Chamber and committees

The next item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. All the petitions included in this agenda item have been carried over from the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of session 6. We will start with three petitions that were referred to the Criminal Justice Committee in the previous parliamentary session.

Petition PE1370, which was lodged in 2010 by the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

The committee sought the views of the Scottish Government on all petitions that were carried over from session 6 in order to inform its consideration. The Scottish Government’s response is included in the papers along with a response from the petitioners.  In that response, the Scottish Government states that it is not clear what the scope of any inquiry into Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction could be. The Government considers that the mechanism for considering the safety of a conviction is via the appeal court.

The petitioners’ submission argues that the petition should be kept open, arguing that the Justice for Megrahi campaign has consistently emphasised the importance of the Scottish Parliament keeping the petition on the table until all legal action is completed. It argues against closing the petition, given that what it considers to be possibly relevant fresh material might be about to emerge in a public forum in America.  The petitioners state that they value the Scottish Parliament’s continuing scrutiny and political oversight.

In session 6, the Criminal Justice Committee considered the petition on 26 January 2022. It agreed to keep the petition open, pending progress in respect of an appeal by Mr al-Megrahi’s family. I invite members who have comments or suggestions for further actions to make them known.

Are members content with that approach?

Our next petition is PE1933, published in April 2022 and lodged by the Fornethy Survivors Group, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

In its legacy report, the session 6 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee invited us to consider reviewing what progress has been made on the issues raised by the petition when it comes to considering next steps. The previous committee indicated that that might include pursuing the request for a chamber debate, exploring whether to refer the petition to a committee that is able to undertake substantive work on the issue of redress or seeking an updated view from the Scottish Government.

In her response, the petitioner asks the committee to seek a debate on the matter. The petitioner also refers to the previous Deputy First Minister arranging a meeting between the survivors and Glasgow City Council, which could not proceed due to an active civil court case.

The response from the current Deputy First Minister states that Richard Pugh KC formally apologised at the Scottish child abuse inquiry on behalf of Glasgow City Council. The Deputy First Minister’s response also states that she plans to meet the Fornethy Survivors Group in the coming weeks to hear its views and to determine whether there are any remaining actions that she can support.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we all content?

Members indicated agreement.

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?

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

There is a general consensus that this is a matter of interest, both to the public and to members of the committee and other parliamentarians. We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition, which has raised an interesting issue and certainly merits further investigation.

The suggested action is to keep the petition open and write to key organisations, as set out in the briefing notes. We will also seek to arrange a visit to the Burntisland Hedgehog Haven or another appropriate venue to obtain more information on the subject matter—that would be a good next step. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2216, which was lodged by James Bond and published on 18 June 2026, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend eligibility for the young persons free bus travel scheme to include everyone aged 22 to 25 inclusive, using powers under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. The petitioner states that the current age limit of 21 creates an unfair cliff edge for young people entering work apprenticeships or higher education and that extending the scheme would reduce socioeconomic disadvantage, boost workforce participation and aid net zero targets.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition states that two national concessionary travel schemes currently operate in Scotland: one offers free travel to Scottish residents over the age of 60 or disabled residents of any age; the other, which was launched in 2022, offers free travel within Scotland for Scottish residents who are aged five to 21. The briefing notes that, as part of those schemes, bus operators are paid a proportion of the full adult fare for each concessionary traveller that is carried.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it has no plans to change the age eligibility for free bus travel. It cites concerns over affordability, estimating that extending eligibility up to the age of 26 would carry additional costs of between £95 million and £113 million per year. It further notes the Government’s commitment to introducing a nationwide £2 fare cap across Scotland by the end of the current parliamentary session, building on the current pilot scheme.

Do members have any views?

Cara McKee was minded to keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to ask for information on £2 roll-out and perhaps also franchising, as well as engaging with the organisations in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing. It seems that a majority is in favour of closure. I note that there are other relevant petitions, such as on bus franchising, that might be more appropriate vehicles to explore these issues.

With that, I am at an agreement to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to change the age of eligibility for free bus travel and has confirmed plans to introduce a roll-out of a nationwide £2 bus fare cap by the end of the parliamentary session.

Given that it is a new petition, I think that it is reasonable to give it some time. The suggested actions are interesting—a visit to Clydebank is not a bad idea. It might be worth seeking the opinion of the several stakeholders who the SPICe briefing suggested we write to.

Tradespeople in my constituency raised several issues around cost of training and building up their skills, which they said was challenging for them, and small businesses and others might have an interest in the reforms that could be achieved. It is interesting to note some of the challenges around scaling the Queen's Quay district heat network, such as planning reforms and the question of how we get those pipes to houses and so on. We could unpack a lot of interesting aspects and there is some interest in the issue.

Are we agreed to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.