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.

That is a good point because we have had a lot of discussion about transport emissions and the impact of those, but CAFS2 was intended to recognise that the impact on air quality goes beyond transport and that we need to look at agricultural activity, too. We have committed to working with the agriculture industry to develop a voluntary code of good practice for improving air quality in Scotland. We are also taking specific action to reduce ammonia emissions from the agriculture sector. That work will be developed as part of the prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity code.

We are working closely with the rural affairs secretary on all those things. Another example of that joint working is the fact that the agricultural transformation fund was included in the agri-environment climate scheme round. The rural affairs secretary and I—and my predecessor—worked closely on that. I think that the capital budget for that fund in 2023 is £5 million, which is being used to extend support for the slurry stores across Scotland. As I said, that is built into AECS, so it is integrated across portfolios.

I will ask Andrew Taylor to come in on the point about vulnerabilities, but it is certainly uppermost in our minds.

On your first point, the monitoring locations are kept under review to ensure that any new pollution hotspots can be identified and targeted appropriately. Of course, as we consider the developments at a European level, as part of CAFS2, we are obviously mindful that shifts and changes might be required in future.

I will say a little, and Andrew Taylor might want to add something. We are not slavishly following targets without considering how science develops or indeed how European legislation develops. It is a case of continuous development and continuous improvement. As I said, as part of CAFS2, we are looking at the new WHO recommendation on nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter. We will consider how that could and would apply in Scotland as we develop CAFS. That is one example of how we are seeking to meet our objectives within the current monitoring framework, and to stay aligned with best practice in that regard. Those recommendations are very strict indeed and we have to consider carefully how they would operate in Scotland. We have form on that—we were the first to legislate for the previous particulate matter guidelines.

Andrew, is there anything else that we can say to give the committee some assurance on that?

That is a really pertinent point. Earlier, we discussed the need for funding to be provided to ensure that the powers are realisable. Skills and recruitment are a massive part of that. We are absolutely aware that there is a shortage of people entering the profession, which is resulting in vacancies at local authority level.

In February 2023, my officials met representatives from the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland specifically to discuss the concerns that you have narrated. We are aware that there is only one university in Scotland that offers the accredited undergraduate course—I am sorry; you might have said that—and that that is creating pressure on local authorities in filling those important roles.

Our Scottish Government resilience team is working with the professional organisations through the environmental health policy co-ordination group. It is looking at next steps and working with the key organisations to develop plans for wider engagement on environmental health as a potential career and to look at how we could develop more routes into the profession, given how important it is.

That issue has crossed my mind quite a lot, as somebody who lives rurally and likes to travel into Edinburgh and Glasgow on a regular basis. When we were discussing awareness raising, I remember having a conversation about the fact that it would be a real miss to target awareness raising only within the cities, because folks who are used to driving into cities from rural areas also need to be thought about.

In general, we are talking about one square mile in each of the cities, so I suspect that there will be opportunities in all of them—I do not just suspect; we know that this is the case—to take public transport all the way in or to drive a portion of the way and then take public transport so that people do not have to drive into the LEZ itself. Prime-time television slots are being used to do some significant awareness raising of that. Neither Vincent McInally nor I watch the programmes that we are advertising around, but that is happening in order to get people prepared.

On your initial point about the funding that can be raised, local authorities might have different views on this and might have different experiences of how the scheme operates, depending on how many people intentionally or otherwise breach an LEZ, but the money from penalties can only be put towards the scheme’s operational costs and its objectives—in other words, supporting air quality improvements and climate change emission reduction activities. That is designed into the system.

I will split my answer into two points. First, what we are dealing with today is squarely about the extension of the deadline rather than about what system might replace the registration arrangements. On the extension of the deadline and the decision to be made today, I do not have much concern about divergence, because we are talking about trying to have a complete register and getting there within a realistic timescale. I do not see much scope for a concerning divergence between us and the EU in that regard. In fact, its register took 10 years to complete, and if we agree to this today, what we will be dealing with in UK REACH will happen within a similar timescale.

The risk of divergence comes further down the line when we look at the changes that will be made to the system and for which this time extension is needed. Officials are very much involved in the working groups, looking at what might be changed in registration arrangements. We have been clear from the outset that we would not tolerate any diminution in standards, and that is our starting point for the work with DEFRA, which is very much in the early stages.

I might bring in Dan Merckel to see whether he can offer anything else on your specific point, but for my part today, I am content that extending the deadline does not increase the risk of divergence and that, as we develop changes to the registration system, my officials and I are clear that we will not tolerate any diminution in standards. I will be very watchful for any risk of divergence in that regard, and we would want to see that mitigated as far as possible. Dan, do you know any more about the specific point that Mr Ruskell raises?