Chamber and committees

They existed far before then. The issues have certainly been debated for quite a long time. If there is to be a Scottish Government review, we should at least find out when it expects to hold it.

It is worth establishing that, but I think that the detailed responses from BEFS, RICS and the Law Society clearly set out the parameters of the home report. As is confirmed by my experience as a solicitor, it is more than a basic valuation report, but it is far less than a detailed structural report, which would cost huge amounts of money. The limitations of the home report are clearly stated on it and, in practice, most solicitors are pretty good about advising clients about those limitations. Moreover, the surveyors have to have liability insurance and undergo professional training. The system is pretty well understood and works pretty well in practice.

Imposing a blanket strict liability, which is what the petitioner wants, would simply mean that the cost of a home report would go up exponentially in order to pay for the additional professional liability insurance premiums that would automatically ensue. I say that not because I want to prejudice the outcome of any review, but because it would be risky to raise the petitioner’s expectations, although I understand that some individuals might have experienced hard cases. I cannot comment on individual circumstances.

What is the additional cost or is there a range of additional costs?

I am asking whether a payment is asked to be made from the family in the case of extra costs for the CT scan, as opposed to the traditional invasive post mortem.

As always, Jackie Baillie has set out a strong case for that for which she advocates.

In considering whether we should recommend a STAG report be produced, I wonder whether we should get a little bit more information. I say that because the national park authority’s submission raises about 10 points—Ms Baillie will know them well—all of which seem to me to be likely to involve very significant cost and difficulty. I am not suggesting that we should not recommend that there be a STAG report, but I would like to know how long it would take to get the report and what the process would involve without being obstructive to the matter in any way.

The petitioners’ proposal would involve crossing the west Highland railway line twice, require various tunnels and steep land contours, affect sites of special scientific interest and water courses and involve crossing the Sloy power station pipes. I am fairly familiar with much of that area and it seems to involve such a level of difficulty that the STAG process might take a year or so.

I am sorry to go on a bit, but I raise that because I know that, throughout the west Highlands—not only in Jackie Baillie’s constituency but the adjoining ones in Argyll and Lochaber—the road has long been the subject of an overwhelming desire for improvements for all concerned, as I think that everybody would agree. I am not being obstructive to Jackie Baillie’s proposal, but, if we are going to make the recommendation, we should know whether it will take three months, which would be fine, or three years. If it is going to take three years, I am not sure that I would want to support it.

Convener, I do not know whether it is appropriate to ask Ms Baillie for her comments on that; I have not had a chance to discuss that with her.

I endorse what my colleagues have said. What the petition calls for might be desirable in many cases, but to create a universal right would impose an obligation on local authorities that is simply unenforceable and undeliverable. We must always be mindful of supporting the petitioner as far as we can, but we also have to be mindful of the financial realities that local authorities face at the moment. They would not thank us for suggesting that we impose something that is plainly beyond their capability when they are under real pressure to deliver fundamental basic services across the board.

I am pleased that the Scottish Crofting Federation emphasised the importance of exempting crofters from any ban of the traditional practice of burning peat for domestic use on a small scale, which is part of the history and culture of the Western Isles. I am sure that there would be threats of direct action were the ban to be extended to that practice, and I would certainly be there, manning the barricades, having recently developed a taste for direct action.

As you have stated, convener, the wording of the petition is nebulous. Irrespective of that, the issues involved are almost certainly reserved to the UK Government.

Our notes indicate that some sort of tourist advisory group has given advice that riders should avoid travelling to Edinburgh. That is quite serious. None of us wishes people to be deterred from visiting Scotland for reasons of that nature. In deference to the petitioner and for the reasons that I have mentioned, I think that it would be worth making a further effort to explore the issue.

I wonder whether, in addition to the action that Alexander Stewart suggests, with which I concur, we might wish to write to the Scottish Futures Trust to seeks its views, because, as I understand it, its remit very much falls into this area.

I would add that the petitioner wants to abolish PPPs and to create a new model, but it is simply not clear to me what that new model would be. The statement on the new model is very much couched in abstract terms that outline what it should achieve rather than describing exactly how it would operate in practice. SFT has great expertise in that area, so it would be useful to get its insights.