Chamber and committees

I am going to assume that there was no connection between your observations about Ms Grant being at school and world war 1 potholes. I take it that that was just an unintended—[Laughter.] Also, I wonder who is left to evidence that a pothole looks like a world war 1 crater, but maybe there is someone who can do that in the Highlands, where, of course, everyone is long-lived.

Mr Ewing is right to say that we have simply been told that the Government does not consider that the road meets the criteria but that we have not been told why, in the light of the evidence that has been attested, it has come to that view. It has simply asserted its view, not justified it, and I agree that we should ask it to do so. I am happy with that proposal if other colleagues feel that it is appropriate. Are members content for us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Rhoda, I think that your attendance contributed to a different outcome being achieved in our consideration of the petition, so I thank you for that.

As this is the start of the parliamentary year, I say, as indeed I do each time we consider new petitions, for the information of those people who might be looking in on our proceedings because they have lodged a petition or are following how a petition might be progressing, that, ahead of the committee’s first consideration of a petition, we seek the views of the Scottish Government and of the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe, our independent research operation—to assist us. We do not consider any petition for the first time without views having been received.

The first new petition under this item is PE2023, as it happens, which seeks to stop the deposit return scheme and which was lodged by Jim Foster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the introduction of the 20p deposit for consumers and the roll-out of the deposit return scheme. It is the petitioner’s view that introducing the scheme will increase costs to the consumer, punish those who already recycle and result in additional journeys to recycling centres.

The minister’s response to the petition, which was received in May, reaffirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to launching the scheme in March 2024. However, as can happen with the consideration of petitions from time to time, events have overtaken us. Members will be aware that, before the summer recess, the minister announced that the introduction of the deposit return scheme would be delayed until October 2025 at the earliest.?

I do not think that the committee has heard directly from the minister, but that is simply our reading of matters in Parliament.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in relation to the petition? I hesitate, but I see that Mr Torrance wants to speak.

Thank you. We welcome the petition. Are members content to keep it open and to begin our investigations by following the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we have covered the ground at this stage, mainly. Will we get that evidence first? I am just trying to think where we want to be sequentially—

There seems to be a fairly consensual view among colleagues. Are members content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I wonder whether there should be a flavour of something else in our approach. Obviously, the Government has made its argument, but for people not covered by the inquiry’s scope, the inference is that the abuse that they suffered is not worthy of an inquiry in its own right or further investigation. I think that that is an unfortunate conclusion. It might well be that, as Fergus Ewing suggests, the Government is going to touch on this matter in a different way, but it would be helpful to invite it to spell out why it feels that way. We as a committee are going to have to go back to the petitioner and say, in essence, that the issue that they have identified is not thought by the Government sufficiently serious to warrant its investigating it in a formal way. That is not a conclusion with which the Government should be comfortable.

Is the committee content?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition remains open. I am hopeful that Parliament will be able to influence its outcome and advance its aim as we proceed; let us hope that we do. I thank Monica Lennon for her on-going interest and the petitioner for all the interest that she shows. I appreciated having an opportunity to read the response that the petitioner received from the Lord Advocate, which was economical in respect of the issue. The opportunity to advance the aims of the petition exists, so thank you, everybody.

PE1955, which was lodged by John Wood, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities provide good-quality, clean and accessible public toilets by placing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate such toilets and? ensuring that sufficient funding is available for local authorities to meet that requirement.?

Since our last consideration of the petition, we have received information from Highland Council and Aberdeenshire Council about their use of the comfort scheme. Members will recall that that is a voluntary scheme whereby businesses and organisations can obtain grants when they register to become providers of toilet facilities. The written submissions provide information about how many businesses and organisations are registered, the cost of the scheme to local authorities and their approach to advertising the existence of the scheme.

The Scottish Government has provided information about the rural tourism infrastructure fund as it relates to public toilets. Although that information has been useful for the committee in understanding the current landscape and alternative routes for providing facilities, the petitioner stressed the importance of the petition’s main ask. The petitioner does not feel that the comfort scheme is a satisfactory alternative and feels that

“the rural tourism infrastructure fund is not an appropriate source of funding for a basic public service”.

He has reiterated that

“public toilets are a basic requirement of public health and hygiene”,

stating that

“only a statutory duty and ... sufficient revenue will provide”

that requirement.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions to make?

Well, we are not closing the petition, then. Mr Ewing, do you have any further reflection? We now have two colleagues suggesting that we close the petition and two colleagues who would prefer to have a further go at drawing the latest matters to the Government’s attention.