Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Official Report 1007KB pdf

---

National Clean Air Day 2017

The first item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-05900, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on national clean air day 2017. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises 15 June 2017 as the first National Clean Air Day in the UK; believes that this is a significant initiative to help raise awareness of the impact of poor air quality on people; understands that air quality is the fourth biggest public health risk across Scotland and the UK; welcomes the research, which was funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) and was carried out by Professor Dave Newby at the BHF Centre of Research Excellence at the University of Edinburgh; notes what it sees as the role of this in increasing awareness of the impact of poor air quality on people living with cardiovascular disease (CVD); understands that 84,300 people in the Central Scotland parliamentary region, 79,200 in Glasgow, 60,700 in Highlands and Islands, 79,300 in Lothian, 84,800 in Mid Scotland & Fife, 91,300 in North East Scotland, 97,800 in South Scotland and 92,600 in West Scotland are living with the impact of CVD and are more susceptible to health issues relating to poor air quality, and notes calls for improving air quality to be a public health priority in Scotland.

13:15  

I thank the members who have signed my motion. I am looking forward to listening to all today’s speeches, including that from the Minister for Public Health and Sport. I hope that the cabinet secretaries and other ministers with a remit in this area—particularly those with transport and environment responsibilities—will take note of the debate.

In the developed world, we manage our water resources to a high standard to ensure good health, but air is the only environmental common that we depend on every second that we are alive. It is around us constantly and is inextricably linked to our health and wellbeing.

There is much progress to make on improving air quality in Scotland. The British Lung Foundation cites the evidence that air pollution contributes to the death of about 2,000 people a year. I note Professor Dave Newby’s timely research for the British Heart Foundation, which shows the impacts of air pollution on those who live with cardiovascular disease. His research analysed the impact of air pollution on more than 4 million people across 12 European countries who were living with heart failure, and his team found that the hospitalisation risk dramatically increased when the air pollution level was high.

When air quality worsens, that can have an instant and visible effect. A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Kincardine with hundreds of local residents who were angry about dust clouds blowing off the redundant ash pans at Longannet, which had forced many of them to take refuge indoors. The situation has been remedied, but questions remain about the actions of agencies, and the issue will be the subject of a forthcoming petition to the Parliament.

Much of the pollution that we now encounter is not the visible type that caused the pea-soupers of the previous century or the ash clouds of west Fife. Today, two thirds of air pollution comes from vehicles in the form of nitrogen oxides—NOx—and particulates, so it is clear that the primary focus for action needs to be on tackling the air pollution from transport.

Tomorrow is national clean air day. I congratulate Global Action Plan on its campaign and I congratulate Friends of the Earth, the British Heart Foundation and the British Lung Foundation. They are all doing incredibly valuable work to help us to understand the impacts of air pollution and the changes that are needed to protect our health and environment.

The national clean air day theme of reduce, talk, avoid makes it clear that air pollution is everyone’s business and that we are not powerless to act. We can be mindful of our own impact and reduce pollution by, for example, switching off the car engine when stationary and using our feet for short journeys.

We can talk about air pollution to headteachers, managers, councillors and parents in order to get action at pollution hotspots, whether that is about engine idling or car sharing. On days when the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s pollution monitoring shows poor air quality, we can take action to avoid areas by walking on side streets and getting out of cars, where pollution levels are further concentrated inside.

Those soft measures are important, and I note that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform visited a school this morning to highlight awareness. Alongside those measures, we need Government intervention to bring about a step change in our transport and planning systems and cut the pollution that is driving climate change as well as ill health.

Yesterday, we saw that although Scottish climate emissions from energy generation continue to fall, transport has overtaken that sector as the biggest carbon dioxide emitting sector. The exhaust pipe problem is also reflected in the high levels of nitrogen oxides and particulates that line our lungs and enter our bloodstream.

There are 38 air quality management areas designated across 14 local authority areas in Scotland. They are triggered mostly by dangerously high levels of NOx or particulates, and 23 of them remain in breach of the legal limits.

Atholl Street in Perth, which is in my region, is one of the worst streets in Scotland for particulates. The air quality objective that was set in 2002 for Atholl Street should have been met by 2010, but Perth and Kinross Council has persistently failed to address the matter. In fact, planning decisions, including the one that was taken recently to build a vast area of new housing in Scone, continue to be made against the air quality concerns of the local director of public health. Air quality is being ignored in the planning system.

