 Rwyf i'n dwybod yn sgolos i gynnwysau iawn, yn y ddysgu eu busnes a'u debat yn ddebyg gifffodus 5283 o ddevidiau Mekai anfaachau ar yr Ardfynch y Tax Scotland Bill ar y diwrnodau. Rwyf i'n ddechu'r ddegwyd o'n ddeifat i siarad Ùn dechid IW, a ddeadwyd i ddechid Mekai i siarad i siarad i'r ddegwyd o ddechid, yn ddechid i ddegwyd. I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill. The devolution of powers over air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament was recommended by the Smith commission in November 2014. Following the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, the Scottish Parliament now has the power to legislate for air departure tax, which will replace APD in Scotland. In the programme for government, the Scottish Government announced that a bill would be introduced to establish a tax to replace APD in Scotland. The Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill was subsequently introduced on 19 December 2016, delivering on this commitment. Under terms agreed between the Scottish and UK governments and the fiscal framework, APD 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. Separately, the Scottish Fiscal Commission will assume responsibility 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. The bill establishes the general structure and operation of ADT, which is 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. Revenue Scotland, Scotland's tax authority for devolved taxes, will be responsible for the collection and management of ADT, as it has done efficiently and effectively since 1 April 2015 for Scotland's other currently devolved taxes, land and building transaction tax and the Scottish landfill tax. The bill, as introduced, also includes powers for Scottish ministers to set tax exemptions, tax rate amounts and tax bans through secondary legislation, and I will say more on exemptions later. Setting tax bans and tax rate amounts and subordinate legislation is consistent with the approach adopted in relation to other devolved taxes. The Scottish Government is seeking parliamentary approval for the bill in advance of the summer recess and, with the core foundations of the tax in place, will then bring forward tax rate amounts and tax bans through secondary legislation in the autumn. This secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise tax bans and tax rate amount proposals at a later date, and they cannot come into effect without Parliament's approval. In future years, tax bans and tax rate amounts— Of course, just after I make this point. In future years, tax bans and tax rate amounts will be set as part of the budget process, and it is consistent with existing practice for other devolved taxes. I give way. James Kelly I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. At what point in this process are you going to outline the cuts that are going to have to be made to the Scottish budget for the up to £189 million less that is going to be in the budget as a result of the introduction of a policy of reducing ADT by 50 per cent? Derek Mackay I am just coming to the policy intention and, of course, I will engage with the wider community, with Parliament, political parties and the sector to understand and outline our position. However, when it is clear that this Government has had a long-standing commitment to delivering a 50 per cent reduction in the overall burden of ADT by the end of this parliamentary session and to abolishing the taxes when resources are allowed, that is a long-standing position to support our economy. Those plans are a key part of the— Of course. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to the member, but you see that this is the central contradiction in the bill. The minister is now saying that they are going to conduct a discussion with all the parties, they are going to conduct economic analysis. Surely that is what you do before deciding what your tax policy is going to be. What on earth is the rationale for deciding on a tax policy before you have a clue what the impact of it is actually going to be? Derek Mackay The Scottish Government has been clear that we support this position and we have looked at the evidence and what has been asked to do is expand on independent evidence. I have said to the committee that I am willing to do that, but those plans are a key part of the Scottish Government's economic strategy, in particular boosting trade, investment, influence and networks, which is especially important given the economic threat posed by Brexit. Scotland's airports are competing on a world stage to secure new routes and capacity, and reducing the tax burden helps to ensure that there is a more level playing field, with many other European airports competing to secure the same airlines and similar routes. New routes will enhance business, connectivity and tourism. Again, what we are proposing today is the foundations of the tax. I will return to tax rates and bans in due course, as is the case with other devolved taxes. As is the case with other currently devolved taxes that the Scottish Government has taken, we will continue to take a consultative and collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders on how ADT should be structured and operated. We have published a policy consultation last year, which generated a range of views, and since then we have worked carefully to refine our legislative proposals reflecting on the responses received. In addition to that, we established a stakeholder forum in August 2015 at which I chair to provide input into the development of our policy and legislative proposals for ADT. Revenue Scotland is also taking a collaborative approach to stakeholder engagement