Chamber and committees

PE2102, which was lodged by Anna-Cristina Seaver, calls on the Scottish Government to require anyone who is found guilty of rape or sexual assault to be registered as a sex offender. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the option of an absolute discharge in cases where the accused is found guilty of rape or sexual assault and to introduce a statutory minimum sentence for those offences, which includes the convicted person being registered as a sex offender.

We last considered the petition on 7 May 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Sentencing Council, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and the Lord Advocate. The cabinet secretary’s response notes that sentencing judges will be aware that a consequence of an absolute discharge is that the offender will not be subject to notification requirements and that that is a factor that they will consider. The submission notes that courts have the option to admonish rather than absolutely discharge where they consider that no punishment is warranted, but the crime should be recorded and the offender should be made subject to notification requirements. The secretary also notes that the COPFS has the power to appeal against an absolute discharge if it considers that it is unduly lenient.

The Scottish Sentencing Council’s response highlights an instance where the Crown did appeal an absolute discharge. The Scottish Sentencing Council’s response highlights the development of sentencing guidelines for the courts on certain sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault. The draft guidelines make no provision for an absolute discharge as a disposal within the proposed sentencing ranges for either offence. Accordingly, any court that wished to impose one would be taking a decision not to follow a guideline and, under the relevant legislation, would be required to state its reasons for that decision.

The Lord Advocate’s response reiterates points that were made by the cabinet secretary and Scottish Sentencing Council. The submission also sets out details of relevant cases. I should note that people may find some details in the submission distressing.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

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.

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?

Our next petition is PE2145, lodged by Jillian Brown, which calls on the Scottish Government to bring in compulsory microchipping for cats and kittens in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 21 May 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that, although it recognises the level of feeling that is associated with this subject, there are no plans at this time to introduce legislation to make the microchipping and registration of cats compulsory in Scotland. The Scottish Government notes that it is considering the recommendations that have been made by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission in its report concerning the responsible ownership and care of cats.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. Are colleagues content with that action?

Members indicated agreement.

I make the point.

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.

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 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.

Fine. That is all that you need to say.