Chamber and committees

In the previous session, Fiona Hyslop talked about the need to move rapidly to tackle air quality, particularly given the nature of vulnerable groups, young people and older people, and pointed out that five years is a long time in someone’s lifetime. Five years can be a long time for councils, too. Local development plans and development proposals can come and go; bus companies can pull out of certain investments; and other things can come forward. A lot can happen in five years in the life of a plan in any area in Scotland. Do you not think that, in that context, five years could be too long and that councils could quite quickly find their plans out of date and overtaken by events on the ground?

In your initial comments, you mentioned the Scottish Government’s response in updating the policy guidance as welcome, but is that enough to drive compliance? Is that the Government’s central tool?

Thanks.

You mentioned the tightening of air quality regulations quite a lot this morning and you alluded to the WHO limits. How do you see them driving targets in Scotland? Will the WHO limits drive European targets? The Scottish Government’s commitment is to stay broadly aligned. Would you expect a process of adopting certain milestones relating to WHO targets or a wider approach that looks at continual improvement? I am trying to get a sense of where you think those targets might be going. Your report is very much about existing targets and existing challenges around governance and creating a governance system that is fit for the future, but I am not quite clear what that future is going to be.

Does it concern you that Perth and Kinross Council has not issued any FPNs for engine idling ever under that 2003 power?

It does happen—that is the point.

On air quality management, you make the point that air quality has a potential impact on vulnerable people, the elderly and schoolchildren. What should be done about monitoring around those populations, for example at schools and hospitals? What are you looking for the Scottish Government to conclude about what an adequate form of monitoring should be? Should all schools and hospitals be covered by air quality monitoring? Should it be targeted at certain areas? We have not had a response on that from the Government yet, because it is reviewing what the monitoring might look like, but what is your view at the moment? What are you looking to see?

From where you are sitting right now, does that mean monitoring at every primary school, secondary school and hospital?

If air quality limits change, as they might do if the Scottish Government remains aligned with the European Union, that might open up other areas, which potentially would breach air quality limits. Does the review of the current monitoring network look at how the limits might change over time and how that might bring in more communities? Is a weighting given to vulnerability within that? Does the air quality monitoring review look at the need to particularly identify the most vulnerable people in our society?

I want to pick up on an issue that was raised in the air quality inquiry that was carried out in the previous session, on which we have had a bit of evidence in this inquiry—the issue of the source of emissions in rural areas and, in particular, the role of ammonia in seeding particulate emissions. This is a question about the joined-up nature of Government policy. Is that an issue that the rural affairs secretary is considering? Is it being considered as part of the reform of subsidy for agriculture? Is action being taken elsewhere in the Government to address that issue in CAFS, as well as any other sources of emissions that we have not covered this morning?