and is actively working with aircraft operators and others on matters relating to the collection and management of ADT such as ICT and guidance. The Scottish Government has also listened to the responses from the Finance and Constitution Committee that it received during consideration of the bill at stage 1. I would like to thank both the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for the detailed scrutiny of the bill and for their conclusions and recommendations in their stage 1 reports. The Scottish Government welcomes the Finance and Constitution Committee's support for the general principles of the bill. Last Friday, I responded to all the issues raised in the recommendations that were made in the committee's report, and I would like to highlight some of the key aspects of that response. The Scottish Government agrees with the committee and stakeholders that it is important that our plans for ADT are supported by robust evidence and the impacts are monitored over time. Firstly, the Scottish Government has therefore commenced the commissioning of an independent economic assessment of the Government's plans for a 50 per cent reduction in the overall ADT burden by the end of this parliamentary session. If I can make some more progress, I will maybe take a further intervention. The assessment will report in the autumn, no later than when the Government sets out its secondary legislation plans for tax rates, amounts and tax bans. In addition to this analysis, a robust monitoring and evaluation framework will be put in place for assessing the economic impact of ADT in the future. Secondly, the Scottish Government has listened to the environmental concerns about our ADT plans, which have been raised by some respondents. The Scottish Government is already committed to undertaking a full strategic environmental assessment of our ADT reduction plans. An example of good practice, openness and transparency, the screening and scoping report was made available last year for full public comment. The next main step of the SEA process is to publicly consult on the Scottish Government's plan for an overall 50 per cent ADT reduction, along with an accompanying environmental report. The environmental report will outline the findings of the assessment of the plan against a wide range of environmental topics such as climate factors, air quality and biodiversity. As well as the SEA, the Scottish Government is currently undertaking quantitative assessments on the likely greenhouse gas emission and noise impacts of our overall 50 per cent reduction plan. The noise assessment will be published in the autumn, no later than when the Government sets out its secondary legislation plans for the ADT tax rates amounts and bans that will apply from 1 April 2018. So far, the finance minister has not mentioned the fact that Transport Scotland has concluded that this will mean 60,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions going into the atmosphere every year. Do you think that that is a rather important point that you seem so far to have omitted? Derek Mackay I am giving further detailed evidence to the committee and others. The Government has made it clear that, yes, we will need to work harder in other areas of the environment and in transport, recognising the impact on emissions from this policy, whilst also aiming to achieve our very ambitious climate change targets. Information will be published as supporting information to the SEA consultation on the Scottish Government's approach. If I can now turn to exemptions and the Highlands and Islands issue, a matter is very important to many. Although there is a case for considering exemptions alongside tax bans and tax rate amounts, an exemption effectively being a zero rate, the Scottish Government has listened carefully to stakeholders, the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee and will bring forward amendments at stage 2 providing for passenger and aircraft exemptions. I would like to, at this point, bring to Parliament's attention an important policy and legal matter concerning the introduction of an ADT exemption for passengers flying from Highlands and Islands airports. A similar exemption has applied under APD since 2001, and the Scottish Government strongly supports retaining a like-for-like exemption under ADT and is interested in suggestions made during stage 1 for enhancing the exemption. As ADT is a new tax devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, the Scottish Parliament is legislating for the first time on this matter. After careful consideration, the Scottish Government's view is that such an exemption has to be notified to and assessed by the European Commission under stated rules before it is implemented in compliance with European Union law. The Scottish Government will work closely with the UK Government to resolve this matter. The UK, as the EU member state, is responsible for notifying the exemption to the European Commission. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as Treasury, on this matter, and I am exploring alternative solutions. I will of course ensure that both Parliament and stakeholders are kept regularly updated on the matter. In conclusion, taken together, the provisions in the bill provide the basis for a tax that is well understood by taxpayers and is simple and efficient to collect and manage. The secondary legislation powers in the bill, subject in most circumstances to the affirmative procedure, provide sufficient legislative flexibility to make future changes to the tax in order to support key Government policies to reflect changing market conditions or in light of Revenue Scotland's operational experience of collecting and managing the tax. There is general support from stakeholders, and I support in this chamber to the principles of the bill and the establishment of a tax to replace APD in Scotland. I appreciate that, underneath that support, there are a range of views about whether or not the tax should be reduced and, indeed, how that tax reduction should be applied to maximise the economic benefit for Scotland. 