The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Air Depart or Tax Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments that members should have, the bill is amended as stage 2. That is SP Bill 3A, the martial list that is SP Bill 3A-ML, the groupings that is SP Bill 3A-G timed. The vision bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting on the first division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the group of amendments should press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the martial list of amendments and in group 1 regulations under section 10. 1. Economic, environmental and social impacts. I'll call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group of amendments 1A, 1B and 1C. Cabinet secretary, please to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I will speak first to amendment 1. The Scottish Government fully supports and recognises the importance of robust analysis of policies both before and after implementation. With that in mind, I listened carefully to the points raised at the Finance and Constitution Committee at stage 2. I also gave a commitment to work to see if an amendment on impact assessments could be brought forward at stage 3, which the Government could support and which also retained the spirit of Mr Harvey's stage 2 amendment. Amendment 1 is the result of that work and places two duties on Scottish ministers in relation to the power in section 10 1 of the bill to define tax bans and set tax rate amounts in secondary legislation. The first duty requires Scottish ministers to have regard to projected economic, environmental and social impacts when preparing draft secondary legislation on tax bans and rate amounts. The second duty requires Scottish ministers to keep those impacts under review when the tax bans and rate amounts are enforced. The Government considers that this amendment is a fair compromise, striking the right balance between the accountability and flexibility of necessary with tax powers, but it also places a robust set of requirements on to the face of the bill, which the Government is already on track to meet. Firstly, the Government has already commissioned separate independent economic and noise impact assessments of our overall 50 per cent ADT reduction plan, and those reports will be published by the time Parliament is asked to consider the first set of tax bans and rate amounts in the autumn. Secondly, a strategic environmental assessment is already underway. The next step of the SEA will involve the Government publicly consulting over the summer on our overall 50 per cent ADT reduction plan, as well as an environmental report that will outline the findings of the assessment of the plan against a wide range of environmental topics such as climate factors, air quality, material assets and biodiversity. Thirdly, at the same time as the SEA consultations are launched, the Government will publish an updated greenhouse gas emissions impact assessment of our overall 50 per cent ADT reduction plan. Finally, in addition to the analysis already being carried out, the Government has asked the contractor undertaking the independent economic assessment to consider the best way to design a robust monitoring and evaluation framework so that that can be put in place for assessing the economic, environmental and social impacts of ADT in the future. I will now turn to the three amendments lodged by Andy Wightman. The Government does not support those for the following reasons. First of all, in amendments 1A and 1B, in response to the points made by Patrick Harvie at stage 2, the amendment lodged by the Government already requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the environmental impacts of tax bans and tax rate amounts. That would include consideration of the impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The Government therefore does not think that it is necessary or appropriate to place a further duty on Scottish ministers on the face of the bill. Secondly, amendment 1C would restrict the Government's flexibility to respond at short notice to make changes to the tax by requiring a detailed set of very prescriptive assessments to be completed every time before secondary legislation for tax bans and rate amounts can be laid before Parliament. The Scottish Parliament did not consider that necessary for the other devolved taxes, land-in-build and transaction tax, Scottish landfill tax and it is not something required for any UK tax. Nair, in the Government's view, is it necessary for ADT? Scottish ministers will, of course, have regard for the economic, environmental and social impacts of changes to tax bans and rate amounts and amendment 1, lodged by the Government, places a duty on Scottish ministers to do so. However, the Scottish Government believes that placing a requirement to publish assessments on the face of the bill would be overly prescriptive and is not necessary. In conclusion, I therefore move amendment 1 and invite the Parliament to reject amendments 1A, 1B and 1C. I call Andy Wightman to move amendment 1A and speak to the other amendments in the group. My amendments in this group are designed to add some policy purpose to Nair departure tax in Scotland to ensure that evidence informs ADT rates decisions and to add some safeguards against any Scottish ministers of any Government who want Parliament to give them the power to reduce taxes from an already extraordinarily lightly taxed industry. Amendment 1A is required as part of 1B. Amendment 1B is the first of my substantive amendments and it follows on as the cabinet secretary indicated from discussions at stage 2 with Patrick Harvie, who argued that APD rates and bans should be set in order to deliver a fiscal policy for aviation based on targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Witnesses to the committee from the aviation industry say that they can reduce aviation emissions, but science and international treaties say that we must. I do not recall the cabinet secretary at stage 2 disagreeing with the principle of requiring ADT to deliver an emissions reduction strategy, but if he disagrees, perhaps he can tell the chamber this afternoon. The issue that he identified as problematic was that setting a target specific to aviation emissions would, in his view, be inflexible and challenge, quote, the whole economy approach in Scotland's current climate change legislation. In response to that, I proposed amendment 1B, which takes account of the minister's comments and no longer requires a specific aviation target. Instead, in setting rates and bans of ADT, ministers must act in a way best calculated to deliver on Scotland's climate targets as a whole. The second half of amendment 1B refers to the Government's purpose targets. Those are the measures that the Government has set to judge its own success by, as set out in the national performance framework. Sustainability, measured by reducing climate emissions, is one. So is reducing income inequality. Increasing so-called sustainable economic growth is another, even though the Government has never given a satisfactory definition of this contradictory term. The Government has argued that its proposed policy for ADT will increase economic growth, although that was exposed as an evidence-free assertion by the Finance Committee. What ministers have been less keen to talk about is who benefits from cutting taxes on aviation. ADP is a ffiscally progressive tax, mostly paid by corporations, visiting tourists and the wealthier members of society who fly very frequently. Cutting it is regressive and socially unjust. My amendment 1B would require ministers to start considering not just growth but quality of life and inequalities. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not oppose the Government's amendment. It requires ministers to think about broader things such as environment and social impacts and to have regard to them, but what it does not do is require them to mandate them to act positively and make choices that will protect the environment and enhance social justice. The Government's amendment 1B, as it stands, will allow ministers of any colour at any time in the future to act lawfully should they decide to set tax rates that increase pollution and give even bigger tax giveaways to the wealthiest. My amendment constrains any Government of whatever political persuasion from doing that. Amendment 1C is a requirement to end the evidence-free vacuum within which someone in the SNP at some time decided that it would be a clever thing to cut aviation taxes in half. The amendment requires an assessment of emissions and noise and air pollution for communities around airports—something in my constituents in the north-west Edinburgh experience every day—and it requires information to help Parliament and others to decide whether the tax change is progressive or regressive. Does it benefit the already wealthy or not? Amendment C does not ask for a tax forecast because I have taken the minister's comments at stage 2 about the forecasting role of the Fiscal Commission into account. Instead of just requiring ministers to think about certain things, as the Government amendment proposes, the cabinet secretary says that his amendment 1 already deals with those things, but, of course, it only requires ministers to have regard to those matters. The minister also criticised amendment 1C as being too rigid and being something that has to be produced in response to every rate of change. That is just an assessment. The framework for that assessment can be permanent, but the information underpinning that should be readily available and should not be an onerous task. Instead of requiring ministers to think about things, amendment 1C would require ministers to think about them alongside evidence and provide this Parliament with the information that it needs to properly scrutinise proposals on rates and bans. I would like to say a lot more about the extraordinary under-taxation of the aviation industry question, which really owns Edinburgh airport and will benefit from tax cuts and so on, but I will leave that for another day and remain focused on the bill and the amendments that I have tabled, which will do as much as possible to ensure that this new tax power is used responsibly with behaviour changes and impacts firmly in mind. I move amendment 1A and urge MSPs to vote with all the amendments in this group. Thank you, Mr White, when we open debate. I would like to make a brief contribution in relation to the amendments in this group that are before us. The Finance and Constitution Committee, as we have already heard in the course of the debate, did recommend that, when bringing forward the setting of rates and bans, the Scottish Government needed to address the issue of an evidence base behind that. Therefore, I welcome amendment 1 in the name of the minister, which I think hopefully responds to that particular point and looks at the whole question of the economic, environmental and social impacts that the setting of the rates and bans will have, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged in his comments earlier. I think that that is a welcome amendment that we are happy to support. In relation to the three amendments in the name of Andy Wightman, I understand where Mr Wightman is coming from on behalf of the Green Party in relation to those. My concern is that those are too prescriptive. They put too many obligations on ministers, which might be difficult to meet, particularly in a short time frame, where rates and bans have to be adjusted perhaps in response to economic conditions. I recognise, as the cabinet secretary said, that there might be a need for greater flexibility than those amendments would require. I also wonder whether those are… Yes, happy? Patrick Harvie. Murdo Fraser indicates that there might be a scenario in the future that a decision on rates and bans needs to be taken quickly. Surely, even in an urgent situation or perceived urgent situation, such