 The first item of business is members' business debate on motion 5900 in the name of Mark Ruskell on national clean air day 2017. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. May I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Mark Ruskell to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by thanking members who have signed my motion? I'm looking forward to listening to all the contributions from those members and including from the Cabinet Secretary for Public Health. I also hope that the other Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers with a remit in this area will also take note of this debate, particularly areas of transport and the environment. In the developed world, we manage our water resources to a high standard to ensure good health, but air is the only environmental common that we depend on every second that we are alive. It's around us constantly and inextricably linked to our health and our wellbeing. However, there's much progress to make in improving air quality in Scotland, and the British Lung Foundation cites the evidence that air pollution contributes to the death of around 2,000 people a year. I also note the timely research by Professor David Newby and the British Heart Foundation showing the impacts of air pollution on those living with cardiovascular disease. Professor Newby's research analysed the impact of air pollution on more than four million people living with heart failure across 12 European countries, and his team found that hospitalisation risk dramatically increased when air pollution was high. When air quality worsens, it can have an instant and visible effect. A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Cincardin with hundreds of local residents angry about dust clouds blowing off the redundant ash pans at Longannet, forcing many people to take refuge indoors. Remediation has now been put in place, but questions remain over the actions of agencies, and that will be subject to a forthcoming petition to this Parliament. Much of the pollution that we now encounter is not of the visible type that caused the peace supers of last century or indeed the ash clouds of West Fife. Two thirds of air pollution today come from vehicles in the form of nitrous oxide, or NOx, and particulates. It is clear that where the primary focus for action needs to be is in tackling the air pollution from transport. Tomorrow is National Clean Air Day, and I would like to congratulate Global Action Plan on its campaign, alongside Friends of the Earth and the British Heart and Lung Foundation, for all doing incredibly valuable work in helping us to understand the impacts of air pollution and the changes that are needed to protect our health and our environment. The National Clean Air Day theme of Reduce, Talk, Avoid makes it clear that air pollution is everyone's business and that we are not powerless to act. We can be mindful of our own impact and reduce pollution by, for example, switching off the car engine when stationary and using our feet for short journeys. We can talk about air pollution to head teachers, managers, councillors and parents to get action at pollution hotspots, whether that is about engine idling or car sharing. While on those days when seepers pollution monitoring shows poor air quality, we can take action to avoid areas by walking on side streets, getting out of cars where pollution levels are further concentrated inside. These soft measures are important. I note that the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment visited a school this morning to highlight awareness, but alongside that we need intervention from Government to bring about the step change in our transport and planning systems, which can cut the pollution that is driving climate change as well as ill health. Yesterday, we saw that, while Scottish climate emissions continue to fall from energy generation, transport has now overtaken it as the biggest carbon dioxide emitting sector. However, this exhaust pipe problem is also reflected in the high levels of nitrous oxide and particulates that line our lungs and enter our bloodstream. There are currently 38 air quality management areas designated across 14 local authority areas in Scotland, triggered mostly by dangerously high levels of NOx or particulates, 23 of which remain in breach of the legal limits. Athol Street in Perth, in my region, is one of the worst streets in Scotland for particulates. The air quality objective that was set out in 2002 for Athol Street should have been met in 2010, but it has been a persistent failure by Perth and Kinross Council to address that. In fact, planning decisions, including the one that was taken recently to build out a vast area of new housing in Skun, continue to be made against the air quality concerns of the director of public health locally. Air quality is simply being ignored in the planning system. The failure to meet the legal EU air quality limits has been the subject of a protracted legal challenge against the UK Government by the organisation Client Earth. We heard recently in our Environment Committee that the Scottish Government strategy has also been captured by the most recent ruling in the High Court as it appears as a chapter of the UK plan. Given that this ruling was back in December last year, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government did not take the opportunity then to consult on a revised Scottish plan. While there is much in the Clean Air for Scotland strategy that I welcome, there are questions over the level of ambition that is needed to resolve this public health crisis. The introduction of a solitary low-emission zone next year could result in the exclusion of polluting vehicles from one polluted area of one city, but while the political will is now there in Edinburgh and Glasgow to implement this, there are major questions about the preparedness of either council to put in place the infrastructure that is required by next year. I know that a number of members will want to reflect on that in their contributions. A bolder commitment to a greater number of