Public Petitions Committee, 04 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 4, 2001

Official Report 170KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first item on our agenda is new petitions. I ask members to agree that the first petition, PE421, from Alasdair Nicholson, calling for a trial on road equivalent tariffs, be dealt with last. Mr Nicholson had hoped to make a presentation this morning, but his travel arrangements have been completely disrupted by the closure of the ferries and planes from the Western Isles. Duncan Hamilton wants to come along to speak to the petition, so I suggest that we move discussion of it to the bottom of the agenda. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Can we also agree to hear the last petition under this agenda item first? It is the only petition whose petitioners are present and we like to deal first with petitioners who are present. Do we agree to bring petition PE424 forward and deal with it first?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill<br />(PE424)

I welcome the first petitioners. Paul Allison and David Young are here to speak to petition PE424 on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. The usual procedure in the committee is that petitioners have three minutes to address the committee on the substance of the petition. Thereafter, the discussion is open to questions from members of the committee.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here this morning and give you an insight into the farrier's trade. I am a farrier. I have shod horses for 26 years. The job description of a farrier is that he is a person who is highly trained in the trimming and shoeing of horses. Horses need to be shod at regular intervals throughout the year; some need to be shod more often than others, depending on the amount of work that they have done. The farrier's skills come from a long training process. It takes four years and two months to become a farrier. Many exams and assessments have to be passed during that training.

We believe that we are being victimised by the bill, as it will have a direct effect on our livelihoods. The farriers in the Borders will bear the greatest brunt of a ban on mounted fox hunting. Those farriers are mainly self-employed. A few are employees, but we are mostly people who have chosen our profession and made a considerable commitment of time and money. Most of us have families, houses, mortgages and bank managers to support.

Following the dreadful situation in the Borders brought on by foot-and-mouth disease, the trade has had what is probably one of its worst ever years in terms of turnover. If the area recovers from foot-and-mouth disease, which it will, business will also recover, given time and resources.

If hunting is banned, our businesses will not be able to recover because that will remove part of our winter income. In winter, the majority of our income comes from shoeing hunting horses—they are shod regularly throughout the winter. We have a completely different circle of clients in winter. They are people who go hunting as opposed to those people who go to the agricultural shows.

No business can continue if such a large part of its income is removed, especially in the fragile winter months in the Borders area. Employment is difficult at the moment. You just have to consider the electronics and textiles industries and the general state of Borders towns, with all the empty shops, to see that opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer.

As self-employed people, we contribute greatly to the system by paying our taxes and running successful businesses. We have chosen this career and we are committed to it. If our business becomes uneconomic, we will have to rely on the Government to finance us in other ways, for instance by giving us handouts or some form of income support or by paying for retraining. That is not why we went into the trade. We are fully committed to farrier work and we intend to defend it to the hilt.

We work under the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 as amended by the Farriers (Registration) (Amendment) Act 1977. The act is a piece of animal welfare legislation that includes equal opportunities policies to the effect that no approved training farrier or apprentice in a farrier apprenticeship scheme should be discriminated against, harassed, victimised or disadvantaged on the grounds of age, disability, marital status, religion, sexual orientation, colour, ethnic or national origin, race, sex or special training.

In the Borders, the farriers are a minority, but a determined one. The Scottish Parliament tries to cater for minorities and we demand the right, as a minority, to be allowed to continue the way in which we work.

In the past 12 months, I have been involved in meetings with various MSPs. It worries me greatly that, of the original 11 members of the Rural Affairs Committee, only four serve on the current Rural Development Committee. I understand that the committee's membership is about to be changed again.

Through my meetings with MSPs, I have discovered that some members display a total lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation within a rural economy and the factors that affect our livelihoods. At a meeting not many weeks ago, Lord Watson accused us of painting too black a picture and of over-exaggeration. To him I would say that we are the people at the sharp end of his proposed legislation and that we have balance sheets to prove what we say about the problems. So poor was Lord Watson's understanding of the situation that he suggested that, given that I come from the Borders, I should perhaps diversify into knitwear. That highlights why the situation that I am talking about is worrying. One day, we were asked what a hunter is. For those of you who are not aware, I should say that a hunter is a horse, from the shoeing of which we make our living.

