Official Report 769KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is the consideration of new petitions. Before we consider new petitions, I always say to those who might be following our proceedings that, before we consider a petition, we ask the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to do some detailed work advising us on the issues underpinning the petition and also seek a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. However, as I said at the start of today’s meeting, I am afraid that we are now considering the very last of the new petitions submitted to us with very little time left in this session, if any, to do justice to any of these petitions. We have barely a handful of meetings left, and it may well be that the interests of the petitioners will be best served by the petitions being freshly submitted to the new Parliament in May.
I will upset the order because I recognise that Mr Mountain, who joined us for an earlier petition, is still with us. I will move first to the one that I know he has an interest in, so that he can pursue the very many busy aspects of his day yet ahead, and to acknowledge, of course, that he will not be with us in the next session to advocate on behalf of the issues that are raised in the petition. This is his moment so to do.
Personal Footcare Guidance (Rural and Remote Areas) (PE2186)
The first new petition is PE2186, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team, from whom we heard on another petition that we considered earlier this morning. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the personal footcare guidance to ensure equity of access to toenail cutting services in rural and remote areas of Scotland. It says that everyone should have access to healthcare, including footcare services, no matter where they live, and that to deny people access leaves them vulnerable to infection, less mobile and more at risk of falling, particularly elderly people, which is very often overlooked and underappreciated. It suggests that the personal footcare guidance fails to consider mitigations to ensure equity of access to toenail cutting services.
The Scottish Government makes clear in its response that it has no intention of reviewing the guidance, which was refreshed in March this year. In its submission, the Scottish Government highlights relevant legislation and a host of national policy frameworks and strategies that it considers underpin the current guidance, and notes that it is for individual health boards to take decisions on service delivery, tailored to local populations’ needs and priorities.
Edward Mountain, would you like to say a few words in relation to the petition?
Thank you, convener. I will start off by paying tribute to Caithness Health Action Team for all the work that it does, in particular Maria Aitken. She has been a petitioner of this Parliament over the entire period of this session. The petition came about as a result of the removal of services in Caithness, which meant that anyone wanting footcare treatment would have to travel to Raigmore, which is beyond the capabilities of most. I fully understand the pressures that the committee is under. I am working hard with the local health board to try to get the service reinstated. On that basis, I doubt that we will get much further action on this petition before the end of this session.
Reluctantly, I would probably agree that it is appropriate for the committee to close the petition, on the understanding that the Caithness Health Action team can bring this back in the next parliamentary sessions if it finds that the health board is not prepared to look after the many people who need help, mainly because they are diabetic and cannot do this themselves or there is a risk if they do it themselves. Reluctantly, convener, I will fall on my sword in what is my last meeting and say that I am happy for you to close the petition.
It is very generous of you to anticipate our actions, Mr Mountain.
Can I therefore propose two actions? First, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to review the guidance, as it was refreshed in March 2025 and is underpinned by a wide range of national policy frameworks that promote equitable access to personal care, including footcare, and notes that decisions about service delivery are made at a local level by individual NHS boards. However, in closing the petition and noting that point, I propose that we write to the relevant health board expressing the concern that the committee has heard about the distances that are now required for people in Caithness to travel, as they now have to go to Raigmore for this service, which is beyond the capability of many involved. We will say that, although the committee was unable to do more in this session of Parliament, it anticipates that the petition might re-emerge and it would therefore be helpful if NHS Highland considered these matters in advance of and in anticipation of that fact. Are colleagues content with us to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Council Tax (Debt Collection) (PE2174)
PE2174, which has been lodged by Marianne Duncan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish enforcement of council tax debts.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that councils have powers to write off arrears where appropriate, and that that is a decision for councils to take locally. It also states that the Scottish Government is aware of concerns around the use of enforcement measures and, through on-going engagement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, continues to encourage local authorities to adopt proportionate and empathetic approaches, particularly where individuals are experiencing hardship. I would have thought that appropriate where individuals are experiencing hardship, but in other circumstances I would hope that they would pursue the debt, frankly.
The Scottish Government provided an extra £2.2 million in funding for a Citizens Advice Scotland project that supports people with council tax debt. The response also notes that the Government is aware of concerns regarding local authority practices in issuing final demand notices and that it is working with COSLA to promote consistency and best practice in debt recovery procedures. The Scottish Government states that it is open to considering related issues, including the prescription period for council tax debt, and has committed to consulting on this matter in due course, should it be in a position to do so.
