The next item of business is the debate on motion 11614, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, on air quality in Scotland inquiry. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons. I now call on Graham Day to speak and move the motion on behalf of the committee. Nine minutes, please, Mr Day. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my privilege as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee to open this 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 these matters, the health aspects were taken by the committee at the start of the inquiry as a given. We focused the inquiry on the actions that the Government was taking to improve the air that we breathe. In particular, the committee honed in on the Government's Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy and whether it contains the right policies, support and incentives to adequately tackle air pollution. Having the right strategy is clearly only half the battle, of course. 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, please let me, on behalf of the members, thank all those who contributed to the inquiry. The committee's scrutiny is only as good as the evidence that it receives and we wouldn't have been able to produce what I hope is a comprehensive report without that help. Let me acknowledge also the part played in shaping the report by David Stewart MSP, who left the committee towards the end of the work that we were doing but whose fingerprints are to be found on various aspects of it. Who I can tell is chomping at the bit to make a contribution to this afternoon's debate. As indeed is Emma Harper, who, along with other former members, Maurice Golden and Alexander Burnett, played their part too. Turning to her findings, I'll seek to provide an overview of the committee's work as well as focusing in on a couple of areas. I'm sure that colleagues will develop those further in the course of the afternoon and indeed highlight other aspects of the committee's scrutiny. Let me start the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy itself. The committee heard mixed views on the strategy, while many were supportive of its high-level aspirations and that it was broadly taking us in the right direction. Questions were asked about whether the necessary support and incentives were in place on the ground to get us where Scotland needs to go. Scotland does need to make improvements. There are EU air quality targets for 2020, which this country is to comply with. CEPA were confident that we would meet this deadline, others weren't so sure. We also heard that the strategy is a living document, yet we found the yearly update on the progress of its 34 actions to be insufficient. Future iterations need to be more transparent, we believe, in order that progress or otherwise can be readily tracked. In terms of its delivery, we were concerned, despite welcome assurances from ministers, that there was a degree of disconnect between national agencies and local authorities in delivering those actions. That's particularly prescient, given the current review of planning policies. If new developments take place without public transport or active travel infrastructure, we'll simply be increasing the number of cars on our roads, albeit the move towards electric vehicles would of course mitigate that. In terms of 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 LEZs in Scotland, Glasgow by the end of 2018, then Aberdeen Dundee and Edinburgh by 2020. We therefore focused our attention on what that would look like in practice. It was immediately clear that we wouldn't have an all-sing, all-dancing LEZ in operation in Glasgow by the end of this year. Not that I think any of us believe that would actually be the case. Designing an LEZ and having the technology in place is one thing, allowing users from bus companies to delivery firms to private car owners to update their vehicles to comply with LEZs, clearly requires more time. We asked what LEZs would actually look like when they would be implemented and how technology would fit in. In terms of what vehicles should be covered by the zones, the committee recommended that, for LEZs, the best contribution to overall improvements in air quality, cars should be included. It's now clear, Presiding Officer, that emissions from diesel vehicles have a massive impact on the air that we breathe. As Dr Scott Hamilton of ReCard Energy and Environment said to the committee, I'm 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 and the wrong technology. The problem here, of course, is that we would now be penalising people for making a vehicle choice. They were encouraged by government to make in the past when they were told that this would benefit the environment. I might count myself amongst that group. However, although that might seem unfair and undermine public trust and environmental messaging, the fact is that we need to do that. Given the technical and financial resources that are required to implement LEZs, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government, local authorities and relevant public agencies work jointly to ensure that any and all available technology is shared to help to ensure a consistent and efficient approach across Scotland. In evidence, the Government said that good collaboration was already underway between the cities, and when we spoke to officials from Glasgow, they clearly had a real command of the subject and a very clear understanding of the issues in their city. Issues vary city by city, though, and each will pose different challenges. While positives are there, the committee asked for an update on all four LEZs by the end of June this year, along with an indication of the dates in which they will come into force. Moving on to the issue of active travel, the committee was clear that no matter how effective LEZs are or how alternatively fuelled vehicles might be, in order to reduce emissions and meet both air quality and wider climate change targets, we need to increase the number of journeys made by bikes to 10 per cent and beyond. The Government's 10 per cent target 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. Indeed, the latest figures that we had from 2016 showed that the number of journeys made by bikes had risen only by 0.2 per cent in six years. Going by this rate, it would take us to 2,252 to reach the target. We do not need to look far to see success in this area. In the Netherlands, widely regarded as one of the best countries in Europe for cycling, 27 per cent of all journeys are made by bikes, with that figure rising to 36 per cent in Amsterdam. While Amsterdam Cwyl is not built around seven hills like Edinburgh, the difference is nevertheless stark. While the committee recognised and welcomed the recent sizeable increase in the active travel budget, it considered that segregated cycling infrastructure is going to be required to give people the confidence to get on their bikes. While 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 the agricultural pollutants that agriculture pollutants are not included in the cleaner air for Scotland strategy. We heard calls for nitrogen fertilisers to be used more efficiently, and we are encouraged to learn of innovative techniques used in other countries to help limit the amount of pollutants escaping into the atmosphere. While there are clearly financial costs involved in introducing new farming techniques, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government provide guidance to the agricultural sector and how it might adopt those, as well as consider what incentives might be offered to help to accelerate the use of new methods. The strategy should also be updated to reflect how agricultural pollutants might be reduced in the coming years. I thank committee colleagues for their stilling and, typically, constructive cross-party working on the inquiry, and 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 the recommendations. I realise that, in opening the debate, I am concluding a little ahead of my allotted time. That is not so much to curry favour with yourself, albeit that is never something to be shied away from, but to allow committee colleagues and others the optimum time to offer their thoughts on this topic. I move the motion in my name. Fletcher, of course, will get you nowhere. I call on Rosanna Cunningham, cabinet secretary, to open with the Government. Eight minutes please. There is, of course, mounting evidence of the health and environmental impacts of poor air quality. In this respect, the committee's inquiry has been timely. I welcome the opportunity that it offers to highlight the range of policies and initiatives that the Scottish Government and its partners are implementing, delivering further reductions in air pollution. Although air quality has improved markedly in recent years, and I need to state categorically for the record that Scottish air quality in particular compares well with the rest of UK and Europe, it is clear that hotspots of poorer air quality remain in many of our towns and cities. We all agree that more needs to be done. Poor air quality affects us all, but we know that vulnerable groups in society are disproportionately affected, the very young, the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. We are therefore determined to build on our achievements to date and to drive down pollution levels still further. Air quality is, of course, a cross-cutting issue, and it is key to a number of other policy areas, notably transport, climate change, land use planning, public and environmental health and, indeed, energy. Work undertaken across all of those areas has been hugely important in bringing us to where we are today. However, the complexity of effectively co-ordinating interactions between diverse and wide-ranging policies means that, in the past, we have not necessarily always gotten it right. There is no doubt in my mind that opportunities have been missed and Governments have not always realised the full potential or, indeed, avoided potential inconsistencies. That is why we published Cleaner Air for Scotland, our first distinct air quality strategy, in November 2015, to provide a focus for further action. I would just remind the chamber that that means that it is barely two years old. Cleaner Air for Scotland sets out a series of 40 key actions that will help us towards full compliance with EU and domestic air quality legislation and our vision of Scotland having the best air quality in Europe. Underpinning it is an emphasis on protecting human health and wellbeing and reducing health inequalities. In support of that, we have already made significant progress. We were the first country in Europe to legislate for the WHO guideline value for a particular matter, PM 2.5. This pollutant is of special concern for human health, as small particles can penetrate deep into the lungs. We are also establishing a PM 2.5 monitoring network to support achievement of this target, which is more than twice as stringent as the equivalent set in EU legislation. We have also created detailed individual air quality models for each of our four biggest cities within the national modelling framework. Those models will greatly assist councils in taking their local air quality action plans to the next level with more targeted policy interventions. Since publication of Cleaner Air for Scotland, we have also increased our level of ambition further, with the commitment to establish Scotland's first low emission zone by the end of 2018, which, as we now know, will be in Glasgow. That will be followed by further zones in Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh by 2020, and subsequent zones will be established in other air quality management areas by 2023, where evidence suggests that such interventions will be effective. The Scottish Government's budget, which was recently agreed by Parliament, includes new funding of £10.8 million per year to support low emission zone work. The budget also confirms a doubling of air quality monitoring funding from £0.5 million to £1 million per year, and the overall air quality budget now stands at £4.5 million per year. The intention is to allocate more than 70 per cent of the low emission zone funding—about £7.8 million—to support our bus industry to prepare for low emission zones. We believe that such funding would be enough to support the retrofitting of more than 300 buses in Glasgow, which is more than 40 per cent of the entire city centre fleet. The Minister for Transport on the Islands will say more about the work in closing, and he will pick up on very specific transport-related issues for the chamber. I want to turn to another central pillar of cleaner air for Scotland, which is effective communication. One of the issues was raised by the committee report. One of the six overarching objectives in the strategy is our Scotland, where all citizens are well informed, engaged and empowered to improve our air quality. Last year, the Scottish Government helped fund and develop a permanent interactive air quality exhibit at the Glasgow Science Centre. Together with SEPA, we are now building on the success of this by developing a mobile version of the exhibit to be taken around the country. That will help to demonstrate the actions that we can all take to improve air quality. We hope to launch the mobile exhibit later in the year, in conjunction with the second clean air day, which is to take place on 21 June. I hope that members will look out for that coming into their own local areas. For the inaugural clean air day last summer, I visited Shane's primary school in Edinburgh, where I was hugely impressed with the knowledge and engagement of the pupils in relation to air quality. During the visit, SEPA conducted a session using the excellent air quality education package that they have developed, just one of many events that made this first clean air day such a success. The aim for this year's clean air day is to be even bigger and better with planning of the programme well under way. Again, I think that we can all play a part in this, and I would strongly encourage members to be involved when that is flagged up. Although the current focus within cleaner air for Scotland is very much on transport, that was a deliberate decision. That continues to be the most important air pollution source in our towns and cities. We have to remember that other pollutant sources also impact on health and the environment. As we make progress with implementing transport-related actions, we will begin to focus more attention on those other sources. However, I want to use this opportunity to highlight a couple of the things that