Before I open up the discussion to members of the committee, I should explain that the petitioners are asking us to send the petition to the committee of the Parliament that is dealing with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, the Rural Development Committee will finish its stage 2 consideration of the bill this afternoon, so there is no time for us to do what is asked of us. However, a copy of the petition has been passed to the clerks of the Rural Development Committee, who have promised to bring it to the attention of the committee when it considers other petitions that we have referred to them, particularly petition PE419 from a group of groom girls. The clerks have also said that any member of the Public Petitions Committee who wants to speak at this afternoon's meeting of the Rural Development Committee would be welcome to do so. Of course, any MSP may submit amendments in the spirit of the petition at stage 3.

To an extent, Mr Allison, you have answered the point that I wanted to ask about. The Scottish Parliament has debated many of the issues that you have addressed today and members—particularly the mass of the members who come from the urban central belt—have said that those who have submitted petitions on the issue and people like them are over-exaggerating and that there is no threat to jobs in the Borders or the rest of rural Scotland. As those members are as interested as anyone else in creating jobs—so we believe—why do you think that they are taking that attitude towards the people from the countryside who have made quite legitimate representations?

Urban MSPs take the view that the problem is not on their doorstep. That means that they are perhaps not as concerned as they would be if it were on their doorstep. We have to remember that the greatest percentage of hunting takes place in the Borders, so the problem is larger there. We are aware of the situation that foot-and-mouth has caused. We are not shoeing the horses at the moment, because the access ban means that there is no hunting. We are not doing anything like the amount of work that we should be doing at this time of year.

Do you think that there are opportunities for you in other places? For example, I do not think that the Irish are as likely to go ahead with a ban on hunting as we, sadly, are. Would there be an opportunity for you and your colleagues to take off to Ireland, where, no doubt, the business will go, to further your trade there?

That is an interesting point, but why should we move away to countries such as Ireland when we have established a perfectly good business and social system with family and contacts in the Borders? We have family and children at school in the area. Members should not be happy for people with highly specialised skills—make no mistake, the farriery trade is highly specialised—to be exported from the Borders.

You spoke about persecuted minority groups. Tomorrow, the Parliament will debate the lot of the Gypsies. There seems to be a great deal of support from members from the central belt for improving the lot of Gypsies. Do you agree that one of the pursuits of genuine Travellers is keeping dogs and hunting and chasing rabbits with those dogs? On that basis, do you think that the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill could persecute those Gypsies whom the Parliament seems set to protect?

I think that the bill will probably affect their rights.

I am an urban MSP for Glasgow. I have always been anti-hunting, having been brought up in part in the Borders. We did not like the hunts there because they mucked up the fencing and the fields. However, I recorded no vote at stage 1 of the bill, because I thought that I had no right, as an urban MSP, to stick my nose into the affairs of the country at such a critical time, given all the recent horrors.

You sell yourself a wee bit short on the animal welfare scene because you did not mention that farriers are often in the forefront of spotting what is wrong with a horse, long before a vet is involved. Indeed, horses are injured through hunting. One point that is always missed in arguments on this topic is that drag hunting could sustain employment. No doubt you heard all that before and are weary of it. However, drag hunting involves no killing of anything. It is safer for horses, because the trail is laid and it is not too dangerous. It would keep people, horses and dogs in full activity. Do you have any comment on that?

I am not sure what the situation would be in terms of farmers granting access. Part of the reason why farmers allow hunts access is to control foxes. The other point to consider with drag hunting is that, once the trail is laid, it becomes a route between point A and point B. The hunt takes off at considerable speed; obstacles are jumped or crossed. Some members of the field are very young and some are very old. In a drag hunt, it would not be possible for some of those people to keep up or to enjoy that type of sport safely.

What happens to those people in a real fox hunt?

In those hunts, they can go at their own speed.

Surely they go at the fox's speed.

If you observe a hunt, you will see that many people take their own route at their own speed and cross the ground depending on what obstacles come in their way.

Do you think that drag hunts would not find favour because the average hunting person wants to kill something?

I do not think that the average hunting person wants to kill anything.

Do you see no hope of employment being preserved because drag hunts have caught on?

Drag hunting is not a realistic option in the Borders.

Good morning, gentlemen. The issue about which you seem most concerned is the possible loss of jobs. Do you have any accurate figures on the current job situation and the residual job opportunities if the bill is implemented in the near future?

The farriers who service the horses are looking at a loss in turnover of some 60 per cent. No business can withstand such a reduction. The situation in which we find ourselves through no fault of our own, because of foot-and-mouth, has unbelievable financial implications for many farriers. Some have been getting financial assistance from the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution; others are having to work on building sites. I know one farrier who has to work in a supermarket. Our businesses cannot withstand such pressure in the long term.

