Chamber and committees

That is a reasonable and balanced approach. Do we all agree with those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2237, which was lodged on 29 July by Allan Petrie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a “stage not age” health and social care and benefit system for people with exceptional complex medical needs, including a lifelong foster care model so that such young people do not lose vital paediatric and family financial support at the age of 18.

In its response to the committee, the Government argues that the proposals that are set out in the petition are not considered to be practical or achievable and that a range of legislation and policies are already in place to support the improvements that are requested. The Government’s submission sets those out in detail.

In his response, the petitioner states:

“The question is not whether Scotland has legislation, strategies, guidance and transition planning.”

He accepts that it does, but he states:

“The question is whether the services available to children with Exceptional Complex Healthcare Needs (CEN) when they transition into adulthood are actually capable of continuing to meet those needs”.

In his view, they are not. He argues that those needs are different and more complex, and that adult services have not yet adapted to meet them.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2236, which was lodged on 29 July by Tommy Reid, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to transfer the administration of mandatory charitable rates relief from local authority non-domestic rates departments to an independent, third sector-led or community-focused system. The petitioner states that that will ensure that applications from volunteer-led charities are considered by those with a proper understanding of how voluntary organisations operate, rather than through a narrow revenue collection and enforcement lens.

The SPICe briefing explains that a range of reliefs are available to non-domestic rates payers, with charity relief being one of the largest in terms of total relief value. Registered charities—those that are listed on the register that is maintained by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator—and other organisations of social benefit such as sports, theatre and arts clubs can qualify for both mandatory and discretionary relief of up to 100 per cent of rates liability. Charities must apply to their local council for relief. It is for local authorities to determine whether a property is occupied wholly or mainly for charitable purposes.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition sets out that it does not consider the petition’s specific ask to be practical or achievable. It states that, although the Scottish Government sets non-domestic rates policy, including tax rates and reliefs, local authorities are responsible for the administration and collection of non-domestic rates, including billing. All reliefs are administered by local authorities, which reflects their local knowledge and expertise. The Government’s view is that transferring those responsibilities to an independent, third sector-led or community-focused system, as set out in the petition, would be unprecedented and introduce significant financial and policy risks. It states that extensive and likely complex legislation to establish the necessary accountability and assurance framework would therefore be required, and significant additional costs would be incurred.

The petitioner’s submission states that the petition’s core point relates to who determines the statutory test for charity relief for non-domestic rates, by what process and with what safeguards. The petitioner seeks confirmation that the mandatory 80 per cent relief is an entitlement, rather than being determined by local discretion once the statutory test is met. It further queries whether recovery action should wait until the statutory test has been completed.  The petitioner asks for there to be consideration of an independent or third-sector process as part of the administration of mandatory charitable rates relief, even if local authorities maintain responsibility for billing and collection.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2245, which was also lodged by David Reid, was published on 25 August. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to keep the Wallace letter—known as the safe conduct or letter of introduction—in Scotland. The petition notes that the letter is on loan from the National Archives and is a key item of significant cultural importance to Scotland and our history. It further notes that the loan ended in September and calls for the letter to remain in Scotland indefinitely.

The SPICe briefing explains that the National Archives holds official physical ownership of the Wallace letter in the National Archives building at Kew. The Wallace letter was loaned to the National Records of Scotland from 2012 until September this year, when it was returned to the National Archives. It will return to the NRS on loan again from 2028 to 2031.

The Government’s response states that ministers believe that the Wallace letter should remain in Scotland due to its significant cultural and historical importance to Scotland. It notes, however, that whether the letter remains permanently in Scotland is not solely a matter for the Scottish Government, as the document is owned by the National Archives. Decisions regarding the location and display of the document therefore require agreement between the custodial institutions that are involved. The Government states that Scottish ministers will renew negotiations regarding the document’s longer-term future once the letter has returned to Scotland for the renewed loan period, with the aim of settling it permanently in Scotland.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action on the petition?

Great. We will set out those items of correspondence, and I hope that we can move things forward.

PE2232 was published on 21 July and was lodged by Susan Kirkness. It calls for a ban on beehives in public spaces until statutory national safety regulations are in place. The petition was motivated by an incident in which two members of the petitioner’s family—an adult and a young child—were stung more than 150 times each by swarming bees in a public area. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban beehives in public access spaces until new safety laws are introduced. The petition states that new laws should clearly regulate beehives, including through the use of mandatory safety signage when beekeepers are working in public access spaces.

The SPICe briefing explains that there are currently no specific regulations in Scotland governing the siting of beehives or the related use of signage. It notes that the incident behind the petition was raised at a meeting of the bee health improvement partnership in October 2025 and refers to the minutes of that meeting. The minutes note that section 49 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 might be relevant in this instance. The briefing also identifies other potentially relevant areas of law.

In its submission, the Government recognises the seriousness of the incident and the impact that it has had on those involved. It goes on to address the two central asks of the petition. It notes that such incidents are rare and, as such, considers that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that legislative change for an initial ban on beehives in public spaces is a necessary and proportionate step. It sets out a bullet point list of several practical questions that would be raised. The Government also considers that legislation requiring mandatory signage is neither practical nor proportionate, noting that local authorities can already take action under section 49 of the 1982 act. The Government explains that it encourages the promotion of good husbandry and responsible beekeeping, including the issue of responsibilities around public safety, through a range of work with stakeholders including the bee health improvement partnership.

In her submission, the petitioner notes that the Government refers to a range of legislative instruments but that they all relate to bee health rather than addressing public safety. She argues that that is confirmed by the SPICe briefing, noting that there is no statutory guidance on safe hive placement, risk assessment for public access areas, public-facing safety measures during hive manipulation or signage requirements. She further argues that the 1982 act is reactive and insufficient, and sets out her position on why the actions that she calls for in her petition are proportionate and necessary, reiterating her view that the Government response focuses principally on bee health regulation rather than public safety measures.

Do members have a view on what we should do next?

That sounds reasonable to me. Does everyone agree with that action?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. We move into private session.

10:26

Meeting continued in private until 10:55.

Are there any further suggestions?