 I ask the public in the galley to leave quietly the Parliament still in session. The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 11968 in the name of Tavish Scott on Hile's car parking charges. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate press their request-to-speak buttons now please? I call on Tavish Scott to open the debate. Seven minutes ago, you were also there about Mr Tavish. Mr Scott. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will leave your official title firmly on the record. I thank members and indeed the Minister for being present here for this afternoon's discussion. This debate today is about Hile and Zan's airport's plans to impose car parking charges at Sombra, Kirkwall and Stornoway. Despite the fact that they have carried out absolutely no consultation on this matter whatsoever, I feel guilty about wasting Parliament's time on this, because this is a measure that I simply do not think should be happening. Sombra airport is located on the most southerly tip of Shetland. The airport is 25 miles from Lerwick, the island's capital. The vast majority who fly from Sombra drive and park at the airport. Why? Because there is no dedicated airport shuttle bus connecting to flights. There are no public transport connections to Sombra from any other part of Shetland. A taxi to Lerwick costs £60 on its way to the north isles of Shetland. The cost would be over £100. Hile, Ronsombra, Kirkwall and Stornoway, they certainly know where Sombra is, but what islanders now know is that Hile has no idea or simply do not care where the rest of Shetland is. I understand that Hile has financial pressures, but that should mean and should have meant a thorough assessment of how to save money. Hile has not published any savings options. Did the board consider any other option before making that decision on 6 February? It now plans an island's tax of £3 a day for the privilege of parking at the airport. That will be a tax and it will be their tax and that of the SNP if that is allowed to happen. Have Hile consulted on that? No. The First Minister has said that this was remiss and I was grateful for that answer. I would ask the Government to turn remiss into something stronger today. Have Hile adopted the weasel words in their own strategic plan about working in partnership with island communities, airport consultative committees and indeed local councils? No, they have not. That is just unacceptable. A Shetland family who must park at Sombra to fly south will now add £42 to the cost of a fortnight away. That will hit regular commuters, but it will not hit local government staff, health board staff or others such as MSPs who can claim travel costs. That is just one public purse replenishing another, a fact that the finance secretary may want to consider. No, this measure will hit real people hardest, families, business people, voluntary sector representatives and that is why it is simply so wrong. As the leadership of the Shuttle Island's council reminded the minister recently in Llewick, there has been no impact assessment. I am sure that the minister also noticed that the Shuttle Island's council motion expressed in its complete opposition to Hile's plans just this week. Here is why, no discussion on public transport options or who would pay for them, no consideration of the inevitable parking fiasco that will now take place around the airport and, above all, no assessment of how that will hit working local people. It is one of politics's ironies that in the month the Government wants Parliament to vote for the islands bill and island proofing, this tax is being imposed on islands. A tax will hit economic and social vitality of the islands. It will take some selling by the most persuasive of ministers, and Mr Yousaf is certainly that, to convince islanders that island proofing is any more now than just window dressing. The only argument that Hile and the Minister have for parking charges is the need to save money. Hile is owned by ministers and receives an annual government grant. If the Government cut their budget, car parking charges will be the result. The minister could reverse that cut, but today I have a proposal that would save money without hitting islanders. It is a proposal that was made five years ago and dismissed by Hile. At that time, they were asked to change the heating system at Sumbra terminal building to biomass. The capital cost would have been repaid in three years. The annual saving was £100,000 a year. There are obvious environmental benefits. What did Hile do? Well, nothing. You multiply that £100,000 annual saving across Hile's estate, and the total probably would be more than £400,000 that they claim will be raised by parking charges. I accept the figures would need to be updated, but the suggestion that there are no financial alternatives to car parking is simply not so. Today, I say to the minister, please halt this tax on island life, a tax that undermines the ADS policy. A policy that I very much support and endorse his personal steps in that area, instruct Hile what to do, and that is to conduct a proper assessment of their own operations because, by definition of what I have been told, they have not done that. If they do