Public Petitions Committee, 08 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Official Report 276KB pdf

---

New Petitions

Good afternoon, everyone. I welcome members and members of the public to the 12th meeting in 2009 of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee. I hope that everyone had an enjoyable and relaxing recess. I was asked to say that, but I am not convinced that everyone did. We will find that out from stories about the work that has been done.

I also welcome two officials from the National Assembly for Wales outreach team, who are here to see the petitions process in Scotland. I hope that what they see will benefit Assembly members' deliberations.

Jamie McGrigor is substituting for Nanette Milne, who is attending a Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee briefing. She may replace him at some stage. If anyone spots the difference, please tell us.

I request that all mobile phones and other electronic devices be switched off.

We have a full agenda, which includes consideration of a number of new petitions and petitions that we wished to follow through. The first agenda item is consideration of new petitions.

---

Changing Places Toilets (PE1270)

PE1270, by Linda Burke, on behalf of the Profound and Multiple Impairment Service and the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to request that local authorities use British standard 8300:2009 to ensure that at least one public toilet built to the changing places standard is provided in the centre of every town with a population greater than 15,000 and in every new larger and publicly accessible building and complex.

I welcome Linda Burke to the meeting. She is joined by Joyce Burns from PAMIS and Ian Hood from the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland. Linda has three minutes to comment on the petition.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to it about the need for more changing places toilets in Scotland. I will begin with some background information about my circumstances.

My husband and I look after our 30-year-old daughter, Jenny, at home. I work full time; my husband is retired, but is involved in all aspects of caring for Jenny, as I am. I have been a parent member of PAMIS, which focuses on people with multiple or complex disabilities, for around 15 years.

The term "complex disabilities" is used for a range of conditions. People with complex disabilities can have severe neurological and sensory damage, often accompanied by physical disabilities. Jenny had a brain haemorrhage shortly after she was born; as a result, she has severe learning difficulties and very little speech, and she uses a wheelchair to get about. She will always need to rely on other people for her personal care and to help her to live a full and complete life. All that sounds a bit negative, but Jenny is an extremely engaging and sociable person. She has a great sense of humour, and she loves music, shopping and just being out and about.

Jenny attended a special school until she was about 19; she now attends an adult resource centre five days a week. Facilities vary from centre to centre, but staff take personal care requirements for clients very seriously. However, because changing facilities are centre based, any activities that she does outwith the centre are time limited to a couple of hours.

When Jenny was young, all of us used to be able to go out to the beach for the whole day, visit relatives or go on holidays. However, now that she is an adult, we can no longer lift her without the right equipment. The lack of suitable changing facilities in the community has had a huge impact on her life; in fact, it has had a huge impact on everything that we can do as a family.

Most people I know think that standard disabled toilets—I prefer to call them accessible toilets—are suitable for anyone with a disability, but that is simply not the case. Accessible toilets are totally unsuitable for people such as Jenny. For example, Jenny cannot transfer herself independently from her wheelchair. Our choices are limited to staying at home, only going out for a few hours—and not going too far away from home—or only going out for the day to places where there is a changing places loo.

PAMIS and a range of other organisations have been campaigning for changing places toilets for more than 15 years. The toilets are not complicated, high tech or difficult to design. The basic requirements are: plenty of clean, safe space with room for two carers, a height-adjustable bench, a tracking hoist, a centrally placed toilet and a non-slip floor. I do not think that that is a lot to ask for, and it would make the difference between people being stuck at home and their being able to get out and about and do the things that most people take for granted.

Changing places toilets are not only for people with complex disabilities such as Jenny; they are for anyone who cannot self-transfer to a toilet. Standard accessible loos simply do not have enough space to allow a carer or carers to work safely.

On 3 September the new British standard 8300:2009 was adopted for changing places toilets, and it was launched here in the Scottish Parliament with a number of MSPs attending. BS 8300:2009 sets out the design standards for changing places toilets in public buildings and venues, and it has been drawn up with the help of architects, planners and carers. Most important, the new British standard recognises the rights of severely disabled people to be able to use the loo like everyone else.

Providing public toilets is a local authority responsibility, and every authority in Scotland currently provides toilets with standard disabled access. However, very few of them provide changing places toilets. Some local authorities have taken the issue on board. For example, Dumfries and Galloway has three changing places toilets, with three more planned.

Provision is far from universal, however. Nationwide, only 10 local authorities have changing places toilets. According to a recent survey by the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland, one local authority said that such toilets were only for "extreme types". Given that, according to estimates in a University of Dundee study, 25,000 people with disabilities in Scotland would benefit from such facilities, that seems a very odd thing for a group of decision makers to say.

I am happy to report that the Scottish Parliament has a fully accessible loo, but I would like members to note that the facility came about only as a result of lobbying by PAMIS.

We lodged our petition because we want your help: help in encouraging all local authorities to live up to their responsibilities under equality legislation; help in making changing places toilets available throughout the whole of Scotland; help for thousands of people throughout Scotland who are stuck at home unable to access their community because of a lack of suitable facilities such as those that most people take for granted; and help for Jenny, who would like to be able to spend a whole day at the seaside instead of just having an ice cream at the local cafe and then having to go home again.

Thank you very much.

I should have introduced Jackie Baillie, who has had an interest in this subject over a number of years—in fact, since the start of her tenure in the Parliament, and probably before that. I invite her to add a few comments before we ask questions.

I would be delighted to do so, and I thank you for the opportunity, convener. Linda Burke has described far more eloquently than I can her daughter's circumstances and the reasons why the availability of such facilities is absolutely essential.

This is a question of access for all. I am delighted that the Parliament has an award-winning—I believe—changing places toilet, but that is a rarity, and we need to ensure that people have access to such facilities throughout Scotland. Far be it from me to focus the committee's discussion, but if we agree that the new BS 8300:2009 provides us with the right way to proceed, we should start with Linda's plea to the Parliament to help her make its achievement a reality.

Rather than telling local authorities what to do—that is not the nature of the relationship that we have with them—I wonder whether anything might be achieved through the single outcome agreements that would allow the Parliament and local authorities to measure progress. That would allow local authorities not just to keep control of the process but to have a level of external encouragement and inspection. It would also allow them to reflect on their local circumstances.

