Meeting of the Parliament 17 April 2018
I congratulate all the members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee on the excellent work on the report, and I congratulate my colleague David Stewart, who was a member of the committee when that work was being done.
A number of members have said that we should not lose sight of the committee’s key recommendations and that we should ensure that the Government takes them on board. As committee convener Graeme Dey said, it is worth restating that the committee said:
“The Committee considers that, as highlighted in evidence, the Scottish Government’s yearly progress report is insufficiently clear to allow an accurate assessment of progress against the 34 original actions laid out in”
the cleaner air for Scotland strategy. That must be a key concern for Parliament, given the detail that we received from Friends of the Earth Scotland. It stated:
“Air pollution is still killing off around 2,500 people a year in Scotland and we are not on track to meet the Scottish Government’s target of clean air by 2020.”
That is quite an incredible statistic, which I had to check, because I thought that it could not be right.
The report that we are debating is crucial to the future wellbeing of the people of Scotland. The issue impacts on people here and now. As James Kelly said, The Scotsman highlighted that on its front page today.
The report says:
“the Committee recommends that a more transparent progress report is provided in future updates to show the status of the delivery against each individual action.”
We need to expect that to happen.
The report also focuses on the planning system. The Planning (Scotland) Bill is making its way through Parliament, so there is the opportunity in our legislative framework to ensure that we take a joined-up approach to the cleaner air for Scotland strategy—certainly, when it comes to planning.
I note that the committee has asked for further information on funding for local authorities to deliver the cleaner air for Scotland strategy outcomes around behavioural change. I look forward to the Government providing that information.
The report makes a number of recommendations with regard to LEZs. Friends of the Earth Scotland stated:
“For Scotland’s Low Emission Zones to be a success, emissions from buses, vans, lorries, cars, and taxis must all be cleaned up in urban centres as quickly as possible. In Glasgow, this means that within a year, all buses running through the city centre”
should be able to meet the latest emissions standards,
“and other vehicles should be included in the zone as soon as possible thereafter.”
I think that there is consensus that, if we are going to do that, we should get it right. That means addressing what Friends of the Earth Scotland referred to as the current “lacklustre” proposal that is on the table from Glasgow City Council.
I am pleased that the report picks up on the stated commitment from the current Scottish Government to phase out sales of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032. The committee made the point that we now need to see the detail of what that will involve, what the timelines are, and what measures will need to be taken to make it happen.
It is easy to look to the future and to make big commitments on the environment, but Governments and companies must be held to account now, which means setting out clearly how commitments will be met and how progress towards targets will be measured.
The report on air quality that we have debated today, and which we are being asked to note, contains very robust recommendations on ensuring that progress in delivery of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy is monitored and put on track to deliver what it says is its intention.
Although the cabinet secretary has responded to the report in Parliament today, I look forward to the Government publishing its response, because I hope that we can generate a wider debate across Scotland. The British Heart Foundation Scotland has said that air pollution is the largest environmental risk factor that is linked to deaths in the UK. It argues—I agree—that air quality monitoring information should be improved so that it reaches down to community level and is more easily accessible to the public as a whole. Given the statistics that we have received on the impact of air quality in our towns and cities, we have to raise public awareness. The more information we can make available, the better.
16:40