we are doing already in relation to issues that the committee has drawn attention to in its report. Agriculture is one such issue. We are working to establish best practices for slurry application and storage to reduce emissions, while at the same time ensuring that this is properly co-ordinated with greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The committee has also rightly drawn attention to the issue of wood burning. Jointly with the other UK Administrations, we are currently undertaking research to look at attitudes and behaviours relating to domestic combustion. We hope to be in a position to report on this research later in this year. Whilst we have many reasons to be optimistic that we are now making progress in improving the quality of our air, it must also be acknowledged that new and existing challenges remain. When thinking about new challenges, the issue of the UK's exit from the EU features highly. As in many other policy areas, legislation established at European level has created a framework within which international co-operation has been a major driver in reducing emissions of air pollutants both in Scotland and further afield. That is particularly important in the case of air pollution, which of course is transboundary by its nature. It is essential that we do not lose that following EU exit. The Scottish Government is absolutely determined to ensure that we maintain our environmental standards in which a scenario may emerge in the future. Members, as I am, will also be aware of the recent series of judicial reviews that were brought by Client Earth over the UK's failures to comply with EU air quality targets. We are committed to securing compliance with EU obligations by 2020. I think that Cleaner Air for Scotland was a commendable collaborative effort involving the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland, Health Protection Scotland, CEPA, local authorities and many other organisations across the public and private sectors. I expect that partnership working to continue. Successfully delivering the remit of the strategy will be challenging but achievable with a concerted effort to continue working together. I will be writing in more detailed fashion in response to the specific recommendations. I call Donald Cameron to open the Conservatives. Seven minutes are there about. I refer to my register of interests in the fact that I am a non-executive director of Edinburgh worldwide, which has investments in electric vehicles, fuel cell companies and automotives. I am delighted to open for the Scottish Conservatives in this important committee debate. I must confess that, having only been on the committee since June last year, I have not been party to the full inquiry that has taken place on air quality, which I regret. Nevertheless, during my time on the committee, I have heard a great deal of evidence to know that this is an issue that requires decisive action. That was put firmly into context when the committee visited Custorfin in here in Edinburgh and heard about the damaging effects that poor air quality is having on people there. It brought home to me the sheer misery that the effects of unclean air can have on communities. It was particularly instructive on that visit to speak to schoolchildren about their journey to and from school. If anything should persuade us of the need for action, then it is the effects that poor air quality is having on the next generation. Indeed, given that the legal limit of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre is 40 micrograms, it was very worrying to note that certain areas of Scotland's three larger cities exceeded that limit, with Hope Street and Glasgow sitting at 58 micrograms. It is very striking to someone who represents the Highlands and Islands region, which by all accounts has some of the cleanest air in Scotland, to be presented with evidence like this from our major conurbations. In terms of the committee's report, I would like to thank my colleagues and the convener on their committee for the work that everyone has done to get to this point. I would like to pay tribute to the clerks and staff who work with the committee for putting together this extensive report. We, on those benches, welcome the conclusions highlighted in the report, and I truly believe that when it comes to our environment, there is a clear consensus across the chamber to take real and ambitious action, which is to be welcomed. I welcome also the cabinet secretary's acknowledgement in her remarks that this is a cross-portfolio matter, and we have to think about this across the various portfolios that exist. I would like to concentrate my remarks, Deputy Presiding Officer, on low-emission zones, LEZs. On those benches, we are broadly supportive of those proposals in principle and the effect they seek to achieve. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that the committee heard that tackling air pollution in Scotland's towns and cities will have immeasurable benefits for communities and help tackle some of the most prevalent diseases in our society, including lung disease, for example. It is also encouraging to see leading organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses coming up with solutions for businesses to begin to adapt to the changes before they fully come into force. The FSB suggested that businesses should do a number of things. They should check the emission standards of their vehicles, invest in vehicles that comply with Euro 6 and Euro 4 standards and investigate scrappy schemes, for example, on old vehicles. We need to continue to raise awareness of those proposals so that Scotland is not just ready for such measures but can get behind them, too. There is a huge job, in my view, to do in our communities in persuading the public to back those measures. Again, I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary has said about communication and its importance. While we understand the need to make progress, there are concerns—it is fair to say that they are shared by others across the political spectrum—until recently, the Government has not provided information on issues of technological infrastructure and timescales for implementation. The Eclair Committee noticed in its inquiry the concerns over the tight timescale around the introduction of LEZs and whether local authorities have the resources to bring them fully into operation. We know from London's experience that it can take up to 18 months to implement a similar system. That was despite the fact that London was able to piggyback on the existing camera network and system used by the congestion charge in London, which incidentally took around two years. We have already expressed concern that the deadline of December 2018 for Glasgow LEZ, since that has been announced, there is simply not enough time to put in place the appropriate infrastructure and back office system over the course of the next eight months to the end of this year. We believe that timescales for the implementation of LEZs should be clear and realistic in order to allow sufficient time for industry, residents and small businesses to adapt. We also believe that the Government must ensure that plans for other LEZs in the remaining three cities are properly articulated and communicated but are also practical and achievable. It is clear that, if there is a lack of detail on plans or on costs, that will create a level of insecurity. I accept that there has been a recent funding announcement of £10.8 million and I welcome that. We remain concerned to learn that, as of 2016, there are a total of almost 800,000 privately owned diesel cars that are not compliant to Euro 6, as well as almost 400,000 privately owned petrol cars that are not compliant to Euro 4 registered in Scotland. That equates to 53.3 per cent of the total private car stock. Although not all of those drivers will be affected by the proposed LEZ areas, it is clear that a significant proportion of the public will be required to comply. We are also concerned that the current approach taken towards LEZs may create unnecessary confusion over high costs for small businesses, in particular bus and freight operators. That consternation was recognised in the Eclare committee, and it is worth setting out some of the concerns of, for example, the FSB, McGill's bus service and the road haulage association, who said that they were worried about the financial burden placed on businesses. We welcome, as I have said, the recent funding announcement, but we do suggest that further support will be required to give confidence to an industry that is at times skeptical and a public that is not, in my view, yet prepared for the LEZs that are coming. While we have many legitimate concerns, we are in principle supportive of those changes, and we look forward to working with all parties to deliver an LEZ system that works for drivers and for the public. In conclusion, I have scratched the surface and concentrated on an LEZ, so I hope that others will talk about active travel. We welcome the report and its recommendations. We are committed to reducing our carbon footprint, reducing the dependency on fossil fuels and tackling the scourge of poor air quality. That is one step forward. However, we need to see greater clarity from the Government on how many of their proposals will be met and implemented. Only then will we be able to see and reap the benefits of a cleaner Scotland. I thank the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and their clerks for the comprehensive and insightful report. As you will know, I was a member of the committee until early this year. I thank the convener for his very kind words. I also enjoyed working with him and the rest of the committee. The case for today is, how do we improve air quality in Scotland? We know from Friends of Air Scotland that air pollution from particulate matter alone—PM 2.5—is responsible for 2,000 early deaths in Scotland each year. If we include exposure to nitrogen dioxide as well, that leads to 2,500 early deaths each year. That is more than all the people dying in road accidents. Air pollution, if you look at the wider issue, is the top 2 of avoidable deaths worldwide. Truly is an invisible killer. It causes 670,000 people to be at high risk due to cardiovascular conditions. Within 65 years after air pollution first hit the headlines in the UK, that is a statistic of which no one can be proud of. Like many in this chamber, I have been a champion of low-emission zones using many debates in this chamber to promote them as one of the many solutions needed for tackling air pollution and climate change. I was therefore delighted to see the Scottish Government finally put in motion the steps to bring the first one in in Scotland. As we know, the Scottish Government's 2017-18 programme for government undertakes to create an LAZ in one city—like to be Glasgow by the end of 2018—and to have other LAZs in Scotland's other four cities by 2020. Will that be delivered to plan? Well, SEPA, in its written evidence, stressed the importance of not letting timescale slip due to operational reasons, such as procurement, financing, staffing and legal considerations. Donald Cameron mentioned the evidence from McGill's bus services. If I can just quote the specific evidence that he was referring to, it was concerned that it would be bankrupt as a result of a last-minute LAZ scheme when planning and communication should have taken place five years ago. It also highlighted the additional costs of running retrofitted vehicles that should bring in fares going up to be the additional costs. I also believe, and I think that Donald Cameron touched on this as well, that enforcement of LAZs is vital. I have also been a big enthusiast of what has happened in London, and the use of automatic number plate recognition is absolutely key. The minister may mention this in the wind-up, whether it will be adapted fully for Glasgow. Will there be a leading time to allow bus fleets to be upgraded? As Pastor Transport Scotland said in the report, otherwise buses might not be available in those areas and therefore you can have the perverse situation in which you introduce an LAZ and it encourages car use. While low-emission zones do not solve air pollution alone, they have the capacity to be one piece in the puzzle that can make a real difference to the health of people living in our cities and towns. Active travel is also crucially important. While low-emission zones will reduce traffic pollution in towns and cities, it is just one path in the step to cleaner air. The aim of LAZs will also help for the model shift to more active travel, as well as increased use of public transport. It will not happen overnight. We need better investment in cycle paths, pedestrian walkways, clear signage and driver safety are needed, as well as winning the hearts and minds of the public for increased active and public transport. It is very well and good to talk about active travel, but what if it is not safe to walk and cycle in your local neighbourhood, for example? The Scottish Government's target is 10 per cent of everyday journeys by bike by 2020. Can it progress? That looks a big target, but an important target. Labour wants to bring into force municipal bus service through bus regulation, which would encourage a step change away from private car use. Proper regulation of buses would allow them to be run in public interest rather than private shareholders, allowing them to be cheaper, more effective as well as more investment into making them greener. Of course, there are a great many health conditions linked to living and working in air-pluted areas, heart conditions, lung problems, asthma, cancer and even dementia. There are often felt too much by the most vulnerable in society, older people's well children, people of chronic health problems and those living in our most deprived areas. We need a step change to model shift to active travel, to make the best practice in Europe, where in cities such as Amsterdam, 70 per cent of all journeys are made by bike. We can have no debate in this chamber without a mention of Brexit, the ghost at every feast, but many of the laws that put pressure on the UK and Scottish Government regarding air quality come from EU law. For example, the recent beach of the European ambient air quality directive, which came from legal action against the UK Government by client earth. It is therefore vital that we put into legislation before then, legislation that maintains those commitments to better air quality. That is why I support the British Heart Foundation calls for a new clean air act in devolved administrations. Will the European Court of Justice apply to the future of UK environmental beaches? The jury is out, but the UK Government made it clear that they are leaving your atom because of ECJ geo restriction. Is there not a case for a Scottish environmental court to replace the European Court of Justice as we leave? Who is going to guard the guards? While everyone in the country should be fully committed to improving air quality for the health of the nation, that added pressure for enforcement from the EU, has added a sentence for ambitious targets and strategies that we are currently not meeting, so any loss of pressure could have devastating consequences. In conclusion, air pollution is a public health emergency. It is also a continuing health inequality, hitting, as I said, the old, young, the poor and the disadvantaged hardest. This is an excellent report. Congratulations to the clear committee and I hope that the Scottish Government accepts the recommendations in full. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I call on Mark Ruskell to open for the greens. Mr Ruskell, five minutes are there about, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I believe that this is Holyrood's first ever air quality inquiry and I believe that it provides an excellent starting point for further scrutiny across this Parliament in much the same way as the first inquiry into climate change did over a decade ago now. The figure of 2,500 deaths every year in Scotland related to air pollution should be our strongest call to action. The urgency to tackle this public health crisis is reflected in the EU's targets on nitrous oxide, which we have so far failed to meet in Scotland on doubly costing lives. Of course, it is not just the big cities either. The number of air quality management areas, triggered by dangerous levels of particulates and nitrous oxide in towns continues to rise, not fall. The Government's Clean Air for Scotland strategy has the right approach, but it must be strengthened with the right actions and budget to meet EU targets in less than two years' time. Like Dave Stewart, I doubt whether the European Court of Justice will still be able to take infraction proceedings if we fail to meet those targets, but establishing a successor body to hold Governments to account on the health of our environment will be absolutely critical post Brexit. There are many recommendations in this report that should help to refocus the Government's strategy. At eight low emission zones, it was a welcome announcement in the programme for government that the number of LEZs was to be increased from a single pilot to four, but it became clear during the inquiry that cutting pollution from the bus fleet will be the foundation for every successful LEZ. The inclusion of cars, taxis and HGVs coming as early as possible on the path of the buses. The confederation of passenger transport also told the inquiry that the CAF strategy had so far failed to deliver, with no review of the bus investment fund, the operators grant, the guidance and the updated legislation, which was promised to be in place by 2016. As I highlighted in the recent Green Party debate on buses, there has also been confusion around funding, which I believe has hampered the early planning of a more ambitious Glasgow low emission zone. I was encouraged that the day after that debate, the transport minister announced that 70 per cent of the £10.8 million fund for LEZ delivery this year can be used for bus retrofits, which means that we could have around three quarters of the fleet running clean by next year in Glasgow. However, there is still no sign of a further £10 million of loan funds agreed as part of this year's budget, which could be used to accelerate the delivery of engine and exhaust retrofit work in the other three cities, getting a head start on wider LEZ roll-out. I acknowledge that plans, of course, change and evolve, but it emphasises the importance of an annual report on the Clean Air for Scotland strategy that can make it clear to Parliament where the effort will be going and where and why programmes need revision ahead of the annual budget process. I would like to mention, in the remaining time, a couple of other themes among the many that we looked at. When we consider air quality, we are mostly talking about communities and how they work, and the trip that we made to talk to residents in Custorfin underlined just how complex this is, how parking is enforced, how the traffic lights are phased, the school run, how planning decisions are made, all impact on air quality. It is obvious that if we create an urban environment that is easy to get around on foot or by bike, where vehicle speeds are safer and where there is good infrastructure for walking and cycling, it will make our towns and cities healthy and more attractive places to spend time and money in. The planning process is critical, and both the Cabinet Secretary and Transport Minister highlighted to the inquiry the need for air quality to be a bigger consideration. I would like to ask if the promised discussions have been held with the planning minister over planning reform, because we need to be making healthy places rather than locking in pollution and ill health for generations to come. Finally, I would like to highlight the role of agriculture, which adds to the background levels of nitrogen pollution. It is yet another area alongside climate change and water quality, where a nitrogen budget for Scotland could make a big difference. It needs our rural cabinet secretary to finally grasp that proportionate regulation to deal with nitrogen pollution can only bring cost savings to farmers while protecting our soils, rivers, climate and air. The inquiry is an important milestone on our journey to Scotland, where deaths from air pollution are consigned to the history books, alongside deaths from cholera and tuberculosis. It will need a renewed focus from government to make that a reality. Liam McArthur told Liberal Democrats that five minutes are thereabouts. There is a little time in hand for everyone. I start by thanking and congratulating Graham Day and his committee colleagues for their inquiry and the detailed work that they have done in this area for the reasons that Mark Ruskell said. I think that this provides a very useful platform for taking forward the Parliament's work in this area and an attempt to make the clean air for Scotland strategy deliver on its ambitions. As the MSP for Orkney, as we were reflecting in the coffee lounge earlier, the lack of clean air may not be a problem in my part of the world, but the speed at which it moves most certainly is. That is a shared interest for all of us. It addresses our concerns about climate change and the environment. The health objectives of Catherine Byrne from the Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland remind us that air pollution should be treated as a health emergency. That is a clarion call for action. In the time available, I want to touch on three issues that are addressed in the report—the policy cohesion, low-emission zones and cars. On the first, clearly this is an area where we need to see a joined-up approach across government, as the cabinet secretary rightly acknowledged in her comments. That touches on areas of policy—environment, transport, health, agriculture, local government, education and beyond. It cannot simply be for one minister or one department. The committee rightly points to the need for air quality to be a key component in the reviews of national planning frameworks and national planning policy. Without it being embedded in planning and placemaking, it is difficult to see how we achieve the objectives of CAFs. To the joined-up approach, there needs to be between national and local government. There seems to be implications in the committee's report about conflicting interests across local authorities. There is no doubt that council budgets are under pressure and therefore it may be difficult in some circumstances for them to be making investments where they are making difficult decisions on funding in other areas. However, we need to find mechanisms, including through funding, to ensure that at national and local levels we are seeing complementary and certainly not contradictory action. In relation to low-emission zones, that is a poster child for the Government's clean air strategy. I congratulate Glasgow on being the first taxi of the rank, but we need to recognise that this LEZ will set the tone. It will be ambitious and encourage others to raise their game. We run the risk of providing cover and an excuse for others to follow suit. It is good to see the clear committee report support a strong stance on that. It is right that, in order to make a meaningful contribution, those zones have to, at the very least, include private vehicles for the reasons that David Stewart touched on. Friends of the Earth have pointed out that, since the publication of the committee's report, Glasgow Council has come forward with perhaps less than ambitious proposals. There have been attempts to try and beef those up, but they still seem to fall far short of the commitments that were made by the Government. More importantly, we have run the risk of leaving levels of air pollution by 2020 still illegal. We have seen environment link resign from the clean air for Scotland Government group last month, all of which sets a mood and a tone. The cabinet secretary has pointed out that the subsequent clarifications around the budget is helpful and, hopefully, that will allow an opportunity for Glasgow to be, shall I say, miles bolder. Finally, in relation to cars, I welcome the commitment that the Government has set out in relation to the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032. I think that that is an achievable timeframe. As Jeanna Hanrahin from WWF has made clear, decarbonising our transport sector in 15 years will create new jobs, cut emissions and clean up our polluted air. Jeanna Hanrahin pointed out that that will have an effect in accelerating the shift to electric vehicles that sets us up to lead in the development of the technologies of the future. As the transport minister will not need reminding, I represent a part of the world that is leading the way when it comes to EV ownership. However, it is important that we see that cascading more widely across the country in the years ahead. The committee calls for the Scottish Government to set out a timeline for reaching that goal so that we can see the milestones along the way, including the legislative and non-legislative measures incentives needed. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the charging infrastructure is absolutely key, but it needs to be not only extensive but reliable. We need to see charge points factored into new house builds, including tenements, and we need to see non-financial incentives used as well, including things like reduced parking charges, exemptions from tolls and the like. However, in conclusion, Graham Day reminded us in opening the debate that the response to the Government's clean air strategy has been a bit mixed. There is an opportunity to respond to that. Air pollution is the greatest environmental challenge to public health that we face. We need to see the Government match the rhetoric with the necessary mix of ambitions and urgencies. Caffs remain the best means of achieving that. I hope that the Ecclare Committee and the Parliament will continue to play their role in ensuring that that happens. Open debate for the avoidance of the doubt is still speeches of five minutes with just a few minutes in hand for interventions. I call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The outset of my sole contribution to the committee's report was to join the committee in time to get my name on the report with the photograph. My contribution to the report otherwise is entirely nil. I thank all those who preceded me on the committee for the hard work that they have done. By the way, you missed a typo at paragraph 50, which has been cut and pasted into the executive summary. Let's not worry too much about that. Donald Cameron does not need to worry too much about his late arrival. I came to it much later. I want, as an asthmatic, to focus on the health issues for people who have issues with their lungs of one sort or another. I particularly welcome the focus on diesel cars as contributors to poor air quality.  I admit that that was done for reasons quite separate from pollution, but at least it means that I am slightly ahead of the game. The cleaner air for Scotland, the road to a healthy future report from the Government, is now about halfway through its five-year period. It was published in November 2015. Like others, I want to focus on the particulate matter 2.5, which is 2.5 micrometres across the particles concerned.  