We are a highly skilled profession. We have an obligation to the horses and their owners. It is not realistic to expect us to take such a cut in turnover; if we do, our businesses will become uneconomic. I have spoken to several farriers in the past few weeks and there is no doubt in my mind that many of them will have to consider closing down and moving away. Surely that is not the object of the bill.

I appreciate what you say and I understand your sentiments. You say that 60 per cent of business will be lost. What is that in terms of numbers of farriers?

Farriers will lose about 60 per cent of their business turnover. In the Borders, more than 30 farriers service hunt horses. That does not include farriers who come into the Borders from other areas to work—many farriers come from across the border.

Most farriers are one-man businesses. It is not as though the farriers can pay someone off and keep going on their own—they are only looking after themselves anyway.

I want to ask about village schools. We are talking about 30 farriers, a fair proportion of whom will have children. How narrow is the margin for a village school closing in relation to the family circles of farriers? Do you have any knowledge of that? The Borders has been hit heavily by school closures over the past 20 years or so.

I do not know what the position is. Many farriers have children who go to rural schools. However, because of the widespread area that they cover, I cannot answer that question in full.

Have you been offered any alternative by local or Government-backed organisations? I am thinking of increased hacking and trekking, for example. Is that realistic?

We have not been offered any alternatives. I have a client with a long-established riding school and tourist facility that provides holidays for children. Because of the foot-and-mouth crisis, that client has put their property on the market and is relocating to France. The company was successful and provided many children with riding holidays. It is one of two such companies that have closed down and moved out of the area in the past three years.

Is there any possibility of subsidies to encourage riding holidays in the Borders? The terrain could not be better for all age groups.

The weather conditions in the winter are an issue. It is not really feasible for children to come for tuition when the days are short and the weather is inclement. It would be difficult to get the sufficient volume of children for riding holidays—many of the children come from the towns and cities.

You have spoken for the farriers. Last week, the grooms attended the committee and we have previously heard from other people employed in the hunt trail. You said that some farriers have looked for jobs in supermarkets or on building sites; if the hunts disappear from the Borders, is it not likely that there will be less business for supermarkets and less demand for construction work?

No, not directly. Our one-man businesses are being affected by the situation with the hunt horses.

Yes, but I was suggesting that, although farriers are one-man businesses, many other people carry out work associated with the hunt. Presumably your overall objective is to protect the hunt. If the hunts disappear from the Borders, will that not affect the area's economy? More jobs than farriers' jobs will go.

That is very much the case. Removing hunting from the equation is like taking one domino from the whole set. Last year, through purchasing goods and services in the Borders, I contributed to the employment of 194 people. However, my account with the local garage is currently 50 per cent of its usual amount, which is having an effect on the garage. Many of our tools and materials are highly specialised and are used for one particular activity. Because of the nature of the farrier business, we depend on one another. When the sector is buoyant, we spend money, expand our businesses and build workshops, and the rest of the economy benefits considerably from that.

The local hotel next to me will suffer if there is no hunting, as visitors who come for the hunt keep the hotel going throughout the winter.

I thought that that was the point you wanted to make.

Everyone in the area, including hoteliers, saddlers and vets, is affected.

If there are no other questions, I thank Mr Allison and Mr Young for their evidence. They can now listen to our discussion on what we should do with the petition.

As I said at the beginning, it is no longer possible to refer the petition formally to the Rural Development Committee as it is winding up its stage 2 consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill this afternoon. However, any member of this committee can attend that meeting. Furthermore, as the petition will be brought to the Rural Development Committee's attention this afternoon, that committee will address the impact of the bill on farriers. It is also likely that the petition will be addressed at stage 3. With that in mind, I suggest that we take no further action, other than what the clerks have already done. Is that agreed?

I recognise that we can do nothing further about the petition. However, what good will our attendance at this afternoon's Rural Development Committee meeting do? That committee has reached the closing stages of the bill. Indeed, its previous judgment that the bill should not be progressed has already been ignored. It will do no good to attend the meeting and highlight information about job losses and so on that the committee has already received and which has been almost wholly ignored in any case.

