Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for highlighting the DPLR Committee’s consideration of the bill. Andrew, I sense that you probably want to come in with your thoughts on the public interest aspect.

I am asking all the witnesses.

Do you think that it is a problem that a public interest test in relation to transfer of land is not currently included in the bill? There is a transfer test that is applied to the seller, but there is not really anything applied to the purchaser, as a public interest test.

I want to ask about lotting decisions. Megan—I think that you mentioned the Land Commission’s proposals to put the public interest more at the heart of the bill. I will start with you. I am sure that others also have views.

Okay. Megan wants to come in on the question. Thank you very much.

Okay. If no one else wants to come in, I ask for your views on the transfer test that will be applied to sellers prior to sale, rather than there being a public interest test at the point of transfer. Do you have any more points to make on that?

I want to drill down a bit into the Land Commission’s proposals for land management plans. It has come up with two specific recommendations. One is that there should be a duty on the landowner to demonstrate how community engagement has effectively informed the land management plan. The other proposal is to ensure there is a duty to refer to local place plans in the land management plans.

I want to get your quick reflections on both or either of those proposals. Are they useful? Would they, from your perspective, enhance the process of LMP development? I can see that Megan MacInnes has a hand up.

Thanks for those comments. I am looking for others to come in. Andrew Howard, you mentioned previous developments and I am aware that there was quite a lot of controversy around your proposed development in the wood of Doune. You alluded to that earlier. It would be useful to hear your thoughts, particularly on local place plans and how your thinking has perhaps evolved from that episode.

Thanks, convener. I will offer some brief thoughts on the issue, because there is potentially quite a lot to unpack for the committee’s consideration.

I should say that I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, which has already undertaken some scrutiny of the Government’s existing air quality strategy, and I am also the deputy convener of the cross-party group on lung health.

I will make two quick points. First, the Government’s current regulations were made in 2010, which was some time ago. Since then, global scientific understanding has developed and substantial medical studies have been done on the impact of poor air quality on human health. In particular, there have been studies that have looked at the impact on vulnerable people—for example, on the links with heart health and dementia—and on developmental issues, particularly for young people who live in an environment where there is poor air quality. All that evidence has come through very strongly.

I am pleased to say that much of that evidence has come from Scotland. Lead scientists, such as Professor Jill Belch at Ninewells hospital, have been at the forefront of understanding the impact of poor air quality on children. That has led the WHO, through its peer-review process, to come up with new guidelines to help steer Governments and decision makers in the right direction.

The second point is that, from considering the issue and from the NZET Committee’s work on it, I have learned that there are no safe limits for air quality. It is not as if there is a point at which we can say, “Well, that is it—our communities are now safer because we have met this target or that limit value.” Every time that we reduce particulate pollution, for example, we get a resulting public health benefit; there is a reduction in medical conditions and, as a result of that, there is potentially a reduction in mortality rates. Every single improvement that we can make to air quality in Scotland has a direct impact in terms of health benefits. It is important to recognise that.

There is a lot to consider in relation to adopting the WHO limits—you outlined some of the political considerations of doing so in your introductory comments, convener. It would be challenging, but I think that the Scottish Government is considering that in its next air quality strategy, which I understand is under development right now.

What are the committee’s options? I welcome the fact that you have already made a start on the petition, but there could be an option to pass it to the NZET Committee, given that NZET will, at some point, be looking at the Scottish Government’s progress towards its new air quality strategy. In answer to the written questions that I lodged, the Government has indicated that it will consider the new and much more robust WHO guidelines when it looks at the new regulations.

There are a lot of questions for the Government to consider, particularly around partnership working with councils and what is the art of the possible. If there were to be an opportunity to look at the matter in more depth, I see a window within the NZET Committee to do that work—unless this committee wishes to take up the work itself.

Okay—I will end on the words “no detriment”.