You need an electron microscope to actually see it. It is something that, because of its small size, has a disproportionate effect. In the Government's paper on the subject, it highlighted that the Scottish objectives in relation to PM 2.5 are similar to the WHO guidelines. That is very welcome. I will refer to where WHO is going with that, because it is becoming more aware through the research that it is co-ordinating and reporting on of the impacts of PM 2.5. It is perhaps not too surprising that those are tiny particles. The smaller a particle is, the greater is the ratio between the surface area and the contents. In other words, there is a lot of surface area and not much content. What that means is that it is much more likely to stick to human flesh, particularly in the lungs. Being a small particle, it will go right down to the bottom of the lungs, to the bronchial tubes and beyond. Therefore, it is much less likely to be expelled than larger particles. That is certainly part of why the PM 2.5 particles are so important. The World Health Organization review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution, which is a technical report, is a very meaty document with well over 300 pages. There are a lot of interesting things going right the way back. They refer to research right across Europe and Canada, in North America, on the effects of the PM 2.5. A systematic review reported significant associations between exposure to PM 2.5 birth outcomes, including low birth weight, pre-term births, small for gestational ed births, besides anything that is directly associated with that. Even now, in more recent studies, research has been done that shows to be exposed to those very small particles even for a single hour. One hour has measurable effects on lung function in a way that is associated with mortality and morbidity. The evidence for larger particles is not so clear, but it is a very serious issue indeed that we need to be very careful about. Even healthy people are affected, and people who have already got cardiac or lung issues are affected disproportionately even worse. There is also one area of limited research, which is the interaction between electrostatic charge and very small particles. The WHO report gives eight areas that are requiring further research. Rural areas are better. When my wife puts the washing out in Bamsa, it smells beautiful and there's no smut. If it's out in West Lothian, it comes in black and smelly. Live in the country, live longer. Have you spilled it? I called Jamie Greene to be followed by Gillian Martin. My speech is wet, but I will get through this. I will try not to touch anything electrical for the next few minutes. I agree with Stuart Stevenson that we should live in the countryside, but unfortunately not all of us can and not all of us do. It is interesting to note in the league table of our most polluted cities where those streets are, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee. I will focus less on the science but more on the policy in my comments today. It is no great surprise that today's Scotsman's headline is that air pollution levels in Scotland are now a medical emergency. I start my comments by saying that that perhaps surprises many people. Scotland's economy and industry has changed so much over the recent years. If you look at the industries of Edinburgh and Glasgow, the heavy industrial industries that were deemed to pollute those cities have largely been replaced by the service industries. I think that there is still a lack of general understanding in the public as to why air pollution levels are so high, what is causing it and what has been done about it. It is one of those issues that you do not think about until it affects you personally. It affects me personally in the sense that my mother has COPD and she, like many who have asthma or other similar conditions, will know the very obvious and direct effect that air quality has on your day-to-day life. Thankfully, she lives in part of the country, which benefits from more than its fresh air or fresh sea air, but a day trip to Glasgow, Edinburgh with her, can be difficult and, on occasion, impossible. Hope Street in Glasgow is the most polluted in Scotland. Our six most polluted streets in Scotland are in the three aforementioned cities. In Scotland, over 2,500 deaths per year are associated with air pollution. Worldwide air pollution causes 25 per cent of strokes, 23 per cent of heart disease and 14 per cent of lung cancers. Given that Scotland already has the highest age-standardised premature death rates for cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and strokes, it is vital that we address one of the key contributing factors. It is suggested by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Pollution at UK Body that particle matter pollution, as it is known, is attributable to an average life loss of around three to four months in Scotland and accounts of around 5 per cent of deaths in Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is not an insignificant number. It is suggested that, by reducing the level by even just 10 micrograms per cubic metre, we will have a greater impact on human life than by eliminating passive smoking, for example. It is not just healthcare that is affected by this. It is also our economy and, specifically, our rural economy. Poor air quality hurts crop yields to the tune of around £183 million a year. Given that Scotland, in Scotland over 60 per cent of the land is used for grazing crops and agriculture, surely there is also an economic argument for improving air quality. In the short time I have, I would also like to touch on some transport issues. Transport really does have a key role to play in the reduction of CO2 emissions. It is in that vein that I welcome the LEZs. As Donald Cameron said, there are still some very genuine concerns over the rule out of it. Eight months away in Glasgow it is not far away. I am not convinced that the public fully understands what is coming to them, especially those who have already made spending decisions or who are locked into leases or contracts on small vans or vehicles. Do they know where or when they can enter? Do they know the repercussions of doing so? Communication absolutely is vital here. I am still not convinced that we are there yet with that. The Government is doing good work. There is no point in denying that. The introduction of electrification on our train network is welcome. The class 385s will see replacement of diesel engines. Yes, that is welcome. Yes, there are some new CalMac ferries coming through the system, which are hybrid, but there are 28 routes in operation. Yes, many buses are cleaner and greener in our cities, but not everywhere. Yes, many new aircraft are lighter and using less fuel. Based on the rate of progress that was mentioned previously, it will take Scotland 239 years to reach its current target of 10 per cent of journeys to be taken by bikes. That is something that the committee noted. There are additional benefits from promoting active travel, not just to health and economy, but also to help us to meet our climate change targets. I think that improving transport options can go hand in hand with our environmental ambition. I do not think that there is any single policy instrument that will fix the problems that we face with air pollution, but it is vital that the Scottish Government is entirely focused on improving air quality in Scotland, but also that it does so in a deliverable and reasonable way. If it does so, it will have my support and the support of those benches. I call Gillian Martin to be followed by Colin Smyth. Excuse me a minute. Is Mr Smyth in the chamber? No. Where is he? I am not calling him. I am calling Gillian Martin to be followed by Finlay Carson. I am not a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, but I followed the inquiry with interest as parliamentary liaison officer to the council. I wanted to take part today mainly to commend their work but also to praise the efforts of local groups helping to improve air quality, often with Government assistance as part of a wider effort to tackle climate change in my constituency. Keep Scotland Beautiful managed the climate change fund, which grants money with contributions from the European regional development fund to projects at a local level. Projects such as the Beattonhall community climate action project in Methlick and the Geary Sports Centre goes Green project in Inverroori. Those projects will improve the energy efficiency of local amenities and they also provide home efficiency advice and fuel efficient driver training to the public. Aberdeenshire East also includes Feta Angus, a small village that has its own wind turbine and community energy scheme. Projects such as those with financial support provided by public money can cumulatively help to improve air quality throughout Scotland and, just as important, get communities engaged in playing their part. I would also like to highlight local efforts that encourage others to get involved and make their own contribution. Small actions that all mount up and community initiatives and school initiatives that encourage behaviour change and the buy-in that will promote the kind of mindset change will need if we are to meet our targets and protect the environment for the children's future. As a judge on the Dragon's Den part of the Girls and the Energy event, I was struck by the fact that all the initiatives and presentations that the girls brought forward were all to do with renewable energy and reducing pollution. Not one was talking about any kind of carbon based initiatives at all, so that just goes to show you that young people are grasping this already, that that's the future of energy. Of course, large initiatives coming to fruition now have an immediate impact. The installation of the coastal Balmedy in my constituency of the world's most powerful single wind turbine is an example. Just one rotation of its blades is enough to power a household for an entire day. It's one of 11 turbines that will form the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre and it's expected to annually displace around 135,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and remove the equivalent of around 740,000 cars from the UK roads throughout its lifetime. Of course, I also welcome the promised low emission zone in Aberdeen city centre and I've already noticed in the strategic work that's been done to keep traffic away from the centre of the city, a situation that's been long overdue, not just for environmental reasons but for safety reasons. I also welcome the investment in local rail infrastructure. The doubling of the rail track between Aberdeen and Verouly should lead to a massive reduction in the number of commuters on the roads and a consequent reduction in emissions. I'd also like to highlight the decision of the Scottish Government to double investment to £80 million in a range of measures to support active travel. A lot of people have mentioned that already. Of course, by creating safe, segregated walking and cycling infrastructure in towns and cities across Scotland, we can make our towns and cities friendlier and safer spaces for pedestrians and cyclists and we can also encourage a reduction in car usage. The committee's report mentions that more focus should be on the impact of agriculture on air quality. I note that the NUFS accepts that new post-Brexit environmental measures should address air quality. I'm also aware that the practice mentioned in the report of spreading manure into rather than on to soil to limit the volume of pollutants lost to the atmosphere is already in use across my constituency. We must also recognise that improvements in air quality can be achieved as a by-product of increasing internet access. Although the committee has not really mentioned that, it is significant. By increasing Scotland's connectivity, we can increase the potential that people can work from home rather than commuting to work. It's particularly important in my constituency where Aberdeen City seems to be a mecca for all work that happens, and I'd like to see it spread more around the constituency. Therefore, I welcome the Scottish Government taking the lead in this issue, going further and faster than the UK Government, and committing to ensuring that 100 per cent of premises have access to superfast broadband. As members know, I'm passionate about flexible working and encouraging new business start-up, and part of that is allowing more people to forgo commuting in favour of working closer to where they live, whether that's access and remote working or setting up a business. I'd also like to finish by saying that we all have to play our own individual part. I'm playing my individual part by six months into a four-year lease for the most ecologically friendly hybrid car on the market, with a view to in four years' time going fully electric at a point at which we've got the infrastructure and the constituency to support that. I'm going to call Finlay Carson to be followed by Emma Harper, then to be followed by Colin Smith, so I keep a political order. Finlay Carson, follow by Emma Harper, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this air quality debate as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Although I represent a very rural constituency, Scotland's most beautiful, that of Galloway and West Dumfries, I'm acutely aware of the challenges urban communities face on a daily basis where many streets are still breaking the European air quality directives. However, there are serious questions to be asked regarding rural air quality, and I'd like to use my speech today to highlight how the rural region I represent is facing some great challenges surrounding air pollution. Earlier this year, at the Scottish Parliament, I held a very positive meeting with those behind the Borders and regions airways training hub Breathe project, a cross-border partnership involving the University of the West of Scotland, the Queen's University in Belfast and Dildoc Institute for Technology in the Republic of Ireland. The project, which is backed by over 7 million euros of funding, is designed to look at lung disease in the west of Scotland and Ireland. I live in the region, which I imagine you'll all be shocked to hear, has the highest level of COPD. The highest level is not just in Scotland, not just in the UK or even Europe. South-west Scotland and Ireland has the highest levels of COPD in the world, with a particular hotspot in Stranraer, so I'm going to disagree with Mr Stevenson by saying that it's always good to live in the countryside. I've facilitated a stakeholders meeting this week. Last week, we were committed to progressing this in other projects, which would allow world-class researchers working directly in Dumfries and Galloway to identify and address the causes, treatment and prevention of COPD. It may not all be down to air quality, but it most certainly plays a significant part, and we need to identify what part it plays. The Government could assist in that process by installing air quality monitors in Cairnryan, home to two of our busiest ferry terminals, particularly when shipping is now recognised as a major contributor to air pollution. We've also heard from the Minister of Public Health, Maureen Watt, that there's now a possible link between air pollution and Alzheimer's. As deputy convener of the cross-party group in dementia, I'm also keen to highlight that there's a higher rate of people living with dementia in Dumfries and Galloway than the Scottish average. Resources are already stretched across the rural communities, but we must ensure that we are, as well as supporting our local health services, urgent action is taken to implement a fit-for-purpose air policy covering rural areas as well. All of us are keen to promote active lifestyles, and that can be delivered hand in hand with reducing levels of air pollution. The benefits of walking and cycling can only be realised if we have the resources to deliver modal shift by making active travel the easy option on a daily basis. Dumfries and Galloway Council's ambitious active travel plans are already delivering results. Over a quarter of journeys in Dumfries and Galloway are taken on foot, higher than the 23 per cent across the country. Furthermore, 38.9 per cent of residents in Dumfries and Galloway have access to bicycles compared to the national average of 34.9. Of course, we also need to look at ways of reducing emissions while still travelling by car, which is all but essential in rural constituencies like mine. I believe that we need to accelerate the installation of electrical charging points for vehicles in rural areas with an ambition to phase out petrol and diesel cars, but we really should consider giving rural communities incentives to own electric cars. While I recognise a major challenge facing our cities when it comes to emissions, our rural communities cannot be left at a disadvantage. I hope that the committee's inquiry has highlighted to the Scottish Government that there remains a lot of work to be done in a number of areas of Scotland if it is to truly get serious with air quality. There are serious doubts over who will deliver those policies and when they will be implemented and if the resources are there to do it. A serious concern for both our urban and rural communities. The clear committee report is an important step forward in challenging what has been done to tackle air quality and I have been pleased to be part of that inquiry. We will continue to monitor what steps the Government has taken in order to meet European directives, which they have missed for far too long. I hope that our next inquiry will be able to report on significant improvements. Emma Harper is followed by Colin Smyth. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate on the air quality in Scotland inquiry. I would also like to thank the committee members' clerks and witnesses for the work that they have done to create this 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 vitally important 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 does recommend that discussions continue with the minister for local government and housing. That will ensure that planning and placemaking ambitions set out in the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy are fully realised and 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 when the First Minister suggested that there may be merit in having individual cabinet secretaries reporting on the action within their own portfolio to tackle climate change and of course air quality is part of that. The air quality report covers evidence for implementing 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. Number 1, agricultural emissions and number 2, wood burning stoves and biomass. The eight paragraphs dedicated to agriculture may be a reflection on the limited information in the Cleaner Air for Scotland CAF strategy relating to agriculture, so I would agree with the committee's recommendation to update the CAF strategy for agriculture. As part of my work in the South Scotland region, I am aware that there are processes and products available to help reduce agricultural emissions. We know that PHS 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 used for ruminants and products used in the management of slurry to maintain a liquid consistency so that machinery does not block during spreading. Slurry products provide a natural biological agitator. The equipment or the biological agitator that is added to the slurry stores does not cost a lot compared to a tractor engine that is idling for multiple hours, which is causing pollution with a mechanical agitator attached. It saves the farmers time, money and reduces diesel emissions. Anaerobic digesters are also utilised to process slurry and harness the more potent polluter methane, which generates electricity rather than allow 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. I encourage that. I realise again that there are cross-portfolio aspects to manage agricultural emissions between the environment and the rural portfolio. As parliamentary liaison officer to the rural cabsec, I am happy to engage at any point to help support this work. There is good news for agriculture and I echo the report suggesting, adding the government to 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 that I was referring to is relating to wood burning stoves. As convener of the long health cross-party group and a nurse, I have a keen interest in looking at what we can do to highlight issues such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD. The report notes that research needs to be undertaken to look at the extent of pollutants emanating from wood stoves and biomass boilers so that informed decisions can be made or required to mitigate any harmful effects. I welcome this. There is already good evidence out there that particulate matter leads to lung problems. Stuart Stevenson has already talked about PM 2.5. This is especially a problem in children and other vulnerable persons such as folk with asthma. The cause of COPD, which has been discussed very expertly by Finlay Carson, has been highlighted in the south-west of Scotland. I am glad that Mr Carson has mentioned this because I was able to help support the launch of the breath project last year. The one last additional point that I would like to make is active travel, 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 cycle infrastructure. Once again, I thank the committee members and the clerks, and I welcome a response from the Government as to what action will be taken from the recommendations made in this air quality report. I would like to begin by commending members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for their work on the inquiry. The final report is a comprehensive and insightful examination of the Government's cleaner air for Scotland strategy. It will play an important role in informing future work on the matter. As a substitute member to the committee, I have followed progress on the inquiry closely and many of the issues covered by the report cut across the work of other committees, highlighting the need for a cross-government approach to tackling the problem of air pollution. As a member of the rural economy committee, which deals with transport and is convener of the cross-party group on heart disease and stroke, I particularly want to focus my brief comments today on the negative impact on our health of air pollution and the important role of transport choices play in minimising that impact. The link between poor air quality and ill health is well documented. It is estimated that air pollution contributes to as many as 40,000 premature deaths each year across the UK. It has been linked with heart disease and stroke as well as cancer, asthma, diabetes and many other health conditions. The British Heart Foundation described air pollution as the invisible problem. You cannot see it, but it is all around us. Research that it has funded here in Scotland has shown the devastating effect it has on your heart making existing conditions worse, increasing the risk of developing others with a clear link between air pollution levels and heart attacks. Even short-term exposure to large amounts of air pollution has been linked with a higher risk of developing angina, as highlighted by chest, heart and stroke in their submission to the health committee ahead of that committee's evidence session today. Studies have shown that it can trigger atrial fibrillation, a common type of abnormal heartbeat that significantly increases the risk of stroke. Air pollution has a disproportionate effect also on the health of children and older adults, and it contributes to Scotland's shameful health inequalities. With deprived urban communities often experiencing particularly high levels of air pollution. Reducing air pollution is therefore not only an environmental necessity, it is a health inequalities one. As chest, heart and stroke again say in their evidence to the health committee, air pollution should be treated as a health emergency and not constrained by the current slow pace of negotiation and action. Key to tackling this health emergency includes the transport choices that we make, and I welcome the committee's strong focus on those. A recent report by DEFRA found that in instances where legal air quality limits were being broken, transport was responsible for 80 per cent of roadside pollution. We won't tackle air pollution without a drastic change in our transport habits. In particular, promoting alternative forms of transport to the car is crucial. The percentage of journeys made by bike increased by just 0.2 per cent between 2010 and 2016, and bus usage continues to plummet in Scotland. I therefore welcome the Government's plans to increase spending on active travel, but it is important to ensure that the benefits of this investment are widely shared. Disadvantaged communities and rural areas cannot be left behind when it comes to investment in active travel, but that is all too often the case at present. Similarly, there must be an effort to remove the barriers facing certain groups. Roger Geffin, the policy director of cycling UK, noted that UK cycling conditions disproportionately deter young people, older people, women and people with disabilities from cycling, and similar challenges prevent people from walking within those groups. Just last weekend, I took part in an initiative by a local charity Buddies who, in partnership with Cycling Dumfries, are promoting accessible cycling. Their bikers body scheme, which includes special adapted bikes for disabled people, is breaking down the barriers to cycling for many within the local community. Such locally driven projects allow for innovative thinking and are able to respond to the specific needs and challenges of their communities. When I chaired Dumfries and Galloway Council's Economy, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, which I am sure Finlay Carson is delighted to know, was it also at the same time they agreed the active travel plan that he commended earlier? I had the privilege of being involved in a fantastic initiative that many members will have seen in their communities called Beat the Street, which prompted a significant increase in cycling and walking in towns across the region. I strongly recommend the role of such an initiative across the whole country, not just on a one-off basis, which often happens in communities but on a permanent basis. However, despite the increase in active travel funding, on-going cuts to local authority budgets pose a serious threat to many of the local initiatives on active travel. Stopping and reversing cuts in local government is therefore vital to promote active travel but also to help to reverse the decline in bus usage, providing the necessary support to maintain services and hopefully soon as David Stewart highlighted in a more regulated bus sector. In the submission to the Environment, Climate Change, Lothian buses highlighted the fact that one bus represents 75 vehicles being removed from the road. The scope for buses to reduce congestion and air pollution is huge but that will mean buses being made more convenient, accessible, affordable and properly regulated. By delivering a step-changer or transport choices through better active travel and increased bus usage, we can play a huge role in tackling the health crisis air pollution is inflicting on far too many of our communities. Hi, we are tight for time so if we could tighten up on hitting the five minute mark please. Colin Beattie to be followed by James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This issue is really one that doesn't receive enough attention but it does have a profound effect not only on our health but also on Scotland's green credentials. As most of us will be aware, numerous policies and strategies at local, national and international levels feed into the criteria that surrounds air quality from the WHO and European guidelines through to local development plans. In 2015, the Scottish Government published its Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy, which it should be noted adopted the WHO guideline value for fine particulate matter rather than the less stringent European value. This is important as the potential cost of air pollution on health is great in both long and short terms. Research on the cardiovascular effects of air pollution date back to the 1950s and the major smog that occurred in London in 1952. When comparing the data between 1951 and 1952, an estimated 4,000 extra premature deaths can be attributed to respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the three weeks following when the smog began. Many studies since then have built upon this link. Research funded by the British Heart Foundation in 2013 found a correlation between increased hospitalisation rates and poor-term air quality in those with heart failure. In 2014, the European study of cohorts for air pollution effects found that long-term exposure to particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres, PM 2.5, is strongly linked to heart attacks and angina. More recently, it was reported last week that researchers studying PM 2.5 levels in Utah concluded that even short-term increases in air pollution can be linked to a higher risk of developing viral chest infections. With the potential for these to turn into conditions, such as bronchitis, researchers found that in some cases the infections proved deadly, with 26 children and 81 adults dying within a month of diagnosis during the 1999-2016 period that was studied. That can be seen in the context of the global burden of diseases 2012 study, stating that outdoor air pollution was the ninth leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The OECD states that urban air pollution is set to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide by 2050, ahead of dirty water and lack of sanitation. The situation in the UK has been exacerbated by the substantial increase in the number of cars on the roads, rising from 19 million in 1980 to 34.5 million in 2012, and the ill-judged promotion of diesel cars, which have lower carbon dioxide emissions, with higher and toxic nitrogen dioxide emissions. The Scottish Government's proposal to phase out the need for petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032 is a sensible and proactive step that will bring huge benefits, even over the next 14 years as we move away from the current state of affairs. Clearly there will need to be investment and alternative modes of transport, and to this end the promised expansion of the electric charging infrastructure is to be warmly welcomed. I accept that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee has questions about the implementation of low-emission zones, and they are right to question. It is to be hoped that the Scottish Government's strengthening of its Cleaner Air for Scotland governance group will provide reassurance of the commitment to this cause. In appointing both the British Heart Foundation