low-emission zones is needed, but alongside that, other measures can be brought in. Members will be aware of the live consultation on my proposed bill to change the default speed limit in built-up areas from 30 to 20 miles an hour. The days by Imperial College London show how this can make a positive impact on reducing pollution from diesel engines, but the real prize would be making a change to the road environment that could be the foundation for an increase in walking and cycling by making our streets safer. Alongside this, prioritisation of walking and cycling infrastructure in the budget would provide facilities that deliver a tipping point in our attitude to active travel and allow us to finally emulate the Copenhagens and the Amsterdams of the world. I look forward to hearing other members' contributions on how we solve the public health crisis and also to invite the cabinet secretary to allow views to feed into a refreshed air pollution strategy for Scotland. I have contributions of up to four minutes. I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by congratulating Mark Ruskell on securing his debate on national clean air day. As he rightly states in his motion, it is a significant initiative to help to raise awareness of the impact of poor air quality on people. It is an issue that has an effect on many of our constituents, and it is absolutely right that we recognise this in Parliament. Many will be forgiven for thinking that Scotland does not have a major issue when it comes to air quality. We are known for our stunning countryside, not our polluted cities. However, it is thought that air pollution contributes to more than 2,500 early deaths in Scotland each year. The situation appears to be getting worse. The number of sites where air pollution levels are regularly broken rose from 33 in 2016 to 38 in 2017. The Scottish Government set out that, by December 2010, air quality was meant to be at 18 microgramms per cubic metre or less at sites, and it has missed that target. We must do more to ensure that the air that we breathe is not killing us is as simple as that, and it is incumbent on us as elected representatives to ensure that everything that can be done is done to ensure that Scotland's air is cleaner. That means working together, not dividing over party politics, and we and those benches are committed to doing exactly that. I understand that Edinburgh is to bid to have Scotland's first low-emission zone to tackle air pollution, and councillors have agreed to approach the Scottish Government, which has said that it will fund one pilot by 2018. While I am open to the idea of low-emission zones, a full assessment must also be made of the economic impact of such a policy. While in large cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, such a scheme might have little impact on the economy, that might not be the case if the schemes were rolled out and implemented in Dumfries or Stranraer. With consumers often driven by the cost of parking or perhaps congestion charges, what we might see is just consumers, particularly from the south of Scotland, choosing Edinburgh over Glasgow if charges were a factor. However, there is still much more that can be done to reduce air pollution in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives would introduce more pollution monitor sites across the country that would make air quality monitors available to all Scottish primary schools so that we could have a more precise idea of where air quality is below the recommended standard, allowing us to better target response. We also believe that there is much more that can be done to increase the use of electric cars, and there are so many ways that that can be achieved. We can introduce free town centre parking and allow the use of bus and taxi lanes, establish a fund to expand electric vehicle charging points in small towns, rural areas and train stations, and require all public bodies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of replacing existing vehicle fleets with electric vehicles. We should also mandate consideration of electric vehicles in all future procurement plans. We should establish vehicle sharing schemes in major cities similar to that, whereby users can pick up and drop off cars at charging stations, and only last night there was a programme on the television showing how successful that has been in Paris. Those are just some of the measures that could be implemented relatively quickly, with a potentially huge impact on the health of the people of Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, we in those benches want to see positive steps to improving Scotland's air quality, and we are committed to work across parties to achieve those ends. May I have Emma Harper to be followed by David Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate, and I congratulate Mark Ruskell for securing it. Tomorrow, during the 15th, is national clean air day, and tackling poor air quality is important for me as convener of the cross-party group on lung health, and as a member of the Environment, Committee's subgroup on air quality, Mark Ruskell and I work together on both groups, the lung cross-party group and the environment group. I have found Mark Ruskell to be quite knowledgeable and passionate about the subject. Poor air quality exacerbates existing lung conditions and disproportionately affects children whose lungs are more sensitive to harmful toxins in the air. Children breathe at a faster rate than adults, therefore a pollutant inhalation rate is increased. Research suggests that children growing up in areas of severe air pollution are up to five times more likely to have poor lung development and are more prone to respiratory infections. The health impacts of air pollution worldwide was estimated in a 2012 research study to cause 3.7 million premature deaths. Air pollution has been linked to ischemic heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. While we have made great strides towards tackling air pollution in Scotland over recent years, it must be acknowledged that there are still areas