I am delighted that Dumfries and Galloway is heading for six changing places toilets, but how many should a city such as Glasgow have? Given that the Government is fond of providing guidance, could we ask it to provide guidance to local authorities and to local access forums about what they can do locally? If the committee could see its way to providing such support, we could all make the achievement of BS 8300:2009 a practical reality, with a changing places toilet in every part of Scotland.

The petition calls for a changing places toilet to be provided

"within the centre of each town with a population greater than 15,000".

I represent the Highlands and Islands, which does not have many towns with a population of more than 15,000. There are some, but not many. Is that threshold adequate? Should it be lower in some areas? Otherwise, big regions might not have any cover at all.

I think that that is right. We struggled a bit to choose a figure. We chose 15,000 because that figure is used in some of the census definitions of city areas or large urban areas. As you say, areas such as the Highlands and the Borders will have a difficulty with that. However, Dumfries and Galloway, which is a similar area, is working around that difficulty. As Jackie Baillie said, it has already created three changing places toilets in Dumfries and it is looking to provide other toilets in other parts of the region. The petition sets out an ambition, but local authorities need to decide what suits their area. That would be far better than having a simple prescription.

That is helpful.

It is useful that you have come here today to draw this issue to our attention. So many people do not realise that accessible toilets—I do not like calling them disabled toilets, either—are not suitable for everybody who has a disability. I am aware of that, because I worked with Sense Scotland for a couple of years, but the majority of people are not and they probably think that we are doing all right in that respect.

However, Linda Burke coming here today to talk about her daughter Jenny makes us stop and think. We understand that she cannot just go out for the day in the way that everybody else can. We have to do what we can to support what Linda is asking for. She is not asking for anything to be compulsory; she is asking the Parliament to urge the Government to request that local authorities look into using BS 8300:2009.

Did you say that your daughter was 13 or 30, Linda?

Jenny is 30.

When you said, "after her 19th birthday", I thought that she must be 30, but I had already decided that she must be 13, because you could not possibly have a 30-year-old daughter.

Stereotypically, is it not my job to flatter blondes?

I am not saying that there should not be a lower limit of 15,000—perhaps it could be 10,000—but it could be helpful to mention areas of cities where there is high footfall. You could define an area through which 60,000 or 40,000 people a day pass as an area with high footfall. Such areas are areas where people with disabilities are likely to want to go, or to be taken. Do you agree that some mention of footfall could be useful?

I am an occupational therapist who works with PAMIS. We have done some work on that point, which I think answers the previous point about how to capture the best place to put changing places toilets. That is why we propose that they should be located in main hubs such as large public buildings and venues that have a high footfall. People with disabilities want to go to such places in the same way as everybody else does. We are supposed to be opening up the community for everybody. It is helpful to look at the matter in those terms rather than thinking, as people sometimes do, that facilities are provided but nobody uses them.

We sometimes have the problem that providers put in changing places toilets but say that nobody uses them. I would make two points in response. First, people have to know that they are there. Secondly, people want to go and use the facilities that exist around them, such as shopping centres, tourist attractions and travel centres. Those are all heavily used anyway, and if facilities are provided, they will be further used by the population of people whom we are discussing.

I think that Linda Burke mentioned that 25,000 people would benefit, but the figure that was identified in the research is actually 250,000 people. It is not just people with profound multiple learning disabilities but people with a wide range of disabilities who benefit from the provision of changing places toilets. That puts the matter into perspective.

When the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission this morning, we heard about the equality measurement framework that the commission has developed. It seems to me that the provision of changing places toilets could be an important indicator in measuring the performance of local authorities and other providers of public places. Have you thought about that and talked to local authorities? Could we help with that, perhaps by examining the equality impact assessments that are being considered in relation to local authority single outcome agreements?

That approach is helpful and I think it is the route that we have to go down. I am looking at Ian Hood because I know that that area is covered in some of the paperwork that he has worked on. Some local authorities have looked at equality impact assessments but others have perhaps not understood their value yet. Guidance that helped EqIAs to become standard practice would be a helpful outcome.

Equality impact assessments are still relatively new. A number of local authorities that have looked at them in relation to their public toilet provision have done so principally in relation to their existing accessible toilets; they did not know about or understand the possibilities of changing places toilets. That is why we were so encouraged by BS 8300:2009 and Jackie Baillie's idea of letting access panels and others know about the guidance note. They need that information so that, when there is local input, they can say, "How would this fit? How could we provide these facilities?" Local authorities regularly review toilet provision and they are aware of the need for better facilities, but they need to continue to review their provision. Once they all have the information, we are confident that Dumfries and Galloway, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire will not be the only local authorities to set standards and that many others will follow.

Convener, I am conscious that we are putting the onus on local authorities, but I am also aware that many disabled people use out-of-town retail centres, which are not owned by local authorities but are developed by other agencies. At present, such centres are not obliged to implement the changing places standard. Do the witnesses have any comment on how we can influence the major retail outlets? Disabled people are consumers as well, and they have the right to attend, to shop and to participate in retail activities. As we heard earlier, if someone can only go out for an ice cream and then has to go back home, that restricts their ability to participate fully in normal activities, including retail activities.

The first changing places toilet in Britain was provided in a shopping centre in Milton Keynes as part of a commercial decision, and the shopping centre at Braehead at the corner of Glasgow and Renfrewshire is building a changing places toilet because it makes good commercial sense to do so. The more we establish that the provision of such facilities is something by which we measure equalities, as Marlyn Glen said, the better.

I will let Linda comment, but we hope that local authorities and shopping centres will provide changing places toilets as one way to show that they value all their customers—that what they do is not simply about money signs and that they value all the people as part of the community.

It is easy to see why retail places were the first to spot that they were on to a good thing by installing a changing places toilet; after all, retail parks are used not only by people with disabilities but by whole swathes of people who accompany them, so it makes good financial sense. Like Ian Hood, I do not necessarily want to shame local authorities into installing these toilets, but, as Ian says, if such a move sends the message that all citizens in an area are valued, the other local authorities that have not put in a changing places toilet might start to think that they look a bit bad.

Having listened to the earlier discussion about the importance of this issue, which I readily understand, I hope you will forgive me for raising a very mundane matter. Do you have any clue about how much extra a changing places toilet costs over and above the cost of a normal accessible toilet? There must be some extra cost for the lift and so on, but there does not seem to be a huge amount in it.