and Professor Campbell Gemmell, an expert in science, policy and regulation to the group, they are reinforcing their claim of having the cleanest air in Europe. That announcement made at the end of March also set out further details of how the financial support available for low-emission zones, with over 70 per cent of this year's £10.8 million funding supporting the retrofitting of over 300 Glasgow buses, more than 40 per cent of the city centre fleet. My own constituency has seen its share of air quality issues. Musselborough High Street, the main thoroughfare in the town, has historically seen excesses of the annual NO2 mean objective. A detailed assessment in 2008 was followed in 2013 by an official council designation of the area from the new bigging junction to the bridge street junction as an air quality management area. A subsequent assessment in 2014 found that road traffic was the principal source for the excesses of NO2. Given the importance of the high street to the Musselborough economy and in light of the health issues that we know air pollution can cause, it was clear that action had to be taken to improve the air quality in the area. The 2014 assessment included a source of poshment exercise. This is the process whereby sources of pollutants can be assessed and confirmed whether excesses of NO2 are due to road traffic, determine the extent to which different vehicle types are responsible for the emission contributions and quantify what proportion of emissions is due to background or local emissions from busy roads in the local area. At one particular point in the high street, it was found that the largest proportion could be attributed to buses with 38 per cent of emissions measured. In contrast, queuing traffic contributed the largest actual average proportion of emissions in all locations bar 1, an average of 34 per cent. Air quality is one instance where all branches of government must work together to ensure the health of Scotland's citizens. Between the funding provided by the government at a macro level and local authority action at a micro level, we can ensure that the people of Scotland can live free from air pollution as quickly as possible. James Kelly, followed by Alexander Burnett. I thank the committee for the important work that it has done in this area. I must confess that the policy issue of air quality is not one that I have followed closely. However, in preparation for this debate, when you look at the fact that it can be responsible for up to 2,500 deaths in Scotland, you look at the fact that it can be responsible for up to 2,500 deaths in Scotland. I look at the front page of the Scotsman today, where medical charities are saying that the issue is one of a medical emergency. I also note that the World Health Organization last year said that Glasgow, the region that I represent, the pollution is worse in London. It is quite clear from a few examples that there are major issues in this policy area. What I want to do is take a local example and then relate that to some of the general issues that the committee has picked out. Canvass Lang Main Street, the area where I stay and represent as a member for the Glasgow region, in 2016 was cited as one of the most polluted streets in Scotland at 45 micrograms of nitrogen dioxide that measured that. There are reasons for that. Obviously, an intense traffic area is near to the motorway, which is an important part of connectivity in terms of the economy. However, there is no doubt that that increases traffic through the main street. I think that the other issue is that there is a lot of equal usage because of inadequate bus services. As an example, a constituent recently approached me about bus travel to Hearnmiles hospital that a lot of local people will use, which is about four miles away. That particular constituent described the way that he would go by bus that would involve walking a quarter of a mile and then taking a bus to East Kilbride and then a further bus to Hearnmiles hospital, taking about an hour and a quarter. That is a challenge for people that do not have cars. There is an issue there generally in terms of transport, but if we are trying to encourage people to use public transport as opposed to cars, then ensuring that there are appropriate bus routes to particular locations like hospitals is obviously very important. I know that the campus land community council has quite rightly campaigned strongly on this issue and demanded greater enforcement, and that the area should be a priority for a low emission area. I think that there is a very strong case for that. In general, looking at some of the issues that the committee report has identified, there is clearly a frustration around the timescales that the Government has set and whether there is appropriate funding and infrastructure in place to meet the four low emission zones that have been set up at this minute in time. The fact that the member from the Scottish Environment Link group resigned from the Government strategy group indicates that all is not well in this area. I think that there remain challenges on local government funding. I do not want to rerun the budget debate, but clearly the Government has not prioritised local council funding over a number of years. If we are looking for local councils to be part of meeting the policy challenge in terms of tackling bringing emissions down and ensuring greater air quality, councils need to be properly funded. A number of people have pointed to the challenges around active travel. In 2016, 42 per cent of adults had driven every day, so there clearly remains a major task there. There are, as people have said, major benefits in getting people to either walk to their destination or go by a cycle route in terms of being healthier and fitter as well as reducing emissions. I think that there remains a challenge in terms of getting people off petrol and diesel vehicles on to low emission vehicles. As has been pointed out, there needs to be greater information available and awareness available on that. I think that in summing up, there are clear real challenges in this area. I think that it needs greater leadership from the Government in order to overcome the technical funding and political challenges that exist here. I made a mistake in calling the speaker order earlier. We have Angus MacDonald followed by Alexander Burnett. I am pleased to be able to speak in today's debate, not just as a member of the Equare committee, but also because my constituency plays host to Scotland's largest petrochemical and refinery industries. Air quality is an issue that I take considerable interest in, as do many of my constituents. The quality of Scotland's air is something that we all rely on to be as good as it possibly can be, and it is therefore vitally important that we are all working together to ensure that we are taking the right and ambitious steps at the right pace to safeguard the quality of our air now and for the future. The Scottish Government's CAF strategy is indeed ambitious, however, as the convener has alluded to in his opening statement, as a committee, we were agreed that it should remain under review to make sure that it continues to be fit for purpose. It is fair to say that complexity is the simplest word to describe the change in nature of environmental legislation and advice given, so it is only right that any strategy in place has enough room to manoeuvre in the face of significant and rapid change. There is, however, our responsibility on all of us to ensure that we work together to provide the opportunities to realise the ambitions of CAFs. Cohesion between national and local policy decisions regarding impact on air quality and the measures to mitigate that should always be ensured, with clear recommendations from the committee for ministers to consider that more can be done to achieve cohesion and to resolve any issues that may be seen as a barrier to that. In undertaking that, there is clearly a strong and important role for the Cleaner Air for Scotland governance group, and I have to say that I was extremely disappointed to see the resignation of Scottish Environment Link from the air quality governance group. Now, whilst I can understand to a degree their frustration and the reasoning behind the resignation, the way forward is for collaboration, not shouting at the Scottish Government from the sidelines, so I do hope that Scottish Environment Link have a change of heart and get back to a constructive role within the governance group in the near future. The easiest way to change things is to change from within, so now is the time for all stakeholders to come together to implement workable and effective solutions, not walk away from the table. Despite the action of Scottish Environment Link, I was pleased to see the governance group being strengthened recently with specialists in health, environmental science and regulation, with the appointment of Professor Campbell Gemmell and the British Heart Foundation Scotland, which Colin Beattie referred to earlier. Within my constituency and across Falkirk district, I am glad to have the opportunity to highlight this afternoon that air quality and measures to improve it have already been put in place and achieving results. Of the 39 automatic air quality monitoring sites across Scotland, 12 of them are in the Falkirk Council area, so while there have undoubtedly been issues regarding air quality in Falkirk district in the past, monitoring results for last year confirmed that the NO2 national air quality standard objectives were made at all seven NO2 monitoring sites in Falkirk Council's automatic network. Long-term NO2 monitoring data also indicates the downward trend in NO2 concentrations within the Falkirk area at both background and roadside sites, so progress is being made. The six automatic sulphur dioxide monitors within the Falkirk network met all three, and that is 15-minute hourly and daily NAX objectives during 2016, and the 2016 results continue, the objective compliance recorded in 2013, 14 and 15. Long-term NO2 trend analysis at the Grangemouth AURN site shows a decline in NO2 concentrations since the commissioning of the tailgast treatment unit at Ineos Grangemouth, now petrol Ineos, in 2013. I know that the mere mention of Ineos can trigger Pavlovian-type reactions from die hard environmentalists, but credit has to be given when it is due. Following significant exceedencies and breaches of SO2 limits in the past, Ineos invested £32 million in the tailgast unit or a sulphur recovery unit, as it is known as locally, which became operational in 2013. However, it is worth noting for the record that the UK has a 15-minute air quality objective for SO2, which is additional to the EU requirements. While breaches of the UK limits in Grangemouth, the refinery was within the European limits. That aside, the breaches led to the refinery investing the £32 million in a tailgast treatment unit five years ahead of the future IED requirement to upgrade by this year, 2018. That is just one example of how local industry is working hard to improve air quality, and credit is due to them for doing that. There is sustained long-term progress in reducing Scottish emissions and ensuring improvements to air quality countrywide. While it is not all doom and gloom, there is much more to do locally and nationally. While domestic and European air quality targets have been met across much of Scotland, pure air quality remains an issue in a number of our towns and cities. As the clear committee report states, effective change is needed now so that all of us can breathe clean air and lead healthy lives in the future, but it needs a joint effort to make sure that that happens. Alexander Burnett, followed by Richard Lyle Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Air is something that we cannot ignore. It is a very thing keeping us alive, and it makes for quality of our air all the more important. So I am grateful to see all sides of the chamber taking this debate so seriously. In the committee report, I was pleased to see that there is some progress on efforts to improve air quality across Scotland, but I share the concerns of my fellow Scottish Conservative colleagues on the Scottish Government's long-term approach and implementation. Representing a rural constituency of Aberdeenshire West, we probably take air quality for granted, given the abundance of lichen on trees, a useful indicator of air quality for those who are unaware. However, we still need to do our bit to assist Scotland, the United Kingdom and our planet. One of those steps is to improve public transport. However, increasingly, constituents of mine find bus routes shortened, services reduced or even cancelled. If we are to bring about a society that is aiming to reduce our carbon emissions, we need to work with our communities and transport companies to ensure that we are providing services to residents that they will use. However, with bus fleet numbers having fallen by 11 per cent over the last five years and passenger numbers falling by 16 per cent from a peak in 2007 and 2008, I fear that we are not achieving this. To add to this, the bus industry has concerns over the introduction of low-emission zones. By introducing low-emission zones without sufficient lead-in times, firms will be forced to withdraw services or dramatically increase fares in order to get their fleets to achieve standards and maintain current service levels. Whilst rural areas will be unlikely to be registered as low-emission zones, I have no doubt that in order to cover those costs, rural residents will be the ones paying for it indirectly through increased bus fares. Members will also be aware that both the UK and Scottish Government have a commitment to phasing out petrol and diesel cars, which are very much welcomed. With a move to electric vehicles coming into force, there is the much bigger issue of considering the national grid's ability to support this surge in energy use. I have met various energy stakeholders over my two years of being in MSP. Whilst all are very much on board with a switch to cleaner energy consumption, there is a big concern over how we can facilitate this use purely through renewable energy. I have therefore encouraged the cabinet secretary to ensure that he works with energy suppliers in Scotland and the UK, so that we can achieve a national grid that is able to withstand the demands that would occur. It would be counterproductive for us to push to a move to electric vehicles if it meant that we were having to rely on oil and gas to facilitate their use. It is a delicate and complex balance, but one that I know we can achieve