You will have to raise that matter with the Rural Development Committee. However, I understand that committee members will discuss an amendment about compensation for those affected if the hunting of wild mammals is stopped. As the impact on farriers should be considered in any discussion of that amendment, it would be well worth while to draw the information that we have received this morning to the Rural Development Committee's attention.

In the time that is available, would it be possible for us to send bullet points about the evidence given to us this morning to the Rural Development Committee? Although the petitioners have made excellent points in their written submission, even more information has come out this morning, such as the fact that one business person is having to move to France, the 60 per cent turnover loss and the number of families involved in one relatively small area of the Borders. Could those bullet points be sent to the Rural Development Committee? It is only fair that it should hear about the evidence that we have received today, if that is feasible.

It would be perfectly possible for any member of the committee to go along to the Rural Development Committee this afternoon and make these points.

Could we send it in writing to that committee?

We will not have time to do that. The clerks have said that they can report verbally to the clerk of the Rural Development Committee on the issues that have been discussed at this committee today. We would not have the time to send it in writing.

Could Steve Farrell write out a few paragraphs?

I am being told that an attempt could be made to write the points out, but there is no guarantee as we have to meet a visiting delegation immediately after this meeting.

The timing is unfortunate. I thank Steve Farrell for offering to try.

Is it agreed that we can take no further action other than what the clerks have already done?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank again the petitioners for the evidence that they have given this morning.

I appreciate what Dorothy-Grace Elder said. She is a city MSP. She voted no in the vote on the bill in Parliament, because people know nothing about the issue in the cities.

I did not vote.

If you want to do something in the countryside, come to the countryside and see what goes on. Members are invited down to spend a night or a couple of days in the countryside to see what hunting is about.

Helen Eadie took the opportunity some time ago to have a day's hunting with the Jedforest hounds, in the company of Mr Charlie Douglas. She would have been made aware of the type of people that followed the hounds. She may have been surprised that they were not all toffs, as the media and the public would have us believe. She would have met the farming community and various local people, even down to the local dustman.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to present the case today.

Thank you. The points that you have made will be passed on to the relevant committee.

---

School Playing Fields (PE422)

Petition PE422 is from Mr James Docherty and is supported by 1,260 signatures. It calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to implement a similar protection for school playing fields in Scotland as is already provided in England under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

The petition has been prompted by a proposal by Stirling Council to amend the Stirling local plan to rezone two areas of playing fields to allow houses to be built. One of the areas is owned by the council and is currently used as a school playing field. Section 77 of the 1998 act in England, which does not apply in Wales, states that local authorities may not—except with the consent of the secretary of state—dispose of playing fields that have been used by a school either immediately before the date of disposal or for a period of 10 years beforehand.

Local authorities in England must obtain similar consent for a change of use in playing fields, but that does not apply when such change of use results in the land being used for other educational or recreational facilities. The secretary of state may give consent for disposal or change of use in relation to a specific proposal or in relation to disposals or changes of use of a particular type. Any consent that is given may also be subject to conditions.

It is suggested that we agree to seek the views of the Executive on the issues raised by the petitioners. We should specifically ask for details of any legislative protection for school playing fields in Scotland and how that compares with what exists in England. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Water and Sewerage Services (PE423)

Petition PE423, from Mr Terry O'Donnell, is backed by almost 3,000 signatures. It calls on the Parliament to take a series of steps: to return water and sewerage services to unitary authority control throughout Scotland; to continue the water rates relief for churches and voluntary organisations; and to reject proposals for fluoride to be added to the Scottish water supply. We have dealt with several petitions recently on the restructuring of the water industry in Scotland. We have previously referred all of them to the Transport and the Environment Committee, so that it can take them into account when it considers stage 2 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill.

However, two further issues are raised in the petition: water rates relief and fluoridation. During the committee's consideration of a previous petition on fluoridation, it emerged that the Executive was to carry out a consultation on that matter. As stage 2 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill will not take place until after the recess, it is suggested that, in the interim, we should ask the Executive to provide an update on its position on fluoridation and for its comments on water rates relief. Once we receive a response from the Executive, we will be able to determine whether further action is required on those issues. We could then consider whether to refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee with the recommendation that the issue raised in the petition about the restructuring of the water and sewerage services be taken into account when that committee considers stage 2 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill.

Do members have any comments? I call Flora—I mean Rhoda Grant. I have fluoridation on the brain.

Could we copy the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee as well as writing to the Executive? That would show the issues that the petition raises to that committee for its consideration of the bill at stage 1.