The additional costs are generally associated with the hoist and the hydraulic height-adjustable changing bench. The overall cost of a changing places toilet is £8,000 to £12,000, but that obviously includes the cost of putting in the walls, drainage, plumbing and so on that is incurred in installing a standard accessible toilet. I am afraid that I do not have the difference in cost between the two, because it depends on the type of hoist, the changing bench and the other facilities that are installed.

But if the figure were, say, £5,000, that would not be a large figure as far as building work was concerned. I suppose that my point is that the issue is more the desire to do this rather than any concerns about the marginal cost.

Yes. As an occupational therapist, I have been involved in the conversion of many buildings and I have found that if this particular British standard were built into the design from the start, the overall cost would be minimal. Of course, costs increase if the standard is incorporated later on. However, we are trying to encourage moves to make the standard part of building standards, because if it is considered early enough at the design stage, the costs are not onerous.

From members' questions, I get the impression that they want to support the petition and explore issues such as parity and how to ensure that not only the public sector but commercial and publicly owned service providers have some kind of vision and direction. As a result, I think that we will want to take forward consideration of the petition. There is, as you know, a caveat: the Public Petitions Committee's process takes some time. However, I think that members very much support the suggestion that we explore the options.

We have taken note of the various suggestions made by the petitioners and Jackie Baillie. It would be helpful if, in light of those remarks, members discussed the specific steps that we should take next.

We should certainly ask the Government about the points that Jackie Baillie raised on single outcome agreements and Government guidance to local access forums. My information is that the Government was involved in developing British standard 8300:2009, so perhaps we could start by asking it about its expectations with regard to implementation, particularly in relation to the construction of buildings that it funds directly.

Okay. As Ian Hood and Linda Burke suggested, the Scottish Retail Consortium might be the major body to explore this issue with. Perhaps we should communicate with the consortium and find out whether it can put the issue on its development agenda.

We should also follow up Bill Butler's point about exploring public access issues with other public bodies. Historic Scotland sites are a perfect example of places that people want to visit but feel that they cannot because the facilities are limited—if there are any at all.

It strikes me that, along with recommending that the Government consider requiring there to be such toilets in towns of at least 15,000 people or whatever figure it considers to be appropriate, we should ask it to consider scoping what help could be afforded by using footfall guidance. Local authorities could be encouraged to use such guidance under equalities legislation in giving planning guidance to large supermarkets when they put in a bid for buildings. The footfall guidance would introduce the possibility of the supermarkets being politely but firmly requested separately, under equalities legislation, to install toilets of this nature.

It would be worth writing to a selection of local authorities as well as the Scottish Government, under their equalities duty, about their plans to provide changing places toilets. It might also be worth writing to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for its comments on whether the new measurement framework takes that kind of thing into consideration.

Okay. I understand that local authorities have legal requirements to make their buildings accessible, but we need to broaden it out beyond local authorities. We should touch on the points that have been raised. We have a clear agenda to take matters forward. If the witnesses have any further information that they want to provide to us on the points that have been raised, that would be useful. If, once you have reflected on the debate, you feel that three or four other points might be worth exploring, we would be happy to take them on board as well.

Thank you for your time. I hope that it was not too arduous a task for you this afternoon. I hope that we will make progress on an issue on which, as you can sense from the agreement among all members, we feel that we should do better in Scotland. I hope that we can make that progress over the next period.

---

Faith-based Schools (PE1262)

PE1262, which was submitted by Luca Scarabello, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ban all faith-based schools from teaching only in relation to their particular faith and to make all schools teach non-denominational subjects. Are there any comments or questions from committee members?

I have a problem in that I do not understand the petition. Within the national curriculum, every school has to teach across a range of faiths, and preferably all reasonable faiths, although that is difficult to define. Teaching about faith needs to recognise that there is a spectrum. That being the case, the Government has already banned a school from teaching only one faith, therefore I do not understand the petition. That is very simple—or have I lost the plot? What is the point of the petition?

That is an open question. The petition makes an assumption about the reality of educational provision in Scotland and raises the concern that, within the curriculum, traditional denominational schools should have to conduct discussion with other faiths and none.

I do not think that my esteemed colleague Nigel Don has lost the plot—I have the same difficulty with the phrasing of the petition. We could write to the Scottish Government, Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Scottish Catholic Education Commission, the Church of Scotland, the Muslim Council of Scotland, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council to ask them two questions. First, how many faith-based schools teach only about their particular faith? Secondly, what are the safeguards to ensure that faith-based schools do not oppose or diminish other faiths? We will get fairly clear answers to those questions that may render the petition not invalid, but literally pointless. Of course, we may get answers that mean that there is some point to it.

It might be a good idea for us to ask the Government exactly what is meant by the statement in the guidance on religious education in Roman Catholic schools that it

"takes place in the context of the wider Catholic faith community, in partnership with home and parish",

and that teachers will focus on the Catholic faith but will

"also teach respect for persons of different religious convictions",

which includes learning about other Christian traditions, world religions and

"where appropriate … stances for living which are independent of religious belief."

The phrase "where appropriate" sounds like a caveat. Who decides? We need to ask the Government whether it understands what the phrase means, to get clarity about who decides when it is appropriate for children to learn about

"stances for living which are independent of religious belief."

Have I made myself clear? That phrase really sounds like a caveat that means that such learning does not happen at all if someone decides that it is not appropriate.

I support both Bill Butler and Robin Harper. We need to extend the list of organisations that we want to question. The list of religious groups that Bill Butler read out misses out a number of faith-based groups that are based in Scotland. It might be worth while for us to write to the Scottish Inter Faith Council to catch the other faith groups that are not included in Bill Butler's list, so that we can get a broad-spectrum view of what is happening on the teaching of faith within education structures and raise the issue, which Robin Harper highlighted, of what is not being taught in some education establishments in Scotland.

Robin Harper read out the guidelines, which are fairly vague with regard to what a faith-based school or a non-denominational school can teach in relation to religion or belief. It might be useful for us to broaden our inquiries. I suggest that we also write to the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers. It would be useful to draw out whether their experience is that school teachers are instructed to teach only particular aspects of faith or belief. I know that there has been a long-running debate in certain local authorities and educational establishments about who can be religious education teachers. It might be worth while for us to ask the unions about their experience of teaching non-denominational aspects of religion or belief.