not do that, get rid of this board, a board with no island knowledge whatsoever, and appoint people who can run the company efficiently. No islander believes that if the £3 a day charge is introduced, it will stay at £3. The money is being used to balance the Hile budget. That is clear from parliamentary answers and other sources. If the Government cuts the Hile grant, all the management make a complete mess of centralising air traffic control in Venice, which many believe will happen, what will they do? They will increase those car parking charges. Finally, let me observe to colleagues across Parliament that if you represent an airport so far exempt from this air tax, it will not last long. Conceit this principle at Sombra, Kirkwall and Stornoway, and those airports not currently paying for parking will be next. When I was transport minister, Hile asked me to approve car parking in the islands. I said no—well, I said a bit more than no—but I will not use unparliamentary language this afternoon. All my successes have said no as well. I thank them for that. I have given our current minister a real alternative to hitting islanders with this new tax. I suggest that he also says no to Hile, and please do that today. I thank Tavish Scott for securing this important debate. For the record, I add my support to the motion that he has raised. I will also agree with him that it is very sad that we are having to have this debate in the chamber today. I do not support Hile's decision to impose car parking fees at airports that serve island communities in Auckland, Shetland and the Western Isles. Three pounds a day might not seem much, but that soon adds up when travellers are away for an extended period. It is not fair for those who work offshore. It is not fair for those who can only receive medical treatment outside the islands. Some might say that we do not want to pay the fee— Minister. It would be important for him to acknowledge that it has already been said that those who are travelling for medical reasons would not have to pay the charge. Who would acknowledge that? Edward Mountain. I will certainly acknowledge those people who have to travel for medical reasons who do not have to pay the charge. What about their families who want to go down and see them? What about those people who need to go down? I absolutely believe that the critical importance of families visiting relatives who are sick and away for treatment aids their recovery. Those people should not be having to pay either. It is not fair for those who work offshore, as I said. I also would like to say that some might say that they should pay the fee if they do not want to take the bus. That is not always a practical solution. An intermittent public transport on the islands does not facilitate the use of public transport. I am also unconvinced that the fee will pay for itself. How much will it cost to police the car parking charge? How much will it cost to introduce ticketing machines? How much will it cost to introduce barriers? How much will it cost to introduce the administration to raise the fines that will no doubt follow if people do not pay? It should not be about cost because it is not going to be cost affected. I do not believe that the costs are justifiable. The manner in which the Highlands and Islands airports have made their decision to me to introduce car parking charges is to put it lightly pretty arrogant. No wonder businesses and especially families who depend on these airports are angry. I agree with them. I would be too. To take this court of action without consulting community and especially those that impact is to me completely unacceptable and then to add salt to the wounds by surveying the passengers after the decision has been made really just adds insult to injury. No doubt Howell are facing challenges to me. No doubt Howell are facing challenges as regard financing, but pressing ahead with their own preconceived solutions without inviting feedback and discussing with airport users what they should do and what alternatives they are, this is wrong. My two years as an MSP, I have seen far too many decision makers ignore the voices of local communities. Lessons have to be learned. Trust bakes down between those communities and the decision makers especially when local approval has not been saw. Whether it is being matters related to healthcare provision, the closure of rural schools, downgrading of sewage treatment facilities, decision makers must listen to communities. If Howell really want to bring the communities that they serve along with them, then they should have come up with a workable solution in collaboration with those communities. To me, Highlands and Island airport need to think again. Introducing car parking fees is not the best way forward and I urge them to scrap this and work with the local communities and all parties to find a better solution. I also want to congratulate Tavish Scott for securing this debate on a really important issue for our island communities. It was almost an insult to injury that the process began with the announcement of the parking charges. When a public outlaw decided that they were going to consult on its implementation, not on whether or not there should