 Felly, unserweith y pryd yn cael ei merydd i'r drosignyddol mewn cysylltu rhagorau arioli, ond nid o ddaforel iawn yn gweld ynerytiol. Felly, mae'n ddifen allawn i ddwylo'r cychwyn ac mae'n defnydd i fel tufano agneg Lordeafol a'u bach ddiwrnod o'r wneud. Mae'r ffasglaen gennym i hynny yn ystod, dwi'n ddysgu'r cy chestiadau ffosibol, yn ei fod yn argynno, nad ydych yn ddau. Nid yw'r next item is consideration of two petitions that were referred to the previous Justice Committee and carried over into this new parliamentary session. I refer members to paper 1. That is the first time that we have looked at these petitions since we were established as a committee and I'll be inviting members to shortly give their thoughts. Let me start with petition number PE 1370 from the Justice for Migrahi campaign group submitted by Dr Jim Swire. This important petition calls on the Scottish Government to urge the Scottish Parliament to open an independent inquiry into the conviction of the late Mr Abdel Bassett, Al-Momed, Al-Migrahi, for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. The previous committee kept this petition open and effectively placed it on hold, tending the conclusion of the different inquiries and the various legal cases that were being pursued in the courts. They felt that they could not make a decision on the merits of the petition until those processes had been concluded. As the paper by the clerk notes, some but not all of these legal processes have been completed and members will note the letter received yesterday from Mr Ian McKee on behalf of the Committee for Justice for Migrahi, confirming that the family continued to seek opinion from the Supreme Court and were grateful to Mr McKee for this helpful update. My suggestion for the committee is likely to be to continue to keep the petition open until we are clearer what steps, if any, the family of Mr Al-Migrahi planned to take in relation to any appeal to the Supreme Court. I invite members' views or comments. I will first bring in Jamie Greene, followed by Rona Mackay. Jamie Greene, thank you convener and good morning colleagues. I just wanted to note for the record that this is obviously the third session of the Scottish Parliament and iteration of the Justice Committee, which has looked at the petition. It is my view, and I will note the same comments for the next petition, that those should not remain indefinitely open for more than a decade. Indeed, I think that it is in the best interests of the work of the committee and the campaigners, with which I have no view specifically to seek other recourse, it is clear that, if three sessions of Parliament cannot address the wishes and needs of the campaign, our committee cannot have the time and ability to do so. There are still some important considerations to take place. I think that the elite representation that the family has are well within their rights to pursue all legal recourse that is available to them and, of course, can make direct representation to the Government and its ministers, noting that we have a new justice secretary. I am sure that one of many that the petition has dealt with over the years, but I feel that that would be the best line of pursuing the matter for them and not one for the committee, given that it is a very specific and direct case. I would suggest that, if we do not close it today, at least at the very least degree, a future date by which we will have come to decision as to what we recommend next, that gives us some future closure on it within the session of our committee in the session of Parliament. I disagree with my colleague Jamie Greene. I am in favour of keeping the petition open. As you say, it has been a long-running petition in the last session and before, and, by the very unique nature of it, it would be wrong of us to close it at the minute when there are still conclusions to be made. I say that there is no harm in keeping the petition open. Clearly, the issues have not been resolved. We owe it to the campaign group and the families to keep the petition open and I would not want it to be closed at this stage. That is helpful. I think that, just to clarify one of the main reasons that the petition was kept open because there were a number of judicial processes under way and had not, at the time of consideration of the committee, been concluded. My understanding was that that was the basis on which the petition remained open. I note the comments of Jamie Greene. I am not all-together sure what alternative legal processes would be open to the family, in particular, and others, but I note those comments. I agree that it is appropriate at this point that, as a new committee, we keep the petition open on the basis of the points that we have made. If members are agreed, I note Mr Greene's comments and we will keep the petition open. Just before we conclude, I am aware that Fulton MacGregor and then Russell Finlay want to come in. I will bring in Fulton first and then Russell Finlay. Thanks, convener. I was just to really back up what Rona Mackay had said and that you went on to say that I think that we should keep this petition open. At this time, I was a member of the previous Justice Committee in the last term as well in which the petition came up regularly and we had similar discussions. I wonder if it would also be worth writing to the Scottish Government asking for an update, as a committee asking for an update on what its current view on the situation is, given the requests. However, in terms of the decision for today, I would be mindy to keep it open. Thanks very much. Fulton MacGregor, I will hand over to Russell Finlay and then I will bring in Pauline McNeill. I am fairly ambivalent about the subject. On the one hand, it is the biggest mass murder terrorist atrocity in Scottish legal history and there are clearly serious unanswered questions. The flipside is that I do worry about the rise in judicial public inquiries in Scotland. It seems to be one of our few growth industries. That might be a slightly flippant observation, but on balance, there is probably no harm in us maintaining it until the legal process has been exhausted, which is what the Justice for MacGregor group is asking for. I tend to agree with you on that. I am happy to support what you have said and what Russell Finlay said. I think that we need to review whether we can get any petitions open for such a long period of time, but I am content for the time being. I do not think that it is necessary to write to the Scottish Government. I think that there is a judicial process and we need to wait—well, what we have been asked to do is to wait to see what the family do if they decide to lodge their appeal, which they are legally entitled to do. I think that we should leave it at that. I also agree with the convener's proposal to keep the petition open. I am new to the issue that I was not on the Justice Committee in any previous Parliament and was elected in May, although I am aware of the issue from