We are likely to get pretty robust and predictable replies to such letters, as the issue is tested all the time. Reading between the lines of the petition, I wonder whether the petitioner felt under pressure from the school that they attended to be part of that school's faith base. I have some sympathy with that. We could ask whether there are any mechanisms to detect whether children feel stressed as a result of the pressure exerted by a school to be part of a religion.

We will explore some of those issues and try to identify to whom it would be best to write. We will respond to the petitioner in due course and give the petition further consideration.

---

National Suggestion Box Network (PE1264)

PE1264, by Alan Hind, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to set up a network of national suggestion boxes to allow members of the public to submit their comments, ideas and suggestions directly to it. I will resist the temptation to comment. The petition makes a fair call for discussion, so I invite members' comments.

Members will know that various suggestions have been made about how to increase greater voter interest and participation in the democratic process. I suppose that that is partly what our committee is about.

It does not matter what I think, but I do not think that suggestion boxes would do much to encourage folk to come forward. However, I might be wrong. It might be worth while writing to the Scottish Government to ask what it thinks about the suggestion in the petition and whether, if it agrees with it, it will roll it out. That would be an interesting question to ask. I must be honest and say that I do not think that the proposal adds much to the public or the political debate, but I might be wrong.

I agree with Bill Butler. I think that asking an extremely narrow question about suggestion boxes would not get us very far. Just as we are investigating different ways of communicating with the public, the Government could be asked what creative ideas it has for furthering public involvement in policy development.

The responses that we get in the ballot boxes at every election give an indication of some of the suggestions that we might get from the public. Bill Butler is right when he says that the work of the Public Petitions Committee is part of the process of public engagement. The fact that only one person needs to submit a petition to it means that we as a Parliament are open to suggestions and ideas from the public. We should bear that in mind and pat ourselves on the back for the role that the committee plays. Through its decision to set up the committee, the Parliament allows people to make suggestions.

Individual constituents have the right to write to their MSPs with suggestions and ideas that they can take forward. A wide range of engagement activities are available to the public. Setting up suggestion boxes throughout Scotland could prove to be an expensive idea that brings no real benefit. We have a number of ways of engaging with the public and seeking their views and ideas on how Scotland should develop, including the correspondence pages in many of our national daily newspapers.

I rather agree with the last speaker—we already have letterboxes that can be used for sending letters to MSPs or other people to make suggestions. There are other ways of doing that, such as e-mail. In addition, many of our institutions have books with pages that are open for people to make suggestions on.

If we had a national suggestion box we would require an enormous staff to filter all the suggestions. So many people would be writing about so many subjects that we would need a process to sort the suggestions into piles, with a different expert looking at each one. We are already open enough to suggestion in this country.

I agree that the suggestion is probably not a goer, but we do have an on-going problem with low voter turnout. We as representatives have an obligation to try to increase political engagement, so it would be a good idea to find out what work is being done to increase engagement and address low voter turnout. It might be a good idea to write in those terms to the Electoral Commission as well as the Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

I am not entirely convinced by the solution that is being offered, but I congratulate the petitioner on trying to do something to engage more people in the political process. We all know—because we get it all the time—how disengaged many people feel. My concern about the petition is, as Jamie McGrigor asked: where would the suggestions go? It is not clear what would happen to them. Would they be delivered to the Government and then disappear? Would they all have to be responded to?

I know that the petitioner said that the Public Petitions Committee is not a solution to the problem, but it is a partial solution. In looking at how we can increase the number of petitions, perhaps we should have national Public Petitions Committee boxes in other parts of Scotland. Perhaps that would be another way for people to feed in their petitions. We have had many discussions about the fact that many people cannot get online and do not have easy access to the internet. I see that the clerk wants to scream at the thought of what I have suggested. However, there is a problem, so we need to look at how to engage more people, although this committee does well in that. I am not sure what the result would be and whether what has been suggested would be much different to MSPs receiving letters and this committee receiving petitions.

I do not think that national suggestion boxes are a credible way of collecting information. As Jamie McGrigor pointed out, collating the suggestions in the boxes would be difficult. The simple solution is to encourage local authorities to implement a petitions system such as the one that we have here in the Parliament, whereby local people can contact their local authority and go through a process that is similar to ours. I am sure that communities would appreciate the opportunity to deal directly with their own local authority.

We should identify the issues that the petition has thrown up. We should ask the various agencies, such as the Scottish Government, the Parliament and the Electoral Commission, about how they engage and whether having suggestion boxes would make a material difference to such consultation.

I recognise what members are saying about the complications of organising suggestion boxes, deciding how frequently to deal with the suggestions and how to pull all that together. However, as Anne McLaughlin said, there is a yearning for some sort of reciprocity in the decision-making process. We all have experience of telling people, "You can do this, this and this," but a lot of people do not know about those things. Our awareness level is perhaps different to that of members of the public, so we need to see whether we can bridge that gap.

We should identify the areas to explore. We recognise that the petition raises issues that are difficult to resolve. We will come back with suggestions on that. Are members happy to continue the petition while asking the key decision-making bodies how they would wish to engage with citizens directly?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Closures <br />(Children with Additional Support Needs) (PE1266)

PE1266, PE1267 and PE1268 deal with distinct issues, but they also form a group. PE1266 is on how the assessment of any change in school provision by local authorities in Scotland impacts on children who have additional support needs. PE1267 is a broader petition on processes when there are proposals about the future or closure of schools or nurseries. PE1268 is on the condition of buildings that are part of closure programmes or which receive students. The petitions are therefore on distinct issues, but members will probably want to speak about matters more broadly. I want members to speak to the petitions individually, but I recognise that they are tied into a much wider discussion. We will deal with them one at a time.

Paul Martin, who is a constituency member for areas that have been affected by recent rounds of closure and rationalisation, and Bob Doris have expressed interest in the petitions.

I wonder whether I should declare an interest. I was involved with the anti-school closure campaign from which the three petitions arose. I should mention that so that I do not do something wrong.

Okay.

