 Felly, maen nhw gondol.herwch. Fy Llywyddyn, mae cyf cyddiad. Ydw i'n mynd i ddechrau unrhyw ffordd i Fy Llywyddyn, yn y neud o Serabòiach i Fy Llywyddyn oedd i'n Gwyllgord. Rlyon o'r bai ddweud yn cael ei gweithdeilig, ac yn ymdegwyd i Gweithdysgwyd i ydynt hefyd y debate i gynhyrchu lle i gweithdysgwyd i Gweithdysgwyd i Fy Llywyr. I now call on Sarah Boyack to open the debate. Seven minutes or thereby, Ms Boyack, if you are ready, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, can I thank colleagues for signing my motion and enabling tonight's debate. Also to those organisations such as Friends of the Air Scotland, Sustrans, the British Heart Foundation and Transform Scotland for joining forces together and to give us such an excellent briefing for tonight. Over 2,000 people die early deaths every single year in Scotland as a result of traffic-related air pollution. Then there is the impact on people's health, on children, on older people and those who already have chronic conditions. That cocktail of emissions can lead to cancer, increased risk of heart attacks and gyna and an impact on respiratory health. We lose days at work, we cost our NHS over £1 billion every year and the reality is that in 32 local air quality management areas we are missing the EU ambient air quality directive and we are currently failing our own Scottish standards, so we need to act. We got an extension from the EU, we were failing to act by 2010, we got an extension to this year, so we do need urgent action. I think that it will need all of us across the chamber to sign up to action. That action will bring big benefits, better public health, more attractive and safer streets and the reduction in climate emissions. That must be good for us. The Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy has some good ideas in it, but I think that it is not sufficiently ambitious in terms of the timescale. That is really where I want to focus my remarks tonight. It is great that we aspire to have the cleanest air in Europe, but we need to deliver on that ambition faster. We need to urgently target those areas where we have got failure and crucially where we are likely to have failure in the future. That means that we need action both by the Scottish Government, our local authorities and our regional transport partnerships. We need to work together and we need the financial resource from the Scottish Government. There are also legislative issues that we could address. For example, if we put bus regulation in place, we would then be able to require what kind of emissions vehicles we would have, particularly those that would travel through low emission zones, so we need a joined up approach. I think that there is good work across Scotland already in different cities and towns, but I fervently believe that we have got to ramp up that action across the whole country. Part of that has to be a modal shift in our travel, more walking and cycling, more attractive and better quality public transport routes. That would give us a double health benefit. More walking and cycling is not just good for those air quality areas, it is also good for our health as well in terms of increased physical activity. That comes back to cleaner and safer streets and a more attractive environment and better infrastructure. I have mentioned bus regulation. If we had low emission zones and low emission buses, that would begin to help tackle some of those poor air quality areas. I think that we need now to look and analyse at the failures in all those air quality management areas, to look at what the short wins might be now, not just to wait until 2018 before we have emission zones. We need to look now at early wins. There are issues that we need to start work on now as well, more adoption of electric and alternative fuel vehicles such as hydrogen and LPG. We need to be thinking about changing our cars, our taxis, our buses and our delivery vehicles. It is a big challenge and I accept that. I am sure that the transport minister will say that it will take a time. If we have that ambition centre stage, we can get going on it. I mentioned in my motion the issue of Volkswagen, which was topical when I laid the motion. We need to make sure that those companies that produce those vehicles deliver what they say on the tin as well. If companies and people are buying vehicles, they actually meet the low emission standards that those companies are advertising. We need action right across the public sector and we need the engagement of the private sector as well. I would like to see planning now with the logistics industry so that they have the confidence to invest in alternatives to diesel fuels for vehicles. There are clearly areas where we need different choices and we need those choices made now. I particularly would like to see long distance freight and haulage industries come together with city businesses and with the retail industry to look at how those changes might be planned for. The public sector needs to lead the way with low emission zones but there will also need to be a response from private sector interests and they need to come to the table now. We need a more ambitious timetable for low emission zones. We need to concentrate everybody's minds. The minute something is three years away, it's in the tomorrow box. This needs to be in the now box. We need to tie it to Scottish air quality regulations. If I can say that