through proper consultation across stakeholders. The move to electric vehicles does not just require residents trading in their vehicles for cleaner modes of transport, but we need to build our infrastructure also. In our 2017 policy paper, Global Challenge Local Leadership, the Scottish Conservatives outlined the need to establish funds to expand electric vehicle charging points in small towns, rural areas and train stations, electric vehicle sharing schemes in major cities, whereby users can pick up and drop off cars at charging stations, and a requirement for all public bodies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of replacers. We are placing existing vehicle fleets with electric vehicles and mandating consideration of electric vehicles in their future procurement plans. I am sure that all members will accept that in order to sustain a cleaner transport system, proper infrastructure is required. Our policies are bold and require long-term investment, but if we do not act, we will not be able to improve our air quality for future generations. We all know that that action is required now. I look forward to seeing the Scottish Government considering our proposals and working with the whole chamber to achieve a cleaner, greener system that will not only improve our air quality but our environment too. The last of the open debate contributions is from Richard Lyle. Scotland has much to be proud of so far as its role in leading is concerned in this issue, with more strident air quality targets than elsewhere in the UK, a meeting of both domestic and European targets across much of Scotland. We are making progress. Clean Air for Scotland, the road to a healthier future of Scotland's first national air quality strategy, published in 2015, sets out intended action until 2020. That intended action is backed up by practical and financial support to local authorities by the SNP Government in order to tackle local air pollution hotspots, including £3 million in annual funding. That, coupled with transport initiatives, has delivered 1,200 electric vehicle charging bays, over £16 million funding via the green bus fund to introduce more than 360 low-emission buses to the Scottish fleet. It is on that area of transport policy that I wish to linger, as it is an area of interests. I am conscious that I have a question in the chamber later this week about this particular subject. That is the utilisation and, more importantly, the normalisation of the use of electric cars as we move forward into the future. For example, if we are serious about tackling pollution from vehicles near, then we need to look at house builders and, by extension, local authorities to ensure that they consider the inclusion of car charging points at properties or developments as we move to the future. That, naturally, is coupled with the need for vehicle manufacturers to play their part, including accurately reporting on their emissions, not misreporting practices that they have seen in recent years. Better integration insofar as infrastructure and building is concerned will help us to work towards a greener future with less polluted air. Presiding Officer, we must get ready for tomorrow, today. On that notion, I want to reflect on the work undertaken by the clear committee in the pursuit of this inquiry. As other members have said, the committee actively engaged with local communities during its inquiry, including visiting Carstorff in Edinburgh. Areas with poor quality, air quality, due to pollution, will naturally be of concern to those living there. However, the fact is that monitoring is undertaken in the first place should allow for target action to be taken. That is why I believe that we should do more to support the more active monitoring and addressing of air quality throughout all areas in Scotland. There needs to be more aligned at all levels for the Scottish Government's bolded ambitions to be achieved. The committee considered during the inquiry for national strategies to be fully implemented and their ambitions are achieved. There needs to be alignment at all levels, from the Scottish Government, partner agencies to local authorities right across the country. Whereas the committee was heartened by what they heard about co-operation at different levels of government, as well as between different organisations and professions, there was no universality in the positive approaches being taken. The committee notes that those positive approaches do not appear to be universal. That said at present, the Scottish Government works with CEPA, Transport Scotland, Health Protection Scotland and others to further reduce air pollution and deliver benefits for human and environmental health. Coming back to our colleagues in the local government, local authorities with air quality management areas in place have now produced action plans. The Scottish Government is working closely with those authorities to help them to implement the plans and deliver air quality improvements. I hope to play my part by supporting plans locally in Lanarkshire to raise awareness of the issue of air quality and the developments of our own local strategies. It is clear that the Scottish Government is making progress in its aim to have the cleanest air in Scotland, examples cited already, and the recent announcement of the appointment of additional members to clean our air for Scotland governance group, which oversees the delivery of Scotland's strategy for cutting air pollution and, importantly, reducing its impact on health, illustrates that point. As we all work together to improve air quality and deliver an active nation here in Scotland, let us commit ourselves to redoubling our efforts to promote the many ways that we all can contribute across our communities to make Scotland an even more fresh and beautiful place to live in and work. We now move to the closing speeches. I call Alex Rowley up to five minutes please. Presiding Officer, I want to congratulate all members of the committee for the excellent work on the support and to my colleague David Stewart, who was a member on the committee when the work was being done. A number of speakers have said that we should not lose sight of the key recommendations from the committee and we should make sure that the Government takes on board those recommendations. As the chairman, David Graham Day, has said, it is worth restating what 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 that were laid out in the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy. That must be a key concern for this Parliament, given the detail that we have received from friends of the earth where Scotland, where they stated that, and I quote, 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 targets of clean air by 2020. That is quite an incredible statistic, Presiding Officer, and one that I had to check is that I thought that that cannot be right. So, this report that we debate today is crucially important to the future wellbeing of the people of Scotland. It is an issue impacting on people here and now. As James Kelly has said, the Scotsman highlighted that in the front page today. 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 that will happen. The report also focuses on the planning system and we have the planning bill making its way through Parliament just now, so there is within our legislative framework the opportunity to make sure that we have joined up approach to the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy, certainly when it comes to planning. I also note that the committee are asking for further information on the funding of local authorities to deliver the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy outcomes around behavioural change and I look forward to seeing the Government bring this information forward. The report makes a number of recommendations with regard to low-emission zones and the point is also made by Friends of Earth Scotland when they state, and I quote, for Scotland's low-emission zones to be a success, emissions from buses, fans, lorries, cars and taxis must all be cleaned up in urban centres as quickly as possible. They go on to say in Glasgow that this means that within a year all buses running through the city centres should be able to meet the latest emission standards and other vehicles should be included in the zone as soon as possible thereafter. I think that there is consensus and the consensus is that if we are going to do this then let's get it right. That means addressing what Friends of Earth Scotland call the current lackluster proposal on the table from Glasgow. I am also pleased that the report picks up on the stated commitment from the current Scottish Government to phase out both petrol and diesel sales of cars and vans by 2032. The point that they make is that we now need to see the detail of what this involves. What are the timelines and what measures will need to be taken place to make this happen? I make the point that it is easy to look to the future and make big commitments on the environment, but Governments and companies must be held to account now, and that means setting out in a clear way how such commitments are to be met and how progress towards the target dates will be measured. The report that we have debated today on air quality in Scotland and which we have been asked to note has very robust recommendations on making sure that progress on the delivery of the clean air strategy for Scotland is monitored and put on track to deliver what it says is its intention. Although the Cabinet Secretary has responded in the chamber today, I look forward to the Government publishing its response because I hope that we can generate a wider debate across Scotland. At the British Heart Foundation Scotland has said that air pollution is the largest environmental risk factor linked to deaths in the UK. It argues, and I agree, that air quality monitoring information should be improved so that it reaches down to community levels 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, I would say, Presiding Officer, that we have got to raise public awareness and the more information we can make available, the better. Morda Scotland, for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We need to tackle air pollution. It is clear from the contributions today that that mood is felt throughout the chamber. Of course, air pollution is a major problem in Scotland and is damaging public health, resulting in two and a half thousand deaths a year according to Friends of the Earth. That also contributes to cancer and respiratory diseases. Jamie Greene highlighted how his mother has been affected by poor air quality and also suggested that 5 per cent of deaths could be attributed in some way to poor air quality. Finlay Carson also flagged how his constituency has some of the highest incidence of COPD in the world. That is why I welcome the SNP promising to take action with new petrol and diesel cars to be phased out by 2032 and transport emissions cut by 37 per cent. Low emission zones being introduced as a positive step with the first to be introduced in Glasgow by the end of 2018 and more over 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike by 2020. By December 2010, air quality was meant to be at 18 microgams per cubic metre or less. That target has been missed. The annual EU Ambient Air Quality Directive has been broken since 2010 and with the five-year EU extension expired. We now have Glasgow, Edinburgh, Central and North East Scotland all non-compliant for nitrogen dioxide levels, a point well made by Donald Cameron. I would also like to at this point congratulate Graham Day on his leadership of a clear air quality in Scotland inquiry and also flag up his comments to say that there was a degree of disconnect between the national bodies and local authorities but also welcome as he was on behalf of the committee the aspiration of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy. Moreover, I agree with the cabinet secretary in our opening remarks who said there's more that needs to be done. Angus MacDonald followed that by saying that it's not all doom and gloom but we need a joint effort today to deal with this. Richard Lyle again flagged up that we need more of a better interagency approach to this in order to improve air quality and also spoke about redoubling our efforts. I would like to associate myself with those comments. We also have to improve monitoring. Scottish regulations don't obligate councils to act. Scottish councils must monitor pollution but don't have to achieve compliance with standards. That's why the inquiry by the clear committee recommended urgent review of monitoring regulations so that we can identify and rectify problems. We must also make air quality monitors available to every school. Last year, SEPA had just 10 monitors to loan to schools, five of which were broken. So it's clear that we need to do more. We also must tackle transport emissions. Cars, vans and HEVs account for around 69 per cent of our transport emissions and that's why more progress is required on electric cars. The electrical vehicle loan scheme has only been used 500 times since 2011 with just 214 loan applications over the past year. So we need more detail by providing a timeline, details of measure and incentives, as well as milestones to allow to check on progress. Liam McArthur highlighted that Orkney is leading the way in terms of electrical vehicle ownership but more needs to be done for the rest of Scotland to catch up and indeed introducing charging bays in all new developments would be one positive way in which we could do that. So we have to encourage this electrical vehicle ownership expanding charging points, investing in active travel and provided segregated cycle routes in each city and points were made adeptly by Alexander Burnett on that. Mark Ruskell spoke in a typically well informed speech about the introduction of low emission zones and we do have, while we are broadly supportive of this concept, the concerns of the timescales in which we can introduce those. The London low emission zone took around two years to implement with existing congestion charge infrastructure in place and Glasgow, of course, does not have that. As Donald Cameron stated, low emission zones implementation must be practical and achievable. Urban consolidations hubs can also work hand in hand with those low emission zones. Bus services were mentioned by numerous members and we must make sure that rushing low emission zones does not push up fares or reduce routes such as Renfrewshire where the number 19 route was recently lost. Dave Stewart highlighted that very point and also said that automatic plate recognition would be a prerequisite for low emission zones. James Kelly highlighted a particular case of inadequate bus services, particularly to key locations such as hospitals. In conclusion, we must improve our monitoring of air quality, introduce low emission zones in a timely fashion and encourage this movement towards ownership of electric vehicles. I call Humza Yousaf up to six minutes, please minister. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been a very good debate and I welcome the committee's report and those that gave evidence to it. I'm going to try to rifle through some of the key themes, obviously focusing perhaps on transport issues as many others have, but trying to touch upon one or two issues other than that if a time allows. First thing to say is, as everybody has mentioned, I think that progress has been made in relation to air quality in Scotland. Undoubtedly, we still have our challenging hotspots. I found Jamie Greene's contribution in relation to his own issues and his personal experience, and that I was very interesting and insightful as well. It helps to remind us that there is a human element to air quality as opposed to sometimes the statistics that we often talk about. It's worth mentioning the progress that has been made. Monitoring data shows that air pollution is on a clear downward trend in Scotland and that a number of exceeding sites have gone down from 14 in 2013 to 6 in 2017 for nitrogen dioxide and down from 17 in 2013 to 6 in 2017 for particulate matter. There is really good progress being made, but notwithstanding that, of course, still challenges remain. Radical measures that we are bringing forward from a transport perspective are perhaps worth touching on the few that have often been mentioned. One is, of course, low-emission zones. I just thought that it's probably worth me highlighting the relationship between national and local government on this. The national government is, of course, looking to set a national framework around the low-emission zones, hence our consultation. We're collaborating closely with local government. That's why we have the Four City Steering Group. That should give confidence to those who ask us to have a joined-up approach. It really is up to local authorities to come forward with the detail of what a low-emission zone will look like in their, of course, city or, indeed, local authority area. That is the right approach to take, because they will know and be able to have the conversations at a local level that are, of course, necessary. Graham Day. I wonder if he, like the committee, would recognise the obvious expertise that exists within Glasgow City Council in that area, and whether he would see an opportunity for that expertise to be shared across the other cities for the development of low-emission zones. Hamza Yousaf. Yes, and the Four City Steering Group will help with that shared learning and that shared practice. What I would say is that sometimes there can be some confusion around the introduction of a low-emission zone, which is by the end of 2018 for Glasgow for talking sake. I think if I remember their paper correctly, it's at 23.59 on 31 December. So, right at the end of 2018, right to the end of that time. So, it's worth saying that there's a difference between the introduction of that low-emission zone and, of course, the lead-in times and the phasing of a low-emission zone, which are completely different concepts. So, from your lead-in time, we know that, for example, they have a particular number, a percentage of buses that they wish to have into Euro 6 by, of course, the introduction, and then every year progressively increasing that ambition right the way through. If my memory serves me correctly until 2022, with cars dovetailing in at the end of that, of course. David Stewart. The Islands Act, which is a favourite of the minister. One of the key things, I think, of the low-emission zones is enforcement. I've looked very carefully at the London model and it's already been mentioned, but vehicle recognition technology is vital. Now, I know you're in partnership with Glasgow, but it's very, very expensive to do this. There's no point in having an LEZ if you can't enforce it. Does the minister share my view that you've got to use that technology, and it's not enough just to use the technology for bus lanes? This is really expensive to get this technology in place to do 360 degrees around Glasgow. Hamza, you, sir? I think that it's a very good suggestion by the member. I think that number plate recognition cameras and technologies absolutely have a place when it comes to low-emission zones, but I wouldn't enforce or impose it, I should say, on to local authorities. They have to make the right decision for their technology. That might well be ANPR, it might well be another technology, of course, but it also might make sense for that technology to be in place for cars, but for buses, for example, they might already have another monitoring regime that they might wish to roll out. We should allow that level of flexibility. Time is escaping past me here, but I take the points that were made around the funding and I hope that we've been able to give reassurances. I do take Mark Ruskell's point about more detail on the financial transaction and how that money can be used. I do say to him that it's for no lack of trying. It's simply that we have to work through some of the state aid issues. We also have to work through some of the issues around with the bus industry about how that can best be used, but as soon as I get an update on that, I promise to ensure that Mark Ruskell has kept up the date very much on that. I should say that the conversation with the bus industry on the low-emission zones is very positive. Retrofitting has been mentioned, but I would caution members to just not to put all their eggs in one basket, although retrofitting might work for some bus operators, while others, because of the age of their fleet, are much more likely to look at, for example, a grant to help them to get to purchase Euro 6 or, indeed, electric buses, as opposed to necessarily retrofitting. So I think that that's important. Legal mechanisms, I won't go into detail because time again is escaping, but none other than to say that the Transport Bill offers an opportunity to ensure that we have the best legislative framework possible for our low-emission zones. Active Travel is mentioned by a number of members. I agree with them that this is a priority and should be a priority for Government, hence the doubling of the active travel budget. Of course, a significant proportion of that will go towards cycling infrastructure and segregated infrastructure, as Emma Harper and a few other members of the chamber mentioned. But out-of-the-box thinking will also be really necessary as well. So e-bikes, for example, and thinking about how we can get more people using e-bikes is something that I'm very keen for us to explore as well. Electric vehicles were also mentioned by a number of members. Liam McArthur, I know, has a particular interest in this. Again, I'll update Parliament in due course once we have those milestones on how we look to reach our very ambitious target up until 2032. So in conclusion, a good amount of consensus around this chamber and so there should be because if we get things right then we'll create a cleaner planet, not just future generations, but for the year and now. I call John Scott to close on behalf of the committee. If you take us up to five o'clock, please, Mr Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, albeit one seeking to keep damage to our air quality to a minimum? Presiding Officer, the mortality burden in the UK from exposure to outdoor air pollution is equivalent to 40,000 deaths every year. In Scotland's share of that death toll is 2,500 deaths per year. Mark Ruskell, Finlay Carson, Emma Harper and Colin Beattie have all referred to this. In addition, recently published research suggests a link between air pollution and Alzheimer's disease, as well as the well-established links to cancers and respiratory diseases. This is a huge cost in human life and health to our health service. Our environment also bears a huge cost too, as noxious gases being released mostly from vehicles, although some from agricultural too. Further adding to the unwelcome mix of gases that threaten the future of our planet as well as our health. The Government was right in seeking to develop a cleaner air for Scotland strategy with 34 key actions published in 2015, almost three years ago. However, our committee report, while acknowledging the good intentions of the Scottish Government, poses more questions than answers. Specifically, the committee considers that the Scottish Government's yearly progress report is insufficiently clear to allow an accurate assessment of progress against the 34 actions laid out in CAFs. We believe that a more transparent and detailed approach is required to show the status of the delivery in future. Graham Day, Roseanna Cunningham-Russell and Alex Rowley all referred to this. The solution perhaps to the failings in the committee's view is that the various Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers responsible for the multifaceted reports required to deliver better air quality must work together in a more integrated and collaborative way than previously to enhance national planning policy and deliver a better planning framework as well as resolve the apparent disconnect between national agencies and local authorities. Liam McArthur, Colin Smyth and Maurice Golden all referred to this. In addition, from the evidence that we heard, it is far from clear that local authorities have been given sufficient resource by government to meet the national outcomes expected of them, and Donald Cameron and James Kelly also referred to this. That is why the committee is seeking an update on the progress being made on the introduction of the four LEZs by the end of June 2018, as the details, as yet, are very unclear as to how that is going to be implemented, particularly in Glasgow, by Christmas of this year, and Graham Day, Donald Cameron and David Stewart all referred to this. The committee also received evidence on the use of congestion charging and workplace-level car park charging as a way of improving air quality in city centres, but I, for my part at any rate, am concerned that LEZs and charging will displace parking away from city centres, turning suburban streets and the periphery of those zones into the new workplace car parks for city centre workers. From a practical perspective, the deadline of 2032 is only 17 years away, yet there is no legislative or regulatory timeline proposed on how diesel cars and vans are to be phased out by then. Nor is there detail on the national and local infrastructure that is required for alternative vehicles to replace the 53 per cent of Scottish private car stock, which is currently non-compliant with Euro 4 or Euro 6 standards, and Alexander Burnett referred to this. As LEZs are to be introduced to four of our major cities by 2020, and with over 50 per cent of cars currently in use in Scotland non-compliant in terms of EU emission standards, and as bus passengers numbers fall in Scotland, the case for modal shift is transformed from being an ambition into a necessity, and Jamie Greene referred to this. However, while I understand and support Mark Ruskell's enthusiasm for active travel and others as a solution to this problem, the evidence of enthusiasm from the Scottish public walking and cycling in future to make up 10 per cent of their journeys is not there. Indeed, between 2010 and 2016 journeys by bicycle only increased by 0.2 per cent, and I cannot see any sign of a significant change in the mindset of the people of Scotland that is likely to deliver this 10 per cent target by 2020, given that currently less than 2 per cent of everyday journeys are made by bike. Even if the infrastructure could physically be put in place, I think that it is important to understand that Scotland essentially endures a 200-day winter every year, and bearing in mind the winter that we have just come through and the fact that it has rained almost non-stop in the west of Scotland since July last year, why would commuters or a parent with children to get to and from school or a pensioner going to hospital willingly give up the comfort of their cars to make a journey by bike or in foot and Colin Smyth and James Kelly understood this. Regrettably, climate change is also making active travel even less likely, and in my view, the only real opportunity in modal shift is moving people on to our bus networks. Of course, we should continue to develop cycling and walking routes within cities, but perhaps we need a more realistic expectation of what can be achieved at this latitude 55 degrees north, here in the central belt of Scotland. Of course, our bus fleet will need to be invested in either by modifying existing non-compliant engines or by adding significantly to the new bus fleet, and that is where the Scottish Government should be concentrating its investment to deliver the maximum impact. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comment that £7.8 million is to be given to this and David Stewart referred to this. Solving air pollution in Scotland will not happen as a result of any one measure alone, although increased bus usage is the major opportunity. Better air quality will be achieved by carrying out many of the tasks identified in CAFs and in our report, but we must be careful how we go about this. Future planning of transport needs must not drive those currently shopping in city and town centres into out-of-house transport. However, we must be careful how we go about this. Future planning of transport needs in town centres into out-of-town retail parts or on to the internet, reducing still further town centre retailing opportunities. Future planning and legislation must work for the needs of families, parents with young children after school, trying to juggle the priorities of a school-run shopping and carrying shopping bags as well as driving and rush air traffic. In short, future planning must not reduce our quality of life or damage the Scottish economy. I welcome all the contributions made to do. Human health and wellbeing are at stake as well as the environment and the economy of Scotland. The time for talking is over and the need for action is now. We all look forward to progress being made and we will be supporting the Government in that regard. That concludes the debate on air quality in Scotland inquiry. It is now time to move on to the next item of business.