Official Report 679KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. Mr Ruskell has been sitting very patiently with us, so I will go straight to the second of the two new petitions, so that he can be released from the meeting to attend to other business.
As I always do, I say to anyone who might be tuning in to the committee because their petition is being considered for the first time, that, in advance of consideration, the committee invites the Scottish Parliament’s independent research unit, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to give us an understanding of the issues that have been raised. We also invite the Scottish Government to give us a preliminary view on the issues that have been raised, which may or may not influence the committee’s conclusions. We do both those things because, historically, when the committee considered a petition for the first time, those were the two things that we said that we would do and that delayed our consideration. So, for those who are watching, those actions have already taken place.
Air Quality Standards (PE2123)
The first of the two new petitions is PE2123, lodged by Gareth Brown on behalf of Asthma and Lung UK Scotland, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010 by setting new limit values for nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter that align with the World Healthcare Organization’s air quality guidelines, which were published in 2021. As I have indicated, our MSP colleague Mark Ruskell joins us for consideration of the petition.
The SPICe briefing, which I referred to a moment ago, sets out that poor air quality is a threat to human health. Health Protection Scotland estimates that around 1,700 premature deaths in Scotland annually are attributable to air quality, though other studies suggest that the figure could be even higher than that. The World Health Organization’s guidelines are not legally binding and Governments can use the guidelines
“in different ways depending on their technical capabilities, economic capacity, air quality management policies and other political and social factors.”
That seems to be a very wide discretionary set of criteria.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that its “Cleaner Air for Scotland 2—Towards a Better Place for Everyone” strategy is due to expire in July 2026. A planned review of the strategy is expected that will consider current air quality standards and objectives, with the updated World Health Organization’s guideline values being a factor in its considerations.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which notes the serious impact of poor air quality on public health, as well as highlighting the economic consequences, in particular, through days lost at work and costs to the national health service. Asthma and Lung UK Scotland has found that, based on local authority annual summary reports for 2023, only four of Scotland’s 32 local authorities would meet the new World Health Organization guidelines. It believes that that demonstrates that Scotland could adopt the lower limits, while recognising that more work will be required to achieve those targets. The submission also refers to the parliamentary questions that have been lodged by Mark Ruskell. I invite the member to offer his thoughts to the committee.
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.
10:30I 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.
Thank you very much, Mr Ruskell—that is very helpful. Looking at the responses that we received, it was not immediately clear where we could go with the petition, so I am very happy to embrace the suggestion.
If it would be helpful, I wonder whether we could write to some key stakeholders and then pass the petition over to the NZET Committee, so that it goes to that committee with some sort of evidence base. Mark Ruskell mentioned Professor Jill Belch at Dundee, who I think it would be useful to write to—and also the Royal College of Physicians. COSLA and the councils are key to all this in terms of air quality monitoring. I believe that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has some air quality monitors as well, particularly for schools.
The only question in my mind is the time that is left to us in this parliamentary session. I am slightly concerned that it could be another six to nine months before we consider the petition again, which would then leave us up against the dissolution of Parliament. To give the petition some chance of life, I think that we would be better making the referral to the NZET Committee now so that the committee has some headroom within the life of the parliamentary session to advance the petition’s aims and objectives. That is just one thought.
The convener and I have both been on the committee for many years now, and we know that time is against us. I would go with the convener’s recommendation to pass the petition over to the NZET Committee just now, because that will give the petition a real chance.
Are you content with that suggestion, Mr Golden?
Yes.
Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much for the suggestion, Mr Ruskell. That is how we will proceed. We will keep the petition open and we will refer it to our colleagues on the NZET Committee, which is led by Edward Mountain.
Witchcraft Act 1563 (Posthumous Pardons) (PE2122)
The last of the new petitions that we are considering this morning is PE2122, lodged by Gemma Clark, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon the predominantly female historical victims of Scotland’s witch trials, who were accused and convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1563.
For Mr Torrance and me, who have sat on the committee for some time, the petition brings us full circle to one of the first petitions that we considered in this parliamentary session. Members will recall that we considered a similar petition, which was closed partly on the basis that Natalie Don MSP was at that time pursuing a member’s bill on the issue of a pardon. However, having now been appointed as a minister, Ms Don-Innes has withdrawn that proposal.
During her time as First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon issued, somewhat unexpectedly, a formal posthumous apology to all those who had been accused, convicted, vilified or executed under the act. It is noted in PE2122’s background notes that those in favour of a pardon believe that it would
“convey a strong message of equality and opposition to misogyny in contemporary society.”
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that a formal pardon would require legislation and that, having set out its legislative programme for the remainder of the parliamentary session, it has no plans for legislation in that area. The response also states that the Government would give careful consideration to any fresh proposal for a member’s bill in that area, although, frankly, given where we are in the current parliamentary session, the chances of a member’s bill being progressed on the subject are zero. Given the backlog of members’ bills that have already been advanced and the advice that has been given to members who might be considering lodging a fresh bill at this stage in the session, it is probably not a viable option.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
In the light of the length of time that the parliamentary session has left and how short a timeframe there is for a member’s bill or any other bill to go through, I suggest that the committee considers closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has set out its plans for legislation in the parliamentary session, which do not include any plans for legislation in the area. However, in closing the petition, could we highlight to the petitioner that they have the right to bring back a fresh petition in the new parliamentary session, as there will be more chance of getting legislation through in a five-year session?
As an alternative route forward, we could highlight to the petitioner that they could seek to approach a member of the next Parliament to see whether they would be minded to introduce a member’s bill on the subject, rather than simply come back with a fresh petition.
Are colleagues content that we act on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner, who will, I hope, understand why we have acted as we have, given the options that are available to us.
That concludes the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will take place on 5 February.
10:38 Meeting continued in private until 10:43.Air ais
Continued Petitions