Meeting of the Parliament 12 March 2014
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”.
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.