Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in session 7, at which we have eight new petitions to consider. We have received apologies from Marie McNair.

Ahead of each meeting, we notify non-committee members of petitions that we will be discussing and on which they have expressed an interest. We have not been advised of any members joining us today.

I welcome all the attendees in the public gallery. I remind everyone that only members sitting at the table can participate in formal proceedings, and I ask everyone to ensure that their devices are on silent and that all notifications are turned off for the duration of the meeting.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do we agree that items 3 and 4 should be taken in private?

Members indicated agreement.

In the light of the Government’s proposed reforms, this point will be factored in during some of the consultation opportunities. We might want to write to COSLA to confirm whether the mandatory 80 per cent relief is an entitlement rather than being determined by local discretion, if that has not yet been established. That is the only outstanding question on which we might want to take a view and furnish the petitioner with information. Beyond that, we cannot take the petition much further, so I am happy to close it. Do we agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That sounds like a good range of stakeholders to engage with.

PE2234, which was lodged on 21 July by Tomas Frydrych, calls on the Scottish Parliament to permanently cap MSP salaries at the level of median Scottish income for full-time employment, adjusted annually, which is £39,719 as of October 2025—the equivalent of the salary of a band 5 national health service nurse—and to cap any additional salaries and payments arising from MSPs’ extra duties, such as parliamentary offices, Government positions, severance pay and so on, proportionally to the adjustment of the MSP’s annual salary, which would result in a 50 per cent reduction.

The SPICe briefing on the petition states that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is responsible for the payment of salaries for MSPs and members of the Scottish Government. Those arrangements are made under the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme. The briefing sets out that, when commissioned in 2001, the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that MSPs’ salaries be set at 87.5 per cent of MPs’ salaries at Westminster, based on the differing roles of MPs and MSPs. In 2013, in the light of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority review of MPs’ remuneration and the 10 per cent salary increase that was proposed, it was decided to break the link with MPs’ salaries.

The SPCB provided a written submission in response to the petition that sets out that, although it recognises the concerns that are expressed by the petitioner regarding the remuneration of elected representatives and welcomes debate on how public funds are used, it considers the current approach to MSP remuneration to be fair, proportionate and appropriate to the responsibilities of the role. It notes the unique constitutional role of MSPs, which includes scrutinising the Scottish Government, holding public bodies to account, developing and passing legislation, representing constituents across Scotland and overseeing the expenditure of many billions of pounds of public funds. The submission sets out that the SPCB is not currently pursuing or considering measures that would achieve the petition’s specific asks and notes that any future work is likely to focus on reviewing the overall remuneration framework to ensure that it remains fair, transparent, sustainable and reflective of the responsibilities of elected office.

Do members have any comments or suggestions with regard to the petition?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. PE2214 is the first of two petitions submitted by David Reid, who we understand is the convener of the Society of William Wallace. The petition was published on 18 June and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially declare and promote 23 August as Wallace day in honour of Sir William Wallace.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that the Society of William Wallace, a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation that was established to uphold William Wallace’s memory, already runs an annual Wallace day event on the Saturday nearest to 23 August.

The briefing explains that commemorative days in Scotland can be marked in different ways, for example through sustained civic and cultural practice or with the added status of a bank holiday. Bank holidays are created under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 and are days on which financial dealings may be suspended. They include days that are specifically listed in the act, as well as days that are proclaimed by the King. In addition to national bank holidays, local authorities in Scotland set their own public holidays, which vary from area to area and have no statutory basis.

The Scottish Government response states that it recognises the significant role that Sir William Wallace played in Scotland’s history and national story. However, the Government does not have an established policy framework for the creation of new nationally recognised commemorative days. It further notes that there is currently little evidence of widespread public support for the petition’s ask or a clearly defined proposal for how such a day would be observed.

The response goes on to note, however, that the then Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture met representatives of the Society of William Wallace in November last year to discuss their proposal, as have Scottish Government officials. During those discussions, advice was provided on approaches that could help to build support for the concept of a Wallace day. The response states that officials have indicated a willingness to continue engaging with the society and to provide advice where appropriate as the proposal develops.

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

Are we all happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy with the idea of corresponding with those institutions. Does everyone agree?

Members indicated agreement.

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.