a decision could not be made in the absence of evidence, an absence of an analysis of the factors that are set out in the Green amendment. If that information is available on which to base a decision, surely it can be published. Murdo Fraser. I thank Mr Harvie for that amendment, but I think that his concerns are addressed by the cabinet secretary's own amendment 1, which the minister must regard to those aspects before he sets taxes and bans. However, there is a second point that, with respect to Mr Wightman, he did not address in his contribution when proposing his own amendments. That is that, when tax and bans are proposed by ministers, they have to bring them to this Parliament for a vote. Members of the Parliament are not satisfied that the evidence has been presented in support of the setting of the taxes and bans. They can reject them. They can send them back again. Therefore, members of the Parliament are quite entitled to be able to justify and consider that at that point. I have time. I will give way again. Yes, we have in this particular one. Andy Wightman. Thank you, Murdo Fraser, for giving way. However, when those proposals for rates and bans come to Parliament, for us to decide upon them, we will be unable to do that effectively and in an informed fashion if they are not accompanied by an analysis of the social, economic and economic impacts of them. Ministers are only required to have regard to those factors when setting the rates, so surely Parliament needs a fuller analysis and fuller information to properly do its job. Murdo Fraser. I would say in response to Mr Wightman that, if members of Parliament are not satisfied that the evidence is there in support of the setting of taxes and bans, they can reject the proposal to set taxes and bans and send them back to the Government to think again. It seems to me entirely sensible. Unlike Mr Wightman, I have more faith in the ability of members of this Parliament to consider these matters properly at the time that such rates and bans are proposed. For that reason, we will be happy to support the amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary, but we cannot support the amendments in the name of Mr Wightman. Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak in favour of all the amendments in this group, amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary and, in particular, amendments 1A, 1B and 1C in the name of Andy Wightman. Those amendments are important because many of those who contributed to the Scottish Government's consultation and finance committee's evidence on the bill expressed real concern about the impact a significant tax reduction could have. They expressed concern about the environmental impact of reducing the tax burden on the aviation industry and concern, too, about the implications a loss of revenue could have on public finances. Indeed, a majority of those who participated in the Scottish Government's own consultation opposed the very course of action that ministers are committing to, effectively cutting air passenger duty in half, with a view to abolishing it, the tax altogether. I want to explain how those amendments could partially address some of the concerns that have been expressed. The finance committee heard from Transform Scotland and other campaigners that aviation is already one of the most likely taxed industries in the world, and further tax reductions would increase aviation emissions. We heard that a tax reduction could reduce Government revenue by up to £189 million a year and would do so when public service is already under severe pressure. As Andy Wightman has said, we heard that those who are frequent fliers, who are the wealthiest or who are on higher incomes, would benefit disproportionately. There was also considerable doubt as to whether a tax cut would actually boost or benefit the economy in any meaningful way. The chamber should know that no credible evidence has been presented to the finance committee, for example, to suggest that the growth passenger numbers in Ireland had anything to do with the abolition of the equivalent departure taxes. Here in Scotland, airports are already reporting record growth in passenger numbers, and all of that growth, all of that success has occurred within existing levels of air passenger duty. The case for the Government's tax cut is not stacking up. It would therefore seem reasonable to require that ministers set out exactly what the impact of their plans would be before they can proceed with any changes to rates or bans. At all times, we believe that they should have due regard for the economic, environmental and social impact of their proposals. That is why we support amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary. However, let's be clear that having due regard for the impact of new tax rates is the bare minimum that we should expect from the Scottish Government. We can and we should go further. Amendments 1A, 1B and 1C in the name of Andy Meitman require ministers to produce an assessment outlining the projected economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed new tax bans and tax rates amounts. Essentially, Scottish ministers would have to provide evidence to justify the rates and bans that they choose to apply. That amendment places a reasonable duty on ministers requiring them to do just that. Given the direction of Government policy regarding air departure tax, Scottish Labour chooses to support those amendments. James Kelly Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise particularly to press support for the Andy Meitman amendments. The cabinet secretary said that he listened carefully to the debate and the representations that were made at stage 2, and that he brought forward amendment 1 in response to that. That is welcome, because it is a move in the right direction. However, the amendment is just a bit waffolly, I feel. It says that Scottish ministers must have regard to the proposed economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposed tax bans and tax rate amounts. You get the impression of the cabinet secretary given regard to those matters, sitting in his ministerial office, asking one of his aides to get their binoculars out and have a look over to Edinburgh airport to see what is happening and saying that there are plenty of planes going in and out. There looks to be lots of people going in and out, so it has all gone absolutely fine. However, I think that the Andy Meitman amendments would strengthen this considerably, because of the fundamental issues at the debate here. The Government is going to use that power to reduce the ADT, and it wants to ask us to believe that it will not have an adverse effect on carbon emissions. It will not adversely affect the Scottish budget, and it is also fair. We have serious concerns about that. Andy Meitman's proposals say that there will be a proper assessment, and that assessment is published. We therefore can see the evidence that a cut in ADT would have on emissions, on the Scottish budget and on people on different income deciles would be crucial in making the Parliament a decision as to whether any such cut is appropriate. I ask the cabinet secretary, even at this late stage, to look at accepting the Andy Meitman's amendments, because that would not only strengthen his bill, but it would strengthen the process of parliamentary scrutiny going forward. As no other member has asked to speak, I call the cabinet secretary to wind up on amendment 1. I could begin from where James Kelly left off and what is described as a waffly move in the right direction. I suppose that that is high praise from James Kelly. Indeed, the commissioning and the work that I have agreed to undertake is far more robust than you would suggest. I am sure that it is not out of ignorance that James Kelly or Neil Bibby are ignoring the fact that I have agreed to publish a range of work in view of earlier deliberations at the Finance and Constitution Committee. That will absolutely be published, but what some of those amendments are about, in part, is making that a legislative duty on the face of the bill to be published every time the Government wants to make a proposal around rates and bans. Murdo Fraser is correct, yes? Patrick Harvie is the cabinet secretary any more able than he was at stage 2 to tell us why on earth he feels able to adopt a policy already on how he wants to use this tax, halving it and then scrapping it. How can he adopt that policy before he has conducted any of those economic analyses that he is now intending to commission? What Patrick Harvie is specifically asking about is the question that he fairly put to me, and Andy Wightman has asked the same question. What independent Scottish Government commissioned analysis was undertaken. There is a range of evidence in terms of this policy and this position, but I was fairly asked what independent analysis had been commissioned by the Government and that is what is being undertaken. What my amendment proposes to do is to look at our powers responsibly, to place a duty on ministers to consider all those burdens and all those considerations in making a proposition and a proposal around tax rates and bans. Work has been commissioned, and I think that that has to be recognised. That will be published in advance of Parliament been asked through affirmative order to make a decision on rates and bans, and that is in keeping with other currently devolved taxes. I would argue that it goes further and that includes climate consideration and environmental consideration as well. I understand from Mr Harvie and Mr Wightman that there are concerns around that issue, but I have looked at who sponsors the evidence, so commissioned independent Government analysis, looked at the environmental concerns and published those reports and consultations. In view of all that, I think that those additional amendments are too prescriptive and therefore unnecessary. I will certainly push ahead with the amendment that I have lodged. Thank you. Andy Wightman to wind up an amendment 1A and press her with raw, Mr Wightman. Air departure tax is a modest tax on a very, very likely taxed industry. The effective tax subsidy for the UK aviation sector in 2012 was around £11.4 billion. That is no tax on jet fuel, zero-rated for VAT, etc. That is over £400 per household. With fares falling, flights growing, pollution increasing, there is no need to cut that tax. However, we have to have a legislative framework in which to set the tax, and that is what the bill does. Ministers must make the proposals that they intend to bring to this Parliament about rates must make them informed fully by climate change targets and informed by firm evidence. Yes, those amendments place a statutory duty to do very certain things. Ministers should welcome those tests. I am very concerned that the Government's approach to the act is informed by its predetermined policy to cut tax rather than to consider carefully how to design a tax for an industry that is already one of the biggest threats to the planet. I welcome the assessments that the minister has said that he will table. However, those are not a statutory duty. The statutory duty on ministers is, and I quote, to have regard to the projected economic, environmental and social impacts and to keep those impacts under review. There is no statutory duty even to publish those assessments. Under our amendments, there would be a statutory duty to act in a way that is best calculated to meet the carbon emission reduction target set out in part 1 of the climate change act, to meet the purpose target set out in the national performance framework and to publish an assessment. That is fairly modest. I press amendments 1A, 1B and 1C in my name. We are only required to press 1A currently. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 1A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division, as this is the first division at this stage. I suspend for five minutes. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1A. This is a 32nd division. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote amendment number 1A in the name of Andy Whiteman is yes, 29 and no, 86. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 1B in the name of Andy Whiteman. Already debated with amendment 1, Mr Whiteman, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. The result of the vote amendment number 1B in the name of Andy Whiteman is yes, 30, no, 85. There are no abstentions. This amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 1C in the name of Andy Whiteman. Already debated with amendment 1, Mr Whiteman to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1C be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. The result of the vote amendment number 1C in the name of Andy Whiteman is yes, 30, no, 87. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call the cabinet secretary to press or withdraw amendment 1. Just press or withdraw. You have already moved it. The question is that amendment 1B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That ends consideration of amendments, but before you go, because there is a procedural change, I am going to read this out to you and it will be repeated later. As members will be aware at this point in the proceedings, the Presiding Officer is now required understanding order to decide whether or not, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to protected subject matter. Put briefly, that is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise the Scottish Parliament to elections. If it does, the motion to pass the bill will require support from a supermajority of members. That is a two-thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided, in his view, no provision of the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I know that that is all embedded in your memory now. Can I ask members to leave the chamber to do so quietly? The next item of business is a debate on motion 6164, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill at stage 3. I invite those members to wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Derek Mackay to speak to remove the motion. Cabinet Secretary, eight minutes are there abouts. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill. The establishment of ADT is another important milestone on the journey to enhance Scotland's fiscal powers. Another example of this Government continuing to move ahead with pace and purpose in order to ensure that we are ready to begin using Scotland's new powers once we are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I thank the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill. That input has helped to shape the bill before Parliament today, which now includes tax exemptions brought forward by the Government at stage 2. It can also be seen in the independent economic assessment in which the Government has commissioned to help inform our secondary legislation plans for tax bans and rate amounts. I would also like to thank those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the policy development for ADT, both before and after the bill was introduced to Parliament. With the other currently devolved taxes, the Scottish Government has taken and will continue to take a consultative and collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders on how ADT should be structured and operated. The Scottish Government is seeking Parliament's approval today to the bill. That establishes the general structure and operation of ADT, a tax to be charged on the carriage of passengers on flights that begin in Scotland. The tax will apply only for the carriage of chargeable passengers on chargeable aircraft and will be payable by the aircraft operator. With the core foundations of the tax in place, we will then bring forward our tax bans and rate amounts proposals in secondary legislation this autumn. That secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that it cannot come into effect without Parliament's approval. That is consistent with the approach that is taken for the other devolved taxes. Under terms agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments in the fiscal framework, air passenger duty will cease to apply in Scotland from 1 April 2018. The block grant will be adjusted downwards and, if the bill is enacted, ADT will replace it from that date. Revenue Scotland continues to make good progress to be ready to collect and manage ADT from April 2018. As does the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which will be responsible for producing independent forecasts of receipts from ADT for future Scottish Government budgets, those forecasts will reflect the Scottish Government's policy for ADT at that time. Scotland is already an attractive destination for business and inbound tourism, but it is important, particularly given the economic threat posed by Brexit, that we continue to be open to key and emerging markets in order to further capitalise on the opportunities that exist. As has been discussed, the Scottish Government's plans for ADT have a 50 per cent reduction in the overall tax burden by the end of this parliamentary session and abolishing the tax when resources allow are a key part of the Government's economic strategy, in particular boosting trade, investment, influence and networks. Scotland's airports are competing on a world stage to secure new routes and capacity. Reducing the tax burden helps to ensure a more level playing field with many other European airports competing to secure the same airlines and similar routes. The cabinet secretary is being very clear that, way in advance of having the information or the assessments that he has said he wants to commission, he remains committed to the policy of halving and then ultimately scrapping this source of revenue. What is the SNP's view about how that gap should be filled? Should it come from increasing other taxes, which we could do now? Should it come from cutting public services even deeper, which the Government could propose to do now? Why is it his legislating to create a tax that he thinks should not exist? Today, of course, is not about tax rate and bands where we will have that discussion about how the powers that we are proposing to establish today are actually used. We have set out a policy based on our view on enhanced connectivity, enhanced economic growth and that that would support the economic drivers of the Scottish economy in which airports and airlines are clearly central in that. New routes will enhance business connectivity and tourism as well as providing new jobs. The Scottish Government agrees with others in the chamber that it is important that our plans for ADT are supported by robust evidence and that the impacts are monitored over time. That is why I set out earlier in the debate on amendments that we are undertaking a broad range of impact assessments. Those will be published by the time that Parliament is asked to consider our secondary legislation proposals for tax bands and rate amounts in the autumn. It is also why this Government brought forward an amendment at stage 3 now that Parliament has passed. It places statutory duties on ministers to have regard to the projected economic, environmental and social impacts of our plans for tax bands and rate amounts, and to keep those under review when the tax bands and tax rate amounts are enforced. The Government recognises that boosting economic growth by improving air connectivity may lead to an increase in aviation emissions. That should be in the context, however, of Scotland-making sustained progress to its statutory emissions reduction targets, which are set across the economy as a whole. We are prepared to work harder in other areas to meet climate change targets, and we should acknowledge too that airlines, aircraft manufacturers and engine manufacturers are doing a great deal to reduce emissions through improvements in technology. In conclusion, we are taking together—yes, I will. Claudia Beamish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills for taking an intervention. Will the cabinet secretary not agree with me that, in view of the fact that transport is now the highest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, it is extraordinary that there should be the Scottish Government position? Our statutory advisers in the UK Committee on Climate Change has suggested that even modelling in our policy proposition around a tax reduction, and if that has the outcome of increased emissions, that is still, in its words, manageable, so manageable in terms of the climate agenda. Of course, this Government has a strong track record in meeting our targets, and we believe that that can be managed by working harder in other areas. In conclusion, taking together the provisions in the bill provides the basis for a tax that is well understood by taxpayers and is efficient to collect and manage. There is general support from stakeholders, and I hope that, in this chamber, to the bill and the establishment of a tax to replace APD in Scotland. I appreciate that there remains a range of views about the detail of the tax, including rates and bans, and how any tax reduction should be applied to maximise the economic benefit for Scotland. However, the Government remains of the view that our approach whereby the overall burden of the tax is reduced by 50 per cent by the end of this session of Parliament and the tax is abolished when resources allow will deliver strong economic benefits for Scotland. I look forward to debating those and other issues this afternoon, but today we are not debating that policy, but we are debating the ability to collect this tax in Scotland as a consequence of the negotiations that have led to the devolution of the tax to Scotland. I move that the Parliament approves the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill. I start by welcoming the fact that this Parliament is finally going to pass a piece of law, nearly 14 months on after the Scottish Parliament election last year. That is, apart from the budget bill, which was a legal necessity. The first piece of the substantial legislation will be completed in this Parliament in all that time. We are at the stage in the parliamentary process of the bill, where veterans of stage 3 debates will know that there is very little new to say. Where a bill has been substantially amended at stages 2 or 3, there might well be new issues to introduce. However, as in this case, where that does not apply, we are effectively re-running the arguments that we had in committee and in the stage 1 debate. Of course, at that point, the bill did achieve substantial support across the Parliament. It is important to reiterate the point that the cabinet secretary has just made. If the bill is not passed, then all that will happen if the Scottish Government will not be able to collect any taxes on air travel. I do not think that there is any party in this Parliament who thinks that that is a sensible outcome. Therefore, I hope that the whole Parliament will vote for the bill at decision time this evening. Andy Wightman If the bill is not passed and the Government is not able to collect any revenue, that will be no different in outcome from passing the bill and eventually setting the rate at zero. It is interesting and interesting for Mr Wightman to be fair to the cabinet secretary. I do not think that even he is proposing starting from next year with collecting no revenue at all from air departure tax. I think that he might have the ambition to get there in the end, but I do think that he has that ambition in the short term. I think that we can all agree that the bill surely is desired. What the bill does is to reintroduce in effect the existing framework in place at UK level for air passenger duty by giving it a new title, air departure tax, but in other respects effectively the same tax that was there before. The approach that was widely welcomed by stakeholders across the board, including the airlines and their