Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2089 was lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the Lochaber National Park—NO More group, which, as colleagues will remember, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create more national parks in Scotland; to instruct an independent review of the operation of the current national parks, including an assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks, including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling; and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of the said independent review.

The committee considered the petition quite recently, on 27 November. To date, the committee has heard evidence from two panels of witnesses—NatureScot and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. We have also received correspondence from our colleague Finlay Carson MSP, reiterating his support for the petition. We are now in a position to reflect on the evidence that we have heard and to consider our next steps. Have colleagues given any thought to suggestions for how we might proceed?

I would be interested to get an insight into Glasgow City Council’s thinking on the issue. An apology was offered, but it came out, rather than being delivered in a structured way. I would be interested to know the timeline for its consideration of these matters.

As members have no other suggestions, are we content to keep the petition open? We are still minded to seek a debate on the petition, which would probably take place later in the year. We want to clarify some of the other issues so that we can frame a motion as directly as possible when we take it to the chamber.

Members indicated agreement.

The three areas that Mr Ewing identified prior to his suggestion to draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to the vote in favour of a local referendum by Dumfries and Galloway Council were all apparent to her but were heavily reinforced by the majority of people from whom the committee has been fortunate enough to hear. I recall the cabinet secretary saying specifically in her evidence that she had not come to any final decision and that, in her mind, there was no presumption as to where the evidence that was being gathered might lead. When we write to the cabinet secretary, we should say that we appreciated that point and should draw her attention to the significant representations that we have received, as well as Mr Ewing’s point about the council’s view that there should be a more widespread consultation via a referendum on whether the proposal should proceed. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

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.

PE1933, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, is on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme. I think that I detect the petitioner and some supporters in the public gallery. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

Members will know that we have been actively engaged with the petition for some considerable time. It was most recently considered at our meeting on 26 June last year, when we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister to set out our unanimous view that individuals who experienced abuse in a relevant care setting should be able to access the redress scheme, regardless of the length of their stay or whether there was parental consent for their placement.

The response that we received from the Deputy First Minister in August restated the Scottish Government’s position that the existing eligibility criteria reflect the core purpose of the scheme, which was designed primarily for vulnerable children who were in long-term care, often isolated, with limited or no contact with their families, and that it is not minded to change the criteria in either the primary act or secondary legislation.

We have received further information from Redress Scotland on the legislation, regulations and statutory guidance that were referred to during our discussions on 12 June lat year. Information has been provided about the decisions to deny redress. The reasons include there being insufficient supporting information and the care setting not being covered by the scheme because the application related to short-term care.

The petitioner has responded by highlighting the evidence that suggests that Fornethy house was a residential school rather than a short-term respite or rehabilitation setting, and has questioned why the onus is on survivors to produce records that were either kept by Glasgow Corporation, or lost or destroyed.

Following receipt of the Deputy First Minister’s response, members will recall our work programme discussion on 11 September last year, when we agreed to seek a chamber debate on the substance of the petition. Members might be aware that Alex Rowley has lodged a motion that was marked for members’ business; however, I think that he has withdrawn the members’ business motion on the basis that the committee is minded to seek a chamber debate on the subject.

Subsequently, we received an update from the Deputy First Minister that provided information on the meeting that she had with the Fornethy Survivors Group. A copy of that update is included in our papers for today’s meeting. It sets out a number of action points that the Deputy First Minister committed to taking, such as signposting survivors to emotional support, requesting that the leader of Glasgow City Council meet survivors, providing details of how to contact the Scottish child abuse inquiry and committing to meeting the group again after the criminal case relating to Fornethy house has been heard.

We have received a submission from the petitioner that responds to the various action points and draws our attention back to the ask of their petition—namely, that the eligibility criteria of the redress scheme be amended to ensure that Fornethy survivors can seek redress. The survivors also request that the petition be considered for a parliamentary debate.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I am certainly minded that we do not resile from our commitment to take the issue forward for a chamber debate, but, in the light of everything that has been going on ahead of that, is there further action that it would be useful for us to take that would inform that discussion?

A way forward on your latter point might be for me to raise the matter with the Conveners Group and find out whether other committees and conveners have been finding the same thing, and, if that is the case, to explore with them whether they think that it might be an idea to write to the permanent secretary. Could we perhaps approach your suggestion in that way?

Thank you very much, Tess. That was very helpful.

Given the letter that we received back in April after our consideration of the petition last year, and the matters that Tess White has just raised, I think that the minister has some explaining to do. I do not like to put it so bluntly, but it does not seem to me that progress has been forthcoming. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Well, we obviously want to make the Scottish Parliament great again, Mr Ewing.

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.