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 then abolished when resources allow will deliver strong economic benefits for Scotland. I look forward to debating those and other issues this afternoon. I invite the Parliament to approve the general principles of the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill, and I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Up to eight minutes, please, Mr Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to speak on this debate as the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee. As I commence my contribution today, I would like to put on record my thanks to my fellow committee members for the constructive manner in which they went about the deliberations in regard to the ADT bill. I can also pay tribute to professionalism with the clerking team in assisting us in our scrutiny of the legislation and thank all of the stakeholders for their contributions. Their Departure Tax Bill marks another important step, perhaps a milestone or even darey set in new departure in the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016. The Finance and Constitution Committee, in scrutinising the bill, recognises that the bill is essentially an enabling bill. That is, the bill provides the means to tax passengers departing from Scottish airports where the UK air departure passenger duty is supplied in Scotland with effect from April 2018. Without that bill, passengers leaving from Scottish airports would be unable to fly and taxed. I note that some of you will think that that is a good idea but others will not. Whatever views exist, the committee supports the legislation enabling such attacks to be levied in Scotland. Patrick Harvie? I am grateful. I am sure that the convener of the committee would recognise that the accurate description would be that, if no such bill is passed, that would be the situation. We do not have to pass this bill. If the bill was to fall, the Government would be forced to come back with a better one. Bruce Crawford? You cannot deny that logic, so there is no point in having a fight about something that nobody would disagree with. However, the committee has made a range of recommendations in its stage 1 report on the bill, but I will not have time to address all those in my speech today. I do ever wish to comment on the three specific issues that emerged during the committee's scrutiny of the bill and where the committee considered improvements could be made. Those issues are firstly the evidence-based for the proposed 50 per cent reduction in ADT during the current parliamentary session, secondly, how outcomes will be monitored, and thirdly, how the exemptions to ADT will be dealt with. Although not actually part of the bill itself, the committee considered the Scottish Government's stated policy intention to reduce ADT by 50 per cent and ultimately to abolish ADT when resources allow. It is fair to say that, during the course of our deliberations, the lack of the required level of an evidence base regarding the economic impact of the proposed 50 per cent reduction was a recurring theme. As a result, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government commissioned an independent economic analysis of the proposed reduction in ADT. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary's response to the committee has confirmed that the Scottish Government has commenced the commissioning of such an independent economic analysis. To date, the Scottish Government has not set out the tax rates and bans for ADT that it intends to apply. At the same time as publishing the proposed tax rates and bans, the committee also recommended that the forecast of the impact of the proposed 50 per cent reduction on the Scottish budget to 2021-22 should be published alongside the rates and bans. Therefore, I welcome the Scottish Government's response that will provide a forecast of the impact on the Scottish budget at the same time as it sets out its secondary legislation bans for the ADT tax rates and bans that will apply from April 2018. In a similar vein, the Scottish Government is required to publish a strategic environmental assessment alongside the tax rates and bans. We consider that the Scottish Government should publish an analysis of the likely increase in carbon emissions arising from proposed 50 per cent reduction as part of the strategic environmental assessment. I welcome the cabinet secretary's response that a quantitative assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions will be published alongside the environmental report as part of the strategic environmental assessment. The committee also heard a wide range of evidence from witnesses citing examples from other countries where taxation on air travel has either been reduced or abolished. The committee welcomes the previous commitment from the cabinet secretary to provide further information on the experience of the Republic of Ireland and, in particular, the regional impacts in Ireland, which resulted from the decision to abolish aviation tax. Related to the issues of economic impact of the proposed 50 per cent reduction in ADT, it is how the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of the proposed reduction would be monitored. It is fair to say that there are a