I am thinking about the geographical areas from which members come. Two or three members have had to engage in what is a difficult process in different ways and at different levels. Decisions that one local authority made had an impact on my parliamentary area, but the debate will be much wider. I am sure that colleagues would say the same.

I acknowledge that. I supported the anti-school closure campaign and have stated my opposition to school closures on the record. I again state that opposition. However, I do not think that that opposition prevents Anne McLaughlin and me from talking.

It would take more than that.

It would take you, convener.

Exactly.

PE1266, by William Stevenson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish how the procedures and guidelines that local authorities use to close schools properly reflect and recognise the needs of children with additional support needs. Would Paul Martin and Bob Doris prefer us to go through the three petitions in detail and then have a more general discussion?

The petitioners who lodged PE1267 have asked me to say a few words about that petition. Perhaps we could therefore consider it specifically at some point, as I would like to say a few words about it in particular.

Okay.

As I said, PE1266 is on how the needs of children with additional support needs are reflected. Members have papers on the petition. Are there any comments?

I am happy to confess to supporting anti-school closure campaigns in Edinburgh.

It is important that we write to the Government to say that we would like it to provide evidence that the criteria and methodology that are used for school closure consultations take full account of the needs of children with additional support needs. We would like evidence that educational benefits, after-school clubs, building suitability, capacity and occupancy levels, transport arrangements and the wider community impact are fully taken into account. We should make the Government accountable for recommending that councils use all those criteria when they are considering closing schools.

I take Robin Harper's point entirely. He correctly opposed the Glasgow scheme, too.

Hands across the M8. Well done, Robin.

Yes, indeed.

It would be useful to put the issue that Robin Harper just outlined not only to the Government but to the EIS, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and a selection of local authorities. We should also ask the Government and the aforementioned organisations whether adequate arrangements are in place to ensure a smooth transition to another school for children with additional support needs. The transition is traumatic enough, but it is especially so for children with additional support needs.

To back up Bill Butler's comments, the issue is not just whether arrangements are in place; we should ask the Government whether it is satisfied that each local authority is implementing the guidelines and that the system is working, with particular reference to children with additional support needs. I moved school eight times as a child. We are all aware that having to move school is traumatic for children, but it is even more so for children with additional support needs. We must consider the impact on their education, never mind on their emotional wellbeing. We should ask the Government whether it is satisfied that local authorities take adequate notice of the guidelines and follow them correctly. I would also like to know what the Scottish Government can do to compel local authorities that do not follow the guidelines and correct procedures.

As well as the organisations that have been referred to, it might be useful to write to a couple of the national disability organisations to find out their views on the issue and to ask whether those views are taken on board when a local authority decides to close a special needs school. The EIS and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council will have legitimate views, but we should also hear from the parents and organisations that provide support to children to help them lead as normal a life as possible. Education has an important impact on that. Decisions to close special needs schools have the potential to undermine the good work that national organisations do.

I emphasise Anne McLaughlin's point that we should ask the Government what its fallback powers are. These days, we tend to hear that issues are down to the local authorities, and that is where the concordat leaves us. However, I suspect that the Government has residual powers to enforce some things. It might be useful if that was clarified.

My party certainly thinks that the closure of any school should take place only as an absolute last resort, because schools are important focal points of communities.

In relation to PE1266, which is from William Stevenson and which relates to children with special needs, I suppose that we would not have received the petition unless detrimental changes had occurred. I would like to look into the circumstances that brought about the petition.

It might be an idea to ask the Scottish Government what the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Parliament, will do to help address the concerns that the petitioner raises. That is reasonable.

That is exactly the point that I was going to make. The parent who lodged the petition felt that they were not listened to at all during a closure process. It would be interesting to find out whether the bill will address some of their concerns. It would be good for us to demonstrate that to the petitioner.

I am conscious that we must consider the other two petitions as well. We have two members present who are not on the committee and who wish to express their views. Perhaps we can focus on petitions 2 and 3 in our contributions. We are clear about how we want to explore the first petition. We have identified areas of concern and areas on which we want further clarification.

I assume that by "petition 3" you are talking about PE1268.

We are on PE1266 at the moment.

Yes, but you said "petitions 2 and 3". Do you want to take those petitions together? Is PE1268 the third petition that you are referring to? I think that that is a stand-alone petition, which—

I accept that. I was responding to the earlier suggestion from Bob Doris—he wants to make a contribution on the second of the three petitions. I am trying my best to treat the petitions independently, while recognising that they have all been submitted because of views on the rationalisation and closure process in one local authority area. For it to be legitimate for our committee to deal with, the matter needs to be seen as falling under the national framework.

I hope that it will be okay with you if members stray from one area to another. However, when we come to the actual decision on what the committee will do, it would be helpful to keep the petitions separate and discrete.

Bear with me, please, and give me some patience and thoughtfulness.

---

School and Nursery Closures <br />(Public Inquiry) (PE1267)

PE1267, by Richie Venton, on behalf of the Glasgow save our schools campaign, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to conduct a public investigation into the impact of the proposed closure of schools and nurseries by local authorities on education policies, class sizes, children's health and safety, social inclusion and jobs; and into the question whether the process of consulting parents and wider communities on education provision complies with local authorities' statutory duties and democratic principles. Committee members have expressed views in the past, either to the petitioners directly or in parliamentary motions, in which case their views are a matter of public record.

The petitioner's request raises real difficulties about the outcome of the public consultation. It would not be unfair for us to request some form of inquiry into the impact that school closures have had. The remit of any investigation and the criteria under which it would be carried out would be a matter for further discussion, but the principle aim would be the identification of the challenges that the schools closure programme has presented to local communities. We should not forget the impact that the programme might have had on pupils. An investigation would be a worthwhile exercise.

The committee would need to have further discussions on how any inquiry would progress and how we would ensure that lessons were learned from the outcome, whatever it was. As the convener knows, school closure programmes have taken place recently, as well as in the distant past. No doubt they will revisit us at some point in the future, no matter the political make-up of the various authorities. The petitioner has set out some important points about how lessons may be learned, and we should at least identify what processes might be followed to ensure that that happens.