management companies, did not want to see an entirely new tax structure being introduced. There have been some changes to the bill that were made at stages 2 and 3. My colleague Adam Tomkins raised at stage 1 the question of the scope of the tax, because it is the norm in tax legislation across the UK that the scope of taxation is provided for in primary enactments. This is distinct from the setting of rates and bans that has normally left the secondary legislation. As it was introduced, the bill failed to meet the norm in that it did not stipulate the exemptions to the definitions of chargeable passengers or aircraft. I was pleased to see that at stage 2 the Scottish Government amended the bill to cure it of this defect, so it now stipulates the relevant exemptions. The one exception to that was the Highlands and Islands situation, in which I appreciate that there are still unresolved questions around EU state aid rules that are required to be clarified. However, the bill that is amended is now in tune with not just UK tax legislation but other devolved taxes such as the lands and buildings transaction tax. I hope that the president has now been established and all future tax legislation introduced will fully address the scope of taxation when it is originally drafted. We did look at amendments today in relation to the question of evidence that is required when setting rates and bans. I am pleased to see that the recommendations of the Finance and Constitution Committee have been accepted by the Government and supported by the Parliament. We will need to see evidence being brought forward when the detail of rates and bans is voted upon by the Parliament. As we heard from the cabinet secretary, the next stage in this process will be in the autumn when we hear from the Scottish Government what their detailed proposals are and the evidence that will support them and the impacts that they will have on the environment and on the economy. The hope is that any proposals will be enacted in the next financial year. Our own view, that we have set out on previous occasions, is that we support the ambition of an overall 50 per cent reduction in ADT rates, where our preference would be to see that targeted on long-haul flights rather than an introduction across the board. There are two advantages to this approach. First, is our view that there would be a greater economic benefit from reducing the tax on long-haul, because the evidence shows that those travelling long-haul tend to stay in Scotland longer than those travelling short-haul and tend to spend more money while they are here. In addition, there is the opportunity, if we cut the cost of long-haul, of attracting more long-haul operators to base themselves in Scotland, thus reducing the need for Scottish passengers to make connecting flights to hub airports in places such as Heathrow or Amsterdam. However, there is a second advantage to cutting long-haul as opposed to short-haul, which is the environmental argument. In the evidence, the committee heard from Virgin trains, among others, who had a real concern that the reduction in ADT on short-haul flights would encourage modal shifts away from surface travel, such as cross-border rail between Scotland and London towards the airlines. That would not be helpful in terms of us helping to meet our climate change targets. Interestingly, Virgin Rail was not opposed to a reduction in long-haul ADT. Indeed, it believed that that might encourage more visitors into the UK and would be complementary to them using the rail network once they were here. Our preference is for any reduction in ADT to be targeted at long-haul, and I hope that, when the Scottish Government is looking at the evidence base for its proposals, it will consider the relative merits of reducing long-haul as against short-haul, as against a cut across the board, so that we can weigh all those things in the balance. I have said all that I can say on this particular piece of legislation, and I look forward to supporting it at decision time this evening. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I call Neil Bibby. Mr Bibby, five minutes are there abouts, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The power to charge tax on air passengers leaving Scottish airports will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is there in the Smith commission report. It was agreed by all parties. It should not be in any doubt today. Power over what we now call air passenger duty is coming to Scotland, but it is a power that we must use responsibly. As I have said throughout this process, Scottish Labour supports the bill in principle. We believe that the air departure tax should be switched on when air passenger duty is switched off in Scotland next year. However, what we will not support is the approach to the new tax that the Scottish Government has set out. We will not support a tax reduction for which no compelling case has been made, a tax reduction that is unnecessary and irresponsible. We have argued consistently that a 50 per cent cut to air passenger duty—and that is in effect the position of the SNP—will not make Scotland any greener or any fairer. Analysis from the Office for National Statistics shows that having APD would save the top 20 per cent of Ernaw's £73, while the poorest would save just £4.50. 70 per cent of all flights in the UK are taken by the wealthiest 15 per cent of the population. That is a tax cut for the wealthy frequent flying few, not the many who do not fly or may only fly once a year. Throughout this debate, the silence from the SNP on the distributional impact of their plans for the new air departure tax rates has been telling, and they have to confront the environment impact of any tax cut, too. I remind the cabinet secretary that his own Government is projecting an increase in aviation emissions if air departure tax is cut. Transport, as we know, is now the largest source of carbon emissions in Scotland. If the Scottish Government does not properly address transport emissions—and that must include aviation—then it is hard to see how it will meet its obligations under the Climate Change Act. As it stands rail travel, a much more environmentally sustainable mode of transport will lose out in favour of subsidising aviation. That is the wrong move at the wrong time and there is no economic imperative for it. Barely a month goes by without Scottish airports recording record growth, passenger numbers up and new routes opening up to new destinations. Week after week in this chamber we see MSPs submitting motions rightly applauding the growth of airports and at the same time undermining the Government's own case. Edinburgh Airport reported an 11 per cent increase in passenger numbers last year. Glasgow Airport reported their busiest May on record last week. Aberdeen Airport's domestic and international passenger numbers are up. With duty-free shopping, no VAT on tickets and no fuel duties for airlines, the aviation industry is already one of the most lightly taxed industries in the world. The economic case for this tax cut simply does not stack up. I saw the cabinet secretary at Glasgow Airport this morning, and I have to say to the cabinet secretary if he is so concerned at the cost of travelling through Scotland's airports, whereas he said nothing about Glasgow Airport's money-making drop-off charge. By his silence on this issue, it appears that Mr Mackay has chosen to side with the aviation industry over his own constituents and nearly 15,000 people who have signed a petition objecting to that air drop-off charge. What is most concerning about the Government's approach to APD is that it is a completely unnecessary tax break for the aviation industry, a tax break of up to £189 million a year. It will come at the expense of public services and expenditure elsewhere. The SNP cannot tell us or will not tell us what it will cut to make up for the revenue that it will lose. Will it be the NHS, the bus pass, fire services, the police? Will it be the defining priority of education? Where is the tax going to fall of £189 million? What happens if, having effectively cut or even abolished air passenger duty, the Scottish Government finds out that some other part of the UK decides to follow this week? The Shadow Chancellor John McDonald's written to the Chancellor Philip Hammond asking whether abolishing APD in Northern Ireland will form part of our Tory DUP deal. We warned the Government that using air departure tax to cut those rates would trigger a race to the bottom, a race in which public services will lose out and only business interests in the aviation industry can ever win. The SNP finds themselves in this position, siding with big business, siding with the Tories, siding with Arlene Foster and the European Union to make unnecessary and irresponsible tax cuts that are bound to hit already overstretched budgets for public services. Scottish Labour, on the other hand, supports air departure tax bill, because, unlike the SNP, we support air departure tax. We know that we need to put a legislative framework for that new tax in place now. Given the level of concern about Scottish Government's wider approach to APD, we also believe that the Government must fully assess the economic, environmental and social impact of any changes to tax rates and tax cuts, especially if it persists with tax cuts. Tax reductions of that kind will have consequences, and the Scottish Government should be honest about what those consequences are. Scottish Labour backs the tax, not the cut, and that is why we will vote for this bill. I move on to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please. I am pleased to be speaking in this important debate in stage 3 in the air departure tax bill. At the outset, I remind colleagues that, when it comes to decision time today, what is in essence being asked to approve is an enabling bill. An enabling bill to give the Scottish Government the authority to levy a tax on the carriage of passengers that depart from Scottish airports. Without this bill, or something very similar to it, once air passenger duty is applied in Scotland as a result of the Scotland Act 2012, the effect from April 2018, there will be no legal basis for leving any such tax without appropriate legislation being in place. The bill is categorically not about the Scottish Government's stated policy intention of delivering a 50 per cent reduction in the overall burden of ADT by the end of this Parliament. Although, no doubt, as we have already heard, we will hear a bit more about that during this debate today. That being said, the committee in its stage 1 report into the air departure tax bill supported the introduction of legislation to ensure that attacks on the carriage of air passengers from Scottish airports can be levied. Indeed, it is true to say that by far the majority of respondents to the committee's call for evidence, as well as those who provided evidence in person, supported the principles behind the bill. At the finance committee on 22 February, when I asked Chris Day from Transform Scotland and Mike Robinson from Stop Climate Care whether they supported the need for such a bill, both confirmed that they indeed did so. I believe that the bill was improved by amendments that were brought forward by the Government in response to the recommendations from the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Law Reform Committee. The committee's recommendation that the Government bring forward amendments at stage 2 to make detailed provisions for the exemption of chargeable passengers and chargeable aircraft. I believe that the cabinet secretary deserves some credit for responding so positively on this matter and others that the committee raised with him. The committee also brought forward amendments for the stage 3 process today. The Government brought them forward in response to concerns raised by Patrick Harvie. Those amendments were passed unanimously earlier today and they will ensure that, in preparing draft