the whole of the city of Dundee and Perth are in an air quality management area, that really concentrates the mind. Edinburgh has got five zones. We know where those areas are and we need to act. Our big cities need support now to get that infrastructure in place. A faster timetable for action and funding and action in low emission zones. We need to know how compliance with the new standard for fine particles we monitored and delivered because at the moment there are only six monitoring stations for fine particles across the whole of Scotland. Finally, I would like to see more planning policy and guidance actioned now. It needs to be done within the year. We don't need more new developments making the situation worse. We've got to start this change now. It is not a future problem and we need to plan in new walking and cycling, public transport networks, car clubs, electric charging infrastructure and all of those new developments from day one, not in the next five years. We know what needs to be done, we need to get on with it, we need the political will across this chamber and we need leadership from the Scottish Government. People are dying needlessly now and if nothing else, we owe it to them and their families to get on with that action and not leave it as a future challenge. I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing forward this debate. The west of Edinburgh has four main commuter routes into the city, Queensbury Road, St John's Road, Calder Road and the Lanark Road. Two of those arterial routes, the A70 and A71, are in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands. The Calder Road at the evening peak between 4.30pm and 6.30pm is the biggest car park in the west of the city. Communities along that route from Stenhouse past Salkton, Mainz, Parkhead, Broomehouse, Sighthill and the Calder have mile after mile of traffic crawling along in second gear as commuters try to leave the city. They not only have to put up with the road noise or the difficulty of travelling across the Calder road to get to their homes but also anyone living along that route has to contend with the exhaust fumes pumped out by thousands of cars over a relatively short period of time. That situation is only going to get worse as there is over 6,000 homes to be built in the east of the West Lothian Council area at Calderwood, Brocksburn and Winshborough, all easily commutable into Edinburgh by car along roads that are already heavily congested. The other route in my constituency, the Lanark Road, has the communities of Juniper Green, Currie and Balerno along its route. At the morning peak, traffic queues are back from the Gillespie Crossroads through Juniper Green to the outskirts of Currie. Although they do not yet have the same level of congestion that are at air quality problems as they called a road, those communities are under siege from developers. Over the last few years, the community has faced applications for house building at Ravellrig, Currie Hill, Rickerton Maines, Currie Murren Park, Murwood, Harlogate, Coburn Crescent, Good Cheese Farm and Glenbrooke. Over 1,800 proposed new homes and total on a piece of road four miles long that already handles queues of one mile in length every moment, with the potential of more and more car owners adding to already long queues. On top of that, there are two proposals in and around Territ Watt University that would totally maroon the university in a sea of homes, making future expansion virtually impossible for this institution. Edinburgh Garden District is a three and a half thousand new district housing plan to be built to the east of the university next to the bypass that has already been rejected by the council. However, it can still see phase one built in my colleague Colin Kear's constituency of Edinburgh, Western. Wallace Lannan is another 1,500 development proposed at the university north of Currie Hill station. If all those developments are given the go ahead, then a small area of mainly arable land will host nearly 8,000 homes on top of those being built in West Lothian. They will all be commutable into Edinburgh along the A70 and A71 in my constituency. The Edinburgh council issued a revised air quality action plan in August that highlights trams, buses and electric vehicles as a solution. The problem is that in my area trams only skirt my constituency at Broomehouse. Buses will not resolve the situation as a Lanark road has no room for a greenway to encourage bus use and electric vehicles are not yet affordable to many families. The only way that we can address the issue of poor air quality for existing communities in my area is to draw a halt to further development in the green belt, improve the railway line from Edinburgh to Glasgow via shots and encourage house building along that route in addition to new houses built along the border railway. The alternative is that those existing communities in the west of the city will face more and more traffic, reducing the quality of life for my constituents and grinding the city to a halt. Planning policy, linked to transport needs across the development plan areas, is the only way that we can alleviate poor air quality in our cities and we need to act now before the EU imposes fines for failing to deliver reductions in air quality. Claudia Beamish will be followed by Jimmy McGregor. I thank my colleague Sarah Boyack for bringing the significant issue to the