Chamber and committees

Our new air quality strategy, which was published last year, sets out a series of actions to reduce air pollution over the next five years. We work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with local authorities on the delivery of those actions and provide £2 million per year in direct support.

We are also introducing low-emission zones in Scotland’s four largest cities, supported by £3.8 million of direct funding. An additional £9.9 million is available in this financial year for businesses, public transport and those in the cities who are affected and are most in need. In addition, we have a £500 million funding commitment to active travel over the next five years and we are committed to reducing motor vehicle kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030.

Before I come on to the particular, important, local issue, let me deal again with the general point. The number of monitoring sites exceeding air quality objectives in Scotland is reducing. Targets are being met across the vast majority of Scotland, although there are some pollution hotspots in some of our cities and town centres, and we work closely with local authorities and other partners to address them as quickly as possible. Of course, the commitment to low-emission zones in the four largest cities is an important part of that.

The Scottish Government will await East Dunbartonshire Council’s formal application to revoke the Bearsden air quality management area, should that be forthcoming, before making any final decision. I can assure Ross Greer that any decision that falls to us to take will be very carefully considered, and all the relevant data and advice will be taken into account. Of course, should revocation take place—I emphasise the word “should”; that is hypothetical—we would expect the council to continue air quality monitoring in the area and to continue implementing the measures set out in the Bearsden air quality action plan.

First, I take the opportunity to thank everyone involved with the time to talk campaign and encourage people across the country to engage with it: to talk to others if they are struggling a bit with their own mental health and to look out for people in their lives who may be struggling and to offer help to them. It is a really important campaign and initiative.

The Government is investing heavily in mental health services and we must continue to do that. Rising demand was obviously putting pressure on services before the pandemic, and that is even more the case now. We are increasing investment. We are also seeking to reform how services are delivered, not least for children and adolescents. We will continue that work.

Increasingly, we have to look at different and more innovative ways of providing mental health support. Yesterday, I had the privilege of visiting Scottish Opera in Glasgow, to welcome the opening up of the culture and entertainment sector. I heard a lot about the work that it is doing with people who have been struggling—for example people with long Covid—and how they are using the power of song, music and culture to aid people. There are lots of organisations and people out there, as well as the Government investment in national health service services, that we can harness to ensure that we, as a society, emerge from the pandemic recognising the trauma and mental health impact that it has had and acting in an overall way to deal with that. The Government takes that responsibility extremely seriously.

Any political party in this chamber that was confident in its arguments around independence would not be desperate to deny the people of Scotland the right to make that choice. The alternative to independence is to continue to be governed by parties at Westminster that we do not vote for, and, right now, that is by a disreputable, discredited Government and a Prime Minister with, frankly, no integrity, no shame and no moral compass; a Prime Minister who even Douglas Ross does not think is fit for office. Scotland can do better than that, and with independence we will do better than that.

This is an absurd line of questioning. First of all, to aid Douglas Ross’s understanding of the situation, I point out that we are not requiring local authorities to chop the bottom off every door in every classroom across the country. I am struggling to believe that I am having to take Douglas Ross through the matter in such a basic manner.

The first point—[Interruption.]—is this one. If a door is hung in such a way that it is inhibiting the natural flow of air, one of the options that a local authority should have is to rectify that—[Interruption.]—and we are giving them some money to do that.

First, I say to Douglas Ross that I addressed the point about fire safety: all those issues have to be taken into account when local authorities are making decisions on health and safety grounds for schools.

Secondly, is Douglas Ross really saying to me that if, in the judgment of the people who make those health and safety decisions for local authorities about our school estate, the way in which a door is hanging is inhibiting the air flow, he thinks that no rectification should be made to that? That is why I think his approach is utterly infantile.

Finally, on the point about HEPA filters or air cleaning and filtration units, which are temporary solutions—they are not recommended as long-term or permanent solutions for improving ventilation—we are not distributing those to local authorities. We have set up a £5 million ventilation fund so that local authorities can take the remedial measures that they think appropriate for any spaces in the education setting that they think require those.

On the estimate for the number of spaces, the funding that we have made available would enable local authorities to install, if they think it appropriate, air cleaning and filtration units, small mechanical ventilation units or extractor fan units, or to make some basic structural changes to windows or doors if that is thought appropriate. We have provided £5 million in funding for the spaces that need such rectification, and the estimates suggest that what is required is £4.3 million, so we have built in some contingency. We have provided funding for local authorities, but we are not requiring them to chop anything off of doors; we are enabling local authorities, guided by health and safety considerations, to take the actions that they consider to be necessary.

The only thing that is being chopped off in this session of First Minister questions—it is entirely self-inflicted—is Douglas Ross’s own legs at the knees.

I think that everybody in the north-east would have preferred it if, rather than writing a letter, the UK Government had reversed its decision on carbon capture and storage and made the investment in Aberdeen and the north-east that people there want, which would support jobs and aid our transition to net zero. Perhaps a bit less letter writing from the UK Government and a bit more action and investment would go a long way.

It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that they have taken appropriate actions on ventilation in schools. We are providing them with the money to do that.

On the question about consultation with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, we are providing local authorities with the money and it is their responsibility to assess the spaces in schools. Local authorities are responsible for that, and we are often challenged in the chamber to respect the powers of local authorities. They have the ability and responsibility to do that, and the expectation is on local authorities to have appropriate consultations with the SFRS, if necessary, before making any changes. That is how these things work and it is how they will be done, rightly and properly.

Douglas Ross wants to pick and choose the mitigations that he thinks are appropriate. Today, he is talking about ventilation. He is absolutely entitled to ask the questions—if I was in his shoes, I might try to ask better questions, but that is just a matter of opinion. However, when the majority of expert opinion says that, in order to help us to keep schools safely open—as we have managed to do for most of the pandemic—it is appropriate to ask staff and secondary school pupils to wear face coverings, he opposes that for political opportunistic reasons.

Let us continue, as this Government is doing, to take the balanced approach to keeping our schools safely open. That is the responsible approach that this Government has been taking, and in that approach, according to all evidence, we are backed by the majority of people in Scotland. We will leave the political opportunism and, frankly, infantile approaches to Douglas Ross and the Conservatives.

The fund is helping with rising food costs and will allow support to be given to those who most need it. We will continue to do everything that we can do, including passing on any and all consequentials that come from the chancellor’s announcements today.

We have already provided additional funding. We are also in discussion with Care and Repair about what further support can be provided. I take Christine Grahame’s point about people—including people in her constituency—who do not have access to that service. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government takes that into account and provides an update to Christine Grahame as soon as possible.