Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Friday, March 15, 2013

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Interisland Air Services (PE1472)

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions, of which there are three. As previously agreed, we will take evidence on two of them. The first is PE1472 by Councillor Gordon Murray and Councillor Rae MacKenzie, on behalf of protecting interisland transport links, on interisland air services. Members have a note by the clerks, which is paper 2, a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, and the petition.

I welcome the petitioners: Councillors Murray, MacKenzie and Manford. I invite Councillor Manford to make a short presentation of around five minutes to set the context.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to speak to you, convener. I also thank my colleague Gordon Murray for allowing me to make the introductory remarks.

What are lifeline services? Lifeline services are exactly that to the communities that depend on them—a lifeline. It is therefore essential that their application is fair and consistent. The Scottish Parliament has an enviable record in considering and establishing the principles of fairness and equity.

Lifeline services, whether by land, sea or air, are supported by Parliaments and Governments, which provide significant funds for that purpose. There are simple and straightforward definitions for lifeline public service obligation services. There is always room for improvement, but they are reasonably clear. What is not clear is the measure for their application or, more importantly, their discontinuation.

Lifeline public service transport services are delivered by local and national Governments, although their importance to the people concerned is not altered by who delivers them. However, there appears to be no measure applied for fairness, equity or consistency, although I am thankful that measures are applied to services such as social care and education, irrespective of who delivers them.

A public service obligation—PSO—is defined as

“any obligation imposed upon a carrier to ensure the provision of a service satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standards the carrier would not assume if it were solely considering its economic interest.”

The SPICe 2011 “Transport in Scotland” briefing explains:

“The rationale for imposing a PSO should be based on the fact that the maintenance of regular air services is ... vital to development of the region where the airport is located.”

The council asserts that the reason for axing the services is based on cost and usage, holding that 25 per cent usage, or up to £80 public assistance per person, is beyond what should be expected or delivered. In the case of the Stornoway to Benbecula service, the figure is £40.

Is that a baseline for all public service obligations? As lifeline PSO transport services are a national provision, it is reasonable that a national criterion should be set at the very least to ensure that application is fair, equitable and not widely different, regardless of the geographical area it is applied to or whether it is delivered by the national or local Government.

Has a baseline of £40 per head, or 30 per cent usage, been established as a national precedent? Could it develop into one that applies to all public service obligations? That would include nearly all the air services and almost certainly all the ferry services.

Through its budgeting, Western Isles Council has established lifeline transport as meriting being in the bottom 2 per cent of budget priority. Is that to apply fairly to all areas and forms of transport or will it vary? It would be devastating if national Government reduced the priority to that level. Do other local authorities apply different criteria? Is there a postcode lottery in lifeline services? Is there now a need for a national standard? That is what we ask the Parliament to consider. Thank you.

Thank you for lodging your petition, which is obviously relevant to our visit today. You make an interesting point about comparing PSOs in Scotland with the position more widely. As you well know, public service obligations are developed Europe-wide, and the European Commission clearly has a vital role. I had a look at some figures before today’s meeting and I note that, in general, both France and the Republic of Ireland use PSOs a lot more than the United Kingdom does. What is your view on that? If there are set criteria, why can we not use more PSOs?

I entirely agree that we should use more PSOs. We have argued for many years that a lot of the air services to which the air discount scheme is applied should have been made public service obligations, but there were lots of reasons why people were opposed to that. The coalition Government of the day applied the funding, but the carriers that provided the services on the routes indicated that they might resort to a court action if they were prevented from running them.

There is often a debate about what a lifeline service is and what a PSO is. Sarah Boyack was the transport minister in 2000 and 2001, when the review was done, and it was established in that document that a lifeline service and a PSO are in effect one and the same thing. The service has to be a lifeline service before someone can apply for a PSO to operate it. The PSO is on the carrier, but the legal right to place that onus is obtained by the council or the Government in establishing the need.

Nobody has ever considered the need to evaluate when the service should end. Under the European regulation, when the Commission is persuaded that the maintenance of regular air services is vital to the development of the region where the airport is located, we are allowed to provide them. However, what ends them? I presume that it is when that vital development is no longer needed.

