 Overall, Scotland's air quality is good, but we have a number of localised hotspots in some of our towns and cities where additional action is required. We are working closely with local authorities and other partners to tackle those. We are very clear on our vision for air quality in Scotland. We want Scotland to be the best in Europe. Air pollution remains a significant public health and social justice issue. Improving air quality is important for the contribution that it makes to everyone's quality of life. For some groups in society that are very young and old and those with existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, it is even more fundamental. There is no doubt that improving air quality will result in improved health, while also delivering more attractive places for living, working and enjoying recreation. The evidence on health impacts shows that poor air quality reduces average life expectancy in Scotland by three to four months. While that might be lower than elsewhere in the UK, it is still unacceptable, so action is required. The Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy sets out an ambitious work programme to deliver further air quality improvements. Earlier this year, the first national clean air day was successfully staged. During that, we published the first cleaner air for Scotland progress report, setting out actions that have already been delivered and the current status of other actions to enhance our air quality. In that strategy, we set out our ambition for low-emission zones to be in place by 2020. We have since stepped up that ambition significantly. LEZs set minimum emission standards for vehicle access to a defined area. We want LEZs to help us to achieve and go beyond statutory air quality requirements. In particular, we believe that LEZs should focus on nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter to pollutants of special concern for human health. In last year's programme for government, we committed to putting in place the first LEZ by 2018. In this year's programme, we have gone further and committed to establishing LEZs in each of our four biggest cities between 2018 and 2020. By 2023, that will be extended into other air quality management areas, where the national low-emission framework demonstrates its value. Delivering multiple LEZs across Scotland is ambitious. It represents the largest ever programme of transport-based air quality mitigation in Scotland. We are also working to further improve air quality by reducing vehicle exhaust emissions. The programme for government sets a bold new ambition on ultra-low-emission vehicles, including electric cars and vans, with a target to phase out the need for new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032. We will expand the electric vehicle charging network, support innovative approaches and encourage the public sector to lead the way. The ambition is underpinned by our recently published Switched on Scotland action plan and builds on the range of incentives that we already provide to local authorities, businesses and individuals. Delivery of these ambitions requires clear structures to maximise the benefits of this partnership. We have engaged with Glasgow and Edinburgh councils to establish LEZ delivery groups. We have also contacted Aberdeen and Dundee City councils to discuss how similar groups could be established for their cities. The delivery groups will be supported by an independent senior scientific practitioner who will offer a critical challenge function around the delivery of LEZs. We will also create an LEZ leadership group across the four cities to ensure that knowledge sharing happens in a co-ordinated and constructive way, so that nationally consistent standards are applied and lessons shared. This will be a ministerially led group, and with the Minister for Transport and the Islands, I have written to invite the councils to join the group. The decision on LEZ locations and design will be led by local authorities in partnership with the Scottish Government and regional transport partnerships. I look forward to announcing shortly where the first LEZ will be. This will build on that council's assessment of the evidence base that has been developed in partnership with SIPA and Transport Scotland. I know that councils are supportive of this evidence, both in assessing needs and supporting their assessment of community and business engagement in demonstrating benefits. That evidence will be critical in determining which types of vehicles should be restricted and when. Each area will have its own specific requirements. On 6 September, we launched the LEZ consultation. It is open until 28 November. The consultation gives us the opportunity to seek views and opinions from business, the general public and other interested parties on issues that will shape our LEZ-guiding principles. Those will ultimately aid local authorities in the design, establishment and operation of Scottish LEZs in a consistent manner. Initial media reports suggested the immediate banning of cars and buses in 2018. That of course is inaccurate and misleading, and it also missed many of the key points that we need to get across as to benefits and managing change. We are proposing that local authorities identify specific vehicle types that would not be allowed to enter an LEZ. That would mean that such vehicles would be subject to a financial penalty if they illegally entered a zone. We want to avoid such breaches. That is quite different to the approach that is used in other parts of the UK, where a road charge can be paid to enter. That road pricing idea is not the approach that is suggested in Scotland. Stakeholder engagement during the consultation's development was very clear about the need for robust lead-in