Hansard

Our position is stated in the motion. We want a proper socioeconomic impact assessment.

Where and when in 2007 did anybody in the Labour Party say that we were against RET? I have looked for that and cannot find it other than in statements from the SNP saying that we were opposed to RET.

Mr MacNeil has commented many times on how essential it is that RET be retained. Indeed, I understand that his Scottish Parliament colleague Dr Alasdair Allan was originally supportive of the campaigns by his constituents and facilitated a meeting between hauliers and the Minister for Housing and Transport on 7 February. Prior to that, he expressed the view that

“businesses will make … a robust case for the retention of RET”.

The meeting duly took place, although invitations were extended only to a select few and some were offended that they were not allowed to come and make their point. Indeed, the Outer Hebrides transport group, which was recently formed to support the hauliers’ case, was disappointed to be offered only a 45-minute meeting with the minister on an issue of such importance to its members after travelling such a long way for the meeting.

I will be fair: the meeting was productive to the extent that the limit for eligibility to receive RET was extended from 5m to 6m, although I do not know whether that is intended to apply to all routes or only the Western Isles routes.

The following day, the Outer Hebrides transport group met Western Isles Council to call for a review of the proposals—something similar to what we are calling for. The council leader, Angus Campbell, commented that there had been an

“overwhelming response from the local business community condemning the proposals to remove RET on commercials as having a serious economic detriment in terms of job losses across a range of sectors.”

To be fair to the minister and Transport Scotland, there was further movement on 13 February, when Transport Scotland announced a transitional relief scheme under which the Scottish Government would subsidise 50 per cent of the increase in year 1 and cap any increase to a maximum of 50 per cent of the RET fare. A similar formula would be applied in years 2 and 3. That would mean that, for example, if the non-RET fare was twice the RET fare, the haulier would pay 50 per cent the increase in year 1, 75 per cent in year 2 and 87.5 per cent in year 3.

However, increases on some routes would still be significant. As of April this year, under the transitional scheme, the fare for a 17m vehicle on the Ullapool to Stornoway route would increase by £95.48 and on the Oban-Coll-Tiree route by £98.72.

Western Isles Council was not convinced. On 15 February, it unanimously passed the following resolution:

“The Comhairle is of the view that the current proposals by Scottish Government in regard to the withdrawal of RET for commercial vehicles will be detrimental to the economy and community of the Outer Hebrides;

The Comhairle requests that Scottish Government withdraw its proposals as regards the withdrawal of RET for commercial vehicles until the evaluation, referred to in the announcement by Transport Scotland on 13 February 2012, has been completed”.

Given that the motion was passed unanimously, I presume that the council’s half-dozen SNP councillors supported it or at any rate did not turn up to vote against it. After the motion was passed, the OHTG wrote to its MSP, Dr Allan, expressing its satisfaction at the council’s position and asking for his

“clear, and equally unambiguous support in conveying this message to Transport Minister Keith Brown.”

I understand that, on Tuesday, the group received a reply from Dr Allan, advising that he had made its views clear to the transport minister.

I also believe that the OHTG wrote directly to Mr Brown observing that

“the Comhairle requests that Scottish Government re-instate RET for commercial vehicles until the evaluation ... has been completed. It is unusual for a study and evaluation to take place during a time of transitional arrangements, and the Comhairle would suggest that it is in all parties’ interests—Scottish Government, the Comhairle, the Outer Hebrides community and commercial operators—that the study is allowed to evaluate the full operation of RET on the basis of objective evidence.”

Our motion seeks the same—that a moratorium is declared on the RET changes

“until a full and proper socioeconomic study has been carried out”.

As for the Government’s amendment, the OHTG says:

“It is riddled with nonsense”.

That is a bit cruel but I think that, as usual, it is self-congratulatory and complacent.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the road equivalent tariff (RET) scheme has brought significant benefit to the Outer Hebrides, Coll and Tiree; is of the view that the current proposals to withdraw RET from larger commercial vehicles will be detrimental to the social and economic wellbeing of these islands and communities, and calls on the Scottish Government to enforce a moratorium on the fare increases until a full and proper socioeconomic study has been carried out to assess the impact that increased transportation costs will have on households, local employers and island hauliers.

10:31