In this instance, a financial line of 30 per cent capacity has been applied. That is worrying given that, in air services, 40 to 45 per cent capacity is a measure of a service that can perhaps wash its face and not need a service obligation. Surely public service obligations exist for anything that falls below that. A measure of 30 per cent is being applied on one service. I am not arguing that that is unreasonable in itself, but does that apply to all services? To answer your question, I would agree with you—and I will be delighted if the Parliament supports bringing the figure down to 10 or even 5 per cent.

As you know far better than I do, the Barra and Benbecula routes are marginal routes that are never going to make money. There will always be issues of fragility with those routes. However, we can use the example of other services: the road equivalent tariff is a way of having some Scottish Government subsidy—in effect—to allow people to use key ferry services; and, as you know, the Labour Administration introduced the air discount scheme, which was another form of that.

15:00

Do you think that it is time that we had an overall review of PSOs in Scotland? You will know that the Barra to Glasgow route, which is a Scottish Government PSO, will come to an end at the end of this month. There appears to be some confusion between local government PSOs and Scottish Government PSOs. My view is that we should probably bang a few heads together, conduct a major review and see how we can support fragile and rural areas. Do you share my view on that?

I do not think that there is a difference between Scottish Government PSOs and local authority PSOs. A PSO is a lifeline service. As I understand it, the routes are delivered by local authorities where local authorities have the relevant transport responsibility—it is simple—and they are funded through the Government by public money for that purpose. The Government delivers a PSO where the lifeline service crosses local authority boundaries. That is entirely reasonable and I do not see any problem with that. The Barra to Glasgow route has already spent five years on a feasibility review, and I would be loth to see that one looked at again.

The point that I am making is that if a financial line is applied to a PSO and that financial line is 30 per cent, 25 per cent or £80 per head of people using it—if that precedent is set—that is extremely worrying. You have talked about the discount scheme and the road equivalent tariff. The Stornoway to Ullapool route is a PSO that has in the region of £10 million attached to it, and attempts are being made to improve it again. Of course, we would support that, but there is an argument about fairness and equity. How can one PSO be discontinued while support for another is increased?

I will make a final point before I bring in Chic Brodie. In other transport systems, the Government acts as the operator of last resort. You will be aware that, for example, the Government took over a rail service when the franchisee failed. Do you see that as an appropriate role for Government in fragile air services, particularly when PSOs are involved?

In the first instance, I would like the Parliament to advise and guide on whether there really should be a baseline service and what that service should be. That would be the best start.

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Let me be slightly contentious. I currently have an interest in another airport on the mainland. State aid is aimed at covering losses, and we are told that it is not compatible with the single European market. At a recent meeting of the Airline Operators Association that I attended, we heard that 89 per cent of airports are technically subsidised by the state or by the local region. Have you had any discussion at all with the Scottish Government regarding European state aid assistance?

I have been involved in several discussions on transport matters with the Scottish Government. As I understand the rules for state aid, if a service is run for private benefit but is not delivering economic benefit Europe requires a service obligation in order to intervene.

Everything then falls under the national delivery rules. Local authorities are the transport deliverers in certain circumstances and are funded by central Government for that purpose. There have always been—and are—many examples of ferry services that have been transferred from the council to national Government. When power has been devolved to the local authority, it has always been the case that the authority has approached the national Government and said, “Would you like to take this over?” Indeed, I understand that there are many such examples under the ferries review, but to date I have never heard of the Government stepping or muscling in and saying, “I am taking your powers.” The local authority always makes the first approach.

It would be a terribly difficult situation if the local authority has received money to deliver a service, does not do so and applies the money to something else in the full knowledge that the Government will deliver the service anyway.

I hope that that answers your question.

A big issue at the moment is the interpretation of state aid with regard to transport. Discussions are on-going, but I am not sure where they will end up.

Another issue that you might be able to help me with is the imposition of other taxes on passengers. Please forgive me if this is not applicable, but do the air passenger duty and other such charges still apply even if local authorities have a legal PSO?

The air discount scheme was introduced to counter concerns about the threat of legal attacks or action against a Government for trying to impose a service obligation on a particular route. In such circumstances, the route would have to go out to tender, with the possibility that the organisation running it would lose out and then argue that it had built up the route. ADS was created to deal with such matters—

But I am talking about the air passenger duty that the UK Government levies on passengers who travel. Does that still apply under the auspices of a PSO?

