Hansard

I am pleased to speak in this afternoon’s debate on the air quality in Scotland inquiry. I thank the committee members, clerks and witnesses for the work that they have done in producing the report. As a former member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee who helped to suggest the issue of air quality, I wanted to contribute today.

I am sure that many members will agree that recognising and tackling poor air quality is vital if we are going to support healthier people, a healthier society and ultimately a healthier planet.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the cross-portfolio responsibility for air quality, and the report recommends that discussions continue with the Minister for Local Government and Housing

“to ensure the planning and placemaking ambitions set out”

in the CAFS strategy are fully realised. The report also recommends that

“Air quality must be a key component in the reviews of the national planning framework and national planning policy.”

I am reminded of a statement last year from the First Minister, who suggested that

“There may well be a merit in having individual cabinet secretaries reporting on the action within their own portfolio”

to tackle climate change. Of course, air quality is part of that.

This report on air quality covers evidence for implementing the low-emission zones in Scotland, which is extremely important. However, I would like to focus my comments on the four pages of the report that relate to other causes of air pollution. The first cause is agricultural emissions and the second is wood-burning stoves and biomass.

The eight paragraphs that are dedicated to agriculture may be a reflection on the limited information on agriculture in the CAFS strategy, so I agree with the committee’s recommendation that the strategy be updated in relation to agriculture.

As part of my work in the South Scotland region, I am aware that there are processes and products available to help to reduce agricultural emissions. We know that pH testing of soil is now pretty much widely accepted by farmers in order to increase efficiency, reduce costs and reduce greenhouse gases such as nitrogen oxide from fertiliser spread. That is good.

I know that there are biological products such as yeast for ruminants and now products that are used in the management of slurry to maintain a liquid consistency so that machinery does not block during spreading. Those slurry products provide a natural biological agitator. The biological agitator is added to the slurry stores and does not cost a lot compared with a tractor engine that is idling for multiple hours, which causes pollution, and has a mechanical agitator attached. The biological agitator saves farmers time and money and reduces diesel emissions.

Anaerobic digesters are also utilised to process slurry and harness the more potent polluter methane to generate electricity rather than allowing it to escape to the atmosphere. Incidentally, anaerobic digesters can be used on a smaller scale for waste such as dog poo in public parks to power the lights. That may encourage folk to pick up after their poopy pooch and I would encourage that.

I realise that there are cross-portfolio aspects to managing agricultural emissions between the environment and rural portfolios. As parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, I am happy to engage at any point to help support this work.

There is good news for agriculture and I echo the report’s suggestion that the Government should provide guidance to the sector on how to adopt such scientific techniques to help to improve air quality and reduce emissions from our farms.

My second point relates to wood-burning stoves. As convener of the cross-party group on lung health and as a nurse, I have a keen interest in looking at what we can do to highlight issues such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The report notes that research needs to be undertaken to look at

“the extent of pollutants emanating from wood burning stoves and biomass boilers ... so that informed decisions can be made”

on what is required to mitigate any harmful effects. I welcome that. There is already good evidence out there that particulate matter leads to lung problems. Stewart Stevenson has already talked about PM_2.5. This is a problem especially for children and other vulnerable people such as folk with asthma.

The COPD issue in the south-west of Scotland has been highlighted and expertly discussed by Finlay Carson. I am glad that he mentioned it, because I was able to help support the launch of the BREATH project last year.

I have one last point to make on active travel—on walking and cycling. I know that there is not a lot of time, but I would support the creation of a national cycle route in the south-west of Scotland so that we can have safe, segregated cycling infrastructure.

I thank the committee members and the clerks for the air quality report and I welcome the Government’s response on the action that will be taken on the report’s recommendations.