Seòmar agus comataidhean

In a more rounded way, it might be that, if we accept the recommendation, a fresh petition could come in the next parliamentary session addressing those broader concerns that both the Government and you have identified. Are we content to close the petition on the basis of the recommendation made to us by Mr Golden?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2147, lodged by Laura Jones on behalf of the Scottish Tenants Organisation, which calls on the Scottish Government to create more women-only homeless accommodation that protects and meets the specific needs of women. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform homeless services in Scotland and to ensure that services protect women from sexual assault and exploitation by increasing funding and supporting the creation of more women-only homeless accommodation.

We last considered the petition on 7 May 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government explained that its delivering equally safe fund supports a signposting service for appropriate women-only services, as well as advocacy to women’s aid and other organisations tackling domestic abuse. That includes providing advice and support to prevent women from becoming homeless in the first place. The response also indicates that the 2025-26 budget provides local government with a real-terms funding increase of 5.5 per cent. The Government reiterates its position of allowing local authorities to manage their own budgets and allocate funds based on local needs and priorities, including on women-only homelessness services.

Additionally, the Government states that it targeted 80 per cent of its capital funding for voids and acquisitions over 2024-25 and 2025-26 to areas with the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures. The aim is to increase the supply of social and affordable homes through acquisitions and, if appropriate, to bring long-term empty social homes back into use. The Government’s view is that that policy should reduce long periods in temporary accommodation, especially for families with children.

Do colleagues have suggestions for action?

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 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.

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.

Sorry, Mr Russell. I interrupted.

We will therefore close the petition, but again, progress will become apparent in the next parliamentary session.

Thank you for that. Consideration of areas of deprivation was part of the discussion that we had last week as well.

Minister, is there anything that you or your colleagues would like to add? I think that we have covered all of the ground that was of central concern to the committee.

Thank you. Does the committee agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

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?