Chamber and committees

Perhaps we need to pursue those points with others, namely the Crown Office and the Scottish Sentencing Council, but that will be for a later date.

That is very helpful.

Dr Neal, you have said that you have been immersed in this area for years and you have helpfully alluded to practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Could you submit any material that you think might be helpful to guide our deliberations on this? Plainly, the experience of areas where there is a specific offence is relevant, and the more information that we can glean about how the situations in those places compare with what has happened in Scotland, the better.

I agree with Alexander Stewart. I note that in its response Transport Scotland has stated that delivering a permanent and resilient solution is a priority, which is welcome, but I think that the seven to 10-year timescale will cause concern and consternation in the parts of Scotland that are reliant on the link. When the road is closed, the detour is very substantial indeed and far longer than any other detours that I know of that affect such a large group of people. I know that these things are complex, but I am concerned about the length of time that all of this will take and the fact that the preferred route and solution has not yet been identified in order to provide reasonable transport links for people in those parts of Scotland.

Thank you for those responses. I will ask a related question. In Nicola Murray’s case and, I suspect, in other cases, the original charge that was libelled was reduced, and she was not aware of or consulted on that. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is rightly independent of politicians and so on, and it cherishes that independence, but do the witnesses consider that, in the particular circumstances that we are talking about, there should be a duty, whether it is created by law or practice, on a fiscal or lawyer handling a particular prosecution to consult the victim prior to the decision being taken to reduce a charge?

In the case of Nicola Murray, the reduced charge led to a monetary penalty of £300. We, of course, have to be careful not to make judgments about the case, because we were not there and did not hear all the evidence, whereas the judge heard all the evidence, so I do not mean to make any value judgment and I cannot do so, because I am not in a position to do so.

As a matter of principle, however, do the witnesses consider, given the gravity of the consequences that Dr Neal rightly described, that there should at least be a consultation? At the end of the day, the decision-making power probably has to rest with the prosecution authorities, but should there at least be a form of consultation required prior to the acceptance of a reduced charge by the fiscal or the Crown Office?

Carol Mochan MSP has provided very interesting information about the impact on people who have MS. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to write to the MS Society in order to elicit more information. Perhaps Carol Mochan could help the clerks by providing the information that she has. Given what she has informed the committee of today, I would be interested in digging a bit deeper to see whether there are people who have been casualties of the rule and have lost the ability to carry on working. That is a very serious matter, and I am very grateful that Carol Mochan has brought it to the committee today. I would be keen to see whether the MS Society could give us a more complete picture.

The particular focus of the petition is on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. It generally asks that there be representation from islands on public bodies with a responsibility for lifeline services to islands, but, looking at the detail of what the petitioners seek, the particular focus relates to HIAL. I appreciate that the minister has responded quite a lot in relation to ferries, but I think that the focus is very much on HIAL.

What the petitioners have specifically suggested, as far as I can see, is that three seats should be allocated for specific island groups—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland—without excluding other island groups. I have just checked the web to see the size of the HIAL board, as one does not want to have boards that are overwieldy in numbers. The Cairngorms National Park Authority board, for example, has 25 members, which is too many, in my humble opinion. The HIAL board has only eight members, I think, although perhaps I have got that wrong—if I have, I apologise. Given that HIAL has a relatively small board, as far as I can see, an awful lot could be gained by adding the island voice.

I have not raised the issue with Inglis Lyon, and I am sure that, if HIAL representatives were here, they would say that they engage—and they have procedures for engaging with islands, of course, as we have heard before. I just wonder whether we could get a specific response, either today or after reflection and consultation with HIAL, which would be only fair to HIAL. I have not raised the matter with HIAL, nor have I raised it with you, minister, but it seems to me that what the petitioners are specifically asking for has a certain rationale and force behind it and could be accommodated without making the governance of HIAL unwieldy or cumbersome. It could add quite a lot of accountability and scrutiny, as well as a feeling of belonging on the part of people in the islands, who feel very remote and detached from things from time to time, as you will know, minister.

When did that meeting with the transport minister take place?

Thank you.

Convener, to do justice to the petitioners, it might be helpful if we shared some of the detail of their proposals. I have skimmed those here; I have not gone into them fully. Maybe we could copy them to the minister. Then, if she has any comments further to what was a generally positive response, we could see what those are.

I was not quite sure whether the petition was calling for restrictions beyond the use of peat for horticulture. From what David Torrance said, and the reference that he made, it would appear that the Climate Change Committee recommends going further than that and banning peat for burning. Given that we all know that the burning of peat is traditional in crofting counties as an essential means of heat and is a cultural practice that has gone on for centuries, I wonder whether any attempt to ban said practice would be met with horror and outright opposition, if not direct action, by crofters. We might write to the Scottish Crofting Federation to seek its guidance on whom we should be consulting on the matter, because I suspect that it will become—to use a rather poor pun—a burning issue.