The petitioner has provided a written submission that asserts that the cost of living crisis has left many people choosing between food or fuel before paying council tax. The petitioner believes that the harsh enforcement regime of debt collection can take much-needed money away from people through wage arrestment, bank arrestment or benefit deductions. She claims that that is forcing people into a perpetual cycle of debt and poverty. The submission states that a lack of impartial scrutiny and monitoring of the administration of council tax leads to inconsistencies, inequalities, undetected errors, abuse of authority, abuse of process, fraud and a lack of accountability.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the evidence before us, would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is currently undertaking work with COSLA and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that will inform potential council tax reform proposals in the next parliamentary session? In doing so, we can highlight to the petitioner that the consultation is open until 30 January 2026 and suggest that she can submit a new petition in the next parliamentary session.
Yes, I think that makes sense. There is a consultation. We would very much encourage the petitioner to participate in that, but were it to fall short of her expectations, a fresh petition could be submitted in the next parliamentary session. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Business Improvement Districts (Veto Powers) (PE2179)
PE2179, which has been lodged by Gavin Templeton, calls on the Scottish Government to strengthen veto powers when assessing business improvement district proposals. This is the first of two BID-related petitions that we will consider today. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require local authorities to veto proposals for business improvement districts if the levy due to be paid by businesses is not proportional to the rateable value of properties and to introduce a duty on Scottish ministers to take such levy proportionality into account in any decisions regarding BID proposals.
A business improvement district is a formal partnership of businesses and other organisations that works together to improve a defined area, often a town centre or a shopping area within a city. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that a proposal for a BID has to set out the levy to be paid by individual businesses before a vote takes place to establish the BID formally. All businesses located in the area are balloted and a majority of businesses, by both number and rateable value, are required to vote in favour of a BID before it can progress. A local authority can veto a BID under certain circumstances, including if it considers that the levy will lead to a significantly disproportionate financial burden being imposed on any person or business entitled to vote in the ballot.
The petitioner asks that the ability for local authorities to veto a BID proposal should become a requirement in the above circumstances. In additional submissions, both the petitioner and the campaign group Unfair Nae Mair express a number of concerns, supported by examples, regarding the impact of existing legislation on small businesses and the lack of a mechanism for local authorities to assess BID proposals fairly and consistently.
Our SPICe researchers asked Scotland’s Towns Partnership whether any local authority had ever vetoed a BID proposal. The response was that STP was not aware of any such instances.
The Scottish Government submission reiterates that existing legislation enables veto powers for local authorities, but it does not address the petition’s ask for that power to be made a requirement. The Government states that there are no plans to review or amend existing BID legislation during this parliamentary session, given the potential cost and resource implications of such work. The Scottish Government does not see a benefit to introducing a duty on Scottish ministers to take levy proportionality into account in decisions regarding BID proposals. The Government’s view is that the management and governance of a BID are matters for the BID itself. It also states that local authorities have better knowledge and intelligence of the local context and that involving Scottish ministers would add a further level of bureaucracy and complication—that point inevitably being true. Are there any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that current BID legislation contains a dual-key mechanism to help protect against large firms forcing through a BID proposal against the wishes of small firms or vice versa. The Scottish Government’s position is that the regulatory role in relation to BIDs should be for local authorities and not Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has no plans to review or amend existing BID legislation during this parliamentary session, due to cost, resource and time constraints.
That latter point being the operational one. However, that is in the course of this parliamentary session. It seems to me that the petition might have the opportunity to gain further traction in the next parliamentary session because I can see that there would be a route to exploring the issue in more depth at that time.
I agree. If the petitioner wants to resubmit the petition in the next parliamentary session, that would give the committee time to look at it and take evidence.
I can see how we could pursue it were time available to us, but, in the time left in this session, we would not get a response from the various authorities to which we would have to write. There seems to me to be merit in the petition, and I say that as someone who has come up against BID proposals.
The proportionality issue is quite an important one, which has been expressed to me as well. With some regret, I think that we should close the petition at this stage, but very much recommend to the petitioner that this is a petition that it would be well worth resubmitting at the start of the new parliamentary session for the new committee to explore in more detail. I know that that might be a bit frustrating to the petitioner—who I think might be with us—but with only three meetings left in this session, it is inevitably the case that we just will not make any progress on the aims that have been identified. However, I think that the objectives identified are certainly worth exploring.