I have been asked by the petitioners to make some comments. I am thankful for the opportunity to address the committee on PE1267. I will speak about some of the detail, but first I put on record the fact that the petitioners and many parents at the schools that have now been closed are disappointed that the committee was unable to find time to allow them to make representations in person. They are well aware how busy the Public Petitions Committee is. Today's consideration of and evidence taking on the petition regarding disabled toilets are of course important. However, throughout the schools closure consultation, parents at the affected schools have felt powerless and isolated from the process that has been conducted by Glasgow City Council—a process that resulted in almost 8,000 submissions to the consultation, with 96 per cent of people opposing the closure of the 11 schools and nine nurseries that eventually closed.

Petitioners look at the Public Petitions Committee as a way of empowering communities. Indeed, I know that the committee excels at that, and I pay tribute to it for its work. The fact that the schools campaigners were able to petition Parliament in the first place is empowering in itself.

I feel strongly that parents and others in the community demonstrated passionate, enthusiastic, tireless and knowledgeable campaigning. For many, it was a real learning experience and the type of hands-on active citizenship that we should all encourage. The petition empowers those parents and campaigners further, and they, rather than me or any other politician here today, are best placed to bring it to life through speaking face to face with Scotland's Public Petitions Committee.

I ask that during your deliberations, you consider holding the petition over and attempt to find a space in your incredibly busy work programme for the petitioners to attend the committee. I know that they would very much like that and would feel empowered by it.

The petitioners are not trying to overturn a decision that has been made democratically by the local authority. The schools are closed, and parents are attempting to make the best arrangements for their children at their new schools. They have no choice but to get on with their lives. However, they have, during the entire campaign, used every method at their disposal, and the Public Petitions Committee—and any subsequent action by Government and, potentially, by another committee—may be their last opportunity to feel that they have done all that they can to stand up for their communities.

I ask that the committee empowers those parents by placing on hold any decision on action points arising from the discussion of the petition until the petitioners have the opportunity to attend a committee meeting. I think that I have outlined fairly well the strength of feeling and the reasons why ordinary parents, including the petitioners, feel that they should attend to discuss the petition. Of course, that is for the committee to decide.

I turn to the detail of the petition. I note that it calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a public investigation. As a member of the Scottish Parliament, I am relaxed about that, and I am sure that I would support any action or investigation that the committee required the Scottish Government to carry out. However, I note that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, given its general remit and its consideration of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, may be better placed than the Government to conduct an investigation.

I suspect that councils in general do not consult very well on changes to council services, whether those are schools or other services. They do not—irrespective of which local authority we are talking about—do well at listening to the electorate. There is perhaps a role for the Local Government and Communities Committee to examine how local authorities engage with communities before they rationalise any service.

The petitioners have asked me to highlight a couple of matters. One is the issue of class sizes, which I acknowledge is a political hot potato. However, I merely state as a fact that the national Government has a particular class size policy to which local authorities respond, and that if a local authority conducts a schools rationalisation or closure programme, it will impact on local class sizes and on national policies. The committee should certainly think about that.

The average class size at all the schools—not the nurseries—that were involved in the programme was roughly 21.88, if my basic arithmetic serves me well. Under the proposals, that would potentially rise to 24.9, which is a notional increase of three extra children per class. I make that as an observation rather than as a political comment, and it is flagged up in the petition.

Furthermore—with your indulgence, convener—the council proposed that children from one closed school would go to another, but that is not always how families conduct themselves. They vote with their feet, depending on the most appropriate school for their children. It was proposed, for example, that children from St Gregory's in Glasgow would go to St Mary's. The hard figures are not in yet, but I understand that three or four families eventually sent their children to St Mary's—another school with a very small roll—while other families took their children to St Charles's instead. That is only one example.

I know I am taking up a lot of the committee's time, convener, but I will tell you why the matter is important.

Social inclusion is another aspect that I have been asked to look at. For some deprived communities, the only time that families ever venture near the area is when they take their children into the housing scheme to go to school. If the school is taken out, the community becomes further isolated and starts to become simply bricks and mortar without the community ethos to which schools are central.

I could talk at much more length—although I will not do so, convener—but I hope that I have conveyed some of the petitioners' concerns. To return to my very first comment, I make these points as a politician, but the Public Petitions Committee exists not for politicians but for communities to have their say. I hope that any decision by the committee will allow one of the petitioners or a schools campaigner to give their opinion on the issue.

For the record, the committee decides who presents petitions to it. We receive petitions, we deliberate on who can make a presentation to the committee and we try to identify when that can be done within our resources. However, I think that the key message that we would have received from the petitioners has been articulated this afternoon already—you made quite a useful contribution.

I want to open up the debate for questions and observations on PE1267. I am conscious that there is a third petition—PE1268—which relates to the condition of schools that have been designated to receive kids from schools that have closed.

For the record, I point out that I signed two motions—S3M-3917 and S3M-3976—in the name of Patricia Ferguson, who is the constituency MSP for Maryhill. Those motions said things that I still believe to be true: the Parliament

"applauds the Save Our Schools campaign … considers the arguments against closure to be compelling and well made"

and believes that

"the decision taken … to close these schools is mistaken and fails to take adequate account of the social impact".

I signed those motions then because I believed those points to be correct and true, and I restate them today because I still believe them to be correct and true.

On that basis, I agree with Paul Martin that we should agree to the principle that the schools closure programme and its wider impact should be investigated. That should be done not by us but by the Scottish Government, so we should write to the Government to ask it to do that.

Bob Doris pointed out the wider impacts that school and nursery closures arguably have on class sizes, the quality of education, children's health and safety, social inclusion and employment. If the Scottish Government is willing to undertake an investigation, we should ask it to include all the various concerns that the petitioners have raised. Convener, that is my suggestion.

To start off with, I congratulate the petitioners and parents in Glasgow who are still involved in the campaign. As Bob Doris said, the decision has already been made, so for most of them the petition is not about overturning decisions that have been made but about looking to future decisions, which will probably—hopefully—not affect the schools that their children now attend but might affect other children's schools. What the parents are doing is incredibly important, and I congratulate them on continuing, after everything that they have been through, to push the issue.

The least that we can afford the petitioners is to continue with the petition. Whether that means writing to the Government or to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee—or the Local Government and Communities Committee, as Bob Doris mentioned—I think that there must be an investigation. That need not be an investigation into one local authority; we need an investigation into the wider impact of wholesale school closures.