I beg your pardon, Mr Brodie. I am not aware that it applies directly to the PSO. The PSO sets the top-line figure that cannot be exceeded, and the air service provider requests of the organisation giving it the contract the money that it needs to make a profit within the constraints set in the contract itself.

As we are a little short of time, I ask for short questions and answers.

I should probably declare that I am a weekly reader of the Stornoway Gazette and have therefore been following this issue quite closely. I have to say that I was very surprised at the council administration’s decision to axe in its budget the Barra to Benbecula service. As was stated in the ministerial response to a question that I believe the convener lodged about three weeks ago, the onus is on Comhairle nan Eilean Siar to provide this service.

I have a lot of sympathy with having PSOs for lifeline services; indeed, as Councillor Manford has already pointed out, without PSO status we fall foul of European Union rules on direct state aid. However, we have not received in any briefings the exact figures for the number of passengers who use this particular service.

Does anybody have those figures available? It is certainly clear that we need a fair and transparent formula across the country for PSOs, and it has already been stated that the decision by the council administration may set a precedent, which is a concern. Given that, do the petitioners agree that there should be a baseline evaluation for PSOs or, in other words, a national standard?

I certainly agree with that. I think that, nationally, we are going to get into a terrible mess now that it has been established that some form of baseline has been set. That probably undermines the whole reason for PSOs being introduced in the first place.

Given that the axing of the service arises from the recent budget, does the petition have the full backing of the administration and the full council?

I would like to give brief background information and my personal view, too.

It is a fact that there was a budget and that a majority of councillors were in favour of axing the service, but there was another view, which we are representing here.

The Western Isles Council was formed in 1974 and took over from the original town and county council in 1975, as members know. I was on that council and I am the last survivor of it serving on the Western Isles Council, although others are still around—I suppose that I am the last of the Mohicans. At that time, there was a conscious effort by the Lewis councillors, who represented two thirds of the council’s majority, to improve the situation in the southern isles, which had, as they would say themselves, suffered under Inverness-shire County Council in comparison with Lewis, which was under Ross and Cromarty County Council. Over the past 38 years since then, causeways have been built, roads have been improved, and ferries have been introduced.

On 19 August 1975 the council minutes referred to the proposed interisland air service, and a couple of months later they mentioned the inaugural flight of the Loganair service.

The vision of the founding fathers of the council has, sadly, been thrown in the bin, on the floor or wherever. After 38 years, the aspiration of linking the islands together has taken a backward step. Gordon Murray and I are from Lewis, and we will probably never need the service on a regular basis—and, we hope, never in an emergency—but many will. That is why we are looking for the committee’s help and guidance.

I have an email that is relevant to the present situation. It says:

“Presently we can provide blood transfusions in St Brendan’s by arranging it around the flights so we are within the guidelines for the timings in transfusing blood. The blood is therefore in transit for the shortest time possible. If we lose the Barra leg then the blood journey from Lewis to Barra is too long and we will not be able to provide that service meaning patients will have to be transferred away.”

That is from St Brendan’s hospital.

I cannot, of course, say what a future alternative would or should be, but that sort of thing should have been sorted out before the service was withdrawn.

Thank you very much for your background information, Councillor MacKenzie. You certainly do not look like a veteran, so keep up the good work.

I have a supplementary question. Earlier, Councillor Manford mentioned the ferries review. When is that due to be completed?

The ferries review is already complete. The plan is now being rolled out and delivered.

The point that I made was that each single ferry route is essentially a public service obligation and has a sum of money attached—there is sometimes a global sum, but the sum can be worked out for each different one.

There are lots of campaigns to increase each ferry service whether it be through ferry fares, increased numbers of journeys, or speed. However, each link will require more PSO money. I am asking the Government and Parliament, for the purposes of fairness and equity, what formula we can use to decide whether the ferry service should be increased, remain the same, or end. Do you feel that there should be such a formula?

15:15

Thank you for that. We are just about out of time.

I have been trying to find a parallel to this situation and I hope that the councillors might be able to help me. I am thinking about the closure of other vital services such as rural schools. I know that the Western Isles has had to face such issues, but there is clear guidance, backed by legislation, that would impact on a council’s decision to close a rural school. Is that the type of guidance, perhaps backed by legislation, that you are looking for on PSOs? Would you welcome the Scottish Parliament delivering that so that you are not left in the situation that you are in just now?

