Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 05 June 2019

05 Jun 2019 · S5 · Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Item of business

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Matheson, Michael SNP Falkirk West Watch on SPTV

Amendments 32, 220 and 201 call for the purpose of an LEZ to be included in the bill. In my view, the amendments are too restrictive. Amendment 32 would set the purpose of an LEZ around the reduction of two types of transport-related emissions: nitrogen oxide and particulate matter with a diameter that is “equal to or less than 2.5 micrometres.” As other emission types might come into scope in the future, confining the purpose of an LEZ to addressing only those two types of pollutant is far too restrictive. Amendment 201 would limit any objective that was specified for a scheme to ensure that it related to the purpose of a scheme as set out by amendment 32: improving air quality through the reduction of two types of pollutants. As before, that would produce quite restrictive boundaries in the framing of an LEZ and, in my view, would potentially compromise its effectiveness. Amendment 220 would be an alternative to amendments 32 and 201, restricting the purpose of an LEZ to the improvement “of air quality in all or part of a local authority area” only. The amendment is broader than the other two amendments in the group, but it would still result in the restriction of how LEZs could be formulated. I agree that low-emission zones must be implemented where appropriate to improve air quality. That is why section 9(4) sets out a clear requirement that local authorities put in place LEZs that help to meet “the air quality objectives prescribed under section 87(1) of the Environment Act 1995”. However, in implying that that is the sole purpose of an LEZ, amendment 220 ignores the opportunity—both now and in the future—for other benefits to be realised in some shape or form by a local authority introducing an LEZ—for example, through better place making. Such benefits might include congestion management and bus prioritisation. It is important that local authorities have the flexibility to set their scheme objectives, and thus their LEZ purpose, as they see fit. I suggest that we outline the purpose of an LEZ and how to set objectives in the forthcoming LEZ guidance. Sections 1(1) and 9(4) can also be used to explain the purpose of an LEZ. It is clear that LEZs must be put in place, first and foremost, to improve local air quality. If stakeholders continue to feel that the purpose should be outlined in the bill, that could be considered and developed in conjunction with the Government ahead of stage 3. However, as the three amendments are currently written, the purpose is too restrictive and would hinder future flexibility in the development and purpose of LEZs. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 32, 201 and 220 at this stage, but I am open to considering how they could be progressed ahead of stage 3. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendments 201 and 222. If they are pressed, I urge the committee to reject them.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 05 June 2019

In the same item of business