After Bob Doris spoke, the convener said that the Public Petitions Committee will decide on whether the parents can come and give evidence. I certainly support the proposal that they should come. The campaigners feel completely demoralised by and disengaged from the political process, so the fact that they are continuing to campaign is testament to their tenacity if not to their belief in that process. The more that we do to hear what they have to say, the better.

We should also consider whether the issue is just about school closures or whether there is a wider issue with consultations in general. However, I definitely support an examination at least of the impact of school closures. We should write to the Government or one of the other committees in the Parliament to seek a proper investigation of that.

Two or three suggestions have been made by Bill Butler and Anne McLaughlin. Are we happy to explore those options and raise the matter with the Government and other partners to assess the impact of the decisions that can be made—or the likely decisions that could be made in future, because there will always be a concern about school closures?

I have one more point—it also applies to PE1266, which we have just considered. We should look at the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament debated at stage 1 last week, to see whether it contains anything that the petitioners should know about. We should relay any relevant information to them.

Okay.

A further issue with the consultation process is how those who have concerns are supported to shape their alternative to the local authority's proposal. That has certainly concerned me. Traditionally, the local authority has the resources behind it to promote the proposal that it submits, but there is an issue about the resources that the local community has at its disposal to enable it to create and submit an alternative proposal. During the recent consultation process, the communities had some genuinely good ideas about how they could progress with an alternative, but it was difficult for them—and indeed for elected members, who do have resources at their disposal—to develop alternative proposals within the timescale that is set down by the statutory process. Local authorities say that they followed the guidelines, and no doubt they will do that under the new process, but unless communities have access to information and are genuinely empowered they will be unable properly to put forward alternatives.

We have now reached the generality of the issue, which is where I would like to come in. It seems to me—this reflects my experience as a councillor and, I guess, other things—that we have procedures and processes for consultation, but we all know that, once we have been through them, the body concerned can, by and large, ignore everything that has come out and carry on doing exactly what it wanted to do. I do not think that most people in Scotland would regard that as a terribly cynical thing to say. As I hear myself saying that, I realise that it is actually cynical, but that is what a lot of people believe.

I am not questioning the importance of school closures, but I wonder whether, once we have considered it, the committee might examine the ways in which the public are consulted by statutory bodies, be they local or national. We should ask whether the consultation process is meaningful and what the Parliament might do to try to ensure that, in future years, consultation actually means something and the feedback is reflected on and, when appropriate, taken on board.

Nigel Don certainly has a point. The Parliament is considering the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, which I hope will address some of the concerns that are raised not only by the three petitions on the subject that we are considering today but by other petitions that the committee has considered on school closures. We have discussed several such petitions either with or without representation. I hope that, by questioning the Government about where it is going with the bill, we can try to draw out what is meant by meaningful consultation.

As Nigel Don said, public bodies have a statutory obligation to consult but, at the end of the day, they do not have to take any notice of the views and responses that they received, and they can make the decisions that everybody suspected that they were going to make in the first place anyway. It is up to this Parliament to develop meaningful consultation processes that—no matter what the issue is—enable people's views to be heard, make them feel that they have been allowed to participate, and ensure that the decisions that are made are based on those factors rather than being predetermined, prejudged decisions by the local authority or other public body.

It would be worth writing to the Scottish Government to ask it exactly what it thinks will take place in relation to the issues that have been raised not only by the petitions that are before us today but by previous petitions that we have received from groups throughout Scotland.

You have touched on the key issue, John. We constantly get petitions about school closures, and certain themes keep emerging. People will never be happy about a final decision to close a school, because they are protective of their children's schools, but the issue is that some breaches of the procedure seem to occur regularly. That happens with rural local authorities, urban local authorities and local authorities that are a mixture of both.

We have heard a number of points, and we should pull them together and try to explore them further.

---

School Buildings <br />(Asbestos Management Plan) (PE1268)

The final petition that is concerned with this broad theme of schools is PE1268, by Catherine Mitchell on behalf of St Gilbert's primary school and all schools in the west of Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action against local authorities that have failed to implement a robust asbestos management plan and procedures for school buildings that contain asbestos and to ensure that parents and teachers who require information that is held by local authorities about asbestos in school buildings have full access to it.

The petition is broadly related to the previous two petitions, but it concerns a specific issue about asbestos in a school that pupils were sent to after they left a school that was closing.

I invite Paul Martin, the petitioner's local MSP, and Bob Doris to speak to the committee on the matter.

I agree with Catherine Mitchell's sentiments. During the process of the closure of St Gilbert's school, she became a serial maker of requests under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2000—the legislation enabled parents to submit such requests, and she was entitled to the information that she gained access to.

During the process, Catherine Mitchell identified some deficiencies in the provision of information to parents. For example, she was denied information on air quality tests when she sought access to it. Local authorities need to learn that, the more information that is withheld from parents during such a process, the more concerned parents become about that information. One purpose behind the freedom of information legislation was to ensure that the public have free access to information so that they do not believe that some sort of conspiracy is going on.

I do not think that the local authority had any ill will towards anyone—although Catherine Mitchell would probably disagree with me. I think that the local authority was sometimes unclear about what information it could release. From the outset, I took the view that parents should be provided with whatever information they need to enable them to feel reassured. Parents should have access to the information that the local authority has access to.

We have to realise that there is asbestos in a number of our public buildings and that, as Catherine Mitchell says, there should be a regime in place to ensure that people can get access to information on it. That is particularly important with regard to school buildings. Parents have unprecedented access to information through the internet, and they are more aware of issues relating to asbestos, which means that they can become more alarmed. They become concerned when they are not provided with detailed or even basic information, and we need to proceed with caution in that respect.

Catherine Mitchell was concerned about asbestos in the receiving school. As I said to her, I respect her right to request information about asbestos—and I certainly think that she should have got it—but the asbestos situation in St Philomena's is no different from that in a number of schools and, indeed, public buildings throughout Glasgow. It is not that the school, which is a good one, has a specific problem with asbestos; the issue was about the removal of asbestos, which as I say is no different from the situation in any other school that requires modification.

You will be glad to hear that on this occasion I do not have a lengthy prepared statement—although if you want one, I am sure that I can provide it. I, too, know Catherine Mitchell very well and pay tribute to her hard work. She has her own folder in my inbox for all the e-mails that she sent me during her months of campaigning.

