���˿���

That is partly why I thought that we should also approach the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

I know that our colleagues are not here to give evidence but, having heard their submissions, I wonder whether they think that there are any organisations that we might want to include in any round-table discussion, beyond those that we have already mentioned.

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.

Are you content with that suggestion, Mr Golden?

I very much agree because, given that some pools are now under active threat of closure, the baby could go out with the bath water, if that is not the wrong metaphor. We could lose a resource and it will be far harder to do anything about that if it is gone than to maintain and preserve the resource that is currently there.

Do any other members have comments?

We want to be informed about those matters, but I am unsure whether we would take the view that that is a national issue.

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.