with the observed ill-health effects. We therefore set provisional objectives for PM2.5 in the 2007 air quality strategy review. In many urban areas of Scotland, reductions in ambient particle concentrations are required to achieve those ambitious objectives.
Local authorities have a vital role to play in helping us to secure further improvements to air quality, not only in respect of the idling buses that Claire Baker mentioned, which we need to control, but in respect of air quality management areas. A number of local authorities have designated such areas and prepared associated air quality action plans in order to work towards achieving reductions.
Last year, we consulted on proposals to overhaul and revamp the local air quality management system. The proposals attracted widespread support, and I believe that, once they are implemented, they will enable local authorities to deliver on their air quality responsibilities even more effectively. Among the key proposals that we are developing for further consultation are to incorporate the provisional PM2.5 objectives into regulations, placing a legal obligation on local authorities to monitor this important pollutant; to streamline the reporting process to free up time and resources for implementing actions; to maintain the Scottish air quality monitoring network at its current level; to place greater emphasis on action plan delivery through updated and more focused guidance; and to develop a clear message on the health impacts of poor air quality as the centrepiece of a national co-ordinated campaign.
Will the minister clarify the timescales for the project, please?
Minister, you are approaching your final minute.
We hope to have that by the end of the calendar year. I will provide more information to the member.
We are developing a national low emissions strategy, which will draw together the wide range of policies and initiatives that are being taken forward by the Scottish Government and others. It will highlight and strengthen the links between air quality and other elements of the Government’s work on climate change, transport, renewable energy, health and planning, and it will set out the contribution that reduced air pollution can make to sustainable economic growth and quality of life in our towns and cities.
Alongside our domestic air quality targets, we have national responsibilities. The UK, along with other EU member states, has to comply with air quality limit values that are set in European legislation, and failure to achieve those by the required dates could lead to infraction and heavy fines. Indeed, in the past few weeks, the European Commission has written to the UK Government indicating that it intends to commence infraction proceedings in respect of failure to comply with nitrogen dioxide limit values in 15 zones in England plus the Glasgow urban area. We are working closely with the UK Government to prepare a response to the Commission that demonstrates how we intend to secure full compliance as soon as possible.
We cannot afford to be complacent, as there are still many air pollution issues to be addressed. Work must continue to ensure that the achievements of recent years are not just maintained but improved upon, and that our evidence base is of the best possible quality. In that way, we hope to ensure a cleaner, greener Scotland for everyone.
I move amendment S4M-09294.3, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:
“notes the 2013 air quality monitoring results and that, while improvements in air quality have been made over recent years, a number of hot spot areas still exist, which have impacts on the quality of life and health and wellbeing of impacted communities and individuals, particularly those with pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions; recognises the work that has been led by the Scottish Government, local authorities and others to improve air quality and protect the quality of life of individuals and communities; recognises, however, that more needs to be done, and welcomes initiatives such as the Low Emission Strategy that will deliver further progress.”
14:59
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on air quality. It is useful that Labour is using its debating time to highlight this important issue.
Claire Baker set out effectively the Scottish Government’s failures to meet EU air quality standards. We recognise that, overall, significant reductions have been made in air pollutants from the 1990 baselines, but it is a concern to all of us in the Parliament that unacceptably high levels of air pollution—especially from nitrogen dioxide, which causes increased ground-level ozone and particulate matter—were measured in 2013 in some of the busiest commuter and shopping streets in Scotland, such as Byres Road and Hope Street in Glasgow and Queensferry Road in Edinburgh. As has been pointed out, some of the high levels of air pollution break targets that were set in the 1990s and which were to be met by 2005 under the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000.
All of us know that nitrogen oxides in our environment cause acid rain, which damages plant and animal life in forests, lochs and rivers and harms buildings and historical sites. High levels of nitrogen oxides can cause eutrophication, which threatens biodiversity through the excessive growth of plant algae. Planting more trees in urban areas can help to mitigate levels of some air pollutants and we support that.
As the Labour motion makes clear, poor air quality has a potentially severe impact on human health. It has been suggested that air pollution is a factor in more than 1,500 deaths in Scotland each year, which must be a major concern. At high concentrations, nitrogen dioxide and particulates can cause inflammation of the airways and affect lung capacity. Some studies suggest that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter may be associated with increased rates of chronic bronchitis. As a sufferer of respiratory problems, I am conscious of the effect of poor air quality. To put it simply, it can be much harder for many Scots to breathe in congested city streets.
The presence and concentration of pollutants in our air are very affected by the prevailing climatic conditions. I commend the efforts of the Met Office in Scotland, which is working with community health partnerships and doctors to support people in self-managing some long-term conditions that are known to be impacted by weather conditions. The Met Office’s healthy outlook service helps those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Research that was recently published in the BMJ suggested that exposure to fine particles in the air increases the risk of heart attacks and unstable angina, as well as having an impact on those who suffer from respiratory illnesses such as asthma and COPD.