chamber and for her focused and comprehensive analysis. Until you see an old banger lurching down the street, air quality is out of sight, out of mind, unless you happen to live under its pool. My colleague Sarah Boyack said that this is a moral and public health issue. The Scottish Government cannot delay action working with other partners because any delay means more people breathing harmful and sometimes carcinogenic air every day. You might hope that living outside our big cities would relieve you from air pollution as a concern. Of course, urban congested areas have the most dangerous air quality levels in many cases. It is disturbing, as Sarah Boyack said, that entire cities exceed Scottish standards for air pollution. However, local authorities are not exclusively declaring air quality management areas in our big cities. The high street of Musselborough has excessive levels of nitrogen oxide, despite its distance from Edinburgh and its seaside location. In my region, the residents of Lanark have concerns over the traffic pollution leading up to the closest connected to the high street. They are considering taking small actions such as pollutant eating plants, and there is research that suggests that this natural resource can make a worthwhile contribution. Of course, increased active travel will contribute significantly to cleaner air for urban dwellers and road users, and the range of initiatives to improve safety such as the presumed liability possibility, road user education and appropriate infrastructure are utterly essential, not least the recent community links plus ward. The Scottish Government planning review must also address the use of cleaner air, as we plan new communities across Scotland now. That cannot wait. I welcome the cleaner air for Scotland strategy and the steps that it takes to meet the European limits. The chamber will be aware that our own Scottish regulations set stricter standards for course particles. I am concerned to know whether the Scottish Government will reach the more ambitious targets and commit to meeting its own regulatory standards. Furthermore, the strategy lacks any hint of the expected reduction of the pollutant components. Estimates of each planned improvement to air quality would mean a strengthened strategy that people in the most affected zones could put their faith in. Not only are those predictions a legal requirement, but their omission creates difficulty in monitoring any progress. I thank the various groups who have put in briefings for this important debate, the British Heart Foundation, as we have heard, Sustrans on active travel and indeed Friends of the Earth, who have made a big commitment to campaigning for better air quality in Scotland in advance of this debate. The statistics that they have shared regarding the relationship between the air that we breathe and our health are indeed bracing. Links have been made, as we have heard from others in this debate already, to cancer, coronary events, restricted fetal growth even, in some cases in research, respiratory health problems of course and disproportionately dangerous to children, all these breathing issues, with so much asthma in Scotland today and indeed for the elderly and the sick. Combining lost work days and cost to the NHS, air pollution is estimated cost Scotland £1.1 billion a year. In a sentence, by 2015, urban air pollution is set to overtake dirty water and the lack of sanitation to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide. Local authorities are tasked with the job of cleaning the air that we breathe and I am concerned to see no new commitment to funding as I understand it. I recognise that this is not a simple task and so it is imperative that the Scottish Government fully supports our local authorities, particularly when it comes to low emission zone implementation. Those zones should be prioritised and it needs all levels of the state to work together. Clean air is a right that we all have. It affects every one of us but it hurts the already disadvantaged even more. It is for this very reason that Scottish Labour has expanded the concept of environment in our brief to environmental justice and we must all work together across this chamber to ensure that action is enough. I thank those organisations that have provided briefings for today, including BHF Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives share concerns about air quality levels, which are too low in many areas of the country, but they are not as good as they are in many areas of the country. In breach of EU air quality limits, and as a sufferer myself from a respiratory condition called COPD, I am very conscious of the impact polluted air can have on people with breathing conditions. It can in fact be terrifying. The BHF briefing for today also highlights the harm air pollution causes to the many Scots who have cardiovascular disease and the BHF is to be commended for investing £6.9 million in medical research to help better understand the link between air pollution and cardiovascular disease since 2010. While the majority of air quality management areas are within urban areas of the central belt, I am aware that one is in force in my region with parts of Inverness city centre around Queensgate and Academy Street, affected by excessively high nitrogen dioxide levels. It is a shocking statistic, or mentioned, that more than 3,500 people in Scotland die