Plenary, 19 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000

Official Report 561KB pdf

---

Air Quality Strategy

The first item of business this afternoon is the statement by Sarah Boyack on the air quality strategy. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions. I will allow about 20 minutes for questions.

Everyone has a right to expect that the quality of the air that we breathe will not be detrimental to our health and our quality of life. However, poor air quality can be one of the triggers for asthma attacks among the 3 million asthma sufferers in the UK. Only yesterday, my colleague Susan Deacon met organisations to talk about the impact of asthma. In Scotland alone, it is estimated that 10 to 15 per cent of children and 5 to 10 per cent of adults suffer from asthma. Pollution can exacerbate the condition of those who are already ill and it contributes to the hospitalisation and early death of thousands of people every year.

Air pollution hits hardest the most vulnerable in our society, in particular the old and young. It tends to be worse in our heavily congested inner- city areas, where it exacerbates the poorer quality of life and higher social deprivation. However, even for healthy adults, air pollution has an effect on the overall quality of life. In addition, its effects are more obviously seen by all of us through damage to our urban environment, buildings and countryside.

I am pleased, therefore, to announce the publication today of "The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Copies are available for those who are interested.

The national air quality strategy was first published in March 1997. It fulfilled the requirement, under the Environment Act 1995, for a national strategy setting out policies for the management of ambient air quality. In July 1997, the new UK Government endorsed the strategy and implemented it so that local authorities could begin the process of local air quality management. The strategy gave local authorities a new responsibility to review and assess air quality in their area and to take action when air quality objectives were unlikely to be met. However, the Government felt that more could be done to improve air quality, and an immediate review of the strategy was announced, to look at the prospects of delivering cleaner air more quickly.

Tackling air pollution is one of my top environmental priorities, which is why, as soon as I came into office, I endorsed the revision of the air quality strategy. Throughout the process, officials in Scotland have worked closely in partnership with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.

Today, with the publication of the comprehensive new air quality strategy, I am delivering the results of that partnership. It will deliver real air quality benefits and a significant reduction in pollutants. The new air quality strategy sets out the strategic framework within which air quality policies will be taken forward in the short to medium term.

The strategy sets out air quality standards, with objectives to be met for eight of the major air pollutants. The original attainment date for all pollutants was the end of 2005. The revised strategy sets tougher objectives for benzene, 1,3butadiene and carbon monoxide, bringing forward the attainment dates for those objectives to 2003, and for nitrogen dioxide reduction to 2004. The most positive outcome is for lead. Current policies enable the date for achieving that objective to be moved forward from 2005 to 2004, with a much tighter objective, halving the present one, to be set for 2008.

The hourly and daily objectives for sulphur dioxide have also been brought forward to 2004, although the 15-minute objective remains unchanged. The ozone objective remains unchanged, pending the final form of the proposed national emission ceilings directive and negotiations on the United Nations environment committee multi-pollutant protocol. There is more work to be done there.

The objective for particles has been replaced for the time being with the less stringent European Community limit values. The shift of the objective to the EC limit values drew the most comment during public consultation on our plans to review and revise the strategy. We have carefully deliberated on the responses received to the proposal to make that change.

The original strategy objective for particles was set on the basis of the best available knowledge at that time. We now know from the extensive work carried out by the airborne particles expert group that the objective is simply not achievable, at least in the short term. That is due in part to the contribution that pollution from mainland Europe makes to particle levels in this country.

We are anxious to ensure that the strategy objectives are seen to be challenging and achievable. If they are to be regarded as serious policy aims, it is particularly important that they are

seen as realistic in terms of being achievable. With that in mind, it was decided that action should be concentrated in the short term on achieving the EC limit values by 2004, as that is the only internationally recognised alternative target. That target was set following recommendations made by the World Health Organisation. However, it is important to emphasise that the EC limit values should be seen as a staging post and not the final outcome; it gives us a chance to gear up on particles.

In view of the importance of the health effects of particles, I am anxious to set my sights beyond the immediate need to comply with the EC limit values. Work is already under way UK-wide to consider further the health effects of particles, the costs and benefits of reducing particles and the effects of recent policy developments on particle levels.

On completion of the review of local air quality management by local authorities and assessments by June this year, we will have access to a comprehensive and complete record of air quality throughout Scotland. That will be hugely beneficial and will allow us to progress further. While we generally enjoy good air quality in Scotland, it is quite possible that the outcome of the review will demonstrate that our urban areas share many of the air quality characteristics of towns and cities throughout the UK—dominated by pollution from transport emissions.

