Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1955, lodged by John Wood, calls on the Scottish 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 public toilets and ensuring that sufficient funding is available to local authorities to meet that requirement.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights a 2018 BBC report, which revealed that 15 of the 28 Scottish councils that responded to an FOI request had fewer public toilets in 2018 than they had in 2010. The briefing also points to a comfort scheme that runs in a number of local authorities and which provides grants to businesses and organisations when they register to become providers of toilet facilities. I have to say that I was unaware of that scheme.

In its response, the Scottish Government states that

“there are no plans ... to make the provision of public toilets a statutory obligation on local authorities.”

It points to the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which includes

“project proposals”

to deliver

“new public toilets, car parking, and waste disposal facilities.”

In his response to the Scottish Government, the petitioner says that the provision of public toilets is

“a basic requirement of public and environmental health”,

not simply “an optional ‘tourism’ issue”. He points to the Scottish Government’s role in ensuring “health and environmental protection” as a demonstration of why the issue is of national importance.

I note from a motion lodged by one of our parliamentary colleagues that this is national toilet week, of which I was also unaware. We are therefore considering the petition at an apposite moment. Do members have any comments or suggestions for how to take the issue forward?

Are there any other suggestions or are members content to proceed on that basis? It might also be useful to write to Highland, South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire councils in order to understand how the comfort schemes operate. As I have said, I was not previously aware of them, and I would be interested to find out how many businesses are actually supportive of the schemes and what effort had to be put into achieving them; what the annual cost is; and how widely advertised and understood the schemes are. They would seem to offer an opportunity that other councils might wish to take into account. In addition, councils might seek to use the rural infrastructure fund that Mr Ewing has suggested we write to the Government about as a means of facilitating that.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1956, lodged by Louise McGee, seeks to increase the provision of wheelchair-accessible homes. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the existing wheelchair-accessible housing target guidance, and to explore options for increasing the availability of wheelchair-accessible housing in Scotland.

In the background information to the petition, Louise tells us that she has been waiting for around five or six years to be offered a more suitable house, but the local authority has been unable to do so, due to a lack of wheelchair-accessible houses in the area. In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government has set out a range of actions being undertaken to increase the number of wheelchair-accessible houses across Scotland. They include making

“funding ... available through the Affordable Housing Supply Programme”

and publishing

“guidance for local authorities on the setting of Local Housing Strategy ... targets to support the delivery of ... wheelchair accessible housing across all tenures.”

The Scottish Government also states that it is taking forward reviews of the housing adaptations system and the “Housing for varying needs: a design guide” publication, and has suggested that

“the petitioner may wish to contribute to public consultations which will take place as part of this work.”

Do members have any suggestions that we might consider?

That is a perfectly reasonable point. There are two issues. First, Mr Sweeney referred to the capping of the M8. Those who are familiar with the Charing Cross end of the motorway will know that it is really a valley through civilisation when you get to the top end of Glasgow.

The points that Mr Ewing makes are perfectly fair. Perhaps the various organisations that you have identified could be included in our approach to the Scottish Government in terms of any collaborative approach that is being undertaken between Transport Scotland and Glasgow City Council. Could we do it that way?

Before I come to Carole Hunter, I refer to your first answer. Do you have an ambition to include in the oversight role that you referred to in your opening response seeking to ensure that those procedures will be effectively embedded? Is that part of the oversight function?

PE1855, which was lodged by Claire Mitchell QC, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise the people in Scotland who were accused and convicted as witches under the Witchcraft Act 1563.

Members will recall that the First Minister has provided an apology to the people in Scotland who were accused and convicted as witches under the 1563 act. I seem to remember that we heard in evidence that some 2,200 people were convicted, the vast majority of whom were women. I am not sure that the First Minister apologised to the men who were convicted under the act—I have a recollection that she apologised to the women who were convicted—so I think that 400 people have gone without an apology.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 18 May 2022, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and to Natalie Don MSP. We now have responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Natalie Don MSP and the petitioner.

The cabinet secretary advises that, although it is Scottish Government policy that costs associated with creating and maintaining new memorials

“are not to be met from scarce public funds”,

the Government would be happy to consider helping to publicise any fundraising efforts. The cabinet secretary also indicated that the location of any national memorial would primarily be a matter for local authorities.

Natalie Don MSP has provided a brief update on the progress of her proposed witchcraft convictions (pardons) (Scotland) bill, letting us know that the consultation responses will be published shortly and that she intends to progress to the next stage of the member’s bill process.

The petitioner highlights the considerable work that has been undertaken in pursuing the aims of the petition, including discussions with interested parties about taking forward plans for a national memorial and a museum of witch hunts, and has indicated that, as a consequence, they are reasonably content with the actions that have been taken on all three aspects of the petition that were raised.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I apologise for our slightly late start this morning.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. The first petition that we will consider is PE1900. The petition, which is a very important one that we have previously heard evidence on and considered, is on access to prescribed medication for detainees in police custody. It was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

We are joined by David Strang, who is the former chair of the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, and Carole Hunter, who is a former member of the task force. Carole is joining us remotely. I warmly welcome both of you. Obviously, we are aware that the task force is no longer operational, so we are grateful for your taking the time to discuss the petition with us, even though you have been decommissioned, so to speak.

Members would like to explore a number of questions. I recognise that you have produced a report and have moved on from the task force. We are very keen to understand where you think that that report can assist us.

Do you have a preference as to who will answer? David Strang can indicate to me whether he will lead or invite Carole Hunter to take the flak on each question. We will see how it proceeds.

Carole Hunter?

I very much agree. In some of the evidence that we heard, and in particular the Scottish Government’s initial response, superficially the alternatives looked as if they might have been an effective way of proceeding. However, in the face of the evidence that we heard subsequently, I too have been persuaded that we require a specific charge to be included in the 2018 act.

Wearing a completely different hat—my Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body hat—I am struck by the fact that we have 17 members’ bills already before Parliament in this session, which is a record number. The prospects of any additional members’ bills finding scope to proceed before 2026 are probably nil. We must either take the view that this is just something that we are going to nod at and move along from, having said that it is all very terrible, or we have to be prepared to take more decisive action.

Mr Ewing drew attention to the fact that we discovered that the offence in England and Wales grew out of provisions that were passed at a much earlier time and to meet entirely different circumstances. Until we heard that, maybe we assumed that the offence had been brought in for this purpose. I think that we would like to hear more about that.

I think that the committee’s feeling is that we would like the clerks to prepare an appropriate representation of our consideration to the Scottish Government, subject to that final evidence being heard, which would recommend, on behalf of the committee, the specific offence being included in legislation.

We have actually identified a number of candidates that we think might be suitable for a chamber debate. We will potentially make a specific recommendation in respect of the action that might be appropriate, as we might like to see that added to the matters that we could potentially seek to raise for a chamber debate. We will, I think, be making a fairly consequential recommendation arising from a very sensitive petition. Are we happy to consider that?

Members indicated agreement.