prematurely each year due to air pollution and exposure to toxic emissions. It is also estimated that air pollution in the UK reduces the life expectancy of every single person by an average of seven to eight months. All of us must agree that tackling this must be a policy priority. In addition to early deaths, the extra costs our NHS faces as a result of pollution exacerbating respiratory and other health conditions is very significant. A figure of around £2 billion per annum has been suggested. The further promotion of user-friendly, reliable and affordable public transport options as well as walking and cycling as alternatives to private car use in urban areas is clearly vital. We must also ensure that every effort is made to relieve road congestion to enable traffic to flow much more smoothly. Vehicles sitting stuck in traffic jams contribute greatly to air pollution. The development of more modern, lower-emission vehicles will continue to be important. I was pleased to welcome early this year the introduction of a new electric bus on Orkney as a result of support from the Scottish Green bus scheme, which Orkney Islands Council has said is a great demonstration of the council's commitment to reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Planting more trees and shrubs in urban areas also has a role to play as this reduces ground level ozone. This has been a subject of a recent interesting academic report in the United States of America entitled Tree and Forest Effects on Air Quality and Human Health in the United States. Sarah Boyack's motion rightly refers to the recent scandal arising from Volkswagen's admission over manipulated emission test results. The UK Government is to be commended for moving swiftly to launch an investigation into the extent of this practice and widening its probe to look at whether the illegal software used by VW is being used elsewhere. The UK Government has for some time been pressing for action at an EU level to improve emission tests and they will continue to do that. To conclude, today's debate is welcome and we look to ministers working closely with our local authorities and other organisations to implement practical and effective new air quality plans as required by the Supreme Court's determination. Alison Johnstone, to be followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you to Sarah Boyack for bringing this important debate to the chamber this evening. I too would like to thank Friends of the Earth, Sustrans Transform Scotland and the British Heart Foundation for their very useful briefing. Sadly, it's a fact that our much heralded Scottish fresh air isn't always as fresh as you might think or might wish, sometimes notably so, particularly in national air pollution hotspots like St John's Road and Queensferry Road in Edinburgh, but even at levels below current Scottish pollution standards our health is still being damaged. While we debate the shortage of GPs, the impact of bed blocking and the need for sufficient funding in our local authorities for health and social care integration, we need to start looking at how decisions taken in other policy areas such as planning and transport impact on our health. In the time that I have this evening, I'm going to focus on the impact of the Government's transport policies on air pollution and where change is needed. In 2014, Transform Scotland published warning signs. Is Scotland moving towards sustainable transport? Just how is Scotland moving about? 65 per cent of journeys are taken by car, most of which have one passenger, 23 per cent by walking, bus 9 per cent, rail 2 per cent, bike 1 per cent. But it wasn't always like this. In 1985, more trips were taken on foot than by car, 43 per cent to 39 per cent. It was only in the late 80s and early 90s that we started to see the change that has remained in place ever since. While our climate change emissions have declined in recent years by 34 per cent, our transport emissions have declined by one or two per cent and make up 25 per cent of all climate change emissions. Those emissions contribute to climate change, but they also pollute our air and damage our health. The international agency for research on cancer has announced that air pollution, and in particular particulate matter, is carcinogenic cancer-causing to humans. Here in this city at the Edinburgh Centre of Research Excellence, Professor David Newby says that in the 1950s, when there was a lot of smog, the problem used to be that the particles were big and stuck in the upper airways. Now, those nanoparticles go straight past, deep into the lungs, even into the bloodstream, and there is a clear link between air pollution levels and heart attacks, and we believe that the particles in the air are the cause of that. When I visited the centre recently with MP colleagues from Labour and the SNP, Professor Newby told us of the links between a heart attack and a high likelihood that those suffering such attacks will have been sitting in heavy traffic in the hours leading up to this episode. The European Environment Agency in their air quality in Europe report shows that more than 90 per cent of people in European cities breathe air that is dangerous to their health. We know that children, the elderly and sick are disproportionately affected by air pollution, but I believe that this is not being addressed by the Government's transport policies here in Scotland or by our