My amendment refers to the Scottish Government’s failures to meet overall emissions targets. Meeting those targets, tackling climate change and improving air quality are all interconnected and shared aims. Progress in each area will mean corresponding progress elsewhere. It is important that Scotland meets and is seen to meet air quality targets as we seek to persuade other nations of the need to take action. It is ironic that Scotland—a country that is renowned worldwide for its beautiful mountain scenery and clean environment—should be plagued by bad air quality in specific areas. We have the great advantage of masses of space for our population, so we should be ahead of the game and not languishing behind on the targets.
Will the member take an intervention?
Am I allowed to give way, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
Jamie McGrigor says that the Scottish Government is lagging behind and failing to meet its targets. Will he comment on the fact that 15 areas in England are failing to meet the standard? We in Scotland have tougher climate change legislation and tighter targets than his party’s Government in London has.
I take that point. How long have I got, Presiding Officer?
You have 45 seconds.
Local authorities appear to be somewhat uncertain and confused about what they are meant to do to achieve EU air quality values. It is easy to diagnose the problems but difficult to know what measures to take to solve them. That uncertainty must be cleared up and local authorities’ role must be made clearer. They should play a key role in ensuring that air quality action plans have a much more significant impact on problems.
We welcome today’s focus on air quality and we urge ministers to work closely with our local authorities and all other stakeholders to implement practical measures to tackle the most alarming occurrences of poor air quality in Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-09294.1, to leave out from “highlights” to end and insert:
“regrets that, despite repeatedly missing its own statutory emissions reduction targets, the Scottish Government has failed to produce a draft Report on Policies and Proposals 2 that is fit for purpose; recognises that, if it continues on this path, Scotland will fail to reduce carbon emissions by 42% by 2020, and calls on the Scottish Government to work closely with local authorities to ensure that action is taken to tackle air pollution in Scotland and to ensure that policy coherence is implemented across all Scottish Government directorates.”
15:05
I welcome the Labour Party’s choice of topic in bringing a motion on air quality to the Parliament today.
The minister started by saying that air quality in Scotland is generally good. The minister said that people rightly expect to be able to breathe clean air. The minister said that we cannot afford to be complacent, and talked about the effects of air pollution on the health of vulnerable members of society. The minister talked about the role of local authorities in declaring air quality management areas and drawing up action plans.
The minister, when she made those comments, was responding on behalf of the Scottish Executive, as it was then. Can members guess where I am going with this? I am talking about my first members’ business debate, way back in 2005. All those comments appeared, many of them verbatim, in today’s speech from the current minister in the current Scottish Government. Air pollution is a longstanding issue. Everyone agrees that we must do more to tackle it and that we cannot afford to be complacent, yet we change very little.
There were striking similarities between the two speeches, but there were also some differences. When she responded to the debate in 2005, Rhona Brankin at least had a bit more to say about transport. She recognised that road transport is the primary cause of the problem, particularly in the hotspots, such as in Glasgow, which I represent, where Hope Street has a chronic problem of poor air quality—by many measures, it is the worst area in Scotland in that regard.
However, although Rhona Brankin mentioned the unique situation of Glasgow having the M8 running through the city centre, two or three minutes later in her speech she talked up the idea of building another motorway through Glasgow, although that would bring even more of the problem to our city. I am sad to say that the current Scottish Government was only too pleased to complete the M74 northern extension.
Since then, what progress has there been? I have the traffic stats for Glasgow with me. Since the beginning of the century there have been only two years in which there was a reduction in all motor vehicle traffic or in car traffic. If we are acknowledging that road transport is the cause of the problem, let us do something about the cause rather than write more and more frustrating air quality action plans, while making the problem worse not better.
The statistics for the whole of Scotland are similar. Although in 2012 there was a very marginal decrease in road traffic levels in the UK, Scotland achieved a marginal increase—and it is many years since arguments about road traffic reduction targets and demand management on our roads have been fashionable.
The situation in relation to NO2 and PM10s is particularly chronic in Glasgow, but the problem is by no means limited to Glasgow; it is a national issue. In East Lothian, my colleagues in the local Scottish Green Party branch have been campaigning on high street air pollution. They used freedom of information requests, which resulted in the revelation that the local council had been sitting on a report on the issues for a year. Since the report’s release, there has at least been the declaration of a management area and there have been the beginnings of a recognition that action is needed.
The minister today mentioned planning. I regret that there is only a fleeting mention in the national planning framework of the need to use the planning system to protect the quality of our air. The SNP’s manifesto commitment, which was similar to the wording at the end of my amendment, talked about increasing the proportion of transport spend that goes on low-carbon, active and sustainable transport. I wonder whether the minister can respond on behalf of his colleague the transport minister and say whether he will turn up to this year’s pedal on Parliament event to discuss that with the people who have been campaigning most vociferously for it.
I move amendment S4M-09294.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that traffic is the leading cause of urban air pollution and therefore the need to reduce road traffic levels, and commits to a year-on-year increase in the proportion of the transport infrastructure budget spent on low-emission travel, such as walking, cycling and public transport”.
We move to the open debate. We are extraordinarily tight for time. Members have up to four minutes, please.