of poor air quality, in some of Scotland's towns and cities. Air quality standards are identical across the UK, and achievement is a mandatory requirement for member states within the EU. In contrast to the EU requirements, Scotland has set stricter levels for PM 10 and PM 2.5. Those are particulate matter measurements of 10.5 microns in size. In April 2016, the Scottish Government became the first country in Europe to adopt the World Health Organization's recommended guideline value for PM 2.5. In 2015, the Scottish Government published its strategy for tackling air pollution—cleaner air for Scotland. CAFTS is a national cross-government strategy that sets out the Scottish Government and its partner organisations that propose to reduce air pollution and meet Scotland's legal responsibilities as soon as possible. A number of key actions are proposed, including a national modelling framework, a national low-emission framework and proposals for a national air quality awareness campaign, as I mentioned above, and adoption of the World Health Organization guideline values for particulate matter in Scottish legislation. The British Lung Foundation has called for a number of measures to address poor air quality. For example, carefully designed clean air zones that use cleaner public transport, active travel—for me, today, I walked into Parliament, which was actually quite nice this morning. Emissions testing for all vehicles is also indicated by the British Lung Foundation and measuring and reporting on air pollution near schools that have been mentioned to protect children's lungs. Recent figures from the BLF charity revealed that three quarters of Scottish councils do not have air quality monitors outside their local schools. Only 10 schools in the whole of Scotland have some form of air pollution monitor within 10 metres of the school. A new clean air act at Westminster could make it a requirement to monitor air quality outside schools, specifically targeting areas that have been identified as poor air quality. That would be welcome. Local authorities have an important role to play in achieving this and could choose to monitor air quality now also. As part of my work as a convener of the Lung Health Cross Party group, I have met researchers at the University of West of Scotland about some research that they are conducting, which will be very valuable in the south of Scotland. UWS researchers propose a three-tiered strategy consisting of a preventative message, a research journey linking with PhD projects and engagement with schools to encourage air quality monitoring. As the Scottish Government strategy correctly points out, successfully addressing poor air quality requires a partnership approach involving the government, local authorities, business and industry, NGOs and the public. The work being done by UWS will be valuable in the south of Scotland. I look forward to continuing to work to improve air quality by using the cross-party group as a vehicle to encourage research and collaborative working across sectors, as well as empowering those suffering from poor lung health to be heard. I would also welcome any MSPs who are interested in pursuing better air quality to join us in the cross-party group. I have David Stewart, followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I also thank Mark Ruskell for skewding the debate today and compliment him on an excellent speech. As we have heard, air pollution is a public health crisis in Scotland, and statistics suggest that more than 10 times as many people are dying from air pollution than in road crashes every year. Poor air quality is linked to heart and lung conditions, dementia, cancer and many more health problems. Is it not ironic that in a sophisticated, developed country like Scotland, part of the world's fifth largest economy, that our young, our old, our ill and our poor are dying from diesel pollutants that would bring a blush to the face of the most hard-nosed Victorian factory owner? It is also a huge environmental issue that affects climate change and biodiversity. With many species of flora and fauna also being subjected to the same pollutants our communities are breathing in. The need for clean air must be addressed now. In my view, there are three main ways that we can work towards the goal of lowering the emissions that cause pollution. First of all, demand management, creating a modal shift of behaviour away from using high-polluting vehicles. Secondly, controlling what options are available, having a step change in the provision of electric cars and charging points. Finally, improving the natural environment, including increasing green areas of cities. In order to change the demand for polluting vehicles, there needs to be a significant modal change in behaviour of transport users, but that will not happen without effort and investment from Government. Schemes such as low-emission zones, why limit our ambition to one city with Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dian Aberdeen, all in need, better cycling and walking infrastructure, higher targets for electric vehicles, improving public transport and why not ban polluting diesel buses from our cities and towns and bring in bus regulation to have councils more power over this. I am looking at setting up consolidation centres and ensuring that polluting HDVs avoid built-up areas, such as the ones that I visited in the last session in Holland. They would all have a significant impact on reduction of emissions within our cities. However, as the chief executive of Glasgow City Council, Anne-Marie O'Donnell, said to me in a letter in April, I quote, The introduction of LEZ can be costly, with the established London LEZ being estimated to have cost approximately £100 million. A more recent cost analysis undertaken by DEFRA from the recently announced clean air zones in England, which are effectively LEZs, estimate that for the five cities involved, Nottingham, Leeds, Birmingham, Southampton and Derby, the total local authority costs for implementation and running the schemes would be £101 million over 10 