be parking charges that consultation has never taken place, but consulting on its implementation. That is part of the process that is taking place. That is part of the consultation process that is taking place. It seems that they are doing this on the hoof. They have not thought about it, they have not spoken to anybody and there are unintended consequences that they now need to deal with. That is absolutely unacceptable. Tavish Scott talked about the average cost to a family going on holiday if they were to park their car at the airport. That does not take account that people already have to pay more. They have paid for their holiday, but they have to pay for flights to the mainland to access that holiday. Sometimes they are paying twice as much already, and this is just going to make that family holiday even more inaccessible to people, especially people who are not on high wages. There is also an economic impact. Our islands suffer from depopulation, and we need to do something to reverse that. One of the things that has been happening of late is that people live on island but work elsewhere. Offshore workers are common, but in other walks of life people do that, keeping their family, wanting the quality of life that they get from island living, but being forced to work elsewhere to sustain their families. That is going to add a cost to them, as well as other people who need to travel for economic reasons, small and medium-sized businesses, the voluntary sector and many others. It could put people off living on islands. It could be the difference between being able to stay or not. They might have to consider moving to the mainland just because of the additional costs. They already face them with the flights, and that adds to it. It is not a good idea. It also adds costs to the public sector that is struggling in the islands due to austerity. That will add another cost to them when their workers and staff need to travel off islands. It also does not take account of the distance and spread out communities that those airports serve. There are many small islands that people need to drive from Unstor, Yell or so on, all the way down. The distance from Lerwick to Sambra is huge, but once you start going to those other islands, you are talking about a long journey and no alternative. For instance, in the Stornow airport, you could be 60 miles from Leverborough to get to the airport. Public transport does not do that, so it is almost adding insult to injury. You do not have the public transport to get you there, and then you are being asked to pay. I think that there is a wider issue with Hyal, and I want to touch very briefly on air traffic control and the centralisation of that. That is detrimental to our island communities. Hyal did well. It trained up local people who were rooted in their communities in air traffic control, and now they are saying to those very people who applied for those jobs and did the training, that they are going to have to move. That will have a knock-on impact on those economies, so we cannot really ignore that. We have the island's bill. It seems to me that business is being sneaked through before that bill becomes law, but if we are serious about island proofing, we need to stop that happening and indeed the other issues with Hyal. They are a publicly owned company to provide lifeline services. Those policies are actually letting down the very communities that they have been set up to serve, and they are certainly not providing a lifeline service. Thank you very much, Ms Grant. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Mr McArthur, please. Thank you very much. I start by echoing the concerns expressed by Rhoda Grant in relation to the centralisation of air traffic control services. We will return to in this chamber, but I also offer you an apology to the minister and indeed the chamber for the need to make myself absent to attend the justice sub-committee on policing, which is about to start in a minute. I have to say that if you told me earlier, I would have called you earlier, Mr McArthur, so it is a worthy cause that you are leaving us for. I will not hold that against you at all. For obvious reasons, I wish to participate in this debate and thank you very much, Tavish Scott, for allowing the Parliament this opportunity to discuss an issue that will have real ramifications for the community that I represent. I think that Tavish Scott very graphically set out the case against the introduction of airport car parking charges at somewhere in the real challenges that this will present. I accept that circumstances in Orkney are slightly different. The airport in Kirkwall is closer to the main centre of population. There is an existing bus that operates. However, all three airports have similarities, too. They are the gateway for islanders accessing lifeline air services. Those are already costly. Bus options for those not living in Kirkwall can be limited or non-existent. There is a suspicion that the charge will be the thin end of the wedge, a cash cow that Hyal will then go on milking whenever it feels the need. Hyal insistive had no option but to bring forward car parking in charges and whether or not that is the case, the way that