The failure to meet the legal European Union air quality limits has been the subject of a protracted legal challenge against the United Kingdom Government by the organisation ClientEarth. In the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, we heard recently that the Scottish Government’s strategy was captured by the most recent ruling in the High Court in England, because it appears as a chapter of the UK plan. Given that that ruling was made in December last year, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government did not take the opportunity to consult on a revised Scottish plan.

I welcome much that is in the clean air for Scotland strategy, but there are questions about the level of ambition that is needed to resolve this public health crisis. The introduction of a solitary low-emission zone next year would exclude polluting vehicles from one polluted area of one city. There is now the political will in Edinburgh and Glasgow for implementation, but there are major questions about the preparedness of either city’s council to put the required infrastructure in place by next year. I know that a number of members will want to reflect on that in their contributions.

A bolder commitment to more low-emission zones is needed, but alongside that, other measures can be brought in. Members will be aware of the live consultation on my proposed bill to change the default speed limit in built-up areas from 30mph to 20mph. Studies by Imperial College London show that that can have a positive impact by reducing pollution from diesel engines, but the real prize would be to make a change to the road environment that could be the foundation for an increase in walking and cycling by making our streets safer. Alongside that, prioritisation of walking and cycling infrastructure in the budget would provide facilities to deliver a tipping point in our attitude to active travel and allow us finally to emulate the Copenhagens and Amsterdams of this world.

I look forward to hearing other members’ contributions on how we can solve this public health crisis and I invite the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform to allow those views to feed into a refreshed air pollution strategy for Scotland.

13:22  

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing this members’ business debate on national clean air day. As he rightly states in his motion,

“this is a significant initiative to help raise awareness of the impact of poor air quality on people”.

The issue affects many of our constituents and it is absolutely right that we recognise that in Parliament.

Many would be forgiven for thinking that Scotland does not have a major issue when it comes to air quality. We are known for our stunning countryside, not for our polluted cities. However, it is thought that air pollution contributes to more than 2,500 early deaths in Scotland each year, and the situation appears to be getting worse. The number of sites where permitted air pollution levels are regularly breached rose from 33 in 2016 to 38 in 2017. The Scottish Government set out that, by December 2010, the air pollution level should be at 18 micrograms per cubic metre or less; it has missed that target.

We must do more to ensure that the air that we breathe is not killing us—it is as simple as that—and it is incumbent on us as elected representatives to ensure that everything that can be done to make Scotland’s air cleaner is done. That means working together, not dividing over party politics, and the Scottish Conservatives are committed to exactly that working together.

I understand that Edinburgh is to bid to have Scotland’s first low-emission zone to tackle air pollution and that councillors have agreed to approach the Scottish Government, which has said that it will fund one pilot by 2018. I am open to the idea of low-emission zones, but a full assessment must be made of the economic impact of such a policy. In large cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, such a scheme might have little impact on the local economy, but that might not be the case if such a scheme were rolled out and implemented in Dumfries or Stranraer. Consumers are often driven by the cost of parking or, perhaps, congestion charges, and consumers, particularly those from the south of Scotland, might choose Glasgow over Edinburgh if charges were a factor.

There is still much that can be done to reduce air pollution in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives would introduce more air pollution monitoring sites across the country and make air quality monitors available to all Scottish primary schools, so that we could get a more precise idea of where air quality is below the recommended standard, which would allow us to better target the response.

Much more could be done to increase the use of electric cars, and there are many ways to achieve that. We could introduce free town-centre parking for electric vehicles and allow them to use bus and taxi lanes. We could establish a fund to expand electric vehicle charging points in small towns and rural areas and at train stations. We could require all public bodies to conduct a cost benefit analysis of replacing existing vehicle fleets with electric vehicles and mandate the consideration of electric vehicles in all future procurement plans. We should establish electric vehicle sharing schemes in major cities whereby users can pick up and drop off cars at charging stations. Only last night, there was a television programme that showed how successful such a scheme has been in Paris.

Those are just some of the measures that could be implemented relatively quickly and which could have a huge impact on the health of the people of Scotland. We in the Conservatives want to see positive steps towards improving Scotland’s air quality, and we are committed to working across the parties to achieve those ends.

13:26  

I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing it. Tomorrow, 15 June, is national clean air day. Tackling poor air quality is important to me as the convener of the cross-party group on lung health and as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s sub-group on air quality. Mark Ruskell and I work together on both groups and I have found him to be knowledgeable and passionate about the subject.