local authorities. If it was being addressed, we would not have 32 local air quality management areas where air pollution levels are dangerously high. I welcome the fact that we have a cleaner air for Scotland strategy, but does it have the teeth to make a difference? The Government claimed that it will promote a modal shift away from the car through walking and cycling, among other policies, yet more has been spent on trunk roads and motorways than ever before, less on maintenance than ever before. If the Minister wants to boost the local economy, prevent damage to cars and cyclists, then shovel-ready potholes can be found across Lothian region and across the country. Transform Scotland is right in calling upon local and national government to focus on a fix-it-first policy. I would like to see the Government invest in affordable bus and rail, invest in low-emission zones, greener buses and taxis, incentivise share car juice, get free off our roads where possible, increase workplace parking levies, protect and enhance our green spaces, introduce presumed liability and invest more than 2 per cent of the £2 billion transport budget and walking on cycling. Green Party policy, in line with the Institute of Public Health Directors, the Institute of Highway Engineers and the British Heart Foundation, is that 10 per cent is required to deliver the shift that we need to see for cleaner for all. The Government has five years to deliver its vision of 10 per cent of all journeys by bike, and I believe that if the minister is serious about that, he will need to start peddling a lot faster. I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for bringing this important issue to the chamber for a debate. Air pollution and the improvement of air quality should undoubtedly be of the utmost importance and concern to both this Parliament and the Scottish Government. The detrimental effects of poor air quality are well documented and have been described by the British Health Association as a major challenge to human health. In light of this challenge, I very much welcome the Scottish Government's cleaner air for Scotland initiative as an appropriate step in achieving the goals and states of reducing air pollution and improving human health. As we know Scotland's on-going efforts to curb air pollution are represented in its 32 air quality management areas in place around Scotland, which seek to lower emissions in areas that exceed regulatory standards. One such AQMA is located in my constituency, where emissions of sulphur dioxide from the Grangemouth petrochemical plant have resulted in an AQMA set to reach a decade old this month. Previously, I have expressed my frustration with the pollution surrounding the site. However, thankfully, due to the co-operation of the petro-ineos refinery, sulphur emissions have declined and there have been no breaches of the AQMA objectives since a tailgas unit designed to increase sulphur recovery was installed in Grangemouth at the refinery in 2013 at a cost of approximately £70 million. It is not all 32 AQMAs where breaches are recorded, as Sarah Boyack suggested earlier on. However, this was a prime example of partnership working with the installation of the tailgas unit, successfully addressing air pollution with petro-ineos, working with SIPA, HSE and Falkirk Council to find a solution. While the positive trend in Grangemouth is encouraging, it is still important to address emissions from energy-related sources and contributing to air pollution. For example, 79.4 per cent of sulphur dioxide emissions emanate from energy industries, as in the case of my constituency. However, the national low emission framework proposed in Queen Area for Scotland will only apply to local authorities where transport is the main contributor to air quality problems. So, while the Government is laudable in thoroughly addressing transport-related emissions, which are certainly a large contributor to pollution, AQMAs declared for emissions not stemming from transportation-related sources also need attention. Specifically, if the Government is to be successful in making significant progress towards revocation of all AQMAs by 2020, it will be necessary to expand its actions for change beyond the scope of implementing the national low emission framework. I look forward to the Government's proposals stemming from a comprehensive review of the local air quality management system, which is due to be introduced in 2016. A promising aspect of the Queen Area for Scotland initiative is the desire of the CAFS governance group to combine air quality and climate change policies to achieve Scotland's renewable energy targets while also improving air quality. The initiative rightly points out that air pollution often originates from the same activities that contribute to climate change, and in the instances that those two policies do not coincide, the strategy aims to ensure that the policies are not at odds. My constituency may have a role to play in this goal, as Grangemouth Place in Scotland's renewable energy future could feature a carbon capture and storage plant that is currently undergoing research and feasibility studies. The proposed summit power, Captain Queen energy plant in Grangemouth, would deliver low-carbon energy while also delivering very low levels of air pollutants, representing an example of a plant that would jointly benefit climate change and air quality policies