they have gone about doing it, as all three speakers today have said, is wholly unacceptable. In Orkney, of course, we have been here before. Back in 2008, similar proposals, albeit targeted solely at Kirkwall Airport, were unveiled only to be hastily then dumped a few months later after Hyal failed to be able to answer any of the most basic questions. The U-turn, unfortunately, did not come quickly enough to avoid the installation at the airport of the parking machines, which then had to be hastily concealed with black bin bags and gaffer tape. Fast forward a decade, and it seems that none of the lessons have been learned. Despite the earlier hamfisted attempt to impose car parking charges, Ingalls Lyon and the Hyal Board chose to embark on this latest attempt without any prior consultation whatsoever. As Tavish Scott reminded, the Chamber Hyal's strategic plan talks have a commitment to, quote, effective collaboration with airport users and stakeholders, yet not only were stakeholders, including all three councils, not informed in advance. Hyal's own airport consultative committees were also left in the dark. I should know that, because I was there. During a three-hour meeting in the St Magnus Centre, not one mention was made of the prospect of car parking charges that were then announced a matter of three weeks later. Whatever the legal requirements on Hyal, that failure to be upfront, open and consult with those affected is shameful. I accept that there are issues, possibly a debate to be had, for some time now. Concerns have been expressed about capacity issues at Kirkwall airport at certain times of the week. There is a suspicion of cars being dumped there for safe keeping, free of charge. Yet, while there is undoubtedly an issue, presumably there are other ways of identifying those vehicles concerned and having them removed or fines applied. Likewise, I would support efforts to improve the bus service that already exists, but we need to recognise that, even with significant improvements, not a practical or realistic option will this be for many living in rural parishes or for those catching early morning flights. Other groups whose interests appear to have been largely overlooked by Hyal in the development of their proposals are those from the smaller Isles in Orkney. The community councils of Papawestry and North Rolansy, for example, have highlighted the disproportionate impact that charges would have on residents of both islands whose ferry service does not enable them readily to take a car over to the mainland. Hyal is offered to take those concerns on board, though it does rather underscore the benefit of having a consultation first before you have decided on what you want to do. Tavish Scott is absolutely right. Hyal's lack of transparency and piecemeal approach to the issue is not acceptable. We need a thorough review of operations, a full consultation with local communities themselves, and until that happens, those proposals will remain discredited. I congratulate Tavish Scott for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also apologise to him and to himself for missing the start of your speech. As an Orcadian, Hyland's Islands airport is limited as my local operator, and I declare an interest as a regular user of its services, alongside many thousands of local people, businesses, visitors who travel to and from and within the Hylands and Islands region every year. Hyal operates for public benefit in a region where communities can often be remote. Uniquely, it is tasked with overcoming that geographic isolation and connecting the Hylands and Islands not only to the rest of the country, but to the rest of the world, too. A journey might start in Sumbra, but it might end in Stornoway, or Stanstead, or even Sydney. Our local airports are just the first part of our air bridge to the world. The task that Hyal is trusted with is an essential one if we wish to see the Hylands and Islands grow and prosper in the future. However, it is clear that this must be done in line with the wishes of local people and with respect to local organisations, particularly those where representatives are elected to councils and other authorities to reflect local opinion. That is at least part of the reason that there has been so much attention paid to Hyal's announcement on parking charges. Certainly, I do not support the policies that it stands, but perhaps more importantly, I object to the way that it has been brought about. As the motion before us points out today, Hyal's strategic plan pledged effective collaboration with airport users and stakeholders. Unfortunately, that commitment has flown off into the sun set. Let us not forget that we are talking about a state-owned company that receives millions of pounds worth of subsidies from the taxpayer. It also operates services that, in many cases, are lifeline links for people travelling to the mainland for medical appointments to access public services or to stay in touch with friends and family. Local people, businesses and visitors alike depend on them. However, I am not blind to the pressures that Hyal faces, the need to maintain and improve facilities, while balancing budgets. However, with proper consultation, Hyal would