Our final petition is PE1270, by Linda Burke, on behalf of the Profound and Multiple Impairment Service and the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland. Essentially, the petition urges the 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. Again, we had an opportunity to discuss the petition in detail at a previous meeting. I invite comments from members on how we might pursue the petition.
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
Changing Places Toilets (PE1270)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Frank McAveety Lab 3
- Rhona Brankin Lab 2
- Nigel Don SNP 2
- Robin Harper Green 1
- Nanette Milne Con 1
- John Wilson SNP 1
The record
11 contributionsI would like to continue the petition, which is on an issue that is important not only for those with disabilities but for people with a range of needs. I suggest that we contact a range of organisations about the issue. I understand from reading the accompanying papers—as I said, I am new to the committee—that the petition has been lodged following a survey that showed that toilets built to the changing places standard are relatively rare. I suppose that we need to get information about current provision, what attitude local authorities take to the petition's proposal and what the implications would be of making such toilets more widely available.
My reading of the petition—which feels like a long time ago now—was to the effect that everyone was saying, "This is not necessarily my problem." Legally, that might well be true, but I cannot help feeling that if the Scottish Government wanted an appropriate standard of toilet in every main place—however that might be defined—it could have a quiet word in the ear of the appropriate local authorities to say, "Hey guys, please could you find a way of doing this that takes your local circumstances and planning opportunities into account?" The cost to a local authority of ensuring that there is one such toilet in the middle of every large town and city would not be huge. Surely no one needs the authority to say that. The Government could just have a quiet word.
The information before us repeats the point that only three of the 32 local authorities even bothered replying to the petitioners to confirm that an equality impact assessment had been carried out to see whether changing places toilets were needed. That level of response is, I suggest, almost inexcusable. The local authorities should be held to account for that by the Government. If the Government will not hold them to account, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities should do so. My feeling is that we should write to both the Government and COSLA to tell them that that is not good enough. The issue must be pursued.
I was going to suggest that we take up the issue with COSLA, as Robin Harper has mentioned.
We will keep the petition open as it raises a number of issues. I think that our response should be quite strong about the need for an equality impact assessment. I believe in subsidiarity and in devolving decision making, but local authorities also have a responsibility, I believe, to deliver what is set out in the concordat.
Convener, I suggest that we also write to the British Council of Shopping Centres to find out how that organisation advises its members on the operation of existing malls and shopping centres. Although we can also write to local authorities about town centres, I am aware that a number of Scotland's town centres and major shopping centres are owned not by local authorities but by other bodies. Therefore, it would be useful to get the views of the British Council of Shopping Centres.
I do not wish to disagree with my colleagues, but surely we do not need an impact assessment. For example, the legislation to say that we would have wheelchair access to public buildings was not dependent on how many wheelchairs there would be; it was introduced simply because there should be a facility. One person would be enough; indeed, the possibility of one person would be enough. If we are not providing facilities to allow some people to get into our cities and town centres to enjoy the services there, it does not matter whether there is one or 20 people—the presence of the facility is the issue. Even if it was argued that nobody who lives in a town needs such a facility, by not putting it there we prevent somebody who needs the facility from visiting the place. I am therefore not sure that I follow the logic of the need for an assessment. The point is that the facilities are needed.
It is an equalities issue, so it might be worth contacting the Equal Opportunities Committee.
Rather than send the petition to that committee now, it would be useful for us to keep it until we exhaust some of the points that members have made and see whether we can get a better response and awareness. As Nigel Don said, we need a more proactive attitude to provision, rather than a reactive one. Do members agree to keep the petition open and pursue those matters?
Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 1 Dec 2009 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 1 December 2009 Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 63
- New Petitions Petitions · 67
- New Petitions Petitions · 12
- New Petitions Petitions · 13
- New Petitions Petitions · 31
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 16
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 14
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 13
- Current Petitions Petitions · 11
- New Petitions (Notification) Petitions · 2
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.