Chamber and committees

The next item of business is to decide whether to take agenda item 5 in private. Do members agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank all colleagues who have joined us to make representations on the petition. I now invite comment from committee members.

We will note that as a referral. I am familiar with the Queen’s Quay heat network, and I think that the visit is a great suggestion.

PE2099, on stopping the proposed centralisation of specialist neonatal units in NHS Scotland, was lodged by Lynne McRitchie in May 2024. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the planned downgrading of established and high-performing specialist neonatal intensive care services across NHS Scotland from level 3 to level 2 and to commission an independent review of the decision in light of contradictory expert opinions on centralising services. Jackie Baillie has joined us, and Meghan Gallacher, Helen McDade and Clare Adamson will make representations on the petition, too. I thank all of you for joining us.

In its legacy report, the session 6 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee highlighted its extensive work on the petition, including two oral evidence-taking sessions and a visit to University hospital Wishaw’s neonatal intensive care unit. As a result of that work, the committee wrote a substantive letter to the then Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight outstanding questions and concerns regarding the new model of neonatal care. The legacy report stated that there were ongoing concerns about capacity in NHS Grampian and about additional support to be provided to families impacted by the new model, and it recommended that this committee should consider the issues raised in the petition and review what progress had been made on the outstanding issues set out in that committee’s letter to the minister.

The submission that we have received from the Minister for Mental Wellbeing, Public Health, Sport, Alcohol and Drugs provides an update on work that has been carried out since the session 6 committee last considered the petition. In her submission to the committee, the petitioner sets out why she disagrees with the minister’s position.

Given the interest from colleagues, I will invite them to make representations first before we consider what further steps we might take. I will go from left to right, so, Ms McDade, would you like to start?

Our next petition is PE1458, lodged in December 2012 by Peter Cherbi, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and information on any hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests.

This is a continued petition that was previously referred to the session 6 Criminal Justice Committee and to previous incarnations of that committee. The session 6 Criminal Justice Committee most recently considered the petition on 26 January 2022. At that meeting, it agreed to write to the Scottish Government and to keep the petition open. The Scottish Government’s programme for government for that year included a commitment to begin work on establishing a register of interests for the judiciary. The committee did not carry out any further work in relation to the petition in session 6.

In his submission to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice states that he has carefully considered the matter, including the views of the Lord President and the existing framework for judicial accountability, and does not intend to make any changes, because he is content that sufficient safeguards are in place.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Our colleague Ms McKee has said that, particularly now that the Scottish Government has decided to scrap the learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill, the petitioner is right that the question whether the process works for neurodivergent people has not been addressed. Ms McKee also points out that, as the SPSO says that it will have data at the end of the year, we should consider the issue at that stage.

Everyone seems to be in agreement. I am more than happy to keep the petition open and seek further evidence from the SPSO.

Our final continued petition is PE2202, which was published in November 2025 and lodged by Rachel Bigsby. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on Sula Sgeir. Donald MacKinnon, the member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, has expressed an interest in the petition. In addition to submissions from the petitioner, NatureScot and the Scottish Government, the committee received an unsolicited submission from Protect the Wild.

NatureScot’s response to the committee outlines the reasoning for the decision that it took on 3 August 2026 not to grant a licence to the men of Ness for a guga hunt in 2026. The response states that NatureScot used the latest information available and commissioned an updated population model to help to predict the effect of the guga hunt on the gannet population. As a result, NatureScot concluded that an adverse impact is possible both at the applicant’s requested application limit of 2,000 juvenile gannets and at a reduced limit of 500. On that basis, the NatureScot board refused the 2026 licence.

The petitioner also made reference to the NatureScot decision and argued that the committee should keep the petition open and recommend that the Scottish Government consider the legislative amendment that is requested by the petition, so that the gannets of Sula Sgeir are afforded lasting protection instead of protection that is determined merely one licence application at a time.

In its legacy report, the session 6 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee invited the new committee to consider the issues that are raised in the petition, recommending that any further work to explore the issues raised should consider a range of views and ensure that the voices of islanders are heard.

In the first instance, I invite our colleague Mr MacKinnon to address us.

I invite members of the committee to comment.

PE2161 was published in May 2025 and was lodged by Ivor Roderick Bisset. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2022 to allow for a two-year complaints period for people with cognitive disabilities. Jackie Baillie has expressed an interest in the petition.

The Scottish Government’s submission states that it is considering what legislation should be taken forward during this parliamentary session. The Government adds that the SPSO has piloted a revised and updated version of the time bar guidance tool, which has now been fully implemented, and that the SPSO can now gather data on when discretion is exercised by a decision maker in respect of the time bar.

The petitioner expresses concern that the SPSO’s new approach to data gathering has yet to be tested against evidence and wishes for the time bar to be formally extended to two years.

Our predecessor committee stated in its legacy report that the new committee might wish to receive further evidence from the SPSO to inform its consideration of the petition.

I invite Jackie Baillie to make any comments.

Our next petition is PE1979, lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle these inquiries in the future.

We are joined by our colleague Meghan Gallacher, who has expressed an interest in this petition.

The legacy report of the session 6 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee recommended that this committee pursue the issue further, noting:

“This could include consideration of whether referring the petition could be appropriate if other committees are undertaking relevant work which would allow substantive scrutiny of the issues.”

In its submission to this committee, the Scottish Government refers to work being done in relation to the issues raised in the petition. That work includes a commitment in the Scottish National Party manifesto to legislate to make reporting of harm to children, including child sexual abuse, mandatory by adults tasked with safeguarding young people. It also includes phase 11 of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which will consider the extent to which failures by state or non-state institutions to protect children in care in Scotland from abuse have been addressed—by changes to practice, policy or legislation—and whether any further changes in practice, policy or legislation are necessary in order to protect children in care in Scotland from abuse in future. It also includes the Scottish Government’s intention to establish a targeted independent inquiry and a Scottish truth project; and the Scottish Government’s support for the UK Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

In their response, the petitioners state that they are “frustrated” with the Scottish Government’s submission and that the key focus of the petition

“continues to be on securing independent investigation of allegations relating to the mishandling of child abuse concerns by public bodies through an independent national whistleblowing office (INWO) for education and children’s services”.

The petitioners welcomed the support of the City of Edinburgh Council, in its submission. However, the petitioners stated:

“We urge caution though on the reference to the ‘past’ treatment of whistleblowers … as it’s alleged this culture continues.”

Finally, the petitioners’ submission cites comments by Professor Alexis Jay OBE, the chair of the public inquiry into group-based child sexual abuse, about the petition and states that the petitioners would welcome a meeting with Professor Jay.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?