periods. Lead-in times would allow commercial fleet operators and private vehicle owners time to prepare and manage the change as part of fleet management. The proposal is that a lead-in period would start once a local authority declared an LEZ design and location, with the lead-in time running for a period after the LEZ is established. European LEZs have set variable timeframes for lead-in times, typically from one to four years. We want to hear the views of a wide range of stakeholders on these very important and practical issues. A phased introduction of inclusion of vehicle types into an LEZ is expected. Local authorities may decide to include private cars, as is their right, at some point if they believe that such emission sources are significant enough to warrant inclusion. The precise arrangements will be in city-specific design plans. I would like to draw particular attention to our bus sector, which has been and will continue to be an integral partner in assisting this Government to improve air quality. Buses are a key solution to our air quality challenges, offering commuters an alternative to the private car. They are not villains, clean low-emission buses are an opportunity. The changing behaviour change to move people out of cars and into efficient and low-emission buses will help to reduce congestion and emissions at the same time. Those things must go hand in hand. The first LEZ will act as a case study on how the two issues can interact. We will shortly be announcing the winners of the seventh round of the Scottish Green Bus Fund, which will bring forward another 47 low-emission buses. Beyond that, the PFG outlined our ambition in extending Government support to accelerate the industry's move towards buying the lowest-emitting buses. Those new buses mean a step change in emissions performance with a better offer for passengers, making buses an attractive mode of choice. In the short term, to address the air quality challenge, we are exploring options to support the sector this financial year. That would be targeted at bus retrofitting. We are engaging with the sector to better understand the technological opportunities and challenges that retrofitting will bring. We believe that LEZs should also interact with a host of other transport policies. Those include actions to tackle congestion, supporting modal shift towards more active travel and public transport, delivering climate change mitigation and support planners in making our town and city spaces more pleasant spaces to live work and spend leisure time. LEZs will be designed on the basis of clear evidence that identifies the air quality issues in a given location and the specific vehicle types that cause air pollution. That will allow the size of the zone and the delivery requirements to be determined and established. We are conscious that designing LEZs must consider potential knock-on effects. We must be alive to the displacement of air pollution to other areas. We have to ensure that LEZs are delivered in an equitable manner and consider equality issues, particularly for communities that rely on public transport to move around our towns and cities. On funding, investment will be considered within the forthcoming spending review. Costs associated with LEZs such as enforcement and retrofitting grants will depend on the type and scale of the LEZs, as decided by the local authorities. We need people's views across a wide range of Scotland, and I ask members to help highlight the opportunities that well-designed LEZs bring and to encourage their constituents to respond to the building Scotland's low-emissions consultation. The public is a key partner in our work to promote air quality and will be the principal beneficiary. We are in 20 minutes for questions, starting with Maurice Golden to be followed by David Stewart. I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of her statement. The Scottish Conservatives broadly welcomed many of the proposals included in the programme for government in relation to reducing air pollution. Although many of the SNP Government's proposals present a positive and constructive step forward, we believe that the plans fall short of expectation and would argue that there is need for them to go further. The Scottish Conservatives take an ambitious and bold approach to reducing air pollution, such as expanding the network of air quality monitors, in particular introducing them to primary schools. Last year, I met the transport minister regarding the establishment of urban consolidation hubs. They are an essential component for low-emissions zones by removing the requirement for freight to enter city centres in a commercially feasible way. Glasgow airport would be an ideal location for one of those, and I urge the SNP Government to consider that. What support is being provided to local authorities and businesses in order to create urban consolidation hubs? The issue of urban consolidation hubs has been raised by the member previously, and as he has already indicated, he is having constructive meetings, I hope, with the transport minister around that. Some of those will be issues for local authorities themselves to consider. We are trying to empower local authorities to move ahead with what they consider to be the most appropriate thing for their area, and we are providing support. I have indicated that that will become available through the budget process this year and next year. That is bound to include, I would imagine, consideration of transport hubs where it is considered appropriate, but at the moment we are not, as a Government, specifying where that might be. We would be expecting there to be a communication that will allow us to develop a network of those if they are considered to be required and where they might be useful. I am sure that that will be a continuing conversation that the member and others may wish to have with the transport minister. David Stewart, to follow by Graham Day. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I also thank the cabinet secretary for Van Sight of our statement. The key issue across the chamber is how do we improve air quality? Scotland has failed to meet European air quality directives in Glasgow, and across our cities and towns there are hotspots of air pollution that adversely affect the health of our children, the elderly and the ill. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the initial 2018 low-emissions target is on track? Can the cabinet secretary also reassure Parliament that the 2020 target just announced will be met as well? What is the budget for the air quality fund? Finally, will LEZs have vehicle recognition software such as in London to detect buses and HGVs that breach the Euro 6 emissions standards? The last point that the member makes is an important one when it comes to consideration of funding. The important thing about LEZs is that when they are brought into being, they are workable, manageable and that we plan in advance for them being able to achieve. Until we know where those LEZs are to take place and what precisely the local authority in respect of that particular LEZ is looking to do in the short, medium and longer term, it is very difficult to put precise answers on the issue of funding. An LEZ in one city might look very different to another and we have talked about a roll-out beyond 2020, beyond the four major cities, so we would be expecting a variety of different plans to be brought forward. The discussions about the first one are active and on-going. We are in active conversation with Edinburgh and Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, and those would be the four cities that we would be looking at by 2020. Beyond that, it will be a matter for a decision to be made about the air quality management areas and whether or not low-emission zones should be rolled out there. It will continue to be an issue where we will have to have consideration as to what precisely in each location is being asked for before we will know the precise figures that will go with that. I wonder what role the Scottish Government sees for green infrastructure in tackling poor air quality. Urban greenery can not only help to reduce the amount of atmospheric pollutants that people are exposed to but also contribute to biodiversity. I recognise that placing an increased emphasis on that would require a shift in planning policy to the extent that it should become must. However, I wonder if the Government sees a place for that in supplementing the measures that are noted in the cabinet secretary's statement. I think that everybody would probably agree that improving air quality in towns and cities offers many important advantages. Public health is our first priority in this area, but the measures can also make our towns and cities more attractive places to live. To be honest, when I was last in this job, we began progress on the central Scotland green network, and it was a very explicit part of the work around the central Scotland green network that it would be, among other things, providing attractive places for businesses and employers to come because they are looking for a range of amenity when they are looking to invest. It is incredibly important that we also remind ourselves that there are other benefits to be had from increasing air quality in Scotland. Reducing the level of pollutants, ensuring that urban cities are greener and more pleasant places to live and reducing the risk of flooding, for example, is part and parcel of all of that. Those are planning issues, and they are all perfectly valid things that planners can take on board. I commend members if they are not aware of the central Scotland green network to make themselves aware of it, because that is a very big example of how important green infrastructure can be in tackling not just air quality but a whole range of things. Research from the British Lung Foundation noted that children growing up in areas of severe air pollution have been shown to be five times more likely to have poor lung development. Will the cabinet secretary commit to working in collaboration with the cabinet secretary for health and sport on this area? What specific action will she take to ensure that the impact of air pollution on the health of Scotland's children is reduced? I have said that health is one of the key drivers for the things that we are looking at when we are looking at air quality, although there are other benefits. I am grateful for the British Heart Foundation's endorsement of what we were doing. I think that there is a recognition that we are trying very hard to ensure that what we produce will be to the best health benefit of all our population, regardless of what age. The member is right to talk about young people—it is not just young people, of course—it is very elderly that can be badly hit by poor air quality and those who have pre-existing conditions. Those are the three groups that are most vulnerable. I think that we would be expecting the local authorities when they are considering LEZs to be looking at when they are thinking about taking them forward, because that has obviously got to be a key part of it. The reference to children can take me on to a discussion about air quality monitoring around schools. I am not sure whether that is where the member wished to go in respect of that, but the current monitoring programme is robust enough to pick up any particular issues in locations around schools. We would expect the schools issue to be part of any consideration that a local authority might make in