Unfortunately, I am not able to take comment from the floor, but I would very much hope that that would be the case. I am overhearing that it might be that there are metrics missing. Reluctantly we close this petition, but with the recommendation that it is one to have standing on the stocks to resubmit to the new committee in the Parliament that meets after May in the hope that we can take the issue forward at that time. It is with some regret that I say that. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Business Improvement Districts (Levy Relief) (PE2184)
We come to the second of the BID petitions this morning. PE1284, which has been lodged by Tommy Reid, calls on the Scottish Government to provide BID levy relief to charities and non-profit organisations. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the relevant legislation so that charities and non-profits that qualify for mandatory or discretionary rates relief under section 4(2)(a) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc) (Scotland) Act 1962 are also exempt from paying the BID levy, or receive equivalent relief; conduct a survey of businesses affected by BIDs in order to assess the impact of the levy more widely, particularly on small businesses and third-sector organisations; and to implement any further legislative changes that may arise from such a review.
According to the SPICe briefing, it is possible for a charity to be required to pay a BID levy, even if it is in receipt of 100 per cent relief from the local authority in respect of business rates payments. However, as shown in the Scottish Government response, current legislation allows BID proposals to include a levy exemption or relief for certain organisations. That can apply to charities and non-profit organisations if the individual BID chooses to set that out in the proposal and if the proposal is approved in the follow-up ballot. As we have seen during consideration of the previous petition, the Scottish Government indicates that it has no plans to review or amend existing BID legislation before the end of this parliamentary session.
The Government considers that the second ask of the petition is both practical and achievable. It suggests that the annual BID survey undertaken by Scotland’s Improvement Districts could incorporate questions regarding the impact of BIDs, including the BID levy, on businesses, including charities and non-profit organisations.
I cannot recall us receiving representations on this area of policy during the whole of this parliamentary session. It seems to me that work could be done exploring some of these issues.
Mr Torrance, would you make a similar proposal, with regret, to the one that we made for the previous petition? Again, I think that there are issues here that the Parliament should explore.
I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the BID proposals can already include exemptions and reliefs for charities and non-profit organisations. The Scottish Government believes that mandating exemptions by law would create additional layers of bureaucracy and complications.
The Scottish Government believes that the second ask of the petition is practical and achievable and it suggests that it could be incorporated by Scotland’s Improvement Districts in its annual BID survey. In closing the petition, the committee could write to Scotland’s Improvement Districts and encourage it to consider implementing the second ask of the petition as part of its annual survey, as suggested by the Scottish Government.
In doing that, we will write to the petitioner saying that we are minded to accept that the issues being raised in relation to BIDs are something that the Parliament might like to take an interest in, but that that would be for the next Parliament. Again, I think it would be useful to have the petition standing ready to be resubmitted for the new committee to consider when it meets in May. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Gulls (Removal of Protected Status) (PE2189)
That brings us to our two final new petitions. PE2189, which has been lodged by Ian Boyles, calls on the Scottish Government to remove legal protected status for gulls to help reduce their numbers in residential areas, which was the subject of a recent debate in Parliament. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to no longer grant protected status to gulls, in order to facilitate the reduction of seagull numbers in populated areas and ensure the safety of residents from attacks.
The SPICe briefing shows that the common gull, great black-backed gull and herring gull are now all red-listed species of conservation concern in the UK, while the lesser black-backed gull and black-headed gull are amber listed. Certain species now appear to have a higher proportion of their UK breeding population nesting in urban and inland nest sites, rather than on coastal sites. Those members who live in urban constituencies are very aware of that because gulls have become the subject of quite a few representations—certainly, I have received them.
Gulls are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. It is illegal to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any gull, and an offence to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. In Scotland it is also illegal to obstruct or prevent gulls from using their nests. NatureScot has powers under the act to license activities—for defined legal purposes—that may otherwise be an offence. Those purposes include, for example,
“preserving public health or public or air safety”.
Hopefully our friends in NatureScot might do something in that regard.
The Scottish Government’s position is that legal protected status for gulls should not be removed, as it does not consider this to be the solution to help reduce their numbers in residential areas—perhaps we should send them a little letter asking them to fly elsewhere. In its submission, the Government highlights that the maximum level of licensed control authorised between 2020 and 2023 could have led to gull population declines, according to research carried out by the British Trust for Ornithology.
