Chamber and committees

Is the welcome move to extend the exemption to inbound Highlands and Islands flights the result of a change in the way that the UK legislation now applies compared with the way in which the EU state-aid legislation applied? The demand for a consistent approach to outbound and inbound flights has been there for some time, but my understanding is that there was a legal block to it. Clearly, a way has been found to overcome that, but I am not clear whether it is a result of the way in which the UK state-aid legislation has been drafted and is being applied.

I very much welcome the progress that has been made. A point that I would make in response to the most recent exchange is that you are dealing with flights that, for the Highlands and Islands, can genuinely be described as lifeline flights. After all, they get patients to hospital appointments, apart from anything else. Indeed, over the summer we saw some of the impact that the withdrawal of a number of services from Inverness to the Western and northern isles had on patients in all three island communities. I, therefore, welcome the move.

The extension of the exemption to inbound flights from Scottish airports is welcome, too. Under the current regime, islanders found leaving home to be just expensive, but returning home even more so, and I welcome the consistency in that respect.

As the cabinet secretary has acknowledged, the proposed policy on this has been a long time coming, but I am interested to explore with her the way in which it might have evolved. I note that the consultation analysis document published in July says:

“The evidence, analysis and insight provided by respondents has helped shape the Scottish Government’s understanding of the aviation market and the potential impacts of the revised Highlands and Islands exemption.”

It would be helpful to have a bit more detail on what that process illuminated and how it has shaped the position that the Government has arrived at.

You are right that the Labour-Lib Dem Executive had a policy of trying to introduce that provision, but there were clearly legal impediments at the time.

When you refer to the return leg, I take it that you are not saying that flights initiating in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow into the Highlands and Islands and then returning are not exempt from the tax.

So, if you are a consultant flying up from Aberdeen to hold consultancies in Shetland or Orkney, you will be exempt for both the inbound and the outbound flights. It is not just about the return leg being exempt: flights initiating in Aberdeen and going to the Highlands and Islands are exempt on both legs. Is that correct?

I want to take you back to the questions that Pauline Stafford asked in relation to what you will do to monitor the impact of the changes. I very much welcome what you said in that regard.

Earlier, you alluded to the meeting that the transport secretary is due to have with a number of members on the wider debate about the need for a longer-term strategy for air services in the Highlands and Islands. I think it important that that process continues to be led by the Scottish Government.

HITRANS, ZetTrans and other partners have made an invaluable contribution to identifying ways in which, by drawing on international models, we might be able to structure that service in a more sustainable way. My view is that, without ongoing Scottish Government leadership, the likelihood of those proposals being put into effect is vanishingly slim. Therefore, as part of the monitoring of the impact of the measure that we are discussing today, which I very much welcome and which I think will be helpful, can I seek your support for my plea that the Government continues to lead that effort?

Witnesses have broadly welcomed the principles and, as it has been amended, the detail of the bill. It obviously refers and relates to the duty of candour in the context of inquiries. Witnesses expressed the—not unreasonable—view that it is tricky to legislate for the cultural shift that, it is hoped, the bill will result in. This might fall to one of your ministerial colleagues, Deputy First Minister, but I would be interested to know what further work the Government is considering to support the culture shift, not just in the context of inquiries but more broadly in relation to the public sector and the expectation of candour now being the modus operandi.

That is helpful, and I am sure that there will be interaction with the debate on public service reform. The example that I used with Mr Sturrock and other witnesses was that of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which, at the time, was said to be a mechanism to ensure that public bodies did not simply respond to FOI requests but proactively put information out in the public domain in a timely fashion. We would all recognise that the volume of FOI requests and the number of successful appeals to the Scottish Information Commissioner suggest that that has not necessarily played out as we might have wished. Could the bill’s provisions be a strand of public service reform that will ensure that we see the cultural shift that John Sturrock talked about?

But none of those calculations or expectations seems to me to be any different to what they would have been 12 months ago or at the point when the fiscal sustainability delivery plan was prepared and published. It is difficult to understand why, rather than going down—even if it was not down as much as one might have hoped—the figure has actually gone in the opposite direction.

It is probably worth observing that the views of the previous health secretary, Michael Matheson—about the efficiencies to be delivered through the move from 14 to two health boards—are less than a ringing endorsement.

Would you accept that the numbers having gone up—against an overall plan to reduce them over the four years—increases the risk that any reduction will lead to cuts in service delivery, which is a concern raised by a number of witnesses over recent weeks?

I start with the point about review—as a Parliament, we need to get better at doing that. I was struck by Ms Low’s comments about expectations. Although I certainly support the principles of the legislation, it will be important to manage expectations. I well remember the introduction of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and how we were told that it was going to drive a culture of openness and of public bodies proactively putting out information. All that we have seen has been an exponential rise in the number of FOI requests and, then, complaints to the Information Commissioner.

I would love to share your optimism about the cultural shift that this bill will lead to. Do you have share my misgivings that, if we are not careful, the public’s expectations of what the bill will achieve will not match the reality? That is not to say that passing it is not the right thing to do—however, we could be setting the bill up to fail if it serves a purpose but falls short of what people expect it to be able to do.