Yes. There has to be an evaluation of how the application of public funds in one geographical area can be measured against the application of public funds somewhere else.

Local authorities cannot close a school on financial grounds alone. A number of other criteria have to be met before such closures. You are telling us that a PSO is being scrapped on financial grounds, despite the fact that, as part of its settlement, the council is receiving money to provide the service.

That is absolutely correct. Something is being withdrawn without any direct evaluation or reference to the purposes for which it was introduced.

This is an interesting and pertinent petition, so I thank the petitioners for bringing it to us. We were talking earlier about the road equivalent tariff and it occurred to me that we need to introduce an air equivalent tariff for PSOs. However, that might be for another day.

On what we should do, Councillor Manford’s final comment was pertinent. Where is the economic and social benefit analysis to support such action? It is not just an issue for the Government—the council has taken a position—but it is up to us to ask the Government a question and to have the Government ask the council for the details of its analysis.

As Councillor Manford said, our community is running quite a number of transport campaigns at the moment. We wonder how we can argue in favour of those campaigns while withdrawing the service. There is a campaign for a ferry between Lochboisdale and Mallaig, and we want to improve the times for the ferry between Stornoway and Ullapool. Could withdrawing the service undermine our campaign to secure a flight between Stornoway and Aberdeen through a PSO, or could it reduce ferry services by increasing the need for subsidies? In withdrawing one service, how can we argue for another? We are looking for guidance.

I am sure that you have not forgotten it, but I think that the fair fuels campaign should also be added to your list.

We are out of time, so we must consider our next steps. My view is that this is a pertinent petition that we should continue. We should ask the Scottish Government for its views. We agreed to invite Alex Neil to speak to us in relation to the previous petition, and I suggest that we ask Keith Brown, the Minister for Transport and Veterans, to come to a future meeting to address some of the points that have been raised. Do members have a view on the suggestions?

I was also going to suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the issues that have been raised today. It might also be useful to write to other local authorities to ask how PSOs operate in their areas and whether they face any difficulties with them. We should get the responses to those inquiries before we decide whether to invite Keith Brown to a meeting.

I agree that we should wait for the responses before we decide to invite Keith Brown, but that is an option that should be kept in mind.

I will be contrary, convener. As I understand it, money has been provided for this purpose, and we are being asked to intervene on a matter that has been visited on the community by the council that it chose to elect. Its first remedy is to elect a different council. I am not quite sure what the obligation is that we are asking ministers to take a view on, given that there is a remedy open to the community to deal with the issue.

The huge potential that exists for communities such as this one demands action, and it means that people should not have to wait until the next election. The Scottish Government must be asked its interpretation of the situation. I would also like to see a full interpretation of the EU regulations, which apply to member states—of course, we are not yet one of those directly. We should also ask the Scottish Government to investigate the implications of state aid regulations regarding PSOs and provide us with a detailed analysis.

Orkney and Shetland are good examples of local authorities with PSOs, as is Argyll and Bute, which has the Campbeltown PSO. I obviously do not want to enter the constitutional debate but, the last time I checked, we were still a member of the EU.

We do not normally have votes in this committee, but I believe that the majority view—with the exception of Jackson Carlaw—is that we should write to local authorities that have a PSO interest and the Scottish Government. Once we have assessed those responses, we will take a decision on whether to invite Keith Brown to a future meeting.

I thank the three councillors for contributing to our deliberations. You have helped to inform our decision making on the issue. We will keep you up to date with developments.

I will suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to change over.

15:23 Meeting suspended.

15:25 On resuming—

---

CalMac Ferries (Wi-fi) (PE1473)

The second new petition is PE1473 by Frances Anne Gillies, on behalf of Barra youth council, on wi-fi on CalMac ferries. Members have a note by the clerk—paper 3—which refers to the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition.

Members will be aware that the BBC reported last week that CalMac had announced that it would make wi-fi available on all its sailings between the Western Isles and the mainland. It expects to introduce that by the end of the year. Therefore, I thank our petitioners for what is the most successful petition that we have ever had—they managed to achieve a change in three weeks.