Poor air quality exacerbates existing lung conditions and disproportionately affects children, whose lungs are more sensitive to harmful toxins in the air. Children also breathe at a faster rate than adults and therefore the pollutant inhalation rate is increased. Research suggests that children who grow up in areas of severe air pollution are up to five times more likely to have poor lung development and are more prone to respiratory infections. A 2012 research study estimated that the health impact of air pollution worldwide causes 3.7 million premature deaths, and air pollution has been linked to ischaemic heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

Although we have made great strides in tackling air pollution in Scotland in recent years, it must be acknowledged that there are still areas of poor air quality in some of Scotland’s towns and cities. Air quality standards are identical across the UK, and achievement of them is a requirement for EU member states. In contrast to the EU requirements, Scotland has set stricter levels for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5, which is particulate matter that measures 10 microns and 2.5 microns. In April 2016, the Scottish Government became the first Government in Europe to adopt the World Health Organization recommended guideline value for PM_2.5.

In 2015, the Scottish Government published its strategy for tacking air pollution, “Cleaner Air for Scotland—The Road to a Healthier Future”—or CAFS—which is a national cross-government strategy that sets out how the Scottish Government and its partner organisations propose to reduce air pollution and meet Scotland’s legal responsibilities as soon as possible. A number of key actions are proposed, including a national modelling framework, a national low-emission framework, a national air quality awareness campaign and, as I mentioned, adoption in Scottish legislation of World Health Organization guideline values for particulate matter.

The British Lung Foundation has called for a number of measures to be taken to address poor air quality. For example, it calls for carefully designed clean air zones that use cleaner public transport, active travel—I walked to Parliament today and it was actually quite nice this morning—and emissions testing for all vehicles. The British Lung Foundation also calls for the measuring of and reporting on air pollution near schools to protect children’s lungs, which has been mentioned.

Recent figures from the BLF revealed that three quarters of Scottish councils do not have air quality monitors outside their local schools and that only 10 schools in the whole of Scotland have some form of air pollution monitor within 10m of them. A new clean air act at Westminster could make it a requirement to monitor air quality outside schools. That would allow us to target areas that have been identified as having poor air quality, which would be welcome. Local authorities also have an important role to play in achieving that and could choose to monitor air quality now.

As part of my work as the convener of the cross-party group on lung health, I have met researchers at the University of the West of Scotland to discuss some research that they are conducting that will be very valuable in the south of Scotland. The UWS researchers propose a three-tier strategy consisting of a preventative message, a research journey linking with PhD projects and engagement with schools to encourage air quality monitoring.

As the Scottish Government’s strategy correctly points out, to successfully address poor air quality, we require a partnership approach involving the Government, local authorities, business and industry, non-governmental organisations and the public. The work that is being done by UWS will be valuable in the south of Scotland.

I look forward to continuing to work to improve air quality, using the cross-party group as a vehicle to encourage research and collaborative working across sectors as well as to empower those who are suffering from poor lung health to be heard. I would welcome any MSPs who are interested in pursuing better air quality joining us in the cross-party group.

13:31  

I, too, thank Mark Ruskell for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I compliment him on an excellent speech.

As we have heard, air pollution is a public health crisis in Scotland. Statistics suggest that, each year, more than 10 times as many people die from air pollution as die in road crashes. Poor air quality has links to heart and lung conditions, dementia, cancer and many more health problems. Is it not ironic that, in a sophisticated, developed country such as Scotland, which is part of the world’s fifth largest economy, our young, our old, our ill and our poor are dying from diesel pollutants that would have brought a blush to the face of the most hard-nosed Victorian factory owner?

Air pollution is also a huge environmental issue. It affects climate change and biodiversity, with many species of flora and fauna being subjected to the same pollutants as our communities are breathing in.

The need for clean air must be addressed now, and in my view there are three main ways in which we can work towards the goal of lowering the levels of the emissions that cause pollution. First, we can manage demand by creating a modal shift in behaviour away from the use of high-polluting vehicles. Secondly, we can control the options that are available by making a step change in the provision of electric cars and charging points. Thirdly, we can improve the natural environment, including by increasing green areas in cities.

In order to change the demand for polluting vehicles, there needs to be significant modal change in behaviour by transport users, but that will not happen without effort and investment from the Government. We need more schemes such as low-emission zones. Why limit our ambition to one city when Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen are all in need? We need better cycling and walking infrastructure, higher targets for electric vehicles and improved public transport. Why not ban polluting diesel buses from our cities and towns and bring in bus regulation to give councils more powers over that? We should also consider setting up consolidation centres—such as the ones in Holland that I visited in the previous session of Parliament—and ensuring that polluting heavy goods vehicles avoid built-up areas. Those steps would all have a significant impact and reduce emissions in our cities.