range of views on the committee with regard to the outcomes that may result from the proposed reduction. However, the committee was unanimous in recommending that the socio-economic and environmental outcomes arising from ADT should be regularly evaluated and reported upon to Parliament every second year. The cabinet secretary has indicated previously in evidence to the committee that the Scottish Government also thought that it would be helpful to consider an evaluation of the outcomes arising from the proposed reduction in ADT. To this end, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should bring forward amendments at stage 2 to place a duty on ministers to this effect. In that regard, while I note that the Scottish Government does not intend to bring forward amendments at stage 2, I welcome the fact that the independent economic impact analysis will also include consideration of the best way to design a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the socio-economic and environmental impacts of ADT. Lastly, the third matter that I wish to address is the issue of exemptions and the absence in the bill of the detail of the exemptions to ADT, which the Scottish Government intends to apply. The Scottish Government has indicated that it intends to deal with the issue via secondary legislation. There were a range of views on the committee with regard to the most appropriate legislative route that should be taken to address that issue. However, the committee did recommend, albeit by division, that the Scottish Government should bring forward the detail of the exemptions that it intends to apply at stage 2. I therefore welcome the commitment that the cabinet secretary has given that the Scottish Government will indeed bring forward amendments at stage 2 detailing the exemptions to definitions of chargeable passengers and chargeable aircraft that the Scottish Government intends to apply. I understand that it will not be possible to bring forward an amendment relating to passengers flying from all Highlands and Islands airports, as that will require to be notified to and assessed by the EU under the state aid rules. I want to put on record the committee's appreciation for the constructive engagement that we have had with the cabinet secretary and officials in supporting our scrutiny of the bill and I welcome the commitments that the cabinet secretary has made in his opening statement and in his letter of 21st April in response to the committee's report. In conclusion, the committee supports the general principles of the bill. I now call Martin Fraser up to seven minutes please, Mr Fraser. I start by echoing the thanks that the Finance and Constitution Committee convener has given to all those who give evidence to the committee, to the committee clerks and to Spice for all their assistance in relation to the preparation of the stage 1 report. As we have heard, with a few notable exceptions, the deliberations of the committee on the issue were largely consensual. The background to the bill, as the convener has pointed out, is the devolution of air passenger duty to Scotland as part of the package of devolution being put through by the current UK Conservative Government in response to the Smith commission report. That allows the Scottish Parliament to decide to take a different route in relation to the taxation of air travel should it choose to do so. The bill before us simply creates a mechanism for the collection of attacks. Were the bill not to be implemented then, as from next year, there would be no tax on air travel payable from airports in Scotland. Therefore, it makes sense to have legislation providing a framework to be put in place for the continued collection of a duty from air passengers. What the bill does is largely reflect the existing framework in place at the UK level for air passenger duty. Patrick Harvie On the face of it, I do not disagree with the basic description that Mr Fraser has given, but can he recall any other situation in which a Government has proposed legislation to create a tax that the Government itself basically thinks ought not to exist? I thank Mr Harvie for his intervention. I appreciate that Mr Harvie will be unhappy this afternoon. The proposal combines two things that he likes least in the world. One of them is aviation and the other is tax cuts. To put them together in one bill must be horrendous for poor Mr Harvie in the course of this particular afternoon. We have not had much experience to try and answer his point of the Scottish Government dealing with taxation. Nothing would surprise me, frankly, about the Scottish Government's approach to taxation, but we will learn more in due course. If I could go back to what I was saying before I was interrupted. The framework of the tax, the evidence that we have from all the interested parties, and particularly the airline industry, who are responsible for the collection of the tax, is that they do not want to see a completely different framework established for Scotland. What they want to see are the mechanisms currently in place being replicated as closely as possible. Therefore, there was no appetite that we detected on the committee in taking evidence for creating a wholly new tax on the different braces from the air passenger duty that currently exists. Indeed, the only substantial difference seems to be that the tax has been given a different name. It has been called air departure tax, rather than air passenger duty, and cynics might suggest that it is simply an exercise in changing the name for the sake of it, rather than the reflection of any different approach in practical terms. The Scottish Conservatives are supportive in general terms