We could do that. When Steve Farrell addressed the clerks of many of the policy committees earlier this week, it emerged that, when we refer petitions to those committees for information only, we should refer them to the clerks. The clerks will then consult the conveners on whether to bring the petition to the attention of the full committee. A lot of confusion is caused because committees often start to consider petitions before we have decided officially to refer them on. However, we could pass on this petition for information.

I hope that the Transport and the Environment Committee is considering water rates relief during its consultation at stage 1 of the bill.

It is no problem for us to pass on the petition.

---

Road Equivalent Tariff (PE421)

The final current petition is from Mr Alasdair Nicholson on the road equivalent tariff. As I said at the beginning of the meeting, Mr Nicholson hoped to be here, but could not make it because of the disruption to his travel arrangements. Duncan Hamilton is here to speak in support of the petition.

Thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to address the committee. The fact that Alasdair Nicholson cannot be here because of the breakdown of ferry and air links makes the point about the remoteness of some of the areas in the Western Isles and the west coast.

I will make some suggestions on why the petition is particularly important. I remind members of the economic fragility of the Western Isles. In his petition, Alasdair Nicholson highlights the age profile of the population and the number of people on low incomes, on whom the effects of high transport costs are all the more damaging. The area suffers, as does much of Scotland, from some of the highest petrol prices in Europe.

I have watched the progress made by the many petitions that the committee has received—indeed, I have been part of some of those petitions. Sometimes, petitions have fallen by the wayside because they have not contained a clear definition of the problem or a suggested solution. PE421 is a good petition for the opposite reason. It clearly identifies the problem that exists in the Western Isles and throughout the Highlands and Islands, and the solution of the road equivalent tariff could not be clearer. The policy is obvious: there should be equivalence between the cost of transport by road and the cost of transport by sea. That approach would also get around one of the principal problems facing the ferry network in Scotland—the lack of transparency in Caledonian MacBrayne—and would allow us to investigate the allegations that routes are subsidising one another. For example, is the Oban to Mull route subsidising the route to Coll? One of our problems is that we cannot get a route-by-route analysis from what is a publicly owned company.

The road equivalent tariff gets around that problem by clearly specifying the cost of each route, with the result that the local population is able to understand exactly what is going on. On the benefit that would accrue, members will see from the table that is before them that there would be a substantial reduction in costs of up to 80 per cent on some of the routes. I can think of no greater thing that the Parliament or this or any other committee could do to link transport development to economic regeneration than by supporting the petition and encouraging a pilot RET scheme.

The committee might find it useful to note that the argument has been going on for some time—I know that John Farquhar Munro has been involved in it. Each of the councils that are most closely affected by the problems of transportation have been approached about the RET. The transport committees of the Western Isles Council, Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council all support the idea of having a pilot scheme. That raises arguments about whether the RET would be right for every route.

The point of a pilot scheme would be to work out whether the RET would be appropriate or of benefit to communities and, if so, to encourage that development. The scheme exists in Norway. There are alternative routes to go down; for example, if we want to consider reducing ferry fares there is the situation in Canada. However, if we believe that there should be equality between communities throughout Scotland, the current position is unsustainable. As a starting point for an investigation and as a clear and concise policy initiative that the Executive or the Parliament could consider, I commend the petition to the committee in the highest terms.

For the record, I remind members that Mr Nicholson has provided members of the committee with a copy of the presentation that he would have given. Although it has been difficult for me to read it, as I received it only this morning, it will form part of our consideration of the petition. Are there any questions?

You said that the road equivalent tariff would give details of the cost of running the ferry network. I can understand how it could give details of the cost of going on the ferry, but I do not understand how it could compare the costs of running different ferry services.

I welcome the chance to clarify that. As you know, there is real concern among the communities served by the current ferry network, but they have no idea what the route-by-route analysis would be within the network. At least this system provides a formula for working it out so that people can understand why they are paying what they are paying to get to where they live. One of the principal attractions of an RET system is that it provides the element of transparency that does not exist at the moment.

I am glad that we are discussing this, because there is a long history of trying to achieve road equivalent tariff for ferry routes throughout the Western Isles. Way back in 1970, Hamish Gray, the member for Ross and Cromarty at the time, said that it would be implemented within a matter of months. There is a lot of support for the idea within the island communities, where people depend on lifeline ferry services. Mr Hamilton is right to point out that the local authorities most directly affected—Highland, the Western Isles and, I think, Argyll and Bute—have supported the concept of the RET. The petition suggests that a study should be carried out on a particular route, which would be subject to the RET formula and would indicate the social and financial benefits that would accrue from such an exercise. That is fair and reasonable at this stage.