years. However, let's look at best practice. The London mayor, Sadiq, can use the 60th anniversary of the Clean Air Act to introduce a suite of new clean air policies, such as out-of-the-load mission zones, such as clean bus corridors, putting the cleanest buses on to the dirtiest routes in a bid to tackle air pollution hotspots, such as diesel scrappage schemes. We know that 60 years ago pollution in Scottish towns and cities caused by coal fires were visible and obvious to all, but today, of course, nitrogen dioxide gas and the tiny particulates that lodge in our lungs are completely invisible. We are stunting the lungs of generations yet unborn. How can it be in all these years after industrial revolution and the smog of the 1950s that we still allow our population to be breathing in air that has breached so many EU health directives air that is literally cutting short their lives? We need to be brave, we need to be ambitious and bold. In Scotland, our children deserve a war and air pollution in cities and towns. We are our best when we are boldest. I thank my colleague Mark Ruskell for bringing this debate to the chamber. I am not sure if I should begin by declaring an interest as a resident of—a dubious privilege of being a resident of one of Glasgow's air quality management areas—the Dumbarton road, Bios road corridor. I happen to live on Dumbarton road. I walk the streets, I cycle the streets, I live on that street and I know that if I open my window I am not able to have confidence that the air that is coming into my flat is safe to breathe. It is a pretty profound sense of environmental insecurity that we are leaving people to live with in Scotland today in many, many—in far too many places in Scotland—that basic necessity of life. As Mark Ruskell said, minute by minute air is something that we absolutely depend on for our survival. The idea that that is not fit to breathe is simply a failing of our society. I am also pleased to speak in this debate because it was the subject of my first member's debate way back in session 2 of the Scottish Parliament when I was a little bit fresher-faced and a little bit brighter-eyed and a little bit less cynical perhaps than I've become today. We were already, at that point, already failing year after year after year after year. We had air quality management areas and air quality action plans and the Government had a strategy and you cannot breathe strategies or action plans or management areas. We had all these documents in place and we were still making the problem worse, not better. I observed during that debate that it was around that time—a few months later after that debate—that we were anticipating a significant improvement in air that people could breathe in Scotland. In pubs, we were going to ban smoking in enclosed places, we were going to ban smoking in pubs and people could sit in a pub perhaps on Hope Street in Glasgow and enjoy a pint, breathe in clean air and then walk out into the most severe air quality crisis in Scotland. That was Hope Street at the time and it's far more prevalent now. I obviously want to make a bid that Glasgow should be seriously considered as the first low-emission zone. My colleague Alison Johnson has insisted that I say that Edinburgh also must be considered, but those who have said why should there only be one are absolutely right. That mechanism should be in place everywhere it is needed, not simply in one place. As for those who are concerned about the cost of implementing and absolutely it does need to be resourced if it is going to be effective, can we just consider the cost of those 14 years and more of inaction since that debate was had when strategies were written and management areas were declared and air quality continued to worsen and the number of places with poor air quality continued to increase. The list grows longer. The cost of that inaction is surely greater than the cost of taking action to reverse that problem. I want to pay tribute as well to Mark Ruskell for working on the issue of speed limits in our cities. The idea of a 20-mile-an-hour default is not just good for our air quality, good for our safety, good for the happiness and joy with which people can experience the built environment, the places where they live should be safe, not just that direct desire to reduce harm from poor air quality and road traffic accidents, but it should be safe in order to ensure that people can enjoy the place that they live. One final comment, as we know, a great many of those regulations have been decided at European Union level. If we are faced with a reality that we are going to be taken out of Europe against the will of the people who live in Scotland, it is absolutely essential that we redouble our efforts to ensure that there is no diminution in the standards of air quality that we impose and then no reluctance on the part of government to do everything necessary finally to meet them. The last contribution in the open debate is Maurice Corry. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Mark Ruskell for bringing forward this debate today to mark the national clean air day and helping to bring it to the attention of this chamber and also to the wider public in Scotland. Poor air quality is an issue that has, for some time, gone unheralded, with most assuming Scottish air to be fresh and pollutant-free, with the implementation of a national clean air day and pioneering research such as the work done by Professor Newby regarding the link between poor air quality and cardiovascular disease, the issue has rightly come to the fore. By highlighting the high number of people who live with CVD and have to contend with the health issues resulting from poor air quality, it is clear that measures to improve Scottish air quality must be undertaken as a public health priority. Although most would like to think that poor air quality is in major cities, it is also a fact that needs to be considered in smaller communities too, and there are a number of initiatives and schemes that have proved successful within my region of west Scotland. The implementation