15:10
The word “noxious” long predates the identification of NOx—nitrogen oxides—but is as fitting a word as any to describe them and their health effects on the people who have to breathe them in alongside particulate matter, especially the very young, the very old and those with existing respiratory conditions. I declare an interest as an asthmatic with two decades of prescriptions behind me who walks to work every day through an air quality management area. That gives me the advantage that, walking through some of Scotland’s most polluted streets in my constituency, I feel the pain of those who are affected—quite literally. As citizens of a modern, democratic nation, we should be able to expect the air that we breathe to sustain us rather than harm us.
Following the expansion last year of the part of central Edinburgh that is officially classified as polluted, I wrote to Lesley Hinds, the portfolio holder for transport and the environment at the City of Edinburgh Council and a Labour councillor, urging her and her officials to consider establishing a low emission zone in central Edinburgh. In particular, I was concerned about buses, having found figures that showed that, although some operators such as Lothian Buses had been exemplary in their roll-out of new vehicles, others had not kept up. I was inspired by examples from Norwich, Oxford and London, where local authorities have imposed minimum standards on all buses that enter the city centre. Since then, FirstBus has stepped up with a 425-unit order and Lothian Buses, which was enthusiastic in its response, has continued to be an enthusiastic customer of the Scottish Government’s green bus fund and the previous emissions reduction grant scheme.
The volume of heavy goods vehicles in the city centre has been reduced by the business improvement district’s collectivisation of commercial waste, and the City of Edinburgh Council has an enviable cross-party consensus on the need to invest more in cycling and walking routes, which other authorities should look to as an example. Successive council administrations of various colours have also used the limited lever of residents parking permit charges to incentivise lower emission vehicles.
For me, the lesson from the Edinburgh experience is clear: if there is to be change, it must be driven locally. The Scottish Government has an important role in providing support and in wielding the big stick of targets within the legal framework, demanding the action plans of which a welcome overhaul is in progress. However, municipalities must be on side, as we cannot nationalise the day-to-day management of every pavement, bus lane and high street in the land—nor should we, even if we could. We, in this place, could not set stronger fuel standards or further vehicle excise duty incentives.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
Nor could we, should we wish to, take the more radical steps that Sweden proposes to remove fossil fuels from transport entirely by 2030. I am not sure how that proposal interacts with Patrick Harvie’s point about removing cars—surely non-emitting vehicles would not be as much of a problem.
Let us make no mistake—significant progress has been made. A fortnight ago, in an answer to a parliamentary question that I lodged, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change stated that, bar one stretch of intercity road, urban air quality in Scotland would reach European standards by 2015. That is considerably ahead of cities in the rest of the UK, where those standards will not be met until 2020 or, in the case of London, 2025. Indeed, it is much ahead of the rest of Europe, too.
However, the fact that Europe’s performance is six out of 10 and England’s performance is seven out of 10 does not mean that we should rest on our laurels if our performance is eight or nine out of 10. My constituents and the visitors to Princes Street, George Street, the west end, the Grassmarket, Gorgie Road and Dalry Road need the standard to reach 10 out of 10. I hope that, with the continuing offers of help and support from the Scottish Government and the substantive low emissions strategy, the City of Edinburgh Council treats the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. Councillor Hinds described my LEZ proposal as an “interesting proposal”. I hope that it will soon be a reality.
15:14
Every day, on the streets of towns and cities across Scotland, we are exposed to pollutants that can and do damage public health. From Glasgow to Edinburgh, from Aberdeen to Dundee, in my constituency and across Scotland, air pollution is a serious and growing problem that impacts on every one of us every day.
As other members have mentioned, it is an absolute scandal that every year in Scotland at least 1,500 people die prematurely because of this silent and invisible killer. Across the UK, the figure is 29,000 a year and rising. It is a huge concern that parts of my constituency have the highest air pollution levels in Fife. For example, the nitrogen dioxide and PM10 levels are so high in Appin Crescent, which is near the centre of Dunfermline, that the area is subject to an air quality action plan. There is absolutely no doubt—anyone who has been stuck in a traffic jam on Halbeath Road could tell members this—that excessive road traffic and congestion in the area is to blame.
As Claire Baker mentioned, air pollution is a danger to public health and the wider environment. Short-term exposure has been linked to an increase in hospital admissions, with tens of thousands of people across Scotland suffering respiratory symptoms on days when particle levels are high. However, it is the impact of long-term exposure that is most alarming.
In 2013, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified the cocktail of air pollution that we are exposed to every day as carcinogenic to humans and named it as the world’s leading cause of cancer deaths. Recently, a European study found that long-term exposure to small and fine particles increases the risk of coronary events, including heart attacks and unstable angina, with the link seen at exposure levels that are below Scottish air pollution standards—and we are not even meeting those standards.
Those frightening findings are undermining public health and communities. They are undermining social justice, too, because it is society’s most vulnerable—the sick, the young and the elderly—who are most at risk from exposure to dangerous air pollution levels and who are most likely to suffer health consequences as a result of our failure to act.
After smoking, the biggest public health risk that we face is from the very air that we breathe. The World Health Organization sets guidelines and limits for different air pollutants that Scotland should have achieved almost a decade ago. However, those legal limits are failing to be upheld in many communities. As a result, tens of thousands of people have paid the ultimate price.