I am sorry that the petitioners were unable to attend this morning. There was quite a severe gale in the Minch last night, which stranded them. As Mr Hamilton pointed out, it highlights the vagaries of trying to live in those communities. It is suggested that we pass this on to our colleagues in the appropriate committee, and ask the Executive for a response. That would be the most appropriate action at this stage.

With the reshuffle of responsibilities, there is some merit in the committee considering to whom the petition should be sent. Transport and enterprise are now grouped under one minister, even though the committee structure has not changed. However, if there was ever an issue that linked transport and economic development, it is this one.

In response to John Farquhar Munro, I point out that 1,500 signatures from the Western Isles is a remarkable proportion of the people in that community. A pilot scheme would mean that arguments could be based on fact rather than supposition. The cross-party and cross-council consensus may mean that a pilot scheme is less likely to be postponed. That was perhaps the reason why such a scheme did not happen in 1970. However, it could happen in 2001 or 2002.

Duncan referred to cross-party consensus. A number of years ago, there was cross-party consensus with respect to the Clyde ferries. People on the Clyde have the perception that their ferries already subsidise to a degree the ferry services to the Western Isles. Why have the petitioners settled for pushing the road equivalent tariff for the Western Isles and ignored other parts of the CalMac services?

I fully understand Phil Gallie's point. Anyone who represents both Dunoon and Stornoway is in a difficult position, because Phil Gallie is right that there is a suggestion that one route subsidises the other. The problem is that people proceed on the basis of total ignorance. We do not know whether it is true that one route subsidises the other. I emphasise that the petition suggests a way of putting those communities more at ease so that they understand more about why they have to pay what they pay.

The petition selects the routes in the Western Isles because the petitioners are from the Western Isles. Also, as the Western Isles routes are most suited to show the diversity of routes that could come under the RET, the Western Isles presents an excellent opportunity for a pilot scheme. There is no attempt on the part of the petitioners to restrict the RET to the Western Isles. If the Parliament and the Executive were to accept the principle, the RET could be rolled out for the benefit of all communities.

The point is sometimes made that not every community would benefit from lower fares as a result of the RET. That is why we want a pilot scheme. The petition does not call for the immediate uniform application of a rigid system of tariffs. We need to consider what will most benefit the communities. The RET would certainly benefit the Western Isles. If the RET were to be of benefit to the people on the Clyde as well, there is not the slightest attempt from the petitioners to hinder that progress.

I agree with most of the points that you have made and understand why the petitioners have settled on the Western Isles routes. It is their initiative—good luck to them. Do you agree that if the RET were introduced simply in the Western Isles without considering other parts of Scotland, there would be a national uprising in the Highland areas that did not receive the benefits?

I am sure that those of us who campaign for the RET would be delighted if the issue was so emotive that a national uprising would be the result. That might be some success.

As I said, the petitioners make no attempt to restrict the benefits of the RET. However, they were aware that their petition needed to be focused if it was to be successful and that they needed to make the case for specific routes and a specific area to be used as a pilot to show what benefits would come from such a scheme. I think that Phil Gallie, John Farquhar Munro and I would all agree that the advantages of such a scheme should be rolled out to all Scots.

I know that the RET is mainly the concern of businesses, but the petitioners may be interested in studying the benefits systems of certain other EU members. For instance, the Republic of Ireland enshrines the right to free or cheap transport to remote areas for certain categories of people, such as pensioners. For one or two of the islands, that includes free air travel. Perhaps if the petitioners were to examine the republic's benefits system—more benefits were announced only about six months ago—they could back their case from a different angle.

I shall certainly pass that information on to the petitioners. I feel certain that, with that knowledge, they will be back with a new petition very shortly.

We should not encourage you.

The specific route is a question for debate. I offer the petitioners a simple solution: why not pilot the RET on the physical structure of the Skye bridge?

I am sure that there would be broad support for that. I thank Duncan Hamilton for giving evidence.

Duncan Hamilton made a good point about the recent changes to portfolios. The fact that transport has been put in with enterprise and lifelong learning is significant. I suggest that we accept the recommendation that we write to the Scottish Executive in the first instance to find out what the new minister has to say about the issue. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.