Chamber and committees

Yes, as it has a project that is due to report imminently.

I agree. That is entirely reasonable. The issues that have been raised are important. Until you get into the practice of a BID, it is hard to understand some of the flaws. Being able to test and adjust is an important part of legislation, even if that takes a bit of time and effort.

What has been suggested by the petitioner is entirely reasonable. I thank the petitioner for attending today in the public gallery, which is appreciated.

We will note those actions.

We roll straight into related petition PE2227, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the business improvement district ballot regulations to require BID ballot holders to prohibit the disclosure of interim ballot data before the official declaration of the result. The petitioners clarify that “interim ballot data” means turnout figures, information on who has voted, the rateable value of returned votes or any other information that is generated during the conduct of or counting of the ballot. The petitioners note that that should not prevent the lawful supply of information for canvassing purposes under regulation 13 of the Business Improvement Districts (Scotland) Regulations 2007.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing for the petition notes that a vote needs to take place before a BID is formally established. It refers to schedule 2 of the Business Improvement District (Scotland) Regulations 2007, which sets out how BID ballots should operate, including the stipulation that

“Every person attending the proceedings in connection with the issue or the receipt of ballot papers shall maintain, and aid in maintaining, the secrecy of the voting and shall not attempt to ascertain at the proceedings in connection with the receipt of the ballot papers the way in which any vote is given in any particular ballot paper, or communicate any information with respect to that obtained at those proceedings.”

As was the case with the previous petition, the Scottish Government states that the petition’s asks would not be achievable in the medium term, as that would require amendments to existing legislation. It notes in its written submission that legal, cost and resource implications would have to be factored in. It also notes the existence of the strategic group on BID operational effectiveness, which was convened by Scotland’s Towns Partnership earlier this year.

The petitioner’s view is that allowing access to information showing who has voted in a BID renewal ballot and the rateable value that is represented by the votes that have been cast can enable BID proposers to identify businesses that have not yet voted, and target their efforts accordingly, including by focusing attention on high-rateable-value properties whose votes can materially affect the outcome. The petitioner argues that that risks undermining the principle of a secret and independent ballot.

We have heard comments on this petition from our colleague Helen McDade MSP, in her initial comments, and I now invite members of the committee to make any comments.

The fundamental issue is that the funding structure is not appropriate, and that structure will not be going anywhere, so I agree with the proposal to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. In doing so, we should write to the petitioner to say that we are sympathetic to her concept of choice and that she could perhaps consider an alternative petition that is more about encouraging education authorities to consider the broader range of options that are available when meeting special support needs for children. That might, in due course, be a more appropriate petition.

Yes, potentially. Cara McKee, do you have another view?

Our next petition is PE2221, which was lodged by Khadijah Rafiq, and published on 24 June. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to waive the additional dwelling supplement for those buying homes to support dependent family members.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that ADS is payable when someone buys a residential property in Scotland and already owns one or more properties anywhere in the world. It provides examples of such additional residential properties.

The briefing refers to a Scottish Government consultation conducted from December 2021, with a summary of evidence published in February 2023. Although there was no question specifically about relief from ADS, 96 per cent of respondents agreed that Revenue Scotland should be given a power to waive ADS in exceptional circumstances. The Scottish Government did not support that proposal on the basis that such reforms would double the amount of time that someone had to sell their previous main residence. The Chartered Institute of Taxation stated that doubling that window would be a sensible step.

The briefing further notes changes that were made to ADS and to land and buildings transaction tax—LBTT—through secondary legislation in 2024, but those did not include waiving ADS for people buying homes to support dependent family members.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government refers to the initial findings of a review of LBTT, which was published in March 2026. It notes that the review

“recognised that difficult cases can arise within the ADS framework, while also highlighting the challenges of introducing greater flexibility into a tax system that otherwise applies consistently across all taxpayers.”

The review concluded that further consideration of the issue may be warranted, while noting the associated legislative, administrative and evidential challenges. The Scottish Government states:

“This is a complex area and no decisions have been taken on potential legislative changes.”

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

Yes, that makes sense.

I was also thinking of Dan Neidle, who runs a public tax charity. He often comments publicly on tax reforms. I would like to get his view. It might be a topic that we can open up to a broader inquiry, with public engagement, which could be quite interesting.

I note that the petitioner has not provided a follow-up response, even though this presents them with a very good opportunity. We will want to invite the petitioner to provide evidence, because they might have a personal interest in a particular case that is worth looking at in detail.

There are a few actions there, and I hope that they are all acceptable. Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy to do that. I realise that the issue affects a lot of people.

I think that that makes sense. Are colleagues in agreement?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Marie McNair, do you have anything to add?

Our next petition is PE2231, lodged by Mhari Douglas, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide targeted funding for child and adolescent mental health service neurodevelopmental services in order for additional staff to be recruited and trained. The petition also calls for transparent waiting time data to be published and for maximum waiting time standards for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments to be introduced so that no child is left waiting years for support.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that data on waiting times specifically for neurodevelopmental condition assessments is not held by the Scottish Government. It adds that there is no published national figure for the number of staff who are employed in Scotland’s neurodevelopmental pathways. Further to that, the briefing states that it is difficult to identify how much funding is specifically allocated to such services because much of the support is multidisciplinary and comes from universal services.

The Scottish Government’s submission on the petition states that it does not plan to introduce national waiting time standards for ADHD or autism diagnostic assessment, or to establish ring-fenced funding specifically for diagnostic services. The response highlights actions that the Government is taking to improve outcomes for neurodivergent children and young people such as funding the national autism implementation team and the establishment of a children and young people’s neurodevelopment task force.

The petitioner’s submission seeks clarification on how neurodevelopmental services waiting times will be measured, what level of waiting is considered to be unacceptable, who is responsible for ensuring support while children wait and how the Government will ensure that children receive timely treatment.

We received an indication of interest in this petition from Kim Schmulian MSP, but she is unfortunately unable to join us this morning. We will correspond with her in writing if she has any views on the petition and can consider those in due course.

Do any members have any comments or suggestions for actions?