Yesterday in Parliament, Graeme Dey MSP spoke in his role as Convener of the Environment Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, to open a debate on the inquiry of Air Quality in Scotland.
You can watch Graeme’s speech here:
Alternatively, you can read the transcript below:
Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP):
It is my privilege as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee to open the debate on our inquiry into air quality in Scotland.
As is now widely accepted, poor air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to human health. Elevated pollution levels, particularly in urban areas with high volumes of road traffic, are linked with numerous health issues, including heart disease and lung cancer. Air pollution also has damaging effects on the environment.
In light of that, and having carried out an earlier piece of work on such matters, the committee took the health aspects as a given at the start of the inquiry. We focused the inquiry on the actions that the Government is taking to improve the air that we breathe. In particular, the committee homed in on the Government’s strategy “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to a Healthier Future” and asked whether it contains the right policies, support and incentives to adequately tackle air pollution. Having the right strategy is clearly only half the battle. We also need the mechanisms in place, led by local government and national agencies, to implement that strategy.
Before I get into the detail of the committee’s findings, I thank, on behalf of the committee members, everyone who contributed to the inquiry. A committee’s scrutiny is only as good as the evidence that it receives, and we would not have been able to produce what I hope is a comprehensive report without that help.
I acknowledge the part that David Stewart MSP played in shaping the report. He left the committee towards the end of the work that we were doing but his fingerprints are to be found on various aspects of it and, I can tell, he is chomping at the bit to make a contribution to the debate—as, indeed, is Emma Harper who, along with other former members Maurice Golden and Alexander Burnett played her part, too.
I turn to our findings. I will provide an overview of the committee’s work, as well as focusing in on a couple of areas. I am sure that colleagues will develop those areas further and, indeed, highlight other aspects of the committee’s scrutiny.
I start with the cleaner air for Scotland strategy, on which the committee heard mixed views. Although many witnesses were supportive of its high-level aspirations and agreed that it is broadly taking us in the right direction, questions were asked about whether the necessary support and incentives are in place on the ground to get us to where Scotland needs to go. Scotland needs to make improvements. There are European Union air quality targets for 2020 with which the country has to comply. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency was confident that we would meet that deadline, but others were not so sure.
We also heard that the strategy is a living document. However, we found the yearly update on the progress on its 34 actions to be insufficient. Future iterations need to be more transparent so that progress or otherwise can readily be tracked. Despite welcome assurances from ministers, we were concerned that there was a degree of disconnect between national agencies and local authorities in delivering those actions. That is particularly prescient given the current review of planning policies. If new developments take place without public transport or active travel infrastructure, we will simply be increasing the number of cars on our roads, albeit the move towards electric vehicles would mitigate the effect of that.
With regard to tangible actions, one of the main areas that we looked at was low-emission zones. Just after we launched our inquiry, the Government announced that there would be four low-emission zones in Scotland: one in Glasgow, by the end of 2018 and then one each in Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh by 2020. We therefore focused our attention on what those zones would look like in practice.
It was immediately clear that we will not have an all-singing, all-dancing LEZ in operation in Glasgow by the end of this year—not that any of us had believed that that would actually be the case. Designing an LEZ and having the technology in place is one thing, but allowing users—from bus companies and delivery firms to private car owners—to update their vehicles to comply with the requirements of an LEZ clearly requires more time. We asked what LEZs would look like, when they would be implemented and how technology would fit in. On what vehicles should be covered by the zones, the committee recommended that, in order to allow LEZs to best contribute to overall improvements in air quality, cars should be included.
It is now clear that emissions from diesel vehicles have a massive impact on the air that we breathe. Dr Scott Hamilton of Ricardo Energy & Environment said to the committee:
“I am 100 per cent sure that most of that problem has arisen from there being too much diesel in the car fleet, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the wrong technology.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 14 November 2017; c 22.]
The problem with taking action in that regard is that we would be penalising people for making a vehicle choice that they were encouraged by Government to make, when they were told that that choice would benefit the environment—I count myself among that group. However, although that might seem unfair—and, indeed, while it might undermine public trust in environmental messaging—the fact is that we need to take action.
Given the technical and financial resources that are needed to implement LEZs, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government, local authorities and relevant public agencies work jointly to ensure that all available technology is shared to help to ensure a consistent and efficient approach across the country. In evidence, the Government said that good collaboration was already under way between the cities and, when we spoke to officials from Glasgow, they clearly had a real command of the subject and a clear understanding of the issues in their city. Issues vary city by city, though, and each situation will pose different challenges.
Although there are positive indications, the committee asked for an update on all four LEZs by the end of June this year, along with an indication of the dates on which they will come into force.
On active travel, the committee was clear that, no matter how effective LEZs are or how much alternatively fuelled vehicles might reduce emissions, we need to increase the number of journeys that are made by bike to 10 per cent and beyond if we are to meet air quality and wider climate change targets. The Scottish Government’s target of 10 per cent of journeys being made by bike by 2020 was raised repeatedly during the course of the inquiry but, despite positive assurances from Transport Scotland, the committee struggled to find other evidence to back the belief that we are on course to achieve that. Indeed, the latest figures that we had, which were from 2016, showed that the number of journeys that are made by bike had risen by only 0.2 per cent in six years. At that rate of progress, it would take us until 2252 to reach the target.
We do not need to look far to see success in this area. In the Netherlands, which is widely regarded as one of the best countries in Europe for cycling, 27 per cent of all journeys are made by bike, with that figure rising to 36 per cent in Amsterdam. Although Amsterdam is not built around seven hills like Edinburgh is, the difference is nevertheless stark. Although the committee recognised and welcomed the recent sizeable increase in the active travel transport budget, it considers that segregated cycling infrastructure will be required in order to give people the confidence to get on their bikes.
Although much of the report focused on urban transport, air quality is also a rural issue, and the committee agreed that work needs to take place across the country to combat the problem. We were surprised to find that agricultural pollutants are not included in the cleaner air for Scotland strategy. We heard calls for nitrogen fertilisers to be used more efficiently and were encouraged to learn of innovative techniques that are used in other countries to help limit the amount of pollutants escaping into the atmosphere. Although there are clearly financial costs involved in introducing new farming techniques, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government provide guidance to the agriculture sector on how it might adopt those techniques, as well as consider what incentives might be offered to help accelerate the use of new methods. The strategy should also be updated to reflect how agricultural pollutants might be reduced in the coming years.
To conclude, I thank committee colleagues for their sterling and typically constructive cross-party working on the inquiry, and I welcome the opportunity to air—no pun intended—this hugely important subject in the chamber. I also look forward to perhaps hearing the cabinet secretary’s initial thinking on the inquiry report and, beyond today, the Government’s full response to our recommendations.
Presiding Officer, I realise that, in opening the debate, I am concluding a little ahead of my allotted time. That is not to curry favour with you—although that is never something to be shied away from—but to allow committee colleagues and others the optimum time to offer their thoughts on the topic.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s 1st Report, 2018 (Session 5), Air Quality in Scotland Inquiry (SP Paper 117).