regulations, ministers must have regard to the projected economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposed tax bans and rate amounts. Additionally, ministers must also keep those under review. Those changes might not have gone as far as the Dean's party might have wished, but any reasonable person would judge that the Government has come a long way in this regard. I consider that the Government has struck the right balance here in responding to legitimate concerns. As a result, I am strongly of the view that the bill is now fully fit for the purpose that the Government intends. Much has already made comments as a side issue about the Scottish Government's longer term policy to deliver a 50 per cent reduction in the overall burden of air departure tax by the end of this Parliament. The member accepts that there are circumstances in which that 50 per cent reduction may, following the Government's stated intention to publish environmental, economic and social assessments, turn out not to be possible. Bruce Crawford I have listened to a lot of what the Green Party has said in this regard over the last while in terms of the committee and also in debate today. If there was a prize for naval gauze and for nickpicking and dancing in the head of a pin all at once, if that was at all possible, the Greens would be the first up to get that prize today. I have absolutely no doubt about that. If the bill was not here, you would be asking us to bring one forward, a demanding that we had one. It is quite ridiculous your position, but I also believe that the most compelling reason to support the Scottish Government's policy direction is the Tory Government's full throttle advance on hard Brexit cliff edge, putting Scotland's economy at risk and threatening many thousands of jobs. In my constituency of Stirling, where the tourism industry supports 5,800 jobs or 13 per cent of the total number of jobs, it can be no surprise to anyone that I regard the position of the Government in this regard as being right. Now is the time more than any other time to send a signal that Scotland is open for business and we will do what we can to help to boost the economy using all the powers that we have at our disposal. Deputy Presiding Officer, last week I took part in the debate on opportunities for growth in the Scottish economy. As I said then, the Scottish Government now has a number of tools at its disposal to facilitate growth in our economy and that it could be doing more both now and in the future to build trade and investment relationships with countries around the world, not just in Europe. As we discussed stage 3 of the air departure tax bill, replacing the UK-wide air passenger duty, that is one such economic lever that the Scottish Government can use in order to foster those deeper relationships. We have some of the highest taxes on flying in the world here, so we have an opportunity here to take a different approach, to take Scotland on a path that will ensure that we have a competitive tax rate that will encourage airliners, businesses and tourists to come to Scotland, as well as making it cheaper for our own businesses and people to build those deeper relationships with the rest of the world as they go. We as Scottish Conservatives support the devolution of this tax to the Scottish Parliament. It is perhaps around the practical application of the bill in terms of the bans and rates that we may differ from the Government. The Scottish Government has of course made clear what its intentions are regarding those rates. It wants to cut the tax by 50 per cent and look to scrap it altogether in the longer term. The Scottish Conservatives have consulted, as we have heard widely with stakeholders, on how best to use this opportunity and to target it where it will have the most effect. We have done that in the context of needing to reach out to the world in a post-EU membership climate. As such, our approach is tailored to differentiate between shorter and longer haul flights. As well as having a progressive system, that will encourage reduced-rate and standard-rate customers to travel. In practice, the Scottish Conservatives are seeking to lay out a policy that should incentivise new air links from Scotland to global destinations, giving greater choice for worldwide air travel to those who are less able to afford higher fares. That includes our smaller and medium-sized businesses, who have so much to offer the world but need the assistance from the Government that this policy can provide. It is also a policy that would ensure that consumers continue to have a choice as to how to travel within the UK and Europe by freezing rates for short-haul flights. That will benefit consumers who choose to fly domestically and to the continent over other forms of travel, but it will not cause a dramatic shift in consumer behaviour to the detriment of the environment. I will close by reiterating the point that has been made already. By not voting the legislation through today, Scotland would not benefit from tax-collected and air travel. That is a situation that nobody desires. Instead, we can reflect upon the opportunities that that devolved policy presents, while carefully thinking about how we use those new powers to open up air travel to Scotland. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by Patrick Harvie. While supporting the bill, I want to highlight today some policy points. The priority that the SNP Government today is placing on the tax cut is perplexing. It is not progressive. 2015 UK passenger data shows that 15 per cent of the population takes 70 per cent of the flights, and the Office of National Statistics's analysis suggests that a 50 per cent cut tax cut would benefit top earners significantly more than anyone else. It is not necessary that Scottish airports are enjoying record passenger numbers and overseas trips to Scotland are up by 6 per cent in 2016, supporting our thriving tourist industry. It is not clear, either. Once again, this Parliament is expected to scrutinise effectively without the full picture from the Government, and I echo the concerns raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation Scotland. In the absence, they say, of information such as this, it is very difficult to say with any degree of certainty what benefits, if any, this change will make. The Scottish Government should consider this repeated concern very seriously. It is also unjustified. Scotland faces a time of financial constraint and this is a valuable source of revenue. APD, as it now is, to become a departure tax, was valued at over £270 million in 2015-16, and depriving the public purse of this income seems irrational when coupled with the cuts to public services. Our local services are being squeezed and our communities are suffering for it. Cheaper business class flights won't make Scotland any fairer. A strategy for airline routes that is based on sustainability and connectivity is important to the growth of Scotland's economy, but here we are faced with a choice between making the new powers and using them to invest in our economy or introducing a tax cut that will favour the rich and launch a race to the bottom in taxes across the UK. The SNP's decisions here are very revealing. Not only is it a question of social justice, cutting APD would have the implications for climate justice as well. Climate change is one of the biggest issues facing every country in the world. It underscores our interdependence and this stage 3 debate arrives a week after the Scottish Government proudly revealed its success in reducing climate emissions in the last tranche, and the chamber was filled with warm words and talk of ambition. The bad news, of course, was that the transport sector has now risen to be the heaviest greenhouse gas emitter, and our transport sector, including international aviation and shipping, has only dropped its emissions by 1.1 per cent in 27 years. International aviation has increased by 9 per cent from 2014 to 15, and from 1990 to 2015 it has risen dramatically by approximately 144 per cent. Today, the SNP's talk of climate ambition could not seem more hollow. In 2015, the UK promised to be part of the collective action for the Paris agreement. That means that the Government needs to ensure that every policy is stress-tested to advance in Scotland our eventual determination to move towards a zero emissions economy. Has the Scottish Government really adequately recognised the need to compensate for the additional emissions in our climate change plan? I am not sure. Given the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for 2015, it is clear as day that we need a proper commitment to sustainable travel. Our transport sector, excluding international aviation and shipping, is now more damaging to our climate than it was in 1990. We need a focus on modal shift, improving public transport and infrastructure for more environmentally sustainable modes to make it an easy choice for passengers. Incentivising people to fly, particularly domestically, is backwards. It threatens our rail services, which are not afforded the same tax breaks. It goes against the Scottish Government's own key objective of bolstering rail services between Scotland and England. We support a continued exemption for the highlands and islands, remote and island areas, where air travel can often be the only realistic option, and hope that the notification of the European Commission is successful. However, how can the Scottish Government justify economically, socially and environmentally freezing budgets for bus services and active travel while giving aviation a free pass? I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Liam McArthur. The debate is, as it has been throughout the process, characterised by a number of contradictions. The advocates of the Scottish Government's position look at the rising levels of aviation that our airports continually trumpet and celebrate, and yet they say that the tax regime is holding the industry back. They say that cutting the tax in half and then abolishing it will not lead to damaging climate change emissions, but they say that it will lead to increased aviation levels. Those things cannot be true. At the heart of it, one single contradiction, the Government is legislating to create a tax that the Government itself thinks ought not to exist. I think that there is good reason to have a specific tax on aviation. The Government doesn't, and yet it's creating one. Bruce Crawford, in what I have to say was an uncharacteristically grumpy contribution, I do hope that his lunch was satisfactory today. He told us that this bill should not be seen as being about the Government's tax policy, but to create a tax, to legislate for a tax. In the absence of a clear sense from the Government about what the purpose of that tax is, because the Government itself wants to abolish the tax, I think that it is irresponsible. The consequences will be that Parliament will not be in a position to amend what comes forward from Government when it introduces a resolution on rates and bans, on the structure of how this tax will be applied. We will have to take it or leave it, and at that point it will be too late to leave it. The implication of passing a bill that does not constrain ministers essentially says that Parliament will accept what they come along with. Adam Tomkins I am grateful to the member for giving away. I just wonder if the member could explain that last comment. In what sense will it be too late for this Parliament to reject the Government's proposed rate resolution when it comes to this Parliament for us to make a decision about it? That does not make sense. Patrick Harvie We will be forced at some point to pass a resolution unless we want the tax to be levied at a zero rate. The alternative to this bill passing is that the Government still has ample time to introduce a bill that does have a sense of purpose within it, which sets clear duties on ministers, not just to have regard to certain