���˿���

Yes, we can do so. The only thing that it has said is that it has had those two submissions, which is not really action but just a reflection of that fact. Thank you for that. Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The Government has come back twice to tell us that. However, we could draw to its attention why it is a matter of on-going concern.

Item 2 is to invite colleagues to agree to take items 5 and 6 in private. Are we content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We come to the last of our new petitions this morning. PE2027, which was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch without further delay the £10 million changing places toilet fund that was pledged in the 2021 Scottish National Party manifesto, and to make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups that are trying to build these much-needed facilities.

The response from the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport states that, due to budget constraints, funding for the construction of changing places toilets has not yet been allocated and specific timelines for its distribution remain unannounced. The Government’s submission emphasises the need to prioritise spending efficiently to benefit those in the greatest need and says that further details on the investment in question will be provided over the parliamentary session.

The petitioner’s submission details the group’s work to obtain the necessary permissions for a changing places toilet in Tyndrum and notes that the only thing that is preventing it from building the facility is a lack of capital funding. The petitioner highlights the hardships that are faced by disabled individuals and their carers as a result of the absence of changing places toilets, which include indignity, isolation and health risks.

The positive impact that the use of similar funding in England has had in expanding access for disabled individuals is cited. The petitioner notes the benefits to the local economy of tapping into the purple pound of potential tourists and customers in the disabled community.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I am sorry; I had forgotten—even though I directed him to the appropriate seat—that we are joined by our colleague Paul O’Kane, who has an interest in the petition. Before we move to our consideration of potential options, I invite him to comment in support of the petition.

Do colleagues have any other suggestions?

Thank you all very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 20 September. We move into private for items 5 and 6.

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?