Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can talk a little about the response to the sixth recommendation from ESS and the specific and measurable timescales that it asked for. As it stood, CAFS assigned to each of the plans either short, medium or long-term completion status, which meant 2022, the end of 2024 and the end of 2026 respectively. We will add further detail to all those broad categories to allow progress to be monitored more closely, and we will ensure that all non-completed actions have been given a date by which they will be achieved. I should say that we will report on progress annually.

The last progress report was due in 2022 and we will be publishing another in June 2023. As part of the structure of CAFS, I chair the ministerial board, under which there sits the delivery board, under which there sit five implementation boards. Therefore, I will be personally involved in the monitoring of the short, medium and long-term objectives.

I hope that that answers the question, but I am not sure.

We are always striving for the highest possible integration that we can manage across these issues, because they are so interlinked. You mentioned transport. I think that Vincent McInally will probably have something to say on this, but as I said previously, getting the LEZs in place has—so far—been the principal achievement of CAFS2. Equally, they are one of the best examples of integration and collaboration between the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and our local authority partners. Alongside NPF4, I would highlight the development of LEZs. Right from the very beginning, we have all been working very closely together, including with local authorities.

We certainly do. Telling the committee that we are considering very closely what the revised WHO guidelines would mean for Scotland is as far as I could go today. We are doing that via CAFS and as part of wider policy development. As I think I said earlier, we have shown ourselves to be willing and able to lead the way when it comes to WHO recommendations, and work is now on-going to consider the development of those.

This is up to local authorities, and we do not want to fetter their discretion when it comes to deciding how to operate. Instead, what we do is provide guidance on the backdrop of the Environment Act 1995 and supplement that with funding. In response to ESS’s recommendations, we have agreed to update or clarify the guidance in a number of ways, and it is all to do with how local authorities produce their own air quality action plans and, I suppose, operate within the system itself. In short, we are providing support through funding and guidance, especially the most recently updated guidance in response to ESS.

Please be assured that all that you have mentioned—the speed at which things happen and the speed at which things change—was taken into account when we considered ESS’s recommendations. However, we reached the same conclusion that we reached when considering the best monitoring period for CAFS2, which was that five years was an appropriate period to give us the opportunity to implement the changes, to see their implications and to monitor them.

I do not know whether Andrew Taylor can add anything helpful to that. That is how we made the assessment.

In response to your specific question about the triggering of a review, I would point out that, as a result of the updates to the guidance that we have made following ESS’s recommendations, a significant change of circumstances in an air quality management area will trigger an automatic review of the air quality action plan to ensure that it remains able to achieve compliance in

“as short a time as possible”,

per the recommendations of ESS.

Absolutely. I am really enthusiastic about the low-emission zones. I mentioned that I oversee the ministerial working board for CAFS2. There is no doubt that, in the past six months, our focus has been on responding to ESS, but alongside that, one of the more significant developments has been working with local authorities to have the LEZs designed and implemented. I am absolutely thrilled about that.

To go back to your question about continual improvement, I see the way in which we have designed LEZs as being an example of that. Unlike in some clean air zones down south, we have designed the LEZs in such a way that it is not an option to pay to enter. We have not treated the LEZs as a revenue-raising opportunity. We have designed them in such a way that they will robustly disincentivise driving into the areas in question. There will be a penalty, which will accumulate every time the individual comes in. That is an example of how we have designed the LEZs to be stretching and ambitious, and to bring about constant improvement.

I think that you mentioned local exemptions. We have some national exemptions that are built in, including for blue badge holders. We have a figure for how many people have applied for such an exemption so far. Local authorities have the discretion to make local exemptions to respond to their own requirements, which I think is the right way to do it.

With regard to buses, a huge amount of work has already been done to prepare for LEZs, especially, as you can imagine, in Glasgow. The bus emission abatement retrofit fund has already awarded £21 million of grants to enable more than 1,200 buses and coaches to reduce their emissions by retrofitting the Euro 6 exhaust system. We can already see how, through the funding that we have supported and the framework for LEZs, the preparation for the policy has already driven improvements, which the implementation of it will continue to drive.

I agree with that point. Work is being done as part of the plan that I mentioned to look at how we can make it clear that environmental health is a career that a whole spectrum of people should consider entering.

Vincent, have you been involved in the development of that?

SEPA is an independent environmental regulator and it is very important that I do not encroach on its discretion when it comes to using its powers. Our concern is to ensure that it is empowered in the correct way by ensuring that the legislation is correct, that supplemental guidance is where we want it to be and that funding is in place. Incidentally, SEPA has assured us that it is able to fulfil additional requirements on it as part of our improvement plan, within existing budgets.

I suppose that the point particularly comes to mind when we consider the recommendation for a monitoring body. I am sorry, but I did not catch the earlier discussion—I was caught up in other things—but we considered closely whether an additional body was required. Looking to the Environment Act 1995 and everything that SEPA is empowered to do, our view was that it was not appropriate or justified to have an additional body, because the underpinning legislation is there. For example, in section 85, there is a whole list of powers that SEPA has. I do not want to read them all out, but it can carry out an air quality review and an assessment, and it can make an order designating an air quality management area, revoke an air quality management area order, prepare an action plan, modify any action plan and implement any actions in an action plan. Those are wide-ranging powers.

I take on board ESS’s comments—I think that it said that we need more than an administrative body or administrative functions. That is not personally how I see the environmental regulator operating. It is a great deal more than that.