factors, but to act in accordance with meeting the objectives that we have set ourselves, whether on the national performance framework or on climate change. If we pass a bill that includes no such constraints, no such constraints, then Parliament will simply have to nod through, even if on a second go, we will have to nod through what the Government proposes. We will have handed too much power to Government instead of to Parliament. Let's look at the consequences of that Government policy, which it has clearly committed to in advance of having any evidence on the social, economic or environmental impacts. We know from the limited work that the Government has done that it will increase aviation emissions. That, I think, is a given. At a time when the Paris agreement means that we should be increasing our scale of ambition on climate change rather than merely meeting those that we have already legislated for, that is not acceptable. We also know that it will have a socially unjust impact. As Neil Bebe mentioned, 70 per cent of all flights are taken by just 15 per cent of people, and most people in Scotland—most Scots—don't fly at all during any given year. Most people will be losers under that policy in any given year. We also know that there is a clear differential in income. In some of the research that we published just at the weekend, members can see by income distribution the propensity of people on low and high incomes to be frequent flyers. We shouldn't be at all surprised at that. We shouldn't be at all surprised that the wealthiest people are the most frequent flyers and the poorest people stand to gain the least from that tax giveaway. In terms of economic impacts, the Government has produced nothing to justify its empty assertions. We could be achieving an economic benefit instead of cutting £300 million from aviation taxes. We could be using that resource to ensure that people have reliable, affordable and decent public transport in Scotland. That would benefit the economy. It would do it in a socially just way and it would reduce climate change emissions. The Greens will oppose the bill today because it is not the bill that we should be passing. We should be passing a bill that has clear, strong constraints on ministers and ensures that it acts in accordance with the social, economic and environmental objectives that all of us have said that we believe in. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by Willie Coffey. I thank Bruce Crawford and his colleagues on the Finance and Constitution Committee, as well as all those who gave evidence to that committee for their work in scrutinising the bill. Perhaps in response to Patrick Harvie's comments, I should also perhaps declare an interest as the MSP that probably spends more time sitting on aeroplanes every given week with the obvious and jet-lad exceptions of Tavish Scott and Alasdair Allan. I certainly understand the case that is made for reducing taxis on certain types of air service. For example, as I have mentioned, route-serving, Orkney and other parts of the Highlands and Islands are already exempt from APD on outbound journeys, though not for reasons that I have yet to hear a convincing argument for on the inbound leg. Anomaly, I hope, will be addressed in due course. That is a very different proposition from that being argued by this Government and the Tory party in the context of the bill. The services that I am talking about are lifeline services, in some cases providing the essential link between NHS patients and the specialist treatment that they rely on. Even with APD exemption and the support of the air discount scheme introduced by my colleague Tavish Scott, those services are significantly more costly than those offered by the loudest advocates of the bill. I see no contradiction in continuing to argue for a retention, if not an expansion, of the current APD exemption on lifeline services while also questioning the economic, environmental and social justification for the kind of tax cut for the airline industry regularly being proposed by this Government. In the brief time available, let me touch on those three aspects. Firstly, in relation to the economic rationale, as others have said, the Finance Committee concluded that there simply is not the evidence to back up the minister's claim. The idea of having scrapping APD or ADT seems to have been plucked out of thin air by the SNP, with none of the assumptions underlying it being challenged or the costs being accurately assessed. At a time when budgets across the board are under huge pressures, when we are hearing weekly of crises in education, health and transport and a range of other key public services, we have an SNP Government with the support of the Tory party proposing a gift to the airline industry, a tax cut of up to £150 million a year, a down payment indeed for a tax cut twice that size somewhere down the line. Yet, with continued strong growth in the airline sector, as Neil Bibby rightly highlighted, how is it that SNP ministers have decided that this is the best use of scarce public resources? If the economic case is hard to stand up, the environmental justification is laid out cold. Last week, the Government published figures showing that the transport sector needs to start pulling its weight if we are to meet our medium and long-term climate change targets. No progress so far in reducing emissions, and the SNP and Tory plans to slash ADT won't make turning around this any easier. I give way to Bruce Crawford. I've heard from Liam McArthur about all the reasons why he doesn't want to cut the tax, but does that mean that, unlike stage 1, on this occasion, the Liberals will vote for the bill at the end of stage 3? Otherwise, your position is completely contradictory? I don't say that that's the point at all. As has been pointed out, there is an opportunity to bring forward a proper enabling bill that sets a structure within which any future decisions are taken. Passing a bad bill simply because the Government insists that now it needs to be passed is not a credible position, either. The Government seems to take comfort from the fact that only an additional 60,000 tonnes of CO2 will be pumped into our air each year. The notion that this is a mere nothing would be tenable if the UK Committee on Climate Change was advising us simply to slow the rate of growth in transport emissions, but it is not. It is explicitly and strenuously arguing for reductions to be delivered. Taken alongside the Government's acceptance of a 27 per cent growth in car usage, where in the transport sector do ministers expect emissions reductions to come from? Socialy, too, those proposals fly in the face of what the Government says it wants to achieve. The First Minister talks repeatedly about the need for sustainable economic growth and the case for greater equity, yet this tax cut can hardly be described as either sustainable or progressive. When budgets and services are being squeezed and squeezed hard, this Government's priority appears to be a tax break that will benefit at least those who are least well off. Last minute assurances that the economic, environmental and social concerns that I have outlined will be addressed do not cut it. Have regard provisions in a vacuum are more loophole than safeguard. The bill is not supported by evidence and gives SNP ministers carte blanche and shows that this Government has the wrong priorities, preferring tax breaks for the airline industry over investment in education and health. On that basis, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the bill. I welcome the chance to speak in the debate and I have enjoyed the contributions made by colleagues and witnesses as the bill will progress through the finance committee. Reducing the travel tax in air passengers by 50 per cent over the term of the Parliament will help Scotland to compete in more of a level playing field with other countries. It will boost international connectivity and it will help our national and local economies to grow. The UK's air passenger duty tax is the highest in the world in almost every category. For short-haul flights, it is almost 50 per cent higher than the next highest tax in place, which is in Greece. For long-haul flights, it is more than double the next highest, which is in Germany. For years, Scottish air passengers have been paying far and excessively their counterparts throughout the world, and I welcome the plans by the Scottish Government to address that and reduce the tax. When countries such as Ireland abandoned the air version of the tax in 2014, passenger numbers did grow in Dublin and also increased at the Irish regional airports too. Jonathan Hingles from Loganair, when giving evidence to the committee, said that there was clear evidence that regional airports benefited from the abolition of the tax. Although traffic grew in Dublin by about 40 per cent, there were flights serving Cork, Shannon and a host of other regional airports, among them more people, more tourism and more revenue for those local economies as a result, all confirmed by the managing director of Dublin Airport, Vincent Harrison. Just to show how Scotland has been disadvantaged by this policy, Ireland, with a million fewer people than we have, sees about 28 million passengers coming through Dublin each year plus increases throughout that country. Scotland, with its greater population, sees only 21 million passengers using Edinburgh and Glasgow combined. That tax reduction gives both of our biggest cities a very real chance to grow and develop their economies to compete with other similar European cities. It is increasingly important to us as we enter the Brexit negotiations. That brings me neatly to Prestwick airport in Ayrshire. Prestwick is a fantastic airport serving Scotland since the 1930s. It would stand again from the reduction in the tax as the Irish regional airports did. Indeed, Ryanair's Michael Leary, when asked at the British Irish parliamentary assembly in Dublin in March 14, about the prospect of the travel tax being removed in Scotland, said that he could more than double the passengers coming through Prestwick if this tax was to be abolished. Only in September last year, Mr Leary again said that, when scrapped, he could go from 5 million to 10 million passengers in two years. Only recently, as February, Ryanair again confirmed that it would bring more aircraft and more routes to Scotland, creating thousands of additional jobs. On the CO2 emissions issue, the Government as the Cabinet Secretary laid out does recognise an increase in emissions that will occur and is keen to work harder in other areas to help to meet its targets. However, we should remember, too, that aviation in Scotland accounts for only about 4 per cent of our total emissions, no thanks. We should remember that aviation in Scotland accounts for only about 4 per cent of our total emissions, and the additional emissions as a result of this measure were described as manageable by the UK's Committee on Climate Change. On jobs, the Edinburgh airport study found that, over five years, with a 50 per cent cut in place, we could be looking at an extra 3,800 jobs, 900,000 extra passengers and £200 million more coming into the Scottish economy. That would be a great benefit for Scotland and a huge spin-off for an airport like Prestwick, with the aerospace industry already well established there, along with its important fog-free status, making it a strategic airport of some importance for Scotland, as it also bids to gain spaceport status. The proposal to reduce and then eliminate this tax prevents Scotland from having a great economic opportunity, particularly as we will soon know the real cost of Brexit, while maintaining our commitment to manage climate change emissions. I hope that the bill will be passed tonight and that all passengers in Scotland can look forward to a better deal for a very pro of next year. This legislation is a completely logical step. Without it, there would be no tax on air