of the bill, and we will be happy to support the general principles at decision time tonight. There is one principle concern that we raised during stage 1 that my colleague Adam Tomkins raised when we were taking evidence on a number of occasions. That is reflected in the stage 1 report. I will make some progress if I can. I will give away later if I have some more time. As Bruce Crawford pointed out, the bill does not stipulate the exemptions to the definitions of chargeable passenger or aircraft. In other words, it does not identify which category of passenger and aircraft will not be subject to the tax. As the report says, this is unusual in tax legislation, where the scope of taxation is provided for in primary enactments. This is different to the setting of rates and bans that is normally left to secondary taxation. The equivalent legislation at the UK level is contained in the Finance Act 1994, where the exceptions to APD are set out and is also reflective of the approach that is taken with other devolved taxes such as lands and buildings transaction tax. As we have heard by a majority, the committee agreed that the Scottish Government should take forward amendments at stage 2 to insert detailed permission for exemptions from the definition of chargeable passenger and chargeable aircraft. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has indicated that it accepts that point and that it will bring forward stage 2 amendments in that respect. Much of the evidence that was taken by the committee addressed the policy intent of the Scottish Government to pursue a 50 per cent reduction in air departure tax in order to stimulate economic growth. That point is not covered in the bill itself, as the setting of rates and bans will be contained in subsequent legislation. What was clear from the evidence that was taken by the committee was that there was a lack of an appropriate evidence base for the economic benefits of cutting ADT. Edinburgh airport had themselves commissioned an economist report showing economic advantage from reducing ADT, but beyond that, it is fair to say that there was a lack of independent economic assessment. All those who gave evidence from whatever side of the argument agreed that such independence assessments would be welcomed. The committee's recommendation was therefore that independent economic analysis of the proposed reduction in ADT should be published at the same time or ahead of the Scottish Government proposing its approach in relation to ADT tax rates and bans. Of course, the Scottish Government has accepted that point. The committee had similar views in relation to the environmental impact of cutting ADT. Again, that is something that should be addressed by the Scottish Government and they have accepted that point, too. The Scottish Conservative view in ADT is that we would support an overall 50 per cent reduction in ADT rates, but our preference would be to see this targeted on long-haul flights where we would believe that the greater economic benefits would derive. The evidence shows that those travelling long-haul tend to stay in Scotland longer and have more money to spend. The economic benefit to Scotland would therefore be greater by encouraging the growth of long-haul flights and, moreover, by cutting long-haul, there would be the opportunity to attract more long-haul operators to base themselves in Scotland, avoiding the need for passengers to make connecting flights from Scotland to other hub airports such as Heathrow or Schiphol, which in itself might prove an environmental benefit. The committee heard evidence that, although reducing ADT on domestic or short-haul flights might have a negative environmental impact by encouraging more of a shift away from surface travel towards air, the same would not necessarily apply to long-haul flights. For example, Virgin Trains, in their evidence, told the committee of their concern that cross-border rail journeys between Scotland and London, in particular, would be less competitive with air travel if domestic air TTT were to be reduced. However, Virgin Trains were not opposed to reduction in long-haul ADT. Indeed, they believed that encouraging more visitors to the UK through such a move would be complementary to the expansion of rail travel within the UK. I believe that, for economic and environmental reasons, a cut in long-haul as opposed to a cut across the board would make sense, but we accept the need for a stronger evidence base and we look forward to seeing the Scottish Government bringing forward that evidence when it sets out its own case for rates and bans in due course. Neil Bibby, up to seven minutes, please. Every party represented in the Parliament today is a signatory to the Smith agreement and has been mentioned by all the previous speakers as part of that agreement. A commitment was given supported by all parties to devolve to this Parliament power over taxing the carriage of passengers from Scottish airports. That commitment should be honoured, and it is for that reason that the Scottish Labour will vote to allow the bill to progress beyond stage 1 today. The bill, as has been said, is an enabling bill and an enabling bill supported in principle by the Finance and Constitution Committee. It is a bill that is required if we as a Parliament to give the Scottish Government the authority to switch on a new air departure tax when air passenger duty is switched off here in Scotland next year. For us, endorsing the bill at stage 1, therefore, means endorsing the principle that the Scottish Government should levy its own air departure tax, in line with the conclusions of the Smith commission. It does not mean, in any way, endorsing the