Meeting of the Parliament 28 March 2018
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We can all agree that bus services make a big contribution to the economic, environmental and social sustainability of our towns, cities and rural communities. Buses keep us moving. Compared with the private motor car, they make efficient use of road space, and they have the lowest carbon footprint of all transport modes except bike and foot. If they are run as affordable, quality public services, buses can help young people to access apprenticeships while helping their parents get to work and empowering their grandparents to be free from physical and social isolation.
When I think back to my days as a councillor, I remember that the strongest community campaigns were always those to save bus routes and services. The slow erosion of councils’ power to subsidise and keep routes open has led to much suffering, especially in rural areas.
However, we can fall into the trap of not questioning the environmental performance of bus services. Although carbon emissions per passenger mile are low, buses make a major negative contribution to air quality through exhaust emissions of particulates and nitrous oxide. Successive Euro engine standards have driven down emissions over time, but pollution levels are still above European Union danger levels, especially on nitrous oxide, in 32 areas of Scotland, from Crieff to Glasgow. That hidden killer is contributing to the deaths of 2,500 people every year in Scotland alone.
Dieselisation of cars has not helped. The growing congestion levels in towns mean that stationary private cars are holding up polluting buses in toxic traffic queues, and the minister mentioned the parking problems that we can have in urban areas. It is clear that we must transform our bus services from being a major part of the public health pollution crisis to being a central part of its solution. The Government’s clean air for Scotland strategy—or CAFS, as it is known—recognised that, but the Government has been desperately slow to take action and it still faces the threat of legal action under European air quality laws if it does not speed up.
Even in that context, Scotland’s first low-emission zone, in Glasgow, has got off to an extremely shaky start, being branded as a “no ambition zone” by Friends of the Earth and a “free pass” to cars by Transform Scotland. In addition, there were non-governmental organisation resignations from the Scottish Government’s air quality group just last Friday. Fifteen per cent of the bus fleet in Glasgow is already Euro 6 compliant. Simply nudging that up to 20 per cent next year represents glacial progress that will ensure that we remain in breach of European air quality laws just as we are leaving the EU, with all the ministerial pledges on regulatory alignment still ringing in our ears.
The major immediate problem that Glasgow City Council faces seems to be relatively easy to solve. The minister could really help today by giving councils and bus companies some clarity on funding. The Scottish budget, which we approved just last month, includes £10.8 million specifically for low-emission zones. It also includes provision for a future transport fund that is worth £60 million, some of which is for a green bus fund. Following suggestions by the Greens in budget negotiations, a brand-new £10 million of financial transactions has been earmarked to support bus companies to improve emissions through retrofits.
Despite the tens of millions of pounds that are about to be made available in the new financial year in just four days’ time, nobody seems to have the certainty that is needed to make ambitious plans. The Glasgow low-emission zone is the most developed, and it needs certainty on how much of the £10.8 million of funding will go there. Bus companies and even some officials in Transport Scotland do not seem to know about the £10 million-worth of loans that could be made available for bus retrofits. Can the minister commit to providing more certainty to companies and councils on the funding that will be available for them to be ambitious on air pollution?