In September, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity chaired a gull summit in Inverness, which was the subject of some controversy. As a result of the summit, the focus over the coming months will be on five key areas in relation to gull management. These actions include the joint development and delivery of a gull management pilot for the city of Inverness by NatureScot and Highland Council, which will inform the development of national best practice. Additionally, the Government makes it clear that NatureScot will work to support licence applications earlier in the year and that its focus will be on licensing in areas where health and safety needs are highest.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions? Mr Torrance, are you supplanting Mr Golden’s prevailing interest in wildlife?
I am. I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not support the removal of legal protected status for gulls given declining gull populations; the Scottish Government has indicated that NatureScot’s work to support licence applications for gull control will focus on areas where health and safety needs are highest; and that projects such as the gull management pilot led by Highland Council and NatureScot will inform future national best practice in this area.
I thank Mr Torrance for that proposal. I would be most interested to know how NatureScot defines the areas where health and safety needs are highest.
I agree with Mr Torrance, but I think that it is worth putting on the record first that the aim of the petition is to reduce gull numbers in residential areas and that to conflate that with a wider piece around declining gull populations would perhaps be wrong. People out there see what many of us see, which is a massive increase in aggressive gull populations, particularly over the summer, when you might be dining outside, and they are all set to attack. I am astonished that a pilot is required to assist with the issue. Nonetheless, I encourage the petitioner, if they are so minded, to reintroduce the petition, with a specific focus, in the new session, because I feel that the response from the Scottish Government is utterly inadequate.
Yes. We have no option but to close the petition, given the Scottish Government response. I hope that it can be resubmitted. The issue seemed to attract some ridicule when it was raised in the chamber, but I think that that was from those who do not represent urban populations and residential areas where, as you say, there is outside dining. I have evidence in my own constituency of young children being attacked by the urban gull population and there being absolutely no remedy open to the council to do anything about it, given the protected status of gulls. That is why I wonder what
“areas where health and safety focus needs are highest”,
means to our friends at NatureScot—I say that, although I have not been all that friendly to them.
Are we minded to close the petition? This is the kind of subject matter that our committee was designed to consider. It is a matter that no party would pursue in a public manifesto, but it is an actual concern to living communities.
11:30I would very much encourage the petitioner to resubmit this petition in the new session because I think that the matter could be pursued more actively. I would very much welcome watching NatureScot—if I am not in a position to question NatureScot myself—being tackled on the issue.
Do members agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Education (Kindergarten Stage) (PE2195)
The last of our new petitions today is PE2195, lodged by Willie French and Tam Baillie on behalf of Upstart Scotland, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish in Scottish education a relationship-centred, play-based kindergarten stage for children between the ages of three and seven.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the early level of the curriculum for excellence is designed to support the implementation of a responsive, continuous, play-based curriculum for children from age three until the end of primary 1 for the majority of children. The submission goes on to state that raising the school starting age and introducing a kindergarten stage would represent a fundamental change in the scope of education in Scotland and a significant structural change to the provision of education. The response states that there would be a number of significant delivery implications in raising the school starting age.
The petitioners’ submission notes that children in Scotland start formal schooling at an earlier age than most of their international peers. The petitioners recognise the value of the Scottish Government’s policies in the “Realising the Ambition: Being Me” document, but point to a lack of published evidence regarding the extent to which the guidance has been implemented. The submission highlights that evidence from its group, Upstart, suggests that the adoption of “realising the ambition”—that is the name of the programme—is inconsistent and that other policy drivers may hinder its implementation. The petitioners believe that establishing a kindergarten stage would align better with the priority of reducing the poverty-related attainment gap and would meet the developmental needs of children more effectively than current arrangements.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has not indicated that it will take forward the aims of the petition, and has stated that raising the school starting age and introducing a kindergarten stage would represent a fundamental change in the scope of education in Scotland and a significant structural change in the provision of education. There would be a number of significant delivery implications in raising the school starting age, including for the early learning and childcare school workforce, infrastructure, legislation and the curriculum framework, which would need to be fully analysed and costed.
It is therefore unlikely that the petition’s ask could be achieved at this point in the parliamentary session and the committee is limited in the actions that it can take to progress the petition in the time remaining in this session.
Thank you. It is an interesting concept, but again it is one that would need far more time—even then, I suspect that such a petition would probably be referred to the education committee in due course. Nonetheless, it could be the subject of some preliminary work by a subsequent committee of this Parliament in the next session. Again, it is worth advocating that the petition be resubmitted when Parliament resumes.
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 14 January 2026.
11:34 Meeting continued in private until 11:43.
Previous
Continued Petitions