However, as the chief executive of Glasgow City Council, Annemarie O’Donnell, said to me in a letter in April:

“The introduction of a LEZ can be costly, with the established London LEZ being estimated to have cost approximately £100 million. A more recent cost analysis undertaken by DEFRA for the recently announced Clean Air Zones in England (which are effectively LEZs) estimated that for the five cities involved—Nottingham, Leeds, Birmingham, Southampton and Derby—the total local authority costs for implementation and running the scheme would be £101 million over 10 years.”

Let us look at best practice. The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, used the 60th anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956 to introduce a suite of new clean air policies such as ultra low-emission zones; clean bus corridors, with the cleanest buses being put on to the dirtiest routes in a bid to tackle air pollution hotspots; and a diesel scrappage scheme. Sixty years ago, pollution in Scottish towns and cities caused by coal fires was visible and obvious to all. Nitrogen dioxide and the tiny particulates that lodge in our lungs today are invisible. We are stunting the lungs of generations who are yet unborn. How can it be, all these years after the industrial revolution and the smog of the 1950s, that we still allow our population to breathe in air that breaches so many EU health directives and literally cuts short their lives?

We need to be brave, ambitious and bold. In Scotland, our children deserve a war on air pollution in cities and towns. We are at our best when we are at our boldest.

13:35  

Like other members, I thank my colleague Mark Ruskell for securing the debate. I am not sure whether I should begin by declaring an interest, because I have the dubious privilege of being a resident of one of Glasgow’s air quality management areas, the Dumbarton Road-Byers Road corridor. I happen to live on Dumbarton Road and I walk and cycle on those streets. I know that, if I open my window, I am not confident that the air that comes into my flat is safe to breathe. That is a pretty profound sense of environmental insecurity and we are allowing people to live with that in far too many places in Scotland. As Mark Ruskell said, air is a basic necessity of life that we depend on minute by minute for our survival. The idea that it is not fit to breathe is a failing of our society.

I am pleased to speak in the debate, because the subject is the same as that of my first members’ debate, way back in session 2 of the Scottish Parliament, when I was a little more fresh faced and bright eyed and a bit less cynical than I am today. At that point, we were already failing, year after year, despite having air quality management areas, air quality action plans and a Government strategy. We cannot breathe strategies, action plans or management areas. We had all those documents in place and we were still making the problem worse, not better.

During that debate, I observed that we were anticipating—around that time or a few months after the debate—a significant improvement in the air in Scotland, because we were going to ban smoking in pubs and other enclosed places. People would be able to sit in a pub, perhaps on Hope Street in Glasgow, and enjoy a pint while breathing clean air before walking out into the most severe air quality crisis in Scotland. That was Hope Street at the time, and the problem is far more prevalent now.

I want Glasgow to be seriously considered for the first low-emission zone. My colleague Alison Johnstone has insisted that I say that Edinburgh must also be considered, and those members who have said, “Why should there be only one?” are absolutely right—the mechanism should be in place everywhere that it is needed, not simply in one place.

Those who are concerned about the cost of implementation are correct in that it needs to be resourced if it is to be effective. However, they should consider the cost of the 14 years and more of inaction since that members’ business debate. Since then, strategies have been written and management areas have been declared, yet air quality has continued to worsen and the number of places with poor air quality has continued to increase—the list grows longer. The cost of that inaction is surely greater than the cost of taking action to reverse the problem.

I also pay tribute to Mark Ruskell for working on the introduction of new speed limits in our cities. A 20mph default speed limit is good for our air quality, our safety and the happiness and joy that people can experience in the built environment. The idea for it comes out of the desire not just to reduce harm from poor air quality and road traffic accidents but to ensure that people are safe enough to enjoy the place where they live.

As we know, a great many of the relevant regulations have been decided at European Union level. Faced with the reality of being taken out of Europe against the will of the people who live in Scotland, it is essential that we redouble our efforts to ensure that there is no diminution in the air quality standards that we impose and no reluctance on the part of the Government to do everything that is necessary to meet those standards.

13:39  

I thank Mark Ruskell for securing this debate to mark national clean air day and for helping to bring the issue to the attention of the chamber and the wider public.