have had the opportunity to explain those pressures to local communities. Perhaps he would have even been able to create proposals that could gain widespread local support, and that reflecting and recognising specific local issues were more sensitive to local needs. Tomorrow morning, I will likely be using the airport bus service in Kirkpool, but, while I recognise that alternatives exist to driving, as my colleague Edward Mountain just said, those alternatives are not available or suitable for everyone. Even where they exist, they do not negate the need for a fair approach to parking. However, my concerns are not just with Hyal. At times, it seems that the Scottish Government has faced two ways on that. In response to a question by Tavish Scott on 26 April, the Transport and Islands Minister responded that consultation would be undertaken between the announcement and its implementation on practical implementation issues. However, the First Minister questioned consultation on 22 March and said that, if it is the case that there was no consultation, that was remiss. Those two positions cannot be held together. Indeed, most pressing is the minister's statement that the Scottish Government has been kept informed of Hyal's proposals through their development. Did the Scottish Government not think that any time that it would be worthwhile talking to the local authorities ahead of time, rather than simply communicating the decision to them? Did they not think of asking Hyal what the airport's individual consultative committees set up to build content between the airport's and local residents had to say on the matter? Those connections are not just local matter. We all have an interest in making sure that the Highlands and Islands is a positive destination to live, work and do business in. Hyal is now belatedly surveying local opinion. However, I would encourage them and the Scottish Government to learn from that experience and involve communities directly in decision making around their public services from the outset. I am happy to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government, which falls on from a very helpful meeting that I had with Tavish Scott, Councillor Ryan Thomson, and the now council leader, Stephen Coots, when I was in Shetland in Lerwick on 27 April. Generally, I get along very well with Tavish Scott on issues with Shetland and, indeed, the council, I am afraid, on this one, there will be a fair amount of disagreement, but there are some areas that he raises where I do have some sympathy for and I will touch upon them. The first very helpful, I think, to give a context of the Hyal estate, they operate 11 airports on behalf of the Government, all must operate within a strict regulatory environment that ensures the safety, obviously, and security of passenger staff and crew. It is also probably worth mentioning that, although Hyal, of course, is described as a company, the Government subsidising that company, all monies that Hyal raises, of course, are not for profit organisations. They are reinvested back into air services, back into the airport estate. None of it is creamed off the top, skimmed off the top for shareholders. It is all not a non-for-profit organisation and therefore reinvested back into the estate. That measure has been taken forward purely to ensure that our services to our islands communities and from our island communities are sustainable for the long term. Carpack and charges are already in place, as many members may well know in Inverness and Dundee airports. I am welcome into effect in Kirkwall, Stornoway and Sumbra from 1 July. Those charges have been £3 an hour for each of the 24-hour periods, of course. Rhoda Grant, it seems to me a pointless exercise to be now consulting when you have confirmed that those charges are coming in and Hyal has announced them without any consultation. Surely that is not right to have a policy change without consultation. I was going to touch on the consultation but I will get straight to it since the member raised the issue. The consultation has taken place between, since the announcement was made, I think, in the middle of March, to when those carpack and charges come into effect, is to see whether there is any practical implementation, to see whether there are some benefits, whether there are some concessions. Some of those have already been raised from passengers. I think that a roundabout just shy—no, just over 500 responses have been received from passengers and they may well focus on things like people who are job seekers or, for example, those that live furthest away from the airport, particularly in Shetland's example, perhaps in apprenticeships, which has been mentioned that I see from passengers as well. However, in terms of the actual consulting, if the suggestion from Rhoda Grant is that there should have been a consultation on who wants to pay more charges or parking charges at their airport, I cannot imagine very many people would agree with that. Who on earth would want to pay more or would want to pay if they did not? Is her suggestion that we do not bring in measures because people do not want to do it? Therefore, the Hyal airport would have to cut air services or not reinvest