The Scottish Government has been in power for seven years. While I recognise that some action is being taken, the reality is that we are failing to meet the standards that we have set ourselves and the lower standards that are set by the European Union.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
The national low emissions strategy is a positive step forward, but we need more than a vision. We also need a clear timetable for action and concrete measures to ensure that air quality standards are met to ensure that everyone breathes clean air. As Patrick Harvie said, we need to ensure that we not only have cleaner private vehicles on the road, but fewer private vehicles on the road and to make active travel a more realistic option.
We all have a responsibility to act to ensure that people get a better quality of life and that our children, grandchildren and future generations have a better quality of life, too.
The Friends of the Earth briefing for MSPs said:
“Air pollution remains Scotland’s greatest environmental health threat.”
It is right. The Scottish Government and local authorities can and must do more; individually, we all can and must do more. I look forward to hearing from the minister about how he plans to ensure that the air that we breathe is safe. It is simply unacceptable that 1,500 people are dying every year because of air pollution. We need urgent action to tackle the hidden danger all around us. It is putting thousands of lives at risk. We need action, not words.
15:18
The Environment Act 1995 required local authorities to assess air quality in their area and, where that exceeds air quality standards, to declare an air quality management area and prepare air quality action plans to tackle the problem.
Edinburgh has five air quality management areas. Over the past two decades, the council has introduced a number of initiatives to encourage people out of their cars. That includes greenways for public transport, park-and-ride sites located around the city boundary, and the city car club. Those initiatives have encouraged people out of their cars and, in 2011, 30 per cent of the population used either the bus or the train, 25 per cent walked and 7 per cent cycled.
Across Scotland, since the 1990s, there has been a significant reduction in pollution emissions, with decreases of 65 per cent in nitrogen oxides, 58 per cent in particulates and 79 per cent in sulphur dioxide.
In Edinburgh, until recently we had seen improvements in air quality. Between 2008 and 2010, the annual mean concentration of nitrogen oxide in St John’s Road fell by a third. However, we are starting to see a deterioration in air quality along the four main arterial routes into the city from the west as a result of an increase in the volume of traffic. Nitrogen oxide levels in St John’s Road increased by 23 per cent over the two-year period to 2012, with Queensferry Road breaching the limit by nearly 13 per cent in 2013. At the Gorgie Road end, the A71 has seen annual mean concentration levels of nitrogen oxide increase close to the EU limit.
In my constituency, the A70 at Currie is the only main arterial route in the west of the city to have very low levels of nitrogen oxide. However, that is hardly surprising when we realise that the monitoring station is not at the Lanark Road but is located beyond a housing estate, behind the main building of the high school. Further along the A70, at Slateford Road, there are signs that the annual levels may be being exceeded, which suggests that the monitoring station at Currie should probably be relocated closer to the main road.
That increasing air quality problem in the west of the city will only get worse as we see an increasing number of proposals for housing developments, whether it is Edinburgh’s garden district, or new homes surrounding Ratho village and in the Edinburgh Western constituency of Colin Keir. New developments are also being built in West Lothian. All those additional homes, which run into many thousands, are commutable into Edinburgh, which will result in a deterioration in the quality of life for people who live along the main routes into Edinburgh.
The planning system must treat air quality as a material planning consideration:
“The planning system plays a key role in protecting and improving the environment. Land use planning and development control can become an effective tool to improve air quality by first locating developments in such a way as to reduce emissions overall, and secondly reducing the direct impacts of those developments. Although the presence of an AQMA makes consideration of the air quality impacts of a proposed development more important, there is still a need to regard air quality as a material factor in determining planning applications in any location. This is particularly important where the proposed development is not physically within the AQMA, but could have adverse impacts on air quality within it, or where air quality in that given area is close to exceeding guideline objectives itself.”
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is reviewing and overhauling the local air quality management system. In order for any new system to be effective, we need not only to reduce emissions from traffic but to ensure that planning decisions do not add to the problem.
15:23
I thank Claire Baker and the Labour Party for bringing to the chamber a debate on air quality. I broadly agree with the tenor of the remarks made by the front benchers on the challenge that we face. However, it strikes me that it is one thing to announce more strategies and yet more action plans and all the rest of it, but this is a classic case of acting local while thinking global.
My reading of air management plans and strategies is that they have simply not worked. Maybe the minister should just start with a blank piece of paper and accept that the targets—whether they were set at European, UK or Scottish levels—have not been met. I noticed that the minister did not pick that up in his speech; perhaps he will do so when he winds up. He should perhaps admit where we are and then suggest that, rather than all these things that have not worked in the past, we would be better to consider a new approach. I agree with Patrick Harvie, although he should probably be grateful that it is Paul Wheelhouse on the front bench and not Fergus Ewing—I recall the days when Fergus Ewing was doing these debates for the SNP and there was a slightly different approach from the one that Mr Wheelhouse identified in his remarks.
Patrick Harvie was right about transport. I suspect that that was the point that the minister was implying in his remarks. As some members have said, dealing with transport and the issues that come from transport is fundamental in tackling the issue of air quality. In that sense, the easiest way to start is in public sector leadership. For example, how many ministerial cars are hybrid? How many ministerial cars are still run on a simple combustion engine—as, in fairness, they were in my day?