I welcome the petitioners and I invite Mairi Maclean to make a short presentation of about five minutes, which will be followed by questions.

Hi. I am Mairi Maclean, and I am here with Annie Teresa MacNeil and Frances Anne Gillies to represent the Barra youth council.

We are here today because we are asking the Scottish Parliament—

I am sorry, but I cannot hear. Could you pull the microphone a little bit nearer?

It is his age. [Laughter.]

We are asking the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a universal system of wi-fi operates on all Caledonian MacBrayne ferry services from the Western Isles to the mainland, and to provide a specific timescale for implementation.

The introduction of wi-fi on CalMac ferries would be hugely beneficial to local businesses, commuters, young people from the islands and tourists. The benefits are that it would allow greater access to information, would increase work productivity, would boost the local economy, would improve communication links and would make travelling more attractive to CalMac passengers and crew.

We started our campaign in September 2011, when first we wrote to CalMac to suggest the installation of wi-fi. We received a response that indicated that CalMac needed to investigate the idea further. In December 2011, Barra youth council met Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s transport committee. Those who were present at the meeting included regional and local managers, as well as Councillor Donald Manford. The discussion that took place concentrated on the types of technology that could be used. It was agreed that a wi-fi trial would be implemented on the ferry MV Lord of the Isles, which serves the company’s longest route between Oban, Barra and Lochboisdale.

It was also agreed that a CalMac representative would liaise directly with Barra youth council. That did not happen, so in February 2012 a further letter was sent, in which we asked for an update. We were informed that there had been no further developments. Further discussion took place between Barra youth council and CalMac in June 2012. We received a letter that stated that a trial would commence in June 2012. That was seen as real progress and a step in the right direction, and we were delighted.

However, problems were quickly identified with the trial. The signal was intermittent, it was accessible only at one location on the ship and it was not widely advertised. No further progress was made on the issue at that point. In October 2012, Barra youth council attended a Highlands and Islands transport partnership meeting with Keith Brown, who is the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Alasdair Allan MSP and Councillor Donald Manford, at which we brought up the issues with the trial. We wanted timescales to be specified and an assurance that wi-fi would be installed on all ferries.

At that meeting, it was agreed that the wi-fi trial would continue and that, if it was deemed to be successful, it would be a good idea to cascade the service to all ferries. We felt that we had been acknowledged and listened to, but there was no real outcome as regards further progress on the issue or a timescale for implementation.

In February this year, Barra youth council attended a meeting with a representative from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, at which we learned about the petitions process and the benefits of engaging in it. That was a major step forward for us, as it was agreed that we would formally lodge a petition on provision of wi-fi on all CalMac ferries.

In the same month, we contacted CalMac to ask for an update. We were informed that CalMac hoped to install wi-fi on its ferries by the end of 2013. We recognised that that was further progress and were again delighted, but we felt that we needed assurance from the Scottish Parliament that implementation would take place and that we were being taken seriously.

15:30

Our campaign gathered momentum when we received letters of support from local businesses, the council’s education department, the chair of the Outer Hebrides community planning partnership, Alasdair Allan MSP, Councillor Donald Manford and Angus MacNeil MP. We also collected 380 signatures online and we issued a press release that gave our campaign much wider media coverage.

We were delighted that CalMac issued its own press release stating that it is not just hoping to, but is going to implement wi-fi provision by the end of 2013. However, that did not change our determination to bring the issue to the Public Petitions Committee’s table. We are here today because we want an assurance from the Scottish Parliament that it will be possible for any system that is installed to be accessed by all CalMac customers across the Western Isles, including at all the ports—Barra, Lochboisdale, Lochmaddy, Leverburgh, Tarbert and Stornoway.

Secondly, we would like an assurance from the Scottish Parliament that implementation will take place within a specified timescale. We consider our action to be necessary because we want the issue to be taken seriously by the Scottish Parliament and we would like an assurance that it will assist with the issue. We will measure the success of the Parliament when all CalMac ferries throughout the Western Isles have wi-fi that is robust, available, dependable, affordable and widely accessible.

By lodging a formal petition, we are asking the Scottish Parliament to listen to young people, to take our views seriously, to take on board what we are saying and to let our voices be heard. Thank you.

Thank you, Mairi. I know that it must be a bit nerve-wracking to come before the committee, but you made your points extremely well.