approach that is set out by the Scottish Government as to what rates and bans of air departure tax should be. Scottish Labour object to the Scottish National Party's plans to effectively cut air passenger duty in half and then phase the tax out entirely. We will vote against cuts to ADT rates when the time comes. We support an air departure tax bill because we believe that there should be an air departure tax. However, we oppose a tax cut for the aviation industry because it is the wrong priority at the wrong time. Across Scotland, our schools and local services are facing hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts. At a time when we should protect the services that people rely on and find new ways to invest in our communities, it is absurd that that should be the SNP Government's priority. It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government cannot tell us now what the impact its proposals to cut the tax will be on the budget. Since 2011, the Government has cut £1.5 billion from schools and local services. I will say that again—£1.5 billion—£117 million of which have fallen in Renfrewshire, where the finance secretary and I represent. Across Scotland, SNP cuts threaten schools, care services, road repairs and more. There are public sector workers who cannot afford to make ends meet and there are many local services that our councils cannot afford to sustain, yet the SNP tells us that they can afford to make a business class flight cheaper. It is estimated that the value of this tax break could be as high as £189 million. The key question, as James Kelly posed earlier for the finance secretary, is what will be cut to pay for this. That will have to fall somewhere. Will it be schools, hospitals or bus pass cuts for the elderly? Is it time for the SNP to be honest about their plans? Or is it just going to be £189 million of unspecified cuts that we are set to see over the next few years? A 50 per cent cut in APD will also not make Scotland any fairer. Analysis from the Office of National Statistics indicates that halfing APD would save the top 20 per cent of the endless £73, while saving the poorest on average is only £4.50. It stores on higher incomes, we fly more often, and so it stores on higher incomes, which would benefit the most from any cut. Not while a 50 per cent cut or the phasing out of air departure tax completely makes Scotland any greener. The Scottish Government itself accepts that this could lead to a 3 per cent increase in aviation emissions, which could have a severe negative effect on our climate. Leaders of every party that is represented here today has signed up to the climate change agreement that is committing us to building a low-carb transport system for Scotland. Incentivising air travel at the expense of cross-border rail contributes nothing to the fight against climate change. The finalist committee, as has been said, recommended that the Scottish Government should publish an analysis of the likely increase in carbon emissions arising from the proposed tax break. The committee also recommended that amendments should be brought forward at stage 2, placing a duty on ministers to report on the socio-economic and environmental outcomes arising from air departure tax every second year. We should go further ensuring that stronger safeguards are written into the bill at stage 2. The Scottish Government has not presented us with a convincing case that a tax cut will make Scottish aviation any more competitive. It decided on what the policy is before considering the full facts and the arguments. It is only now commissioning the research to back up its claims. We can tell now that changing the tax regime will not, in itself, boost connectivity or improve our infrastructure. There was some discussion at the finance committee around the Irish experience of abolishing APD, because the Irish experience is interesting. The growth in passenger numbers, often attributed to the tax cut there, coincided with growth in passenger numbers right across Europe, including here in Scotland. It is not clear at all that tax cuts were a stimulus for growth. As Chris Day from Transform Scotland pointed out, it is noticeable that the upturn in flights at Dublin was in hand before Ireland abolished APD. Here in Scotland, Edinburgh airport recorded an 11 per cent increase in passenger numbers in 2016, despite existing APD regime being in place. Regularly, we see motions from MSPs across the chamber welcoming new routes and record passenger numbers at their local airport, celebrating the success of Scottish airports. However, at the same time undermining the minister's case that an ADT cut is a necessity. There is no evidence that the Scottish Government's chosen approach to air departure tax will make Scotland any fairer, greener or more economically resilient. In fact, next to no evidence has been produced in support of the Scottish Government's case at all. The finance committee has said unequivocally in the stage 1 report. It says, quote, that there was considerable consensus across all spectrums of opinion that the evidence base underpipining the proposed reduction-required development, the proposed reduction in ADT currently lacks an adequate evidence base. Finally, the Scottish Government says that it is in their intention to listen and to consult before setting ADT rates and bans later this year. However, we already know from the existing Scottish Government consultation that there is widespread opposition to their proposed tax cuts. If, following a consultation that Mr Mackay finds, yet again, there is opposition to an ADT cut, will the finance secretary abandon his plans for a new-line tax giveaway? We