Seòmar agus comataidhean

On timescales for improvement, your view is that a five-year review cycle is not consistent with trying to get compliance as soon as possible. Are you satisfied with the Government’s response on that?

You indicated that you were aware of the evidence that the committee has had previously. One of the messages that we were getting is that, because we know that poor air quality probably has an impact at a much lower level than the current standards, it is more important to have an agenda of continuous improvement than to focus on standards affecting some hotspots in some areas. Is that something that you have a view on now?

I have a question just to understand your role as well. There are some standards for which it is easier to see where the Scottish Government is complying and so on. How would ESS monitor a continuous improvement agenda to show progress?

Which is why we are having this inquiry session.

It depends on what your objectives will be. Are your objectives just to meet the compliance and standards that have been set, or are your objectives in CAFS2 or any revisions to CAFS2 to improve air quality more broadly and not just in the hotspot areas that have been identified, so that there is that continuous improvement agenda more widely? Bear in mind that we now have the science and evidence that show that exposure at even much lower levels can be an issue. How do we, as a committee and Parliament, know that that is happening from what you publish?

Would that—I am sorry, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The Scottish Government’s improvement plan accepts ESS’s recommendations and states that further detail has been added to the broad short, medium and long-term action categories

“to allow a more detailed assessment of progress”.

You state:

“Progress will be reviewed annually and milestone/completion dates adjusted as necessary.”

I think that that is about publishing against the targets and current standards. However, as you might be aware, witnesses have discussed with us the need to recognise that, despite what is set out in the standards, much lower exposure to particulates or substances in the air is damaging, particularly to vulnerable groups. We could meet certain standards and publish annually but not necessarily tackle the underlying problem, which is about air quality generally.

The issue that we are trying to wrestle with is whether your improvement plan and any changes that you might bring to CAFS2 will help improvements more widely beyond strict compliance with standards to ensure continuous improvement. What are your plans in that area?

Good morning. Your investigation has led to the Scottish Government coming up with improvements in its revised guidance, which has been referred to. Do you think that your investigation has had a direct impact on local authorities and change?

Lang Banks talked about a gap analysis of the draft energy transition plan. There is a lot of feedback that the plan is strong on the renewable generation of electricity, but we know that there is far more to energy transition than just generation. One reason why the committee chose to focus on Grangemouth was to allow us to look at the use of energy in the wider area. Just as the draft energy strategy will need to develop, so the just transition plan needs to look more widely at the demand aspect.

Could you expand on what you want to see in the energy just transition plan? It could have a particular influence on the Grangemouth just transition plan, which is about other aspects of energy use as well as generation.

Good morning. In your initial feedback to the Scottish Government, you highlighted the importance of ensuring the accessibility of the just transition plans in order to allow non-specialists to engage with them. Can you expand on that feedback and say what needs to be done to improve the accessibility of current drafts? Will you also reflect on the purpose of and the audience for the just transition plans, because that will influence how they are written and the language that they are written in? Is the process of producing the just transition plans as important as the final publication?

I ask Jim Skea to give his overall view on that and then, if Elliot Ross or Lang Banks want to come in, they should let us know.