I hope that the minister has made a big inroad into that issue and that he would want to say to the chamber that every car that will sweep ministers home from work will run on some kind of hybrid engine. I hope that he will set a target for all our health boards, councils and public agencies to move over a period of time towards a position in which none of their vehicles is running on old diesel or petrol engines and all of them are, instead, hybrid vehicles. That would show some clear leadership from the public sector. This is one of the few areas where the public sector—national Government or local government—can set a strong target for change, and I suspect that the minister would have our clear support if he were to do that. I would certainly be happy to make that case in my part of the world, although I accept that it does not have the kind of air-quality problems that have been described by members from Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The argument is about transport emissions. I agree with the analysis about industrialisation and the move away from the emission-producing plants of yesteryear; they are exactly that—in the past. Therefore, when one assesses why Scotland is missing the climate change targets that are in the Labour motion and some of the amendments, one must agree that the issue comes down to transport, fundamentally.
We talk the talk around demand management. Some of us who have been around for a while will remember the debate about whether there should be a tolling regime in this capital city in order to pay for public transport. That was thrown out by all parties—they all ducked it. We should all hold up our hands and admit that we all ducked it.
Not quite all.
Okay, the Greens did not duck it, but everyone else did. Similarly, the proposal about workplace parking in Glasgow some years ago was ducked, too. None of us has a particularly good record on this. It will be a genuinely brave minister—and not one who is in post in the run-up to a referendum—who brings forward a package of transport measures that contains demand management in a form that does not amount to merely talking about it but sets out what would happen in every city in Scotland. Maybe once we get past the referendum, we can do what we need to do in relation to this matter rather than just talking about it.
15:27
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and for the fact that some of the previous speeches, particularly those of Tavish Scott and Patrick Harvie, lead me in a direction that I am happy to follow.
We can simply accept that the smog and the industrial pollution of the past are, as Tavish Scott has just put it, in the past. However, it is demonstrably the case that most of the pollution that we are talking about now comes from vehicles. I commend to members some of the graphs that are available, which indicate quite clearly the rise in the daytime, which tends to be slightly worse in the morning than the evening, because the rush hour is a little bit more constrained then, but also the substantial fall at the weekend. That indicates quite clearly what we are dealing with.
However, I make the point, which I do not think has yet been made in the debate, that most of the issue is to do with the times when vehicles are stationary, not when they are running. I accept that Patrick Harvie has a point that, when there is a motorway running through a city, there are a lot of vehicles moving, and that does not help. We have to accept that. However, in our major cities, it is not the vehicles that are passing by that are doing most of the damage; it is the vehicles that are stopped and then have to accelerate. There is a solution to that, which I would like to put briefly to the chamber.
Tavish Scott talked about tolling, as if that were the only way of preventing vehicles from being stationary in a city. However, there are two things that can be done. The first is to insist that we have modern control of our engines so that they automatically switch off when we stop and they are not on when we are sitting there. I think that that is going to come to us, so we probably have to do very little to make it happen. The second thing is that we can manage traffic. We can stop vehicles from getting into our city centres by putting traffic lights in the way that stop them until the road ahead of them is clear enough for them to get through to where they are going.
Recently, I had the experience of trying to move through Union Street in Aberdeen at about 4.30 on a Friday afternoon. Anyone who has tried that will know that it is quite impossible. The traffic moves 100 yards and then it stops. There are plenty of traffic lights. If the traffic management system meant that I could not get into a space unless I could get out of it, I would not have to sit there stationary. It would make no difference to the time that I take to get through the city, but it would make a considerable difference to the time that I am in the city on Union Street, or on Hope Street, or on any other street that we care to mention. I suggest very simply to members that that can be done with traffic lights and clever traffic management.
I suggest very simply to Mr Don that his proposal is about moving air pollution from one place to another, not reducing the amount of it, which can be done only by running internal combustion engines less.
I entirely accept that there is an element of that, but if vehicles are in an area that is constrained by high buildings and low wind speeds, moving the air pollution is not such a bad idea to some extent. We are talking ultimately about concentrations. Also, if a driver knows that another route will be better, they will go that way.
All the other comments that have been made about public transport are entirely appropriate, but I simply have not had time to address them and the Presiding Officer is not going to give me time.
15:31
The Environment Act 1995, which I well remember speaking to, created an obligation on each local authority to declare local air quality management areas where it found that area pollution was higher than standards, and to come up with a local air quality action plan to reduce pollution levels to within the standards.
Nineteen years later, 13 local authorities in Scotland have had to declare air quality management areas, and as Claire Baker emphasised in her speech, there has been widespread failure to reduce pollution to the levels required by the local air quality action plans. Since 1995, we have also gained European obligations that are embodied in European directives and we are not meeting those targets either.
