Chamber and committees

That makes sense.

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.

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.

As there is no dissent, are members content to close the petition, given the Government’s views?

Members indicated agreement.

I will note that. Are there any further points before we bring in our colleague Megan Gallacher?

Item 4 is consideration of six new petitions. Our first new petition is PE2212, which was lodged by Steven Fawcett and published on 17 June 2026, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission a national review of the misapplication of unacceptable actions policies across local authorities and their impact on safeguarding and equality compliance.

The petitioner would like such a review to consider whether there is a need to develop statutory guidance clarifying the interface between the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and local authority complaints or behavioural policies; strengthen enforcement powers for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and/or create an independent safeguarding and equality oversight body to ensure compliance with the 2007 act and the Equality Act 2010; and mandate uniform training and reporting standards across all councils to ensure that equality and safeguarding are treated as statutory, rather than discretionary, obligations.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing sets out that local authorities’ responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 include the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and provides links to examples of how some authorities refer to equality and the reasonable adjustment duty.

The SPICe briefing also sets out the statutory functions of the SPSO. It notes that, although the SPSO has the power to investigate complaints and make recommendations, it does not have the power to enforce any of its recommendations or to initiate its own investigations. The SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee raised that issue in session 6.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to require the development of statutory guidance to clarify any interface between the 2007 act and local authority complaints or behavioural policies. In response, the petitioner refers to a freedom of information response that he obtained from his local authority, which he considers provides evidence in contrast to the Government’s position.

The Scottish Government acknowledges that the strengthening of the SPSO enforcement powers or the creation of a new oversight body could be achieved through primary or secondary legislation. It notes, however, that that

“would come with significant time and resource implications and would require careful consideration to avoid duplicating current work with”

adult support and protection partners.

The Government does not consider that there is evidence or a need to support the creation of a new oversight body or to strengthen the SPSO’s powers. The petitioner notes the Government’s acknowledgement that any strengthening of the SPSO’s powers or the creation of a new oversight body would require legislative action. He also notes how that issue was raised by the session 6 SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee and asks why that recommendation has not yet been progressed.

The Scottish Government refers to its adult support and protection learning and development framework, which was published. It does not consider there to be evidence or a need to mandate statutory uniform training and reporting standards. The petitioner refers to the freedom of information response and argues that that shows that a framework addressing ASP duties in general terms does not, in practice, extend to training staff on how to operate a policy.

Do members have any views on the petition?

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.

Do colleagues have any comments?

We note a number of proposed actions from colleagues and committee members. In particular, we note the forthcoming review of maternity services by Professor Christine McCourt, as well as the minister’s view and the health board restructuring that has been proposed in the programme for government. All of those point to the necessity for continuing scrutiny of the issue. I thank everyone for attending to discuss this matter.

It is worth noting that the committee intends to hold petitions debates in Parliament in due course, and this petition might be a good candidate for a wider debate with members.