respect of LEZs. Emma Harper is a bit similar to Donald Cameron's question, but could the cabinet secretary expand on whether concerns such as the emissions of particulates in nitrogen dioxide, which cause irritation of the respiratory system and exacerbation of existing conditions in vulnerable individuals, as well as kids, are part of the reasoning behind the plans to establish more low-emissions zones in Scotland? I think that the member for the question is perfectly legitimate for people to want to emphasise the public health aspects of this. I think that I missed out in my last response that, yes, indeed, I am working with the health portfolio on this. It has been flagged up to them as a very serious issue. I have had conversations with consultants in this particular area and commended them to my colleagues in health as well to ensure that they are well aware of some of the same things that we are conscious of. The member who has just asked a question in respect of particularly those who are suffering from cardiovascular problems already. I ought to say that one of the slight difficulties that we have is that, although there is information about health, the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, which is the one that came up with that original estimation of three to four months life shortening in Scotland, has warned that the concerns that the statistics have some uncertainties about them are concerned that they should not be used as the basis for public policy interventions, but it is very difficult to ignore the information that we have from them. I think that we can conclude that any measures that improve air quality at a population level would have a positive impact on public health. It feels instinctively the right place to be. What we are not able to do is break down to a regional or local level and capture the impacts of individual measures such as LEZs in respect of public health. That is not something that is available to us yet. Neil Bibby, do you follow by Mark Ruskell? I am pleased that the cabinet secretary recognises that if we want to improve air quality, we need to see modal shift towards buses. The cabinet secretary has been aware since the SNP came to power in 2007 that the number of bus passenger journeys has fallen by 78 million and that almost 70 million vehicle kilometres have been stripped out of the bus network. We are not going to get people to go on buses if there are no buses to get on, and we are also not going to get people to go on buses if fares continue to rise. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Government should not take decisions that could lead to increased bus fares? Does she also accept that we need to see bus regulation now to provide the public transport system that the public actually needs? As one of the members in the chamber that does use buses, I am understandably of the view that I would want always to have the widest possible availability of both bus routes and, indeed, as along with everybody else, not to be charged too much. Of course, we are currently in a situation in which a lot of the decisions that are being made are being made by bus companies, and it is a very active local conversation going on in many, many places. I am sure that the member has raised the very particular issues with buses with the transport minister. I know that we are concerned not to have LEZs, for example, feed through to what might be seen as a negative impact in terms of buses, and we have committed quite a lot of funding to the various bus companies in order to ensure that they can make the shift that they need to do in terms of moving to more efficient vehicles, and not to have a situation in which the costs are being fed through. There is a lot of progress being made, and although that might not answer the bigger, more ideological question that the member has asked, I am sure that he would expect us to be aware of the potential dangers in all of this and to have them at the forefront of the discussions when we are having those discussions at local authority level. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Liam McArthur. I welcome the statement today on behalf of the Greens, but, given that, as the statement has just acknowledged, it can take up to four years to roll out an LEZ, perhaps it suggests that the statement is three years too late. However, if I can ask the cabinet secretary specifically about funding for the LEZ work, the UK Government announced in the summer that there would be an additional £200 million to be spent on tackling nitrous oxide at the roadside, and the Scottish Government is only putting £2 million into council work on air quality. Can the cabinet secretary confirm today that every single last penny of the Barnett consequentials that will come from that £200 million will be spent on tackling nitrous oxide in Scotland and, as a result, save lives? I think that the Government does have a good record. I appreciate that Mark Ruskell may have wished this to have all happened maybe not just three years ago, but 10 years ago, 15 years ago. The fact is that we are doing it now. The fact is that we have better air quality than the rest of the United Kingdom. We are actually making big achievements. There has been considerable funding going into issues and areas that will affect air quality, and that will continue to be the case. I indicated that there will now be budget discussions in respect of low emission zones. I am not going to comment on Barnett consequentials. That would be a matter more relevantly put to my colleague the finance secretary, as I am sure Mark Ruskell knows. What we are doing at the moment is considering LEZ funding within the forthcoming spending review. We recognise that it is an additional cost pressure, but it