This is a serious health issue. Friends of the Earth has estimated that there are 1,500 deaths a year because of air pollution, but many others are suffering from poorer respiratory and cardiovascular health because of it. The main offenders are nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter called PM10, and fine particulate matter called PM2.5. It is a matter of concern that only six sites for the fine particulate matter are being monitored in Scotland, so there must be a big increase in the monitoring of fine particulate matter. Scottish standards must also be established for that, which would be best based on the WHO standard.
The other particulates—PM10 and nitrogen dioxide—are monitored. I am concerned about those generally and at a constituency level because Great Junction Street in my constituency has been an air quality management area for some time. I know that Salamander Street was also high on the list for PM10 a couple of years ago. As Claire Baker emphasised, this very day it is exceeding the standard levels for PM10. That is clearly a matter of concern to most members at the national and constituency level.
We need a lower emissions strategy, and I am glad that the Government is going to have one. Of course, it will not work unless it is joined up with other policy areas. In that strategy, we need a clear timetable for action, we need to quantify the measures that are needed to deliver clean air, we need to give guidance to local authorities, and perhaps there should even be a legal requirement for local authorities, as Friends of the Earth has suggested. Perhaps it is most important of all that we join up that policy with other policy areas, particularly transport and planning.
Many members have observed today and previously how RPP2 emphasises proposals and not policies in several crucial areas, particularly transport. Transport really has to be at the heart of action on this matter.
Prioritising active travel—walking and cycling—has to be our number 1 transport requirement. That is not going to suit everybody, of course, and we have to be realistic about it. When it comes to faster modes of travel, I would say: cars bad, buses much better and—with due respect to some SNP members—trams best of all. That is where the main thrust of the policies has to be, and that is the responsibility of national Government, crucially, as well as of local government.
This is an important matter, and I am glad that Claire Baker introduced it today. I strongly support the motion in her name.
15:35
I began earlier this afternoon by talking about some of the ambition that had been expressed back in 2005, when the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, responded to a members’ business debate. I can only reflect that, if that ambition had been realised, my daily experience, whether as a pedestrian, a cyclist or a bus user in Glasgow, would already be very different. That ambition was not realised.
I do not know whether my cynicism is because of the mood that I am in today, because I have been here 10 years or because I was always like this, but it seems pretty clear that, unless there is transformational change in our transport policy, we will be here in another decade, looking back at the speeches from today and the fine ambition expressed and wondering why it was not realised. We will have the same regret on that day—or some other group of MSPs will—as I do today.
I made this argument on demand reduction during that debate in 2005. I said that the improvements that there had been in air quality had been “driven by technology”, which was welcome, but
“improvements in technology ... will be overtaken by increasing traffic levels.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2005; c 20407.]
I know that some people suggest that developed countries are now reaching what we call peak car. It is not clear to me whether that is true, although it might be. Even if it is, however, how long do we want to live with this astonishingly high level of road traffic demand? Unless we change that, there is not going to be some magical reduction in problems with air quality.
I recognise that, as Tavish Scott says, the argument on demand reduction can be presented in an unpopular way. I make the case that it can be presented in a popular way as well. Demand reduction is not about supply reduction; it is about reducing people’s reliance and reducing the living patterns that lock people into a high demand to spend their time and money travelling about. A low transport demand policy would be so much cheaper—for individuals, businesses and government. It is about reducing dependence.
We need to reach the point on transport policy that we have reached on energy in the home or waste management. We do not discuss those subjects without thinking about demand reduction—reducing the amount of the problem that we have to deal with, the amount of the problem that we have to pay for and the social and environmental consequences. We need to get to that point with transport if we want to address our problems with air quality.
The Scottish Government seems to remain reliant on what is still a hypothetical shift towards electric transport to achieve low emissions. We do not have that fundamental desire to reduce road traffic levels and increase walking, cycling and public transport as an alternative to what is currently on the roads.
As regards the increased ambition for the future, particularly on PM2.5s, let us recognise that, as the Friends of the Earth briefing reminds us, we are not yet even reaching the existing Scottish targets, let alone the European ones. If we are going to improve on those targets, let us improve the delivery at the same time.
I will not be supporting the Government or Conservative amendments, because of the amount that they delete from the motion. I welcome the Conservatives’ emphasis on climate change. I do not disagree with much of their text, although I wonder whether somebody failed to spot that this is a debate about local air pollution, not climate change.
15:39
Well, Presiding Officer, I definitely spotted that the debate was about local air quality and not climate change. Some members in the chamber today—even Patrick Harvie—have emphasised the long term, and spoken about climate change commitments and the hope that meeting those targets might improve air quality. However, I will talk about some of the short-term measures—which the Government may already be taking—that will, or could if they are adjusted, improve air quality in some of the worst-affected areas in Scotland.
As we have heard, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen and particulates are the problem. They are often associated with diesel engines, and we must therefore consider how we support the transport of goods and services as well as people around our communities and through our towns. The development of the trunk road network in recent years has led to the building of many more bypasses and other roads, which have taken large numbers of HGVs out of our town centres. Many regional towns that happened to have trunk routes going through them have found that their circumstances have improved significantly. The Government already has in place a programme for the A96, but rather more could be done for some of the communities along the A75 that are still blighted by HGVs, which is an area that needs further consideration.