Poor air quality is an issue that has for some time gone unheralded, with most people assuming Scottish air to be fresh and pollutant free. With the implementation of a national clean air day and pioneering research such as the work that has been done by Professor Dave Newby on the link between poor air quality and cardiovascular disease, the issue has rightly come to the fore. Highlighting the high number of people who live with CVD and have to contend with health issues resulting from poor air quality makes it clear that measures to improve Scottish air quality must be undertaken as a public health priority.

Although most people would like to think that poor air quality is a problem only in major cities, it is a factor that needs to be considered in smaller communities too. There are a number of initiatives and schemes that have proved successful in my region of West Scotland, such as the implementation of an air quality management area in Bishopbriggs in East Dunbartonshire; combined with an expansion of public transport options and new road infrastructure, that has led to a dramatic fall in the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the town and the surrounding area—so much so that they are now fully within acceptable limits.

Although air quality management areas have been in existence since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, it is logical that we should be aiming to tackle air quality issues before they reach levels that are harmful to human health. As my colleague Finlay Carson said, the Conservatives would do that by increasing the use of air monitoring sites and making air monitors available to all of Scotland’s primary schools.

Action to improve public transport would help to solve the problem. Professor Newby details in his report the link between inhaling nanoparticles that are found in exhaust fumes from cars and the increased risk of blood clots resulting in heart attacks and strokes. It is therefore vital that alternative forms of transport be promoted and that efforts be made to relieve congestion in order to lower the risk of such particles being inhaled by those at risk. To realise that aim, the Conservatives would introduce policies that are designed to encourage motorists either to switch to electric cars or to use alternative means of transport. We would incentivise electric car ownership by introducing a raft of measures such as free town centre parking and permitted use of taxi and bus lanes, along with the establishment of a fund to expand electric vehicle charging in rural locations. Cycle paths would also be prioritised, with an additional £5 million being invested to improve existing paths and create at least one new segregated route per city.

With national clean air day being introduced, my hope is that improving air quality will become a greater public health priority in Scotland, which will lead to more funding being allocated to tackle this underrepresented problem. It is also clear from the British Heart Foundation report that public awareness of the dangers of poor air quality remains relatively low, with a YouGov poll that was conducted alongside the report showing that only half of those polled thought that air pollution was harmful to heart health. Efforts should therefore be made to increase public awareness of the dangers of poor air quality, alongside increased efforts to counter dangerous pollution levels.

In conclusion, I thank Mark Ruskell again for securing the debate and look forward to hearing from the Scottish Government about what steps it will take to improve air quality for those living with CVD and the wider public of Scotland.

13:43  

Like others, I welcome this members’ business debate and the opportunity that it gives the Parliament not only to highlight national clean air day and the work that is being done in partnership across Scotland to address the problems that we have in this area but to recognise the importance of tackling poor air quality.

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate and on his timing. As he said, national clean air day is tomorrow—15 June—and I encourage everyone in the chamber and throughout Scotland to consider what simple measures they can take not just tomorrow but every day to help to reduce air pollution in Scotland and its impact on the health of all of us.

Like Mark Ruskell, I put on record my thanks to all the organisations, such as the British Lung Foundation and Global Action Plan, whose efforts continue to raise awareness of air quality and its impacts on public health.

Although I am pleased to respond to the debate, the response could equally have been given by either Humza Yousaf or Roseanna Cunningham. That fact symbolises why it is important to tackle the issue across portfolios. It is an issue that is cross-cutting and requires focus across traditional boundaries.

To develop a theme that was started by Mark Ruskell, my portfolio of public health impacts on and cuts through many areas, such as education, transport, planning and a host of others. Today, Mr Ruskell raised themes to make us reflect on and consider deeply the places we inhabit and how they are developed. That is actively part of my consideration as Minister for Public Health and Sport. I do not want my role or work in public health improvement to be focused solely on hospitals and health professionals. It needs to reach far beyond that.

We need to have good housing, good employment and good spaces and places to live in if we are to transform public health. That also includes opportunities for people to become active in their daily lives. As we develop the obesity strategy, and as we work with partners on shared public health priorities, I will be sure to engage with members who have contributed to today’s debate. The pieces of work that I am pursuing in my portfolio will be of equal importance to many of the members who have spoken today and who have touched on areas that are incredibly cross-cutting.

We should take pride in the fact that Scotland’s air quality is among the best in Europe. However, we must also recognise that pockets of poor air quality remain and that action is needed to tackle such problem areas. The threshold values that we have adopted in Scotland to protect public health are among the toughest of any nation in the EU and reflect the importance that we place on the subject. The science, though, is often complex, and confounding factors such as obesity, poor diet, smoking or social deprivation make it difficult to draw direct links between air pollution and ill health and death.