previous work. If there was a proposal to do something different, I personally feel that I would need to know more. At a future stage, if there is a way of getting more information, that would be useful, because I have not been lobbied on the issue. The only lobbying is the letter that the campaign sent in yesterday. At this stage, I am very comfortable with what is being proposed, given that I have not been involved in the previous discussions. However, if there was a suggestion that we were to do something different, it would be useful to consider what information we need to make that decision. I am grateful for the comments and views that were made by members. On the basis of those points, we will agree to keep the petition open until we are clearer what progress has been made before we make any further decisions on the petition when it next returns. I thank members for their assistance in that. Our second petition is the petition number PE1458 from Mr Peter Charby. That calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill or amend present legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. The previous committee saw merits in the case made for such a register, and the call for such was part of the recent programme for government. My suggestion for the committee is likely to be to continue to keep the petition open and ask the cabinet secretary for justice and veterans for clear information on when he plans to take forward the commitment to this register and what form it will take. I invite members to raise any comments or points that they wish on that. Russell Finlay, I will bring you in. Yes, thank you. I need to declare a bit of an interest in that I wrote the first press story about the petition when it was lodged in 2012. As a journalist, I came to a regular contact with the petitioner, Mr Peter Charby, and continued to report on it for many years. Now, remarkably, and despite the best efforts of the judiciary, it is now almost 10 years old, which must be a record and perhaps says something about parliamentary committees. I am not entirely sure what. I agree entirely that we need to see exactly what the SNP Government is proposing. I was surprised to see that in the SNP manifesto, and I found it very interesting because Nicola Sturgeon and successive justice secretaries have long been opposed to it in principle. And while there has been plenty said about this subject and plenty more will be said about it, I think that we should not lose sight of the fundamental issue, which is about transparency and accountability. It is absolutely not about political meddling in judicial independence. I think that the reason the petition has reached its 10th birthday is because many other MSPs from the trust party, some who are no longer in the Parliament, understood the principle, and that is perhaps why it is still alive and as frustrating as it is that something that seems to be generally agreeable that does not seem to have meaningfully progressed, so let us just see what is being brought forward. I thank you very much, Russell. I bring in Rona Mackay and then Jamie Greene. Thanks, convener. I am notwithstanding what Russell said that there is progress now. It was in the SNP Government's manifesto to do this. On that basis, I do not think that we should keep the petition open. I think that we should follow up with a letter to find out timescales and when that is likely to be brought in, but that is my view. I think that it has been a long-running issue and it has reached the conclusion. We just need to progress and find out when it is going to happen. Okay. Thank you very much, Rona Mackay. Thank you, convener. I think that the difference between this petition and the last one, albeit the length of time in the straddling of multiple sessions of Parliament, is that there is a commitment from the Government to introduce the outcome that the petition seeks. However, words on paper and deeds and actions are two very different things. I would say that until we have sight of either the legislation that is required or a more detailed proposal from the Government, which, even if it is something as simple as a policy consideration that Parliament can consider, given that a manifesto clearly relates to a term of Parliament, but a programme for government is an annual statement. That was in the 21-22 programme for government, and there are only a few months of that left. I would expect that we would see some sight of more detail on that. I think that it would be in our interest to write to the Cabinet Secretary to ask him to outline the timescales for the actions that he has promised to undertake. At that point, if we are satisfied that that delivers on the petition, then we could perhaps consider it closed, but I think that it should remain open for now. Thank you very much indeed, Jamie. I do not think that there is anyone else wanting to come in. On the basis of the points made, I think that we are all agreed that you are minded to close off the petition. My suggestion would be that we keep it open, and, as members have commented on, we seek further clarity on what the plan is in terms of taking the matter forward by writing to the Cabinet Secretary in that regard. We are looking for progress and some further update on timescales. If we are all agreed, my proposal would be to keep the petition open and write to the Cabinet Secretary. Are we all agreed on that? Perfect. Thank you very much. The next item is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. I refer members to paper 2. The bill deals with mostly reserved matters, but it does propose a couple of changes to devolved competencies. For example, the amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 explained in the LCM relates to judicial pension schemes and the ability to add additional devolved offices to the new judicial pension scheme. If passed, the Scottish Government will be proposing that mandatory retirement age for judges and sheriffs will be increased from 70 to 75 years of age. The bill will also enable devolved judicial offices to be added to a judicial pension scheme, and that would be done through legislation that is considered in the UK Parliament. I should note that the Parliament's delegated powers and law reform committee wrote to the cabinet secretary to seek an explanation as to why this is not being done by the Scottish statutory instrument. As members will be aware, we have received a copy of the reply from the cabinet secretary to the delegated powers committee clarifying that point. I would like to open it up to members to come in with any views or comments on the LCM. The question now is whether the committee agrees to recommend to Parliament that the relevant provisions of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed. I'll arrange for a short factual report to be published on our deliberations. That concludes the public part of the meeting. We will now move into private sessions and on to MS teams. Thank you very much.