However, given Scotland's unique geography, I have asked my officials to consider the data contained in the reports so that I can decide whether there might be scope to introduce a more stringent objective for particles, to ensure that the people of Scotland continue to enjoy cleaner air. I would hope to be in a position to announce my decision on that by the end of the year.

Air pollution is trans-boundary by nature—it does not respect boundaries or borders. For that reason, many of the problems associated with poor air quality need to be tackled at international and European levels. Many of the objectives set in the strategy will help to ensure that Scotland meets its obligations under the EC air framework directive. However, the strategy recognises that international and national measures may not always be specific enough to tackle localised pollution. That is why local authorities have been given responsibility for local air quality management. They are best placed to identify air pollution hot spots and to take action that will be effective in tackling the problem.

The outcome of the review that Scottish authorities are undertaking will, for the first time, allow us to ascertain whether there are any air quality characteristics that are particular to Scotland. Should any specific Scottish issues be identified, I will consider whether they need to be addressed through separate Scottish policy measures, or by the possible establishment of an air quality strategy for Scotland.

The process that led to the publication of the new strategy today is an example of open government. Monitoring progress towards the objectives set in the strategy will be equally open. The regulations bringing into force the new objectives set out in the strategy will be laid before Parliament within the next few days and will be subject to an affirmative resolution.

An important challenge will to be to raise public awareness of air quality issues, so that they are taken into account at all levels of decision making. I intend the new strategy to provide a sound framework against which decisions can be taken. We all have a part to play in ensuring that things work together—from town planners deciding on the site for a new superstore and transport planners making decisions on traffic management, to each of us as individuals making our daily transport choices.

The publication of the air quality strategy today brings cleaner air a step nearer to everyone across Scotland. The strategy is an important part of our drive to protect public health and our environment and to secure lasting improvements to air quality.

I remind members that I would like short questions—not statements.

The Scottish National party welcomes the minister's statement. I have never given great credence to consensus politics, but this is an area in which we can work together. I take on board the fact that while we recognise that we have local initiatives, we must also have international action.

With regard to the objective on PM10 particles, I note that the advice of the expert panel for an excess limit of four days has been derogated to one of 35 days. On how many days, at the sites that are monitored at present, was the 35-day limit breached? If the answer is none, or on very few occasions, why are we aspiring to such a low level instead of the previous high level—of four days— suggested by the expert panel?

I am nervous that consensus might be breaking out, but Kenny MacAskill's points are important in relation to the whole issue of particulates.

The information on last year's figures will be available in April and, at that point, we will be in a better position to examine the number of days on which those limits have been breached. What is critical is that we are not at the end point of where we want to be on particulates. There are other

problems with particulates. For example, PM10 is nasty and causes major health problems if it gets into people's lungs, and PM2.5, which is even smaller, causes us even more damage. Reexamining particulate levels at the end of this year will give us an opportunity to consider in much more detail the issues raised by Mr MacAskill and to consider the very small particulates, which are invisible but have a genuine impact on health.

In the meantime, we will go full steam ahead with our programme to ensure the implementation of particulate traps for lorries. A Government scheme encourages the implementation of such traps through vehicle excise duty reductions.

I accept Mr MacAskill's point: we are not at the end point and we need to do more surveying, but much can be done over the next year before we review particulates again. I also accept his point about specific Scottish issues on which we could make progress on particulates. I want to take the next year to look at that in much more depth.

As a much more consensual politician than Kenny MacAskill—indeed, as a much more reasonable person in every way than Kenny MacAskill—I also welcome the minister's statement. She said that air quality was a top environmental priority for her; I am sure we could say that it is for all of us.

I have some questions about the minister's comments on vehicle emissions, about which I am aware that some matters are reserved while others are devolved. The minister will be aware of devices such as FuelMaster, which can be attached to cars to reduce emissions. Does the minister agree that there would be merit in assessing the range of such products on the market in an attempt to identify and promote products whose use might be encouraged—if not ultimately made a standard fitting on a car—further to reduce emissions?

Does the minister accept the principle of fiscal incentives to improve emission levels? It is clear that such incentives worked in the case of lead- free petrol. Will she agree to make representations through the normal channels, when she speaks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a joined-up governmental approach on the matter? Such an approach could establish a network of fiscal incentives for the more environmentally friendly fuels at the frontier of new technology, such as liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. Such fuels are still a bit experimental, but will develop more rapidly if their use is encouraged by financial incentives.