I have a couple of questions to begin with. If we look at comparisons with other transport systems, ScotRail has a contractual obligation to put in wi-fi and my understanding is that it has wi-fi on many of its trains. I appreciate that CalMac is looking at the technical issues and burdens, but would you agree that one way forward would be for the Scottish Government to make it a condition of any future tenders for ferry routes that the successful company provides wi-fi on the ferries? In that way, whoever wins the contract, there will be a guarantee that wi-fi will be provided.

That would be a massive step forward for the guarantee of wi-fi. It would benefit all the ports in the Western Isles.

I am sure that the issues that Barra youth council has raised are similar to issues that people of your age in other parts of Scotland have, particularly in relation to long-distance ferry services. It is an excellent idea. The paper from CalMac states that it is looking at some technical issues and that it has to look at

“satellite, point-to-point wireless and 3G”

as technical solutions. If people are on a seven-hour ferry journey, it is essential that they have wi-fi. I am sure that you know that from your experience of using the internet, but I am also thinking of people in the business community, tourists and so on. The provision of wi-fi would also give CalMac a competitive advantage, would it not? People would be more likely to take the ferry if wi-fi were available.

I think that it is a great petition. It seems to me that it is pretty well coming to fruition, but my preference would be for us to have a concrete guarantee. Thank you again for your comments. I throw the meeting open to my colleagues for questions and points.

I take your point, convener. I think that that is right. As far as I am concerned, the letter from Caledonian MacBrayne about the challenges is still a bit open-ended. It states:

“We hope to tender and transition to a new service model during 2013 and the formal procurement process for this has started.”

I commend the petitioners for lodging the petition. It would not be unfair to ask Caledonian MacBrayne for a timeline for the various activities so that we can see whether it is achieving what it says it will achieve, and to ask whether it can accelerate that. It would be reasonable for the ministers who are responsible to ask that question of Caledonian MacBrayne.

To clarify another point, you mentioned that you want wi-fi in the ferry terminal buildings. What is the current position in Western Isles ferry terminals? Can you get wi-fi in any of them when you are waiting for the ferry?

No, we cannot.

Thanks for that. I like an absolute response.

I congratulate you on the petition that you have lodged and its seeming success to date. A pertinent point stuck out for me when I was reading it. You say—I can just imagine it—that you have to go to a particular place on the boat to get a signal. That reminded me of what happened a generation ago, before we had integral television aerials, when I had to stand in a certain part of the room on top of a chair holding my aerial in order to get a picture. I am sure that others in the room remember those days.

If Caledonian MacBrayne’s intention is to provide the broadest possible service, we should commend it for its response. However, if that is more about making a statement to give the impression that it intends to provide a service, when the reality is that in every vessel there is only one bizarre spot where you get the signal, I am slightly concerned. Is a key worry for you that what might be provided is a service in name but not in fact?

Yes, that is a major concern. Because we have lodged the petition, perhaps CalMac is feeling slightly threatened. I have decided that we would not be happy until we are sitting on the ferry and our mobile phones are receiving wi-fi, and we will continue the petition until then.

I thank Frances Anne Gillies, Mairi Maclean and Annie Teresa MacNeil for their contributions. I had a lot of sympathy for the issue before the petition was lodged because, on the many occasions when I have been crossing the Minch, I have wished that wi-fi was available so that I could get on with my work. It begs the question, as Mairi mentioned, how much productivity has been lost collectively over the past few years when wi-fi was not available, particularly on the long journeys such as the seven and a half hour crossing from Oban to Castlebay and Lochboisdale.

I travel quite a bit to Norway, where even small interisland foot-passenger ferry services have had wi-fi services for a number of years. In many ways, we are behind the times. Closer to home, NorthLink installed its first wi-fi system in August 2011 and replaced it with a second system in February 2012. I believe that NorthLink has around 40 wi-fi access points across its three vessels serving the northern isles.

I am pleased to note that there is a commitment by CalMac to move forward. However, it must be said that CalMac is behind and that other operators are ahead of the game.

Given the success of the petition, what will your next petition be on? Perhaps you can think about that.

Broadband extension might be another topic to consider, but I will leave that for another day.

