Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2026 of the Transport Committee. We have received no apologies this morning.
The first item on our agenda is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum and a supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
I welcome back to the committee Stephen Flynn, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport. He is supported by Rohan Leslie, who is a solicitor with the Scottish Government, and Terry Shevlin, who is from the aviation team at Transport Scotland.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make some brief remarks.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the legislative consent memorandum and supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the UK Government’s Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill.
First, I acknowledge that the original LCM was lodged after the Parliament’s standing orders deadline. The bill, as introduced, contained only reserved provisions. However, a non-Government amendment, agreed on 13 July in the House of Lords, introduced a provision with devolved implications. Once it became clear that the provision had devolved implications, my officials engaged at pace with the UK Government to assess those implications and prepare the memorandum.
The bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 14 May 2026. The UK Government notes that the bill modernises the UK’s aviation frameworks, strengthens passenger protections and updates regulatory powers following Brexit.
The provision that requires legislative consent is clause 7. It requires the UK secretary of state to conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services across the UK within six months of the day on which the bill receives royal assent.
The Scottish and UK Governments agree that the provision falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government has advised that the review would need to examine the impact of airport drop-off charges, including their effects on travellers, accessibility, affordability and connectivity. The review will also consider the reasons why airports use those charges and their wider impacts on public transport support and infrastructure funding.
I am committed to working with the UK Government to ensure that Scottish circumstances and the interests of Scottish airports are properly taken into account. It is worth stressing that the amendment requires only that a review be undertaken and published; any recommendation would not be binding on the Scottish or UK Government. However, we will, of course, consider the outcome of the review, to identify whether there are any implications for Scotland.
We already know that there is some variation in practice across Scotland’s airports. The Scottish Government’s position has consistently been that the operation of drop-off areas at commercial airports and the associated charges are matters for airport owners and operators. I therefore welcome the review and see merit in Scotland’s airports being included.
The Scottish Government recommends that the Scottish Parliament give consent to clause 7 of the bill.
I am happy to answer any questions that members may have.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
I apologise to Ronan, whom I called Rohan earlier—I got that wrong.
Cabinet secretary, although the LCM is very strict and quite dry, we want to talk about the substance of some of the issues. We have some questions to gather your thoughts on them.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for coming. Do you feel that there should be exemptions from parking charges for disabled passengers?
Are you talking about the charges that they face at airports?
Yes.
As with all parking charges, that is a matter for the airports, because they are commercial entities.
If you were in discussion with the airports, would you say that it would be sensible for them to have concessions for drop-offs because there are already challenges in that area?
That would be a reasonable discussion to open up with the airports. As members will be aware, there are four airports in Scotland that charge for drop-offs—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Prestwick—although the fares differ slightly and the drop-off times differ quite significantly, too. I am sure that the airports would be happy to have a discussion about that, but I cannot speak for them in relation to their commercial responsibilities.
You said that there is a variety of drop-off charges, which there is. For Edinburgh airport, it is £8.50 for 10 minutes. For Glasgow and Aberdeen airports, it is £7 for 15 minutes. Edinburgh airport increased its charges in the past few months. I know that we are talking about private commercial decisions, but what is your sense of the level of those charges? Are they too high?
Everyone who drops someone off at the airport will be frustrated by the costs that they incur. However, ultimately, it is for airport operators to outline their reasons for making such decisions and the commercial interests that underpin them. Although I might hold a view that is very similar to the views of every member of the public, it is for the airports to determine what they do or do not do in relation to their charging.
Is there a risk that airports charging a certain amount will push drivers elsewhere, so there will be parking problems near airports or people sitting in their cars, waiting to go? That is not just a risk; we can all see that when we go to airports. You must have seen that, as you are a frequent airport user. Is there an issue with potential congestion if the charges reach a certain level?
If you are in Glasgow, you have the opportunity to get the bus to the airport for £2, and I encourage people to take up that fantastic offer, which the Scottish Government has put on the table.
I am at risk of repeating myself, but it is for the airports to make a reasonable assessment of their charges for people to park on land at their facilities. Your question might be better directed towards the owner-operators of Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick airports.
We might do that.
I am sure that you will.
In relation to the LCM, the UK Government secretary of state might have to conduct a review within six months. Would you want to be involved in that review at a Scottish level?
It is for the UK Parliament to determine, at committee stage, whether it will progress with the non-Government amendment in the House of Lords. From my experience of being in Westminster, it is relatively unusual for the Government to take forward an Opposition amendment. As I understand it, the nature of the amendment concerning the review probably derives from the fact that amendments in the House of Commons and the House of Lords cannot have a monetary value associated with them, unless they are associated with a money resolution. I imagine that that is why a review is on the table. It is for the UK Parliament and the UK Government to determine whether to accept the amendment. The UK Government has indicated that it will, which is why we are having this discussion. It is important that the Scottish Parliament is engaged in that process, as the Scottish Government is, because there is an expectation of that among the public in Scotland. That is why I am sitting before you today, encouraging you to agree with us that the legislative consent motion be agreed to in the way that we have outlined.