of the air quality management area in the town of Bishop Briggs in eastern Bartonshire in my region, for example, combined with the expansion of public transport options and a new road infrastructure, has led to a dramatic fall in the levels of nitrogen dioxide within the town and the surrounding areas, so much so that it is now fully within acceptable limits. Although air quality management areas have been in existence since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, it is logical that we should be aiming to tackle air quality issues before they reach the levels that are harmful to human health. As my colleague has said already, the Conservatives would do this by increasing the use of air monitoring sites and also making air monitors available to all our Scotland's primary schools. Actions to improve public transport would help to solve the problem, and Professor Newby details in his report the link between nanoparticles found in exhaust fumes from cars and the increased risk of blood clots resulting in heart attacks and strokes when inhaling such particles. It is therefore vital that alternative transports be promoted and efforts made to relieve congestion in order to lower the risk of such particles being inhaled by those who are at risk. In order to realise the same, the Conservatives would also introduce policy designed to either encourage motorists to switch to electric cars or use alternative means of transport. We would incentivise electric car ownership by introducing a raft of measures such as the free-time centre car parking and permitted use of taxi and bus lanes along with establishing a fund to expand electric vehicle charging points in rural locations. The cycle paths are also prioritised, with additional £5 million being invested to improve existing paths and create at least one new segregated route per city. With the national clean air day being introduced, my hope is that improving air quality will become a greater public health priority in Scotland and, as such, lead to more funding being allocated to tackle this underrepresented problem. It is also clear from the British Heart Foundation report that public awareness of the dangers of poor health quality remain relatively low, and with a UGov poll conducted alongside the report, showing only half of those polls thought that air pollution was harmful to the heart. As such, efforts should be made to increase public awareness to the dangers of poor health, to poor air quality alongside increased efforts to counter dangerous pollution levels. In conclusion, I thank Mark Ruskell again for securing the debate and look forward to hearing from the Scottish Government what steps it will take to ensure improved air quality for those living with CVD and the wider public are unimplemented. I now call Eileen Campbell to respond to this debate around seven minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others today, I also welcome this member's debate and the opportunity that it gives Parliament to not only highlight national clean air day and the work that has been done in partnership across Scotland to address the problems that we have in this area, but also to recognise the importance of tackling the issue of poor air quality. Like others, I also congratulate Mark Ruskell for securing this debate and for his timing because, as he mentioned, the national clean air day is tomorrow, 15 June. I encourage everyone in the chamber and throughout Scotland to consider what simple measures that people can take, not just tomorrow but every day, to help to reduce air pollution in Scotland and its impact on all of our health. Like Mark Ruskell, I also put on record my thanks to all the organisations, the British Heart and Lung Foundation, Global Action Plan and others, whose efforts continue to raise awareness of air quality and its impact on public health. While I am pleased to respond today, that could equally be one of my other colleagues, Humza Yousaf or Roseanna Cunningham. That fact symbolises why it is important to tackle the issue across different portfolios. It is an issue that is cross-cutting and requires focus across traditional boundaries. My portfolio, developing a theme that I think was started by Mark Ruskell's Public Health, impacts and cuts through many areas. It cuts through education, transport and planning and a whole host of other areas. Mark Ruskell raised today themes to make us reflect and deeply consider the places in which we stay and inhabit and how they are developed. That is actively part of my consideration as the Minister for Public Health. I do not want my role or work in public health improvement to only be solely focused on hospitals and health professionals. It needs to reach far beyond that. We need to have good housing, good employment, good spaces and places that we live in if we are to transform public health. That includes opportunities for people to become active in their daily lives. As we develop the obesity strategy and as we work with partners on shared public health priorities, I will be sure to engage with members who have contributed in today's debate. I equally think that those bits of work that I am taking forward in my portfolio will be equal importance to many of the members who have spoken today and who have touched upon areas that are incredibly cross-cutting. We should take pride in the fact that Scotland's air quality is among the best in Europe. However, we must also recognise that the pockets of poor air quality remain, and action is needed to tackle those problem areas. The threshold values that we have adopted in Scotland to protect public health are among the toughest of any nation in the EU and reflect the importance that we place on the subject. The science is often complex and confounding factors such as obesity, poor diet, smoking or social deprivation make it difficult to draw direct links between air pollution, ill health and death. That said, we know enough to know that air pollution has a negative impact on all of our health. In Scotland, poor air quality shortens average life expectancy by three to four