However, it is in town centres that we still experience the worst pollution and see the worst impact on pedestrians and cyclists who happen to be exposed to emissions. Again, the Government has gone so far along the way by improving the problems that are associated with buses in particular. The changes to the bus service operators grant mean that fuel efficiency is now a key objective of the scheme, so vehicles with improved fuel efficiency will begin to appear on our roads.
To improve the situation still further, the green bus fund has supported the introduction of hybrid buses, which have a significant impact in our town centres, and particularly in the worst-polluted areas of our cities where they can run largely on electricity, thereby allowing the dispersal of the pollutants that are currently causing problems.
We are moving forward, but we must be more ambitious. The Government’s total investment in supporting bus transport is increasingly concentrated on the concessionary travel scheme. Regardless of what else we might say about that scheme, I do not see that it contains any element that is designed to reduce emissions. I therefore ask the minister to lobby his colleagues to look for ways to ensure that Government investment in bus transport has an impact on emissions across the board in future years. Alternative fuels would make a difference if we could go down that road; I will not rehearse the argument that was made last week that using gas instead of diesel would clean up emissions.
One key transport area that we have to address concerns the priorities for pedestrians and cyclists in our cities. Too often, pedestrians and cyclists are mixed with other road traffic and may be competing with buses and HGVs, which exposes them directly to exhaust fumes. In the long term, we need to examine the investment that the Government has already made to see whether we can do more to separate pedestrians and cyclists from the emissions-producing vehicles.
15:44
I welcomed the debate when I spoke earlier; it has for the most part been constructive and members have acknowledged the importance of collective action to address air quality problems where they exist.
There has in the past few decades been a clear and sustained reduction in levels of the air pollutants that are of most concern to the environment. I take the points that members have made about some of the causes, but we should recognise that the reduction is, broadly speaking, good news for Scotland, and I hope that members see some positives in the action—to which Alex Johnstone referred—that has been taken to date.
I will spend most of my speech referring to points that have been raised in the debate. I do not often find myself saying this, but I think that Tavish Scott was right that action is most effective at local level—that is absolutely true. The Scottish Government has a strong record of leadership and playing a supporting role. Although there has been criticism about a perceived lack of progress, it is worth remembering that an action plan is now in place for all the air-quality management areas. To a degree, progress depends on the effectiveness of the delivery at local level. I take that on board, but my point is that there is leadership from the top. We are putting in place action plans for all the AQMAs and we have had some successes, in terms of areas coming off the list.
For example, progress is being made in Pathhead in Midlothian, which is an area that many members will have travelled through. That area is interesting not just because of the improvement in performance, but because of the cause of the air-quality issue, which is down to the use of coal by people who have no access to gas on the grid. Because of the action that Midlothian Council has taken, there is a realistic prospect that the AQMA will be revoked in the near future.
I point out for Cara Hilton, Claire Baker and other members from Fife that Fife Council is making excellent progress on the implementation of its action plan in Cupar. The AQMA is not yet ready to be revoked, but we are pleased with the progress and falling pollution levels. That gives us hope that the process is working and that an area such as Cupar can be freed from being under the designation in the near future.
Tavish Scott mentioned electric and hybrid vehicles, in which I know he takes a close personal interest. We are investing £14 million in electric vehicles over the next two years, so there is some investment going in. We have an imperative to try to move the Scottish Government’s fleet to EVs and hybrids, but it is not an easy process. One key consideration is evaluation of which models are the best and most effective and provide good value for the taxpayer. However, I give the member a commitment that we are trying to do that. I do not know whether there are electric vehicle charging points in Shetland, but I recently visited the Western Isles and saw one in Castlebay on Barra and one in Stornoway. I know that council employees there actively use such vehicles to get from one end of the island group to the other, and I commend the council for that. That is great progress.
Marco Biagi raised a number of good points about things that are not under our control, such as vehicle emissions standards. Progress is being made at European level, but it is slower than we would like. It is worth recognising that, although there has been massive growth in traffic, which is the point that Patrick Harvie picked up on, some of that has been offset by improving emissions standards in vehicles. We hope that that will continue. Although I am in sympathy with and support the principle behind the Green amendment, I cannot support it in practice, because of its wording. I highlight that we want to reduce vehicle emissions and not necessarily traffic levels. If we can reduce emission levels—which is probably what Patrick Harvie is aiming for—we will, I hope, be on the same page.
I take Marco Biagi’s point that we need to aim for 10 out of 10 rather than nine or eight out of 10. That is an important point.
Malcolm Chisholm referred to actions that we could take. I remind members that, as I said in my opening remarks, the key proposals that we are developing for further consultation include incorporating provisional PM2.5 objectives into regulations and placing a legal obligation on local authorities to monitor that important pollutant. I hope that that addresses one of the points that Malcolm Chisholm raised.
In saying that all local authorities with air-quality hotspots have action plans, I have addressed one of Claire Baker’s points. I take her point, but we are demonstrating co-ordinated action between national and local government. We are supporting local authorities, in Fife and elsewhere, that are doing good work to try to tackle the problem.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am running out of time—I have only half a minute left, I am afraid.