That said, we know enough to know that air pollution has a negative impact on the health of all of us. In Scotland, poor air quality shortens average life expectancy by three to four months, compared with six to seven months across the UK, and the impact is especially large for those with pre-existing heart and lung conditions. Emma Harper and David Stewart rightly acknowledged the impact of poor air quality on our very youngest people, with the quicker breathing and developing lungs of our children making them far more vulnerable to the ill effects of poor air. That is not fair or right, which is why the Scottish Government has committed, through the cleaner air for Scotland strategy, to protect and enhance health and wellbeing, the environment, place making and sustainable growth through improved air quality across the country.

The High Court ruling in England in December 2016 was that the whole UK strategy was inappropriate and therefore needed to go back out to consultation. The cleaner air for Scotland strategy is part of that. Will it be refreshed, and will it go out to consultation in Scotland?

We are actively considering that and taking the opportunity to consider what further updates to the Scottish plans are required in light of the second judicial review, which referred only to the UK Government. I also reiterate to Mark Ruskell that our strategy delivers against our EU air quality objectives and was fully consulted on at the time. Of course, that does not mean that we would not always seek to engage where we can make improvements.

It is also important to remember that, despite the narrative from Patrick Harvie—fresh faced or not—we have made substantial progress on air quality in recent years. Pollution emissions have reduced significantly since the 1990s. For example, particulates have reduced by 46 per cent. That has been achieved through tighter regulation on industry, improved fuel quality, cleaner vehicles and an increased focus on sustainable transport.

Where we agree with Mark Ruskell, Patrick Harvie, David Stewart, Emma Harper and others is in saying that, despite those achievements, more could and should be done. Further action is needed. “Cleaner Air for Scotland—The Road to a Healthier Future” was published in November 2015 and is Scotland’s first distinct air quality strategy. It draws together work right across government into a coherent programme; that includes work by Transport Scotland, SEPA, Health Protection Scotland and local authorities.

The strategy’s vision is for Scotland to have the cleanest air in Europe. By 2020, we will have made significant progress towards revoking all air quality management areas in Scotland and we will be in full compliance with EU air quality legislation. However, that ambition has to be underpinned by action on the ground. We will achieve that through new initiatives, including a national modelling framework to standardise air quality assessment methodology across Scotland and to ensure a level playing field for local authorities; a new national low-emission framework to provide procedures for local authorities to determine air quality measures at local level, including guidance on low-emission zone implementation; adoption of World Health Organization guideline values for particulate matter in Scottish legislation, making Scotland the first country in Europe to do so; and the development of a national air quality awareness campaign.

We will also deliver on our programme for government commitment to introduce a low-emission zone in Scotland by 2018. Much of the detailed work on delivering LEZs is well under way, and a consultation on their shape and form is planned for the summer. It is essential that there is support for LEZs across Scotland, and it is encouraging that local authorities and all stakeholders are playing their part. The major cities, in particular, are showing strong commitment to being early adopters of an LEZ.

I think that most members who have spoken in the debate will be strongly in favour of LEZs. I favour the expansion of LEZs to all Scottish cities, but the cost in London was more than £100 million, and the whole of London is covered by vehicle recognition closed-circuit television technology which, as I understand it, we do not have in any of the Scottish cities. There is huge investment, but what will local authorities be bidding for if the infrastructure is not there?

As we set out in our programme for government, we are working towards having LEZs. We are winning the hearts and minds of local authorities, which might have been a bit apprehensive about LEZs and reluctant to adopt them. It is important to recognise that the establishment of the first LEZ will create a legacy for other areas to build on. Far from the introduction of an LEZ being the negative story that David Stewart unfortunately seems to be portraying it as, I think that it is a positive development for Scotland, and one that we want to build on for other areas across the country.

As others have mentioned, Scotland has an international reputation for stunning natural environments, and rightly so. It is in the interests of all of us that we do all that we can to protect and preserve those national treasures, but we should not shy away from addressing problems where they exist. In our towns and cities—Mark Ruskell and Patrick Harvie mentioned specific examples—we know that there are still pockets of poor air quality that impact negatively on public health. We have made significant progress, but there is much more to do. We will continue to work across professional and traditional boundaries and the political spectrum to bring about the improvement that so many of us seek, which will help us to address the public health concerns that have been raised today.

I again thank Mark Ruskell for raising such an important matter.

13:52 Meeting suspended.  

14:00 On resuming—