Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to seek information on the outcomes of the 47 prosecutions that are referenced in the response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I make that recommendation because I noted in our papers a reference to the fact that the incidence of motorcycle theft in Edinburgh has led to advice being given to tourists not to visit Edinburgh. That is a particular concern, not to mention that theft is, of course, a serious matter—

I wonder whether we might invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence at a future meeting. MSPs from across the parties have expressed strong feelings on the issue. Time is marching on, and the petition is quite old. The sooner the Deputy First Minister can give evidence, the better, out of consideration of the additional pain that is being caused to those who are impacted by the continuing delay and uncertainty. I just add that caveat.

It is a community effort. It is usually done by more than one person in a particular way. I think that, by and large, community land is used rather than individual land. However, I am not sure—I am no expert on it.

I certainly do not disagree with the approach that has been recommended—inquiries should be made. I will, however, play devil’s advocate a little bit.

My experience from being a solicitor over many years is that, although people do not necessarily enjoy paying factors’ fees, the whole purpose of having a factor in a tenement is to ensure that there is a system for carrying out common repairs. If there is such a system, it needs to be paid for. In my experience, factors’ fees are not particularly great and, in many ways, being a factor is a bit of a thankless task, because the level of the fees is generally not huge. There is therefore a general public policy imperative that it is desirable that there be a system, which is normally very clearly set out in the title conditions, for the appointment and removal of factors by a majority of owners.

The desirability of having a factor is clear. Indeed, if there is no factor, there is a serious risk of major repairs not being done and things becoming much worse. I would have thought that that would be a rather more serious issue than the few cases where there may be concerns about overcharging and so on.

I say that to stick up for the humble factors who, in my experience, are often on a bit of a hiding to nothing and who have eight masters: eight people who can phone them at any time of the day to demand that action be taken immediately on all sorts of things.

I am just playing devil’s advocate, for a change.