This is an important petition. We certainly need to write to CalMac about the issue. An interesting point was made about NorthLink; Angus MacDonald summed up well what happens in the northern isles. It would be useful to compare and contrast the two operators. Are members content to ask the Scottish Government about whether wi-fi could be a condition for future tenders?

What are we writing to CalMac about?

We are writing to CalMac to ascertain the tender timeline. We also want to clarify whether wi-fi will be implemented across all routes or whether it will apply only to one route. We need to find out the technical answers.

Can we also clarify the quantitative level of service that it expects will be available on each route, so we can address the issue of just how easily accessible and available it will in practice prove to be?

That is a good point. Are members happy with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

As the petitioners have heard, we are proceeding with your petition. Obviously, we will keep you up to date with developments. It may be that, in the future, we look at the issue again when we meet in Edinburgh. It would be tremendous if we could get the three of you along to sit in at that committee, but that will depend on other commitments.

Thank you for coming along. I really appreciate your comments. You are welcome to stay on and listen to our other petitions for the half an hour or so that we have left.

If it would be possible, convener, I just want on behalf of Barra youth council to thank CalMac for listening to us, for allowing us to put our point across and for working with us.

I also thank Councillor Donald Manford, Angus MacNeil MP and Alasdair Allan MSP for their continuing support throughout our campaign; the Outer Hebrides community planning partnership, which has also supported us; young people throughout the Western Isles; local businesses; the education department; Guth Bharraigh, the Stornoway Gazette, and the West Highland Free Press, all of which have written greatly appreciated letters of support. We also thank the Scottish Parliament for bringing Parliament day to the Western Isles and for travelling to Barra to discuss it with us, and the Public Petitions Committee for listening to the Barra youth council, taking our point of view on board and allowing us to have our say.

Last but not least we thank our youth leader Katie Denehy, who has given us 100 per cent support throughout the process. She is an inspirational woman and we are very thankful for everything that she has done for us.

Thank you all very much. [Applause.]

Technically, I am not supposed to allow applause, but today I make an exception. I have to say that it does not happen very often in my speeches, but not to worry.

I suspend the meeting for one minute to allow our witnesses to leave their seats.

15:41 Meeting suspended.

15:43 On resuming—

---

2015 Non-domestic Rates Revaluation (Postponement) (PE1464)

The third new petition is PE1464 by Peter Muir on behalf of Colliers International on postponement of the 2015 non-domestic rates revaluation. Members have received the clerk’s note, which is paper PPC/S4/13/7/4, the SPICe briefing, and the petition. Before I invite John Wilson to make a few comments, I draw to members’ attention the fact that when the National Assembly for Wales looked at this issue it set up a fund that would run from 2015 to 2017 to cover businesses that were affected. That might well influence members’ views on what we should request of the Scottish Government.

Convener, I think that you have asked me to speak on the matter because I am also a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I point out that the petition might well have been overtaken by the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce a Scottish statutory instrument on the matter, and that when the committee considered the instrument on Wednesday morning, it accepted the Government’s suggestion to postpone the revaluation along the lines that are set out in the SPICe paper.

The difficulty for the Public Petitions Committee is that, although it could write to the Government, the Government’s response would be that it has already made its decision, which has been approved by a parliamentary committee and will shortly go before Parliament itself for approval. Of course, Parliament might decide to overturn the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s recommendation, but the Government has set its course and I am not sure where we can take the petition from here.

15:45

Should we close the petition now or is there any merit in referring it to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee?

My view is that we should close it—given a series of factors including what is happening in the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the implications of where Westminster is on a whole series of things. I think we would just go round in a circle.

I agree, regrettably, that we have to close the petition. Many businesses would have benefited from revaluation, because they are in communities where revaluation would have dictated that they pay less. In difficult economic conditions and in communities that are hard pressed, such revaluation would have been of benefit. The postponement will benefit some, but it will prejudice others and those who benefit will primarily be in areas where there is more economic activity, rather than less. However, if the decision has been taken, as has been reported, it would be fruitless for us to pursue the petition.

I declare an interest, as I sit on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. Without rehearsing what was said in that committee’s debate, the decision has been taken and some businesses will lose out and others will gain. I am not sure that we can take the petition any further; I think that the issue has been decided for us.

Are members agreed that because the SSI has been agreed we will close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.