Gordon MacDonald made good points on behalf of his constituents and Colin Keir’s constituents in Edinburgh Western. I have said in answer to parliamentary questions from Gordon MacDonald that air quality should be a consideration in the planning process, just as noise and other potential nuisance factors are. I hope that local authorities take those matters into account in preparing their local development plans and that they take detailed evidence on major proposals. I will not comment on the specific examples that Gordon MacDonald gave—I think that he will understand why—but air quality is an important consideration.
Air quality is important to supporting a good quality of life and to supporting individuals’ and communities’ health and wellbeing. We have made good progress. I have listened to the points that members have raised and the genuine concerns that we need to do more. If members have positive proposals about other actions that they think we should take, I will happily listen to them and see what we can do together and in a consensual way. Success will be achieved only through partnership, which means partnership between central and local government and between the parties in the Parliament, so that we can depoliticise what is an important issue for the health and wellbeing of our communities. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting action at local and national levels and I welcome the support of others as we try to achieve on-going success.
15:50
I am pleased to be able to speak on the extremely important issue of air quality, in support of Claire Baker’s motion.
Although Scotland is not blighted by levels of pollution seen in parts of the world that have heavy industry, Friends of the Earth says:
“Air pollution remains Scotland’s greatest environmental health threat.”
Our air quality remains below the standards set by the Scottish Government and the EU and, in certain urban areas in Scotland, many of which make up the most deprived parts of the country, air quality has been below the legal standards for many years.
According to Friends of the Earth, and as we have heard from members, fine particles are
“responsible for an equivalent of over 1,500 deaths each year”.
Those deaths and other health impacts are not just the result of directly breathing polluted air. Friends of the Earth suggests that the food chain can be affected as well.
Levels of air pollution in certain hotspots are over the safe thresholds set by the World Health Organization. To tackle that very serious issue, the Scottish Government must ensure that the low emissions strategy is a firm overarching policy, linked to other policy planning areas such as transport and energy. Friends of the Earth recommended setting deadlines to meet the air quality standards and I ask the Scottish Government to consider that seriously. It needs to implement targets that are carefully monitored, in the same way as those set by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has been looking at national planning framework 3 and has requested that air quality issues are included in the Government’s final NPF3 statement. I hope that the minister will consider that.
We have heard about RPP2 and colleagues have discussed the weakness of the emission standards in relation to the fact that after 2020 RPP2 is only about proposals rather than policies. I hope that the minister will take that into account when looking at the correlation between climate change targets and emissions targets.
Members will remember that the ex-First Minister Jack McConnell had a particular focus on environmental justice in his time in office. At the 2002 earth summit in Johannesburg he discussed the responsibility of developed nations such as ours in relation to the global challenge of climate change. I bring that up in this debate about air pollution in Scotland because in Scotland itself environmental justice—along with social justice—must be seen in the local sense in relation to air pollution. Deprived communities should not bear the brunt of air pollution. As we have heard this afternoon, many communities are affected and that is a cause for concern. It is the responsibility of all of us here to implement policies to alleviate the impact of air pollution.
Cara Hilton raised grave concerns about parts of her Dunfermline constituency and highlighted serious health issues and Marco Biagi rightly stressed the noxious nature of poor air. He argued that local authorities must take responsibility and I hope that he agrees that they must have the Scottish Government’s robust support and guidance. Malcolm Chisholm stressed the need for guidance from the Scottish Government. Along with partners such as local authorities, the Scottish Government needs to promote policies that will work towards a low-carbon economy. A range of public bodies, organisations and companies throughout the country have already taken measures, but there needs to be coherence, which is the Scottish Government’s responsibility.
We have heard about Lothian Buses and hybrid vehicles. The Scottish Transport Emissions Partnership made the good point that, rather than being a source of emissions to be cut down, one bus can replace 76 cars on the road. In addition, the lower speed of buses means lower emissions. Although the Scottish Government’s green bus fund is welcome, we must also cut car use and reduce demand. The many good examples of car clubs in not only big cities but towns such as Dumfries and Dunbar help to cut emissions, as do walking buses for children travelling to school.
As some members have mentioned, active travel provides an even better solution. Although I am pleased that Stop Climate Chaos Scotland’s calls for an increase in the active travel budget have been met by the Scottish Government, I feel that, as Alex Johnstone made clear in his speech, more needs to be done in that respect.
As a country we should be promoting local food chains and cutting down emissions from transport. The choices that individuals and households make can collectively make a difference and, indeed, the Scottish Government’s awareness-raising campaigns on behaviour or culture change are key to this issue. As Patrick Harvie said, we must reduce demand.
If the Scottish Government is unable to take the air pollution strategy forward in a coherent way, we might, as Patrick Harvie suggested, find ourselves having the same debate in another decade’s time. We owe it to Scotland’s communities to ensure that that does not happen. I take the minister’s point that this is the responsibility of us all, but I simply note that he is in Government at the moment and that, although we will work with him, the air pollution strategy is, in the end, the Government’s responsibility. We certainly look forward to hearing more about timescales and other detail about taking this issue forward for all our communities.
That concludes the debate on air quality in Scotland.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Women