months, compared with 67 across the UK. The impact is especially large for those with pre-existing heart and lung conditions. Emma Harper and David Stewart are rightly acknowledged the impact of poor air quality on our very youngest, with the quicker breathing and developing lungs of our children making them far more vulnerable to the ill effects of poor air. That is not fair and that is not right. That is why the Scottish Government has committed through the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy to protect and enhance health, wellbeing, environment, placemaking and sustainable growth through improved air quality across the country. Mark Ruskell, my apology. I thank the minister for giving way. Specifically on Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy, the High Court ruling in December last year in England was that the whole UK strategy was inappropriate and therefore needed to go back out to consultation. Cass is part of that. Will it be refreshed? Will it go out to consultation in Scotland? Aileen Campbell Actively considering and taking the opportunity about what further updates to the Scottish plans are required in light of the second judicial review, which referred to only the UK Government, but I would also reiterate to Mark Ruskell that our strategy delivers against EU air quality objectives and, at the time, was fully consulted upon. Of course, that does not say that we would not mean to always engage and seek to engage where we can make improvements. It is also important to remember that, despite the narrative from Patrick Harvie, fresh-faced or not, we have made substantial progress on air quality in recent years. Pollution emissions have reduced significantly since the 90s. For example, particulates have reduced by 46 per cent. That has been achieved through tighter regulation in industry, improved fuel quality, cleaner vehicles and increased focus on sustainable transport. However, we agree with Mark Ruskell, Patrick Harvie, Dave Stewart, Emma Harper and others that, despite those achievements, more could and should be done. Further action is needed. The Cleaner Air for Action Scotland, the road to a healthier future, was published in November 2015. That is Scotland's first distinct air quality strategy. The Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy draws together work right across Government into a coherent programme. That includes work by Transport Scotland, SEPA, Health Protection Scotland and local authorities. The Cleaner Air for Scotland vision is for Scotland to have the cleanest air in Europe. By 2020, we will have made significant progress towards revoking all air quality management areas in Scotland and will be in full compliance with EU air quality legislation. However, that ambition has to be underpinned by real action on the ground and will achieve that through new initiatives, including a national modelling framework to standardise air quality assessment and methodology across Scotland and ensure a living playing field for local authorities, a new national low emissions framework, providing procedures for local authorities to determine air quality measures at local level, including guidance on low emissions zone implementation, adoption of world health organisation guideline values for particulate matter in Scottish legislation, making Scotland the first country in Europe to do so, and the development of a national air quality awareness campaign. We will also deliver on our programme for government commitment to introduce low emissions zone in Scotland by 2018. Much of the detailed work on delivering early zeds is well under way, with consultation plans for the summer on their shape and form. Support across Scotland is essential and is very encouraging to see local authorities and all stakeholders play their part, with the major cities in particular showing strong commitment to being early adopters of an early zed. David Stewart I thank the minister for giving way. I think that most members have spoken very much in favour of early zeds. I am very in favour of expanding them to all Scottish cities, but you will know from the experience through you, Presiding Officer, that in London it was at over 100 million, and also the hold of London is covered by vehicle recognition CCTV technology, which I understand does not really exist in any of the Scottish cities. There is huge investment, but what is it that local authorities are actually bidding in for if the infrastructure is not there? Aileen Campbell We have already set out in our programme for government that this is something that we are working towards, and we have winning the hearts and minds of local authorities who might have been perhaps reluctant or a bit apprehensive about doing so in the first place. This will also create, I think, as important to recognise, a legacy for other areas to build upon. As far from being the negative story that I think David Stewart unfortunately seems to be creating, I think that this is a positive thing for Scotland. It is something that we want to build on, and it is something that we can build on for other areas across the country. To conclude, Presiding Officer, Scotland, as others have mentioned, has an international reputation for stunning natural environments, and that is right. It is in all of our interests that we do all that we can to protect and preserve those national treasures, but we should not shy away from addressing problems where they exist. In our towns and cities, mentioned specifically areas that Mark Ruskell and Patrick Harvie mentioned, we know that there are still pockets of poor air quality that impact negatively on public health. We have made significant progress, but there is much more to do, and we will continue to work across not just professional boundaries, traditional boundaries, but across the political spectrum to make sure that we can bring about the improvement that so many of us seek to ensure that that helps with our public health concerns that have been raised today. Again, thank you to Mark Ruskell for raising this important matter in today's debate.