is one that we will be absolutely up to considering. Obviously, it will be influenced by LEZ sizes. As regards the global amounts, I am sure that Derek Mackay would be happy to engage with Mark Ruskell on that. Once again, it is a more strategic issue of funding. I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and, indeed, much of the content within it, as well as reiterating my call not just for the expansion of the EV network but for the efforts to improve reliability, not least through better and more timely maintenance. What assurance can she provide that progress on LEZs in Scotland's four largest cities will not undermine investment, support and focus on initiatives in other parts of the country, not just our urban but also our rural areas? It is a separate area of funding and a separate area of conversation. I am conscious that there were other announcements. I referred to some of them in the statement in respect of electric vehicles, which is something that will apply right across Scotland and won't simply be confined to those parts of the country with LEZs. Obviously, there are a number of issues around the move towards greater use of electric cars and vans. I am looking for it here that Orkney got a special mention in terms of electric buses. Is that correct? I am glad that the member is endorsing my recollection. That is a very good example of how this is an issue, which really is one for the whole of the country. Electric vehicles are something that we will see in rural areas as well as urban areas, despite people assuming that they are really a matter for cities rather than for the country. We are a little bit tighter for the time that I originally envisaged, but if we are quick, we will get a few more questions in. I am following on from that last question. The cabinet secretary mentioned that there are localised emissions hotspots in some of our towns and cities, some of which are in Falkirk district. We know that the majority of such emissions, which contribute to ill health, come from cars and light vans. In order to understand her reply to Liam McArthur, can the cabinet secretary set out how the Government is encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles, therefore reducing vehicle exhaust emissions, and does she agree that this makes our cities more attractive places to live, work and visit, and that is ultimately good for business and good for our economy? The answer to the final point is yes. I am sure that other members will have noted Friends of the Earth's published list of Scottish air quality monitoring sites back in January 2017, with some dirty top 10. I suppose that that will not be the way that we might describe it, but it was eight in terms of nitrogen dioxide and six in terms of particulate matter, including some surprising ones. For those who assume that this is an urban or a big city problem, it is not. Some of the ones on the list, particularly for particulates, were not big city, as I knew, because one of them was in my constituency, and that would probably come as a surprise to many people. Localised emission hot spots come from a variety of vehicle sources. It is not always the case that the majority of those emissions come from cars and light vans, which is often the first assumption. That is why I make mention of some of the more surprising admissions to the list. There is no doubt that the uptake of electric vehicles and clean modern petrol and diesel will make our cities more attractive places to live, work and visit. I have talked about the PFG and the bold new ambition on ultra-low emission vehicles, including electric cars and vans, and we are going to be supporting this approach with the expansion of the Charge Place Scotland charging network and encouraging the public sector to lead the way on electric vehicles, because that is an important point to make. We can be leaders in this in the public sector. In a sense, it really is about we have to be in a place that says, do as we do, not do as we say. The cabinet secretary says that local authorities will ultimately be responsible for designing their own LEZs. That could potentially lead to a situation in which we have four very separate roles and regulations. Given that it is business that operates many of the vehicles that might be affected by the restrictions, those businesses operate in multiple zones. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the potential confusion that might arise from a multiple regulatory environment? How is she going to find that balance between the positive change in air quality that she will want without any substantial detrimental effect to our cities' economies? I think that the key to the concern that the member has—it is a legitimate concern when we are talking about different design in different parts of the country—is the current consultation, which is on-going, and the development of the national low-emission framework, which will be the framework in which we operate. The development will be supported by the work of the Cleaner Air for Scotland Governments Group, which is the first LEZ. That will then be designed in a manner consistent with the national discussion on the NLEF. We will use the experience of putting in place the first LEZ to inform that national low-emission framework. In a sense, we are already looking forward to how we can ensure that there is a broad framework with which LEZs will be created, but we are still allowing local authorities to make the more individuated decisions that they require to make to deal with their very local circumstances. I apologise to members who did not get in there. We will have to move on to our next debate, which is about cities of culture. I will take a few moments for the cabinet secretaries and others to change seats.