together. The minister's vision that Scotland's air quality becomes the best in Europe is an admirable goal and one that Scotland should strive towards. In launching Scotland's first distinct air quality strategy, the Government has demonstrated its commitment to take seriously the health hazards posed by air pollution and pursue the substantial benefit that Scotland stands to gain from Queen Area. As the Government pursues other policies across its agenda, I urge ministers and Government officials to keep the goals laid forth in this initiative in mind and work to achieve them in conjunction with their own policies. Queen Air should be an innate right for all Scots, and providing that is a commendable goal for this Government. Quickly in closing, Presiding Officer, as a Volkswagen owner and a former Volkswagen Audi enthusiast, I had hoped to touch on the Volkswagen Fiasco, and that is not a new model that they are planning on taking out. However, I am afraid that time has run out, and I would be keen to hear what response ministers have received from UK counterparts in relation to their calls for a co-ordinated response on the Volkswagen emissions scandal. I look forward to hearing the minister's response shortly. I am looking forward to the outcome of the debate on air pollution in Scotland. Presiding Officer, air pollution and the environment used to be the Green Party's baby, but not anymore. We witness the general public and, more importantly, our children are very interested in the world that we live in today. Air pollution in Scotland is not being successfully dealt with as we see Scotland keeps breaching the European air pollution legal limits. Can I ask the Government what do I say to my constituents and our young that the Government is doing to fix this trend? What plans are going to be introduced, which are not just deploying, but also what monies are going to be available, particularly to local authorities, to support the delivery of Government's policy? And what additional public transport is being planned to help reduce toxin emissions in Scotland today? We in Scotland must address toxin emissions by cars, by manufacturers of cars and force them not only to pay compensation to the owners of the vehicles, but also pay to the Government's affected, us included. Some may say it's a bit unfair, but I don't as car manufacturers are guilty that they should pay for the profits that they've made from this deception. And I also think that Volkswagen are perhaps not the only manufacturer who is perhaps involved in this. I understand there are several other manufacturers being investigated as we speak today. But most importantly, we in Scotland should continue the good work our schools are doing with our children. And working with children and parents and increasing awareness, which I believe is paying huge dividends in the field of awareness. I see it in my own house, my own grandchildren, who are so aware that it in fact impresses me that I was not so educated in these matters. I'm quite regularly corrected in how I dispose of refuge. I'm very regularly told by my grandson that you have to switch a car off because we're waiting for someone. Small things, but they all add up and they all infect our environment. And I think the sooner we get to grips with this, the better. I think the SMP Government must improve the quality of its citizens' lives. And I genuinely wish them every success in doing so because it is for all of our benefits. But I think that sometimes the government perhaps I think has allowed itself to be let down, but not pursuing this more vigorously than perhaps it should. I genuinely believe that we all, not just the government, are guilty of taking the eye off the ball. Presiding Officer, it impresses me when I see our young who are so much more better aware than I was in my time. But more significantly, what impresses me even more is they actually care about the world they live in. They're actually worried about what is going to happen to their environment and they want to see us do more for them. I was discussing it in the house last night about this motion coming forward, which I wasn't going to speak at. But my grandson said, Granddad, you have to. So I'm fulfilling that obligation. And I wish the Government well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now Colin Malcolm Chisholm after which I'll move to the closing speech from the minister. It's here about for bringing this important subject to the chamber. Unlike her, I join her in expressing deep concerns at some of the figures that have been highlighted by friends of the earth. The effect of poor air quality can lead to devastating health consequences with high levels of nitrogen dioxide and particularly problematic matter. James Kant, director of the British Heart Foundation, said recently that research has continuously shown that levels of air pollution can shorten people's lives and increase their risk of heart disease and stroke. The problem in Scotland, of course, is clear for all to see because, as many speakers have said, Scotland has been breaking the ambient air quality directive of the European Union, particularly in relation to nitrogen dioxide, a small particulate matter called PM10 and fine particulate matter called PM2.5. We know the consequences of that in terms of health. We also know that the cause, to a large extent, is road traffic emissions. If we want