welcome an answer to that question. Will he listen to the majority? It is not often that the SNP does that. We will support the introduction of an air departure tax today, but we will not support the proposals to cut that tax, which for months the Scottish Government has been unable to justify. Instead, let us use the powers of the Parliament to create a fair, proportionate and stable air departure tax regime. We now move to the open debate, and we have absolutely no time in hand, so can I ask for some self-discipline from speakers, please? We have Marie Todd to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As of next year, the Scottish Parliament will set the tax rates on a new Scottish air departure tax. That will present the Government with an opportunity to design a tax around the needs of the Scottish economy and to boost international connectivity and to help to generate sustainable growth. Our current level of air passenger duty, as the UK tax is known, is one of the highest of the taxes of this kind in the world, and it is the highest of its kind by far in Europe. Our Government has done a manifesto commitment of reducing this tax, which would put Scottish airports in a mode even footing with many other European airports, who hope to secure the same airlines and routes as our local airports do. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to helping our airports to secure new international connections, and I hope that we will be successful in securing new links with Europe, new long-haul routes and good connections to world hubs. That will show that Scotland is open and ready to do business on an international stage. Many submissions to the committee claim that an ADT reduction will lead to an increase in routes capacity and passengers. Several airlines such as Easyjet and Ryanair have already confirmed that, as they are already making commitments to increase their presence in Scotland if such a reduction is implemented. That offers the prospect of a significant boost to our economy, helping businesses, creating jobs and boosting tourism, all of which should be welcomed. In my region, particularly in the islands, air travel is not a luxury. It is a necessity for businesses and for communities. It is often the simplest and most practical way of getting where you need to be. For many folk in the islands, air travel is essential for both people's professional and private lives. Many people who fly to and from the islands, from other parts of Scotland, do so out of necessity rather than choice. In evidence given to us at committee, they said that one in four passengers who travel on routes from Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberdeen to the islands are funded directly by a public service such as councils or the NHS, which funds patients and staff who need to travel. When I worked for the NHS, I regularly had to fly from Inverness simply to be able to do my job. Choosing to fly is the difference between one day off work and three days off work for an education session in London. Loganair alone carry about half a million passengers a year on routes that are exclusively in Scotland, and all but one of those routes crosses a body of water. In many of those routes, trains will not be a viable travel option, and all other alternatives will often be significantly more time-consuming and impractical than flying. Even from an environmental perspective, in particular on those routes where trains are not an option, for example travelling between Edinburgh and Lerwick, to travel by car and ferry could generate more emissions than a direct air journey. Clearly, it is important for the local economy that the current exemption for flights to the highlands and islands that depart from Glasgow, which depart from the highlands and islands under APD, is continued in the new tax. The exemption ensures that there is no added expense for this essential travel, and I am really pleased to see that the Scottish Government supports this in principle and hopes to implement it so long as it complies with state aid law, as any exemption of this sort rightly should. There is an obvious concern that a reduction in air departure tax would lead to an increase in aviation admissions due to the additional number of routes and flights operating in Scotland. I welcome the prospect of additional investment and economic activity as a result of that reduction, but, as someone who is committed to addressing climate change, I would be concerned by any suggestion of a significant increase in admissions. I am comforted by the fact that the Committee on Climate Change has found that any increase in emissions as a result of this change is likely to be manageable. The Government's ADT consultation paper estimated that a 50 per cent reduction in tax would lead to a maximum increase in aviation admissions of around 3 per cent, which would be an increase of only 0.1 per cent of total Scottish emissions. Patrick Harvie? I am grateful to the member for giving away, and while I do not dispute the figures, we all have a responsibility, including all industries, to make a serious contribution to reduced emissions. Is there any other industry that the member would like to give a free pass to? Marie Todd? No, that is the short answer. I do not think that it is giving a free pass to the air industry. I think that the benefits of this policy—I think that you have to look at the policy in the round and you have to look at dealing with the emissions in the round as well. It is important for us to recognise that this increase would not be significant enough to affect the Government's intention to reduce overall transport emissions by a third between 2014 and 2030. I