travel, payable from airports in Scotland, from April 2018. In the earlier stages of the bill, the evidence that was heard from many interested parties, and particularly the airline industry, was that they wanted to see the mechanisms currently in place in the UK replicated as closely as possible in the initial term. As such, the bill is not dissimilar from the UK approach, with the only substantial difference being the new name. Thus, the Scottish Conservatives are, in general terms, supportive of the bill. Where it gets interesting, however, is in what the bill does not say. Last May, in their manifesto, the SNP said of air passenger duty, that when the power to do so is devolved, we will reduce the overall burden of APD by 50 per cent, with the reduction beginning in April 2018 and delivered in full by the end of the next Parliament. The finance secretary has been clear that he believes that cutting air passenger duty will boost growth and the Scottish economy. We think that he is right that a properly targeted reduction on ADT will achieve that. Many in the stage 1 debate certainly struggled to get to that conclusion. We can see why. On 1 March, the convener of the finance committee asked the finance secretary if the Government had undertaken any economic assessment of the impact of a 50 per cent cut in ADT. The cabinet secretary said that we have not commissioned any independent research of our own, but we have certainly looked at all the reports that have been provided. On 21 April, the Scottish Government commenced commissioning an independent economic analysis of its rate reduction plans to report in the autumn at the point when the Government sets out the tax bans. However, I find it deeply troubling that this is only being done at this very late stage. To my surprise and no doubt his consternation, I found myself agreeing with Patrick Harvey in the stage 1 debate where he said that we should make policy on the basis of evidence, not scrounge around to see whether we can work up some evidence after we have adopted a policy. The lack of such an assessment allows opponents to deploy arguments, such as that cutting APD is wrong because such a reduction might benefit the wealthy and that a reduction in ADT will automatically negatively impact the rail sector and the environment. In response, I would argue that just because one sector of society, those that suit others to pejoratively deem the wealthy might benefit, does not inexorably lead to a conclusion that it is a bad thing and should therefore be abandoned automatically. In particular, if we accept the argument that those who are wealthier fly, then aren't those exactly the sort of people that we want to attract to Scotland, to invest, to spend, to stimulate local economies and create growth. I note that the fundamental premise of what we might call environmental damage argument accepts that reducing the tax increases the number of flights. Bruce Crawford is right that this is vital economic activity. More flights, busier airports, more retail, more support services applied locally, catering, cleaning, reception facilities, taxis, buses and baggage handlers. It means a greater local economic contribution from more tourists. As for the modal shift from rail argument, it just does not fly in relation to long haul. The fact is—I apologise for that—many in the north-east have little option but to fly if they need to make journeys to London or the Midlands. Whether train is an unrealistic alternative, we should encourage flying and see Scotland as more than just the central belt. According to others in this debate, by retaining the tax at full rate, those least able to afford it are being precluded from flying, perhaps on their dream holiday abroad. Those with less resources, those businesses with less are forced to use a mode of transport that is not optimum for their requirements or not go at all. The arguments against the consideration of any form of tax cuts simply do not stack up. They appear to be based on a demonisation of one demographic and fail to embrace the opportunities that are presented by the bill. We now move to the closing speeches. I call James Kelly. I can give you up to five minutes, please. As we soar towards the end of the debate, I welcome the opportunity to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party and confirm that we will be supporting the bill at decision time tonight. We do so on the basis that we support the establishment of the ADT tax in order that it can be used positively. However, the establishment of that tax should not be used as a basis for introducing changes that will increase carbon emissions. It should not be used as a basis to take money out of the Scottish budget. It needs to be serious and critical analysis of any policy change that benefits flyers who are high earners. Some people in their communities do not have enough to afford a bus fare to the local job centre, so there are real questions that are going to have to be answered here. It has been quite an interesting debate. First of all, on the environmental consequences, there are two excellent speeches from Claudia Beamish and Liam McArthur. As Claudia Beamish said, any time that climate change is discussed in the chamber, there are always lots of warm words, and people are very supportive of the measures that are taken to reduce carbon emissions. However, by the Scottish Government's own statistics, there is a potential that if we reduce the ADT by 50 per cent, that will result in an increase of 50,000 extra tonnes of carbon emissions. There are consequences to the policy that does not sit with the policy objectives that have been announced in other Scottish Government portfolios. I think that Neil Bibby said some interesting questions when he raised the issue about who would benefit from the introduction of tax and reduction by 50 per cent. The top 20 per cent of earners would be 73 pounds better off, whereas the bottom 20 per cent would be only £4.50 better off. I think that there is a real issue around the fairness of that. The Government, in a sense, has not been able to tackle this part of the argument. You saw in the intervention that Patrick Harvie made to Derek Mackay about the consequences on the Scottish budget, where, essentially, the Government's approach seems to be, let's just look away now and we'll deal with it later. What I found really interesting about the debate is that it's the Tories that have actually advanced the arguments for the reduction of ADT rather than the SNP. Liam Kerr gave the game away in his speech, and he said effectively that he was saying, what's wrong with helping the wealthy? What's wrong with the cuts in ADT if there are wealthy people that benefit and so be it? That's the logic of the position, and that's got to be the challenge to those in the SNP benches that try to portray themselves as the voice of progressives in Scottish politics. The reality here is that you are going to be signing up to a reduction by 50 per cent in ADT, which will take £189 million out of the Scottish budget. The Tories are quite supportive of that approach because their position is, let's help those wealthy fliers, and that will therefore have an overall positive impact on the economy. However, if that means that we've got less teachers in our schools, that we've got less nurses in our NHS, so be it, is the attitude of the Tories. The challenge to the SNP has got to be, is that what you're signing up to? Is that what you accept? So, in summing up, Deputy Presiding Officer, Scottish Labour will support the setting up of this tax, but we will robustly challenge any proposals that raise carbon emissions, that take money out of the Scottish budget and aren't fair in proportionate in terms of the impact on our communities throughout Scotland. I call Adam Tomkins around five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In my five minutes, I mean to just say three quick things. Why we support the bill and why we support the Government's amendments at stage 2 and why they're very important and something about the policy that we've heard so many SNP members say this afternoon about the importance of cutting taxation in order to grow the economy. We support the bill, first and foremost, because we believe on these benches in fiscal devolution for this Parliament. We pushed hard for it in the Smith commission and we very strongly supported the view that the Smith commission took. Taxation on aviation was one of those taxes that should be devolved in full to this Parliament. The Smith commission said that the power to charge tax on air passengers leaving Scottish airports will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The really important word there is Parliament. It will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, not devolved to the Scottish Government. This was the floor. It was a very serious floor in the bill, as introduced earlier in this session. The bill, which is almost unique in British tax legislation, failed to define in the scope of the legislation the activity or behaviour that is to be taxed. It's perfectly normal for bans and rates of taxation to be determined by secondary instrument later on in the process, but it's very unusual and it should be absolutely discouraged for the scope of tax liability itself not to be transparent on the face of legislation that is introducing that tax in the first place. The convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, Bruce Crawford, mentioned this in his remarks a few moments ago, but failed to mention, of course, that he and his SNP colleagues voted against the recommendations of the Finance Committee that the bill should be amended at stage 2 to remedy this serious defect. We were nonetheless able to prevail upon the cabinet secretary that we were right and that the convener and his colleagues were wrong because, of course, the SNP don't have a majority on that committee any more, do they? Andy Wightman I thank the member for taking intervention. Can he explain why he didn't bring forward amendments at stage 3 to that effect? Adam Tomkins Didn't need to because the bill was amended at stage 2 in amendments that we supported in the Finance Committee at stage 2, so the bill now has remedied those defects that were identified by us in the early stages of the legislation. This is a defect that we didn't have in the LBTT legislation, it's a defect that we didn't have in the landfill tax legislation, it's a defect that isn't there in the current UK APD, passenger duty legislation, and I think it's a pity that the SNP sought to introduce such defective legislation into this Parliament, and indeed that the defects were supported by all of the SNP members on the Finance Committee earlier on. It's been a real pleasure in this debate, Presiding Officer, to listen to all of the SNP members talking about the importance of cutting tax to grow the economy. However, the question that I would have for those SNP members is why, in their view, is this an argument that pertains only to this tax? If cutting APD is good to grow the Scottish economy, and I wholeheartedly agree with the Cabinet Secretary that it is, and that it will be, and that we should get on with it and do it quickly, then why is the argument not also that cutting taxation more generally across the Scottish economy will be good for the Scottish economy, because it will grow the Scottish economy? I know that Labour members won't understand the argument, because Labour members have manifested time and time again this afternoon their complete inability to understand taxation. You cannot redistribute wealth within the economy unless you first create wealth in the economy. The argument here is not about redistribution, and fairness is an argument about creating wealth in the first place. We propose, Presiding Officer, to remove the air travel tax on flights longer than 2,000 miles. That will incentivise airlines to provide new direct links from Scotland to America, to China and to other global