to find out what is happening here in my own city, we can turn to a report to the Transport and Environment Committee of the Council dated 25 August 2015. In fact, those reviews of air quality are required by the 1995 Environment Act, which I remember participating in. One of the good pieces of legislation from a previous Conservative Government, I do not often say that, but I have just said it. There are five air quality management areas in this city. I say this city because, whenever I say Edinburgh, I have to say Edinburgh and Leith. It is particularly important to say Leith because, unfortunately, one of those zones is in Leith, centred on Great Junction Street but extending to Commercial Street and Bernard Street as well. There is also nitrogen dioxide monitoring in Duke Street as if they are almost expecting the problem to increase because of changes to traffic arrangements in Leith Walk. In fact, there is an air quality management area covering Inverleith, which is not so well known. The report that I referred to also says that PM 10 is a particular problem in Salamander Street in Leith, quoting from the report, should measured levels of PM 10 in 2015 not reduce in line with the current trend, an air quality management area will be necessary at Salamander Street. I very much agree with what Sarah Boyack says in the motion about low emission zones being necessary where air quality management areas are currently in place. I am also minded to support the proposal from Friends of the Earth today that we should be banning the more polluting vehicles from such zones. HGVs are a particular problem, but so are old diesel buses, which again is perhaps not so well known. We must replace and upgrade older buses with cleaner engine technology and, in fact, make sure that we deploy those best buses on roads that pass through the air quality management areas. Two final points. One, of course, is cars and roads wagon, and all that needs to be investigated more widely with improved emissions tests. Finally, the tram, a big decision on the council on that tomorrow. That will clearly help if it goes to Leith in terms of air quality. I believe that it will have to go anyway in due course, not least for financial reasons, to widen the customer base. Can I take this opportunity of saying that I was wrongly quoted in the national last Thursday? I am not often quoted in the national there. I appear because the journalist, through no fault of his own, lifted a quotation from the Edinburgh evening news website, which was actually word spoken by Colin Howden, and they were attributed to me. The minister will be reassured to know that I do not believe that investment in the tram should be a priority for Scottish Government investment. That was Colin Howden's view, and I think that I should take this opportunity of saying that, because I know that certain members in the party opposite do read the national from time to time. Can I start with saying that I feel Malcolm Chisholm's pain and been badly treated by the press? Sometimes our own record, our right to reply, is not achieved. Never mind the issue around misquoting, but can I challenge Hanzala Malik, first of all, just to say that our green issue is solely the preserve of the Green Party? No, there not. I think that it can be shared by all. A personal revelation is that I probably came into politics because of the issue of air quality. As it happens at the age of 13, it was a campaign against a toxic waste incinerator in my hometown in Renfrew, first got me into politics, so it just goes to show you the linkages, but again the reflection on the enthusiasm of youth. I'm delighted to do my bit now as transport minister towards this very significant and, of course, serious issue, as all members have reflected upon, and I too congratulate Sarah Boyack for bringing the motion and the debate to the chamber. Quite timely, of course, just two weeks ago, the Government, having launched our action, the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy, at the third annual Scottish Transport Emissions Partnership Conference. Of course, it's Dr Eileen McLeod who leads as minister on this issue, but transport has a very important role. That, I suppose, reflects the issue that is across a portfolio. Many portfolios will contribute to this issue. In terms of emissions reductions, I think that it is important to reflect that there has been reductions in certain harmful emissions. I don't say that out of complacency. I say it because we learn lessons from how we achieve progress in certain areas. Angus MacDonald is right to touch upon the industrial issues, which were more of an issue of the past. Tougher and tighter industrial regulations improve fuel quality, cleaner vehicles and an increased focus on sustainable transport has and will make a difference. Although we are meeting generally domestic and European air quality targets across much of Scotland, of course there are hotspots of poorer air quality in a number of urban areas and a range of actions take place to try and address that. In publishing our strategy, there is a distinctive set of actions that will improve air quality. It recognises that there are some shared actions that will help to improve air quality and mitigate climate change. We have set more stringent air quality objectives for particulate matter in Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe. The Scottish Government