Chamber and committees

Further to the convener’s point, we have had a response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the inquiry, which is, of course, a broader inquiry that incorporates your report and looks at air quality in a broader sense. That response suggested that councils have been very busy on climate change and perhaps have not prioritised air quality. I am trying to tempt you to comment on leadership. Do you think that there is an issue around leadership in individual councils or across local authorities as a whole in Scotland? It was quite disappointing to get just a one-page letter from COSLA that said that councils have been quite busy and that there are resource issues.

It is related to that. In relation to schools, there has been a lot of concern in Scotland about vehicle idling. How does the Scottish Government support local authorities in having the appropriate resource to enforce engine idling measures? It is a form of antisocial behaviour and people are concerned about it, but we are aware that local authorities are stretched in terms of funding.

We are seeing variations between councils across Scotland. The achievements in air quality management that Fife Council has managed to make have been highlighted in evidence. It is almost an exemplar. Why do you think there is that variation across Scotland? Why are some councils doing better than others?

Further to the previous question, I know that Transport Scotland is responsible for procurement of trains, and I note that, in relation to the decarbonisation programme, there has been quite a lot of concern about the continual use of high-speed trains on the ScotRail network, not just from a carbon perspective, but from an air pollution perspective and, as the unions have highlighted, a safety perspective, too. When it looks at such big procurements—that is, the big leasing of trains over a number of years—how does Transport Scotland take air quality into account? Is that baked into the process? After all, it is clearly an area where Transport Scotland is responsible.

SEPA has section 85 powers and enforcement powers, but we also heard evidence that it is involved in local air quality management groups on the ground. Do you see that role as important? If SEPA is involved in developing plans on the ground, do you see the potential for conflict? SEPA obviously has expertise and can give scientific advice, but it is also an enforcement agency. What should SEPA’s role be in the future? Do you see a conflict?

A number of members are interested in monitoring. I am aware that there is a current Scottish Government review into provision of data monitoring. To go back to the vulnerable people in our society who could be most affected by poor air quality—even poor air quality that is compliant with legal limits—is there an understanding of what proportion of schools and hospitals are currently covered in Scotland by air quality monitoring? What investment might be needed to ensure that all the appropriate schools and hospitals are covered?

Would you expect local authorities to continually update their action plans if there were some significant change such as, say, a new agreement being struck with a local bus company or a new LEZ being brought in? Would you expect them not to wait five years and, instead, work with stakeholders and produce something on an iterative basis? Who would ensures that that sort of thing was happening?

That is very disciplined of you.

My final question is about local development plans. They are obviously on a continual rolling cycle of revision and development. Did you look at whether LDPs are broadly compliant with the air quality limits that we have? Are there any concerns around that process about how they are developed?

It has been an interesting evidence session. I go back to the points that were made about community planning partnerships. I am interested in exploring their role in other forms of partnership and in strategically organising and delivering place-based approaches. I was struck by what Kirsty Cumming said about there being a disparity in Scotland in the way that CPPs incorporate culture and cultural organisations in their planning and articulate cultural outcomes. I was interested in what Billy Garrett said about the value of social prescribing and how partnership working is perhaps spreading into health and social care partnerships, and I was also interested in Rebecca Coggins’s point about how we have to work sideways and then up to access the more strategic CPPs.

Can you distil anything from all that in terms of your experiences, what works well with community planning partnerships and how the cultural sector gets its value and its voice into those objectives? Do we need to consider other parts of the architecture of local strategic planning beyond that? It is a big picture, and I am aware through what you have said this morning that culture touches on many different things from community regeneration to social care to everything else. Are CPPs the best vehicle to do that, or should we consider other ways?