Local authorities do not do themselves any favours by keeping secret information that does not need to be kept secret. They should have everything organised. I am not clear about the seriousness of the asbestos issue in this case, but I know that when we cannot reassure parents they get worried and start to lose trust. If local authorities need to build up anything, it is trust with regard to children's safety. In that respect, I certainly endorse Catherine Mitchell's suggestion to the committee.

Catherine Mitchell must be commended. It seems to me that, in campaigning against the closure of St Gilbert's primary school, she identified an issue at St Philomena's. However, she has not targeted that school in the petition, which simply calls for an investigation into the level of asbestos in the school estate in the west of Scotland. As Paul Martin has pointed out, that is a much wider issue that involves not only the school estate but public buildings throughout Scotland.

It would therefore be remiss of us not to ask the Scottish Government about what local authorities—and indeed the Government itself—have done to identify primary and secondary school buildings in the west of Scotland whose fabric might still contain asbestos. As Paul Martin made clear, a lot of concern has been expressed about the amount of asbestos in such buildings, particularly primary schools where young children are in their developmental stage. Any teacher or worker in a school could cause asbestos dust to be released simply because the proper assessments have not been carried out and the appropriate responses have not been made. It is incumbent on the Government to urge local authorities to carry out such reviews urgently.

We should also write to the Health and Safety Executive. After all, given its statutory role of ensuring that schools and buildings are safe and fit for purpose, it should be carrying out its own investigations into buildings that contain asbestos and whether there is any danger of such material being released.

I am conscious of the time. As everyone agrees that we want to explore the issues raised in this petition, I think that, unless anyone else has a pressing point, we should simply agree to take the petition forward.

I will be quick, convener. I echo what everyone has said, but the fact is that Catherine Mitchell would not be happy if I did not put on record my absolute support for her. Like some modern-day Erin Brockovich, she became a serial e-mailer and FOI requester. She has done what she has done not for the good of her own health but for the good of the health of the children going to that school. I simply want to congratulate her and support everything that she is asking for.

John Wilson has usefully set out the core suggestion. We will also ask a selection of local authorities about the robust management or assessment plans they have in place to deal with asbestos.

Do you want to make a final point, John?

I am sorry, convener. I assure you that this will be my final point.

As it has been suggested that we contact certain local authorities with regard to the two previous petitions, I wonder whether we should spread things out a bit with this petition and target other local authorities instead of simply hitting the same local authorities with several requests for information.

Okay. I thank the two parliamentarians who have expressed interest in these petitions for attending this afternoon. We will see what journey the petitions take through the process.

We will have a brief comfort break and reconvene in about five or six minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Same-sex Marriage and <br />Mixed-sex Civil Partnership (PE1269)<br />Same-sex Marriage (PE1239)

The final new petition is PE1269, from Tom French, on behalf of the Equal Marriage Campaign, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend legislation to allow same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnership. PE1239, which is on a similar subject, is also on the agenda. The clerk has something to say about that.

If the committee wishes, the option is open to it to consider the new petition and PE1239 together, as they are on broadly the same issue.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay.

A letter from Shirley-Anne Somerville has been tabled for the committee's consideration. Do members have any comments or observations?

The Government has indicated clearly that it does not intend to take any legislative action on the issue during this parliamentary session. However, the issue will remain. To my mind, the question is whether we should keep the petitions open until the next parliamentary session, after the next election, or whether we should close them pro tem. Those seem to be the two options that are open to us. As the Government has already stated its position, it would appear that we will not make any further progress on the issue. My inclination would be to keep the petitions open.

I support Robin Harper's request to keep the petitions open. I understand that a challenge has been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights, so it would be useful to keep the petitions open until the judgment on that case is made, because it might have an impact not only on the Scottish Government but on the UK Government. I therefore request that the petitions be kept open.

In her letter, Shirley-Anne Somerville acknowledges that the Scottish Government has said that

"the changes necessary to create equal marriage involve reserved matters".

However, she goes on to say:

"I believe these issues are not insurmountable but would like to see further research done to consider in more detail the legislative changes which would be required and the cross-border issues that are involved."

I certainly support that proposal. We should look into the issue further to find out exactly what the barriers are and how we can overcome them, particularly in the context of what John Wilson said. I support the proposal to keep the petitions open.

The lack of equality throughout the process is certainly a concern. I understand the petitioners' impatience and their desire for action to be taken now, instead of having to wait for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights but, as has been said, it seems that the Scottish Government is not ready to move on the issue in this session. If it is an option to keep the petitions open until the next session, which seems a long time, I suppose that that is one way forward.

It would be possible for an MSP to take up the issue in a member's bill, but it would have to be decided whether that would move the process on. On this occasion, it might be counter-productive, because there would need to be a majority in favour of the proposal in committee and in the chamber and, to my mind, we are not there yet. If we can keep the petitions open, that is fair enough. A head of steam is building up behind the issue, but I do not think that it is big enough to allow progress to be made. As I said, a member could test the waters with a member's bill. When we considered PE1239, the suggestion was made that we should pass it on to the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I am not sure that that would allow progress to be made. If it is possible to keep the petitions open until the next session, I suggest that we do that.

I think that we should keep the petitions open, certainly until the decision that is pending from the European Court of Human Rights has been made. In addition, I would not be averse to the committee writing to the Scottish Government to ask whether it would be willing to carry out further research.

I am a bit sceptical about keeping a petition open until next session, because that amounts to suspending consideration of it for two years. Although, technically, it might be possible to do that, we all know that one Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. However, if colleagues were minded to keep the petitions open on the basis that the European court challenge is pending and we will write to the Scottish Government asking whether it is willing for further research to be done, I would be less sceptical about that way forward.

I was certainly not indicating that we should keep the petitions open and sit back and do nothing. Members have had plenty of ideas about what to do while keeping the petitions open, but we should ask the Government to report back to us on what it considers the complications to be, because we do not have detailed information about that.

I agree with Robin Harper.

There are two perspectives on this, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The option that Bill Butler articulated seems to be the one that has broad support from members. We should seek further information about the process and the obstacles, pending the court ruling. We will keep the petitions open until we address those three issues. We can determine whether the petitions will require to be kept open for another session of Parliament the next time that we consider them. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.