���˿���

I thank Emma Harper for her presentation. She outlined that the purpose of the group is to promote and encourage Scots. However, the written application refers to ensuring that the Scottish Government takes forward legislation. Will you expand on how you intend to do that and what the purpose of the group is?

You cannot be anything other than impressed, convener, with the number of individuals who are seeking to be involved in the cross-party group and the organisations that it is aligning itself to. That gives us confidence that the group will be very active and will carry out its role collectively and responsibly. I am encouraged by that, and I look forward to seeing how the group progresses—I am sure that it will progress.

I acknowledge and understand the importance of the issue, because it has been raised in the past and there is no doubt that there are views about it across the chamber and the bureau. The fact that we are looking at the possibility of creating a pilot is encouraging, because that will give us the opportunity to look at the criteria for and the duration and flexibility of the whole process. I am glad that we have got this far, although I acknowledge that there is still some way to go to try and meet people’s views and opinions in the middle.

As a starter for 10, I think that we are going in the right direction and that proxy voting will enhance and support ���˿��� as we go forward. I am sure that there will be different views and opinions about all of that, but I think that the consensus at the end of the day will mean that we will end up with a proxy voting system of some kind that will support individuals who need it, and I am content to see that progress.

In its letter, the bureau also discusses the practical operation of the digital voting system which, as we know, we have had difficulties with in the past. It was said to be “robust”, but that was not always the case. There might be an opportunity for the digital system to be developed in such a way that it could enable proxy voting to be incorporated. The fact that that is being looked at is to be welcomed, because that would provide a bit more trust in the system.

The digital voting system has a part to play in how the process will progress.

The dialogue must be there. We have already said that trust is vital. Communication between the member, the proxy and the Presiding Officer is also vital to ensure that everyone is aware of what their roles and responsibilities are and that everyone is being looked after. That is important, too.

Yes, convener—I think that that would satisfy some of the elements in relation to having some clarity around a definition.

We do not anticipate that a large number of individuals will fall into that category. Only a minority of ���˿��� will require that facility. Whether that is for a short time or a longer time will depend on the circumstances that they find themselves in. I believe that it is important to get clarity, and the Presiding Officer will have a role to play in ensuring that such a scheme is managed effectively.

I concur with the convener. We require clarity from the cabinet secretary with reference to access to Stranraer and Cairnryan. Notwithstanding that the petitions have been here a long time, there is merit in trying to find more information and clarity before we get to the stage of closing them. I support the convener’s suggestion that we should get the information and not close the petitions at this stage.

I concur, if the product does not meet British standards. It would be difficult for us to support any apparatus that does not meet the expected level of efficiency. It is a difficult situation when you are dealing with a smoke alarm. It must meet the right standard or it could jeopardise individuals.

There is no question that the issue has been raised by a number of individuals and that such destruction now seems to be practice in some local authority areas. I appreciate that individuals might no longer be able to maintain, or be part of the process of looking after, a headstone because their family is no longer there or those individuals are deceased. However, we need to seek clarity on the issue.

COSLA is one of the first places that we should go to ask whether local authorities routinely liaise with lair owners on maintenance and how they do so, because it is important to find that out. I appreciate that councils are concerned with health and safety, but it can have a massive impact on a family if they turn up to see a headstone and find that it has been destroyed. People have written to me on that topic and I have then liaised with the local council.

There is also an opportunity for us to write to the Scottish Government’s burial regulations working group, which has a role to play. We should ask what consideration it will give to the need for and value of a national approach to the monitoring and regulation of local authority actions. Will it also consider having a funded maintenance and repair policy, with a timescale, and how that timescale would be planned for? Those are the recommendations that I suggest.

You have outlined many of the areas that have already been covered. At this stage, it would be possible for the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, because stakeholders’ concerns have already been raised and the Scottish Government’s work on those initiatives is on-going.

If we close the petition, perhaps we could write to the Education, Children and Young People Committee to highlight the evidence that we have received in response to the petition, and in advance of the proposed inquiry on additional support needs, which would give that committee the opportunity to take on board areas of concern that have been raised. At this stage, the petition has gone as far as we can take it. Our giving it to that committee would give it the opportunity to advance it and to bring together the strands that we have not been able to assimilate here.