in their estate. To me, it does not seem like a very practical way of taking forward. Yes, there will be deeply unpopular measures, I am sure, because nobody would want to pay them, but at the same time it has to be brought in because we need to make air services sustainable. Of course, I will give way to Rhoda Grant. Rhoda Grant acknowledges that it is deeply unpopular. Of course, it is deeply unpopular, but those are lifeline services that are already expensive enough for people who cannot afford it. That is adding another cost to island living. Just because of their simple geography, we enjoy a less buoyant economy. We need to change that, surely. Let me just continue that vein of argument for a second. When I say that it is deeply unpopular, I do not think that anybody wants to pay more for anything that is generally accepted, that is the case. The practical implementation and consulting on the practical implications implementation of that, for me, is really, really important. Highly, I am doing that genuinely with an open mind. I suspect that, when they finish their consultation, there will be some element of concessions. However, I would also say that this is about the sustainability of the air service. Now, to have you, Scott, brought forward a proposal—the first time I have heard of the proposal, I should say, on the heating system. Of course, we should look at that. I would say that I do not know the figures exactly that Mr Scott was quoting, but I do have the figures here for the subsidy that is required for Sumbra airport and, in revenue terms, it is over £500,000 every single year. It is significant just for Sumbra. The other proposal that Mr Scott along with Councillor Ryan Thomas put forward, in absolutely good faith, and I think that it is well thought out from their perspective, was, for example, for an extra 40pT to be added to Loganair's landing charges. That might be another way to look at income generation, but, of course, Loganair has said that, if that comes into effect, it would have to cut a flight, possibly two flights, one from the Shetland to Glasgow, one from one of the Aberdeen flights as well. That would be even more unpopular, I suspect, and we would go against exactly what Rhoda Grant is talking about in relation to the sustainability of the air service. Of course, I will go for you. Edward Mountain Minister, I am thankful for you giving way. One of the questions that I asked in my speech was whether that was cost-effective. You have mentioned the costs of running the services. Presumably, before you introduce a charge like this, you work out how much it is going to cost to run and how much revenue you are going to get from it. I would suggest that the revenue is pretty limited. Edward Mountain Minister, Hyll will have that information in terms of how much it will cost. Of course, he will revise and review those figures as necessary, but he can speak to Hyll about that. Hyll will be able to provide some element of those figures. I do not know if he has met Hyll on that. He certainly has not written to me on the issue at all, although he seems to be outraged at it. Those figures exist. They can be provided, of course, with some commercial sensitivity, but they are doing this so that they can make sure that our air services are sustainable for no other reason. Hyll is a not-for-profit organisation, of course. Tavish Scott I am grateful to the minister for taking his points about savings. If it turns out that replacing heating systems—not just at Sumbra but at other parts of the estate—can save the kind of money that I have been told about by people who understand the issue, would he undertake to make sure that that is done, rather than putting the car park in places, because that would achieve the same objective that he has of saving money? Edward Mountain I will certainly undertake to look in all good faith at the proposal that Mr Scott can provide it with good detail. Hyll, as I say, is doing what he is doing in order to make our air service sustainable for the future. Although I absolutely respect that Tavish Scott is bringing this on behalf of his constituents, I should say that the correspondence that has come in has not been overwhelming. There has been nine correspondence from Sumbra. I do not think that there has been any correspondence from Jamie Halcro Johnston, certainly not on my record that I can see here, and certainly none from Edward Mountain necessarily on this. I have very few in the single figures for Stornoway and Kirkwall. That again suggests to me from some of what I have seen that people understand that Hyll is doing this in order to ensure that the air services are sustainable for the future. I will, of course, if there are alternative proposals and Tavish Scott is the only one to have raised those alternative proposals with me, we will look at them and ask Hyll to look at them absolutely in good faith. However, that is about the sustainability of our air services to our islands. Those are proportionate measures being bought and they will help to safeguard those air services. I think that all members can agree that that can only be a good thing. Thank you. That concludes the debate. I now suspend this meeting until 2.30.