destinations, which would be important in the Scottish economy with or without Brexit, so that families and businesses do not have to travel via London's packed airports or via Amsterdam or other hub airports in Europe. We hope that the Cabinet Secretary will bring forward proposals that are based on these policies. We support an immediate freeze on air passenger duty or air departure tax on short-haul flights to the UK and Europe in order to ensure that passengers can also enjoy cheaper fares to destinations nearer to home. That is part of our economic strategy ahead of Brexit, which is focused on ensuring that Scotland gets connected to the global economy. International evidence for all the wailing to the contrary from the Greens and others does support the existence of a link between air travel demand and departure tax rates. In the Netherlands, for example, a departure tax was introduced in 2008, only to be scrapped two years later following dropping passenger and tourist numbers. Closer to home in Ireland, the Irish Government abolished its travel tax in April 2014, and annual airport traffic rose the next year by 3.3 million customers. The gap between Ireland and Scotland with regard to long-haul flights is obvious. In 2015, there were around 470,000 passengers travelling to or from the United States and Scotland, while in Ireland that number is over 2.5 million. We support the bill and we support the Government's underlying policy behind the bill of cutting the tax, not because we think that this is the only tax in Scotland that should be cut in order to grow the economy, but because we believe in the underlying principle of cutting taxation in order to grow the economy. I hope that the cabinet secretary now sees the wisdom of that. In my notes, I had said that, considering some of the controversy around the policy, there has been quite a constructive and consensual debate, and then Adam Tomkins contributed to debate pretty much every other party in the chamber, with the exception of the Liberal Democrats. Sticking with the Tories for just a moment, Liam Kerr made the point about policies-based in-evidence, but he did not mention Brexit. Maybe that is no surprise, because if only there was more evidence taken into account in that particular subject, I think that we would all be in a better position. However, Liam Kerr did not say the words that I agree with Derek Mackay. The most interesting contribution from Liam Kerr was to say that he agrees with Patrick Harvie on matters in relation to the bill. I know that that surprised many Conservatives that have just joined the chamber, but James Kelly is right to say that if we do not establish this bill, we will not be collecting any tax at all, so it is right to create the legislation that gives us the framework to enable us to be able to collect the tax. Of course, we will return to the tax decisions on that affirmative order, which is transparent and will be considered in a proactive way by Parliament. I have tried to engage on the structure of the tax and respond to the consultation. I recognise the issue that has been raised by a number of members over the course of the debate, including Liam McArthur, on the issue of the Highlands and Islands exemption, which is a significant issue. As transport minister, I was able to propose the increase of the air disc out scheme subsidy to 50 per cent, so I am well aware of the issues in the Highlands and Islands around aviation as a form of transport and its critical importance to those residents and communities. I say again that I am engaging with the UK Government to resolve the matter. I have a further call with the new chief secretary to the Treasury, where I will raise this and other matters to progress the issue of a like-for-like exemption for the Highlands and Islands. That is the aspiration of the Scottish Government, but the tax is one of the most expensive of its kind in Europe and the world. That is why it is right to try to deliver a level playing field to sustain what we have in Scotland and establish new routes, because we know that the industry and the airports are a dynamo to the Scottish economy, and we could do more with the powers that are coming our way. We will do it in a transparent way in a fashion that I have set out over the course of the debate. Neil Bibby criticised the airline industry, but at the same time welcomed airport growth—hardly surprising if you look at the region that Neil Bibby represents and is interested in welcoming airport growth, which is a surprise why he criticised the airline industry, considering the jobs that are so important in that area. However, we intend to meet our climate targets in terms of climate change. This Government is a strong track record of doing so, and we intend to meet our climate emission reduction targets and take that into account, take that policy and that modelling into account as we do that. That is why we will publish. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Again, his position would be more credible if the Government's own climate change plan set out very clearly how much it intends to allow aviation emissions to rise, either as a result of that policy or background levels of growth, and what actions it intends to take to compensate for those increased emissions. When will we hear any shred of detail about what the Government intends to do as a result of its measures to increase aviation emission growth? The Scottish Government has said and has reported that our advisers—the UK Committee on Climate Change has said that the modelling is manageable, that any increase in aviation emissions is manageable as part of that overall policy. Yes, we have acknowledged that it means that we have to work harder in other areas to do that, but we have a track record in delivering on this area and we will continue to do so while delivering on our commitments around boosting sustainable economic growth. The legislation today is about fulfilment of devolution, about the completion of new fiscal powers, about the structure of tax, and yes, in taking into account the recommendations of the committee, the exemptions and other matters as well. Further than that, the commitments that I have outlined in publishing analysis and assessments in a constructive fashion. Bruce Crawford is right. We want to show that Scotland is open for business. That fits within our economic strategy. It is about internationalisation and supporting business, tourism and growth in Scotland in a responsible way. That is why we will use our fiscal powers in a responsible way as outlined over the course of the debate. I say today that it is about establishing the enabling power, being able to come back with affirmative order to set the tax rates and bans where there will be further engagement, and I therefore invite the Parliament to approve the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill. That concludes our stage 3 debate on the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill. We will move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 5202 in the name of Derek Mackay on a financial resolution for the seat belts on school transport Scotland bill. I call on Derek Mackay to speak to you and move the motion. Thank you very much. The question will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is on the motion to pass the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill. Following the new procedures that we have introduced relating to protected subject matter, under rule 9.8.9, I am required to call a division on the motion to pass the bill at stage 3. That is because, even though I have decided that a supermajority is not required, we are required to record the result so that we can demonstrate in any circumstances the number of members who voted in favour of the bill. I hope that you follow that. I will now move immediately to the vote. The question is that motion 6164 in the name of Derek Mackay on the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill at stage 3 be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 6164 in the name of Derek Mackay is yes 108, no 11, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed and the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill is passed. The final question is that motion 5202 in the name of Derek Mackay on a financial resolution for the seatbelts on school transport bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed and that concludes decision time. I will now move to members' business in the name of Linda Fabiani on the Scottish Civic Trust. We will just take a few moments for members to change their seats.


Dr. Rahul Vagh, a consultant oncosurgeon at Manipal Hospital, Bane Pune. This patient, she had an penniless labrous lump which she has ignored for almost 5 years. Then eventually our physician found out there is a lump in her breast, we have done a further test and found out that this lump is cancerous. So we have done a staging workup and found out that it is localized to her breast. So we have proceeded with the surgery to remove that lump and the part of her lymph pulse in her axilla. Then she is completely recovered from her surgery, her postoperative post-animen pool, and finalist of the pathology report, that lump is very much localized to her breast and she doesn't need any adjuvant treatments, she can only be managed with endocrine therapy. I am Ushabhathri from Bane Pune and I am a Dr. Rahul Vagh, Dr. Rahul Vagh was trained to prevent this type of infection. I was diagnosed with breast cancer, but I had to go back to the hospital and then I had to go for an operation. After the operation, I had to go to the hospital. I had to go to the doctor. The nurses were also there. Hello, my name is Prasad Sathkar. I live in Banyat. When my mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer, we had a consultation with Dr. Surya Chimandra. She was also diagnosed with cancer. She was referred to by our poet and later on Dr. Rahul Baag. Dr. Rahul Baag was close to us. She was also diagnosed with malignancy. She was diagnosed with biopsy. I was diagnosed with biopsy. I had to go for an operation for 4 days. Unfortunately, I had malignancy. When I was diagnosed with cancer, I had to go for an operation. Naturally, I had to go for an operation. After the biopsy, I went to see Dr. Rahul Baag. He told me, I had to go for a surgery. He told me, I had to go for an operation. I had to go for an operation. I went to see him. I told him, I had to go for an operation. I had to go for an operation. They told me to get the surgery done. go ahead with the surgery. So, Dr. Vagani explained to us that there are some surgeries that are necessary for the surgery. Considering her age, some surgeries are suitable for her. So, we recommended her. Then we decided to go ahead with the surgery. So, we admitted her. The admission procedure was flawless. We thought that we would be able to take her to her home within 15 minutes. Next day, the surgery was done in the morning. Maybe around four hours, she was brought back to her room. And her anesthesia was not treated properly. And in fact, if her surgery was done properly, then there was no pain in her. So, they have taken really good care of her. Europe, when it comes to infrastructure, it's a new hospital. So, the infrastructure is very good. The staff is very courteous and quite responsive. Hospitality is a good thing for patients as well as attendants. Food is also good here. But overall, right from the detection until the surgery. Today, the discharge comes here. So, we are quite happy with overall infrastructure. The facilities provided, quality of treatment as well as nursing staff, as well as housekeeping staff. So, it has been a good experience. I would certainly recommend anyone to visit Maripara Hospital. Thank you so much. So, I just want to give a message that every women should undergo breast cancer screening after a certain age. And any, however painless it may be, should not be ignored and should be investigated.