will continue to work with its agencies, SEPA Transport Scotland, Health Protection Scotland and others to further reduce air pollution and its effects on human and environmental health that all members covered. In partnership with the UK and other Administrations, we are consulting on the updated actions for the plan to secure compliance with the EU air quality legislation. The Cleaner Air for Scotland is our first national air quality strategy and sets out the vision of what Scotland could be in terms of the best in Europe in tackling the issue and the massive impact that we could have if we reduced health inequalities. The action plan covers six objectives. Transport, health, place making—many members have touched on planning—climate change communications and legislation and policy, the goal to being to protect human health, natural environments and reduce health inequalities. An example of new initiatives that are helpful in taking this issue forward include a national modelling framework that will provide a standard air quality assessment methodology for use across Scotland at the regional and local scale. It is a national low-emission framework that will set out the procedure for local authorities and our agencies to determine effective measures that will address air quality issues at a local level. It does not need to be three years away, it can come sooner than that but it has to be robust. The adoption of world health organisation guideline values for particulate matter into Scottish legislation, making Scotland the first country to do so in Europe, and developing a national air quality awareness campaign to inform key audiences and encourage that behaviour change. I think that the framework in the action plan, which is comprehensive and Hanzala Malik asks what we are doing, has a look at the strategy once again, which commits us to a range of actions. I think that you will see that there is a cross-agency, cross-sector impetus to try and deliver change and improvement. Hanzala Malik, thank you very much. No, I am aware of the strategy. I was asking what else, what new are you bringing, because we have been failing European limits. Minister. The example of transport, specifically my own brief, further moved to the low-carbon economy, more electric vehicles, more charging points, more incentives to encourage people to move to low-emission vehicles, electric vehicles. There are no fossil fuel emissions from the tailpipe from such a vehicle, or the investment in the railways to encourage the increasing patronage and electrification of the railways, which will further decarbonise public transport and integrated transport to encourage more people out of the car and into public transport, as well as active travel. By way of finance, we have the policy set in the national transport strategy, which I am currently refreshing, but there is the Scottish Green bus fund, which Jamie McGregor referred to, or the switched on Scotland campaign in terms of the move to electric vehicles that I have touched upon, which felt quite futuristic, but probably more sales in the last year than we have in the last five years put together. However, in terms of public transport and sustainable travel, the investment per year by the Scottish Government is now over £1 billion per year on public transport, of course. Just a very brief point. Can I ask the minister to consider the issue of car clubs? We have had one in Edinburgh for 17-odd years now, and it has enabled a lot of people not to have to buy a car, as was mentioned by one of your colleagues, easier access to better vehicles. I think that we should do more around car clubs as well, and a range of transport initiatives through incentives, the private sector working together, employers thinking about it more clearly as well. Actually, in many of the car clubs, they are also using electric vehicles because of the nature of short journeys, so there is a win-win in respect of those schemes that I absolutely support as well. In terms of the allocation to reduce the carbon impact of transport since 2011, the Scottish Government has allocated over £200 million over £1213 to £1415 to reduce the carbon impact of transport through active travel, low-carbon vehicles and congestion reduction, and over £300 million will support low-carbon transport over £1314 to £2015, £16 and specifically on active travel. In 2013-14, we have increased investment in active travel by more than 80 per cent from £21.35 million in 2013-14 to £39.2 million in 2015-16. Of course, a reflection over the same period, our overall capital budget has decreased by 26 per cent. In conclusion, the Volkswagen scandal has undermined public confidence. We will work with the UK Government on this issue. We support the UK Government approach in advocating tougher, real-driving emission testing, which I am happy to share with members on the fuller definition of that, but we have a wonderful natural environment. We want that to be reflected in the quality, of course, of our air quality, to take all the necessary action at a national and the most local level to make the impact that we want to tackle the environmental justice issue, the health inequality issue and the overall prosperity of local communities. My transport has a role to play, and I will ensure that, within my ministerial brief, we can do everything that we can to realise the ambitions of clean area for Scotland.