Thank you, cabinet secretary, for being here today. I want to touch on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which the Government does have some involvement in. You are right to point out that it does not charge drop-off fees; however, it does have parking charges. I understand that, at Inverness airport, parking is free for the first 15 minutes, while at some of the other airports—Stornoway, for example—it is free for the first two hours and then there are charges. First, do you foresee any implications for HIAL and its operations as a result of the legislation that is the subject of the LCM in front of us? Secondly, have you had any discussions with HIAL about its approach going forward?
There are no direct implications, because we are talking about a review and there is nothing in that review that will bind the hands of either the UK or the Scottish Government in that regard. Obviously, my officials will engage with HIAL, should the UK Government seek to proceed further on this, and at that point we will assess any implications of the review. However, I would be very surprised if a review caused any direct implications for HIAL or, indeed, any other airport in Scotland.
Cabinet secretary, it would be remiss of me if I did not talk about Alexander Dennis just for a few short minutes. When you appeared before the committee earlier this month, you were quite firm that you wanted to be transparent and open with us. Perhaps I can quote just a few of your words. You said:
“we must be as open as we possibly can be with parliamentarians … Having been a member of the United Kingdom Parliament … I was sometimes incredibly frustrated with a lack of clarity from Government.”—[Official Report, Transport Committee, 9 September 2026; c 5.]
You then went on in a similar vein. Why did you not tell us about Alexander Dennis when you were before the committee earlier this month?
At the first available opportunity, when I was asked the question by Stephen Kerr, I responded accordingly. I also addressed the matter just yesterday at a meeting of the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, under the convenership of Mr Massey, who I think is still seeking to determine whether something is a subsidy or a procurement matter. I am sure that we will not get into that particular debate, though, given your own lengthy experience in Parliament. I will also give a statement in the chamber later this afternoon, when members will be able to probe me further on those points.
If it is okay, convener, I would like to reiterate very briefly that the Government wants to see ADL be successful. That is why we have worked very closely with the company over many years, why we were very keen to support its research and development approach and why we came to the table with a furlough proposition. Ultimately, the company did not meet the furlough requirements with regard to both bus operation and the retention of staff. I did not think—and I do not think; indeed, I would be very surprised if any parliamentarian did think this—that the Government should have been handing out furlough on that basis. I responded to the first direct question that I was asked on the issue, and I will be before Parliament this afternoon to answer very many more.
You really should not have to wait for questions to be asked before you can be transparent, because the fact is that we do not know what we do not know. I would hope that, in the future, you would be a bit more proactive and seek to be transparent with the committee.
Convener, there was no attempt on my part to not be transparent in that regard. I outlined to you, I hope, at the previous committee meeting, that I might have been overly transparent in respect of certain issues.
I would like to reassure you that the Government takes our commitment to Alexander Dennis, and to bus manufacturing in Scotland, incredibly seriously. That is why we have sought to work very closely with the company over many years, and it is why we will continue to do so. My officials can maintain regular dialogue with it; indeed, the First Minister, too, met the company just a matter of weeks ago, at the end of August. However, we need to ensure that, where Government money is being spent, that happens in a fashion that meets the public’s expectations.
I realise that I am asking a question about process, which is of less importance than the future of the company itself. I do appreciate your words, and I hope that we will be able to get answers to any future questions in that area. In what is a very competitive bus manufacturing environment, the company will need every possible bit of support—confined by the rules, of course—and I hope that more funding will be forthcoming, if possible, to ensure that it can do the research and development that will allow it to get into new markets.
I think that the company concedes that it did not keep all the jobs that it was supposed to keep, but it was hoping that it would get a proportion of the funding. You have judged that that is not possible, but it now has a financial hole that it needs to fill, and that could mean sacrifices within the company and have an impact on how much it can invest. I hope that you will be able to assist on that front and find other avenues to invest in the company.
09:30
In response to those remarks, convener, I assure you that my officials and the Government remain fully committed to continuing dialogue with the company for the reasons that I have set out. The company was fully aware of the conditions associated with furlough, and the decisions that it made as a commercial entity will have been made in full knowledge of those conditions. It is for the company, as a commercial enterprise, to respond accordingly, and I am sure that you will agree that that is the appropriate course of action for the Government to take.
But you do take my central point that, irrespective of all that, we have to ensure that Alexander Dennis succeeds.
That is why the First Minister met Alexander Dennis a few weeks ago, and it is why I and my officials remain in regular contact with the company. We want it to be successful for Scotland. That is incredibly important for people in the local communities, and it is why we have put nearly £30 million-worth of research and development funding into the company through Scottish Enterprise in recent years.
Bus manufacturing is a very competitive market, and we need to do what we can to support the company. I am confident that we have done a lot over recent years, and, if there are further things that we can do, we will engage on that basis. I am quite happy to take any suggestions from you or members of the committee in that regard.
Thank you for tolerating questions on that front, which were not strictly on the subject that we were discussing this morning. Finally, I would just like you to reflect on how proactive you are about releasing information. We have already gone over that issue, though, and we will not do so again.
Unless members have any other questions, I think that we have concluded this item. I will briefly suspend the meeting, to allow a changeover of witnesses.
09:32
Meeting suspended.
09:34
On resuming—
Previous
AttendanceNext
Procurement