I will take the consensual route yet further by saying that Murray Tosh's comments on vehicle emissions are highly appropriate, in the sense that one of the ways in which we can improve our air quality is to improve the standards that are applied to new vehicles. There is an EU agreement on that, which will bring about real improvements in air quality. However, we cannot be complacent.

A number of initiatives are taking place across government—the power-shift initiative, in which we invest resources, is a good example. I have visited one or two demonstration projects to see the cars and vans that are out and about. The initiative encourages private companies to change over to more innovative fuels such as LPG, and to use low-sulphur and electric vehicles. The Scottish Executive uses a number of such vehicles for its own transport and is encouraging their wider use.

We need to make people aware that such choices are becoming available. A good way to do that is by using the Government's advertising capability and power to raise awareness. We need the facilities to enable us to fill up those vehicles with innovative fuels; that key issue is under consideration by the Executive and the UK Government.

Catalytic converters and the reduction and elimination of lead in petrol are good examples of how vehicle technology has improved. It is critical to look for the areas in which most impact can be made, as fast as possible. This air quality strategy allows us to monitor that.

The temptation to break this consensual approach is nearly too much for me.

Has the minister considered the evidence that was presented by Friends of the Earth on Monday? Its head of research said:

"Most pollution comes from road traffic and improved technology will not be enough—we must have fewer vehicles on the road."

Does the minister accept the evidence that unless reductions in vehicle emissions are tied to road traffic reductions—which are opposed by both the Tories and the SNP—we will not meet these air quality standards?

Tavish Scott referred to the figures that Friends of the Earth discussed this week. I will comment in particular on the figures relating to ozone. The ozone problem will not be solved overnight. It is not just a UK problem; much of it is imported. That is why we need international agreement on tight environmental standards. The UK is playing a full part in delivering those standards. The agreement on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds and ammonia that was reached by the United Nations environment committee in the past year will be critical to reducing the amount of ozone.

We had high levels of ozone last year because

we had an excellent summer in Scotland. Photochemical reactions created an ozone problem. We know that that causes serious problems for health. We cannot be complacent about ozone, but we must tackle the problem through international measures.

Dealing with road traffic has to be part of our strategy for air quality. Murray Tosh's point about improving vehicle emissions is also critical. I hope to speak to Parliament soon about improving transport choices, in the context of the integrated transport bill.

Local authorities will be important in identifying hot spots—where the worst areas for air quality are—and must develop traffic management solutions that can be put in place locally. Local authorities must give a message to people to make better transport choices—they must encourage people to walk or to cycle, which are healthy options, and ensure that the air is clean for them to do that. They must generally promote sustainable forms of transport.

Emissions from cars and lorries are an important, but not the only, part of the picture, and the ozone figures, too, must be considered.

Again, I do not want to break the flow of consensual politics from my colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee, Kenny MacAskill, Murray Tosh and Tavish Scott. The Green party generally welcomes the tenor of the minister's report. Anent the problems that are caused by Europe, many environmental regulations, and some good ideas, come from Europe. Will the minister give active support to European car-free day, later this year?

I talked about that with the transport commissioner when I was in Europe a couple of months ago. In the past few weeks, there have been experiments in Italy to find out what would happen if people got on their bikes, walked or used buses. We might want to consider that idea in the future.

There is a range of things that we could do to implement European directives. The air quality directive is critical. We need to play a full part in Europe. We must examine the best practice of other countries, pick up on innovative ideas and ensure that we have a dialogue so that we take a collective responsibility for the impact of emissions, whether they come from this country or elsewhere. I am keen to consider new ideas and best practice, which can be promoted in the Scottish Parliament.

I wish to ask the minister about air quality problems that are caused by sources other than transport. What are the key problems, and what could local authorities do about them?

Monitoring through the air quality management process enables local authorities to pick up on the key local problems. That is a critical way in which to bring transparency to the process.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency also has an important role to play, as many non- traffic-related pollutants come from industrial processes. Part of the strength of the air quality strategy is that it must link into monitoring pollutants produced by different businesses, to ensure that the best environmental techniques are available to those businesses and that they are capable of meeting the targets that are set in the strategy. Therefore, it is important to focus on the full range of pollutants that exist and to consider the different mechanisms for tackling them.

Local authorities have a key role to play in identifying hot spots. We must ensure that there are links between SEPA and local authorities, on their planning and monitoring powers, that there is joined-up thinking by local authorities, SEPA and the Scottish Executive and that there are also links into local businesses.

The minister has every reason to be delighted with her visit to the Transport and the Environment Committee this morning. She left everyone in a state of consensus—it would seem that we are all in love with one another this afternoon. Probably that will not last long, but I have no intention of saying anything to spoil it.

Tavish Scott ran away with the thrust of my question, which was about Friends of the Earth, so I had to sit here, Presiding Officer, thinking quickly of another question.

It is not compulsory.

How does the minister propose to use the measurements of air quality that are being taken by local authorities to inform some of her other deliberations, on expenditure plans?

Scott Barrie will forgive me if I allude to Kincardine bridge and the possible need for a bypass for Kincardine, which has one of the highest levels of air quality problems.

I do not think that we will ask the minister to deal with transport questions. Please stick to the subject, minister.

That was an extremely creative question. I look forward to an outbreak of consensus when I introduce my transport proposals.

The local authority measurements will be particularly useful to us this year. They will bring a transparency to local hot spots and will allow us to identify where the key problems lie in Scotland.

They will also allow us to link into other policies.

In my statement, I said that the measurements will allow us to examine the issue of particulates in a bit more depth, once we have the recommendations from the panel on air quality. By joining those pieces of information together, I hope to be able to look more sensitively at some of the issues that may be specific to Scotland. Local authority monitoring will be vital to that process.

I seek further clarification from the minister. Given that carbon dioxide is a major pollutant and that SEPA has identified the need to tackle carbon dioxide pollution along with other air pollutants, why does it not feature in the national air quality strategy?

The principal reason why carbon dioxide is not a key part of the strategy is that we are already working towards meeting other requirements on carbon dioxide, on which we must deliver because of our international obligations. However, members will notice that carbon monoxide is covered in the report. We have tightened our objectives on carbon monoxide by bringing them forward by two years.

The report identifies eight pollutants and I am happy to discuss them with Linda Fabiani later, should she wish.

Given the strong causal link between traffic congestion and air pollution, will the minister consider linking air pollution targets with targets for tackling traffic congestion, working with local authorities to achieve progress on both fronts?

It is not only people who live in congested areas who are affected by the pollution caused by traffic congestion. One of the main groups of people affected are those who experience traffic congestion sitting in their cars. We must tackle that problem by piecing together the information received from the local air quality strategies while, at the same time, considering recommendations from local transport strategies. If we can begin to make those links between air pollution and traffic management schemes at a local level we will, I hope, reduce some of the air pollution that we experience.

The process of air quality management has already raised such issues in certain local authorities. For example, we know that in the bigger cities, where the key problems lie, transport planners and local authorities are already beginning to turn their minds to questions such as, "What are the right traffic management opportunities?" and, "How can we provide solutions at a local level?"

This afternoon, we are in danger of a bit of hot air pollution, with the overworking of piteous little clichés, such as joined-up government, strategy, consensus and my old friend, transparency.

However, I will move on. Does the minister agree that there are various forms of air pollution, including smells—[Laughter.]—yes, smells? Does she propose to alleviate the suffering of people who live near toxic dumps and other landfill sites? The foul odours from such dumps do not, as the minister will accept, necessarily contain large particles, but the smells, according to a report from Glasgow City Council's public health and environmental service, can be "literally breathtaking". The report was referring to Paterson's dump in Mount Vernon, which is in a built-up, residential area, where people are suffering. Will the minister therefore investigate the closure of dumps that put large areas under virtual siege by smell, and which benefit only their rather rich owners?

Following correspondence with Margaret Curran, I am also aware of her interest in the matter. I know that Dorothy-Grace Elder has raised it before.

We need to address a range of air pollution problems. The discussion that we had at the Transport and the Environment Committee meeting earlier today focused on how to tackle the problem of landfill throughout Scotland; how to reduce the waste that we create in the future; and how to deal with it in more environmentally friendly ways. It is a major challenge, and the national waste strategy is probably the way to deal more effectively with the issue that Dorothy-Grace Elder raises.

Can the minister comment on the importance of the nuclear industry in controlling the output of noxious gases?

The prime issue for the nuclear industry is more one of safety, rather than the smells—

I was referring to the output of noxious gases from other forms of fuel generation.

Nuclear power is dealt with by a series of management practices. SEPA is the main authority dealing with it in Scotland. It does not come under the air quality strategy. It is another issue that we can discuss on another day in relation to waste management practices.