welcome that ambition, and I am really glad that a reduction in air departure tax would not affect that target. The Government has given both the environmental impact of this policy and its financial implications thorough consideration thus far and has given assurances that it will continue to do so as this policy moves forward. As a newly devolved tax, this will be the first time that this Parliament has been able to make changes to this particular area of taxation, and it is absolutely vital that we consider any potential changes from all relevant angles before they are implemented. I have Liam Kerr to be followed by Willie Coffey, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When travelling down on Sunday, I was thinking, what can I say about the air departure tax Scotland bill at stage 1? Then I thought, as is often the problem when following Murdo Fraser, what more is there to say? For the bill, it simply introduces an air departure tax. At the same time as the current APD will be switched off, it simply creates a mechanism for the collection of attacks. Do the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the air departure tax Scotland bill at stage 1? Yes. However, there is more to say. Because where there is more to say is in what the bill doesn't say. Last May, in their manifesto, the Scottish National Party said of air passenger duty, quote, when the power to do so is devolved, we will reduce the overall burden of APD by 50% with the reduction beginning in April 2018 delivered in full by the end of the next parliament. The finance secretary is on record as believing that cutting air passenger duty will boost growth. When announcing the policy, Derek Mackay said that the proposed 50% cut is a fundamental component of our efforts to boost Scotland's economy through generating sustainable growth. I spoke in the Scotland's economy debate the other week and said that we need a road map, a plan to revitalise our economy in Scotland. It is always dangerous to assume anything in politics, but one thing I and I think the rest of the committee were pretty hopeful of was that the Government and the SNP, when setting that manifesto, must have had sufficient evidence to make such a bold assertion about the impact of this policy. When the finance secretary appeared before the committee on 1 March, the convener asked if the Government had itself undertaken any economic assessment of the impact of a 50% cut in ADT. The answer from the finance secretary was instructive. He said, to the best of my knowledge, we have not commissioned any independent research of our own, but we have certainly looked at all the reports that have been provided, and we have also looked at the experience in Ireland. Then we got a letter dated 21st of April, in which the Scottish Government stated that it has now commenced the commissioning of an independent economic analysis of the 50% reduction plans to report in the autumn at the point when the Government sets out the tax bans. Good, but, Deputy Presiding Officer, this isn't good enough. This bill in its totality is a major piece of legislation. It is potentially a major change to the airline industry, airports, possibly the economy, possibly the environment and the macroeconomic UK picture. We think that Derek Mackay is probably right that a reduction on ADT properly targeted will boost Scotland's economy, but isn't it deeply troubling that firstly to date the Scottish Government has done no assessment, commissioned no independent economic analysis of its own, to assess the economic or the environmental impact of the plan? Secondly, based its plans on those reports that have been provided to it, while also extrapolating principally from a country that, in many respects, is completely different to the Scottish situation. Andy Wightman I thank the member for giving way. The member says that the Scottish Government hasn't done any economic analysis of its plans. What economic analysis has the member done of his plans? Liam Kerr I think that Andy Wightman makes my point for me. We've asked the Government to bring forward its plans. It has set a manifesto commitment. We've looked at the extensive evidence that was provided to the committee and looked through it, but we're not putting the policy forward. There is something else that I want to address here. Currently, as Marie Todd points out, there is an air passenger duty exemption for passengers flying from Highlands and Islands airports. Derek Mackay in his speech talked of as a principal, the Scottish Government strongly supporting retaining a like-for-like exemption and wants to extend it. He has concluded that the removal of APD from air passenger transport in Highlands and Islands is a good way to support the area economically. We had David Horan from Virgin Trains come in, and he warned the committee of his various concerns about modal shift if he starts doing things with air passenger duty. The Scottish Government needs to be careful of modal shift in the central belt, whether train is an unrealistic alternative or not the right means of transport for a local economy, such as in the north-east or in the Highlands, as Marie talked about, oughtn't we to encourage flying as they are trying to do in the Highlands and Islands? The fact is that many of my constituents in the north-east have little option but to fly if they need to make journeys to London or the Midlands. Aberdeen Airport has suffered badly through the oil downturn, with passenger numbers only now recovering, following two years of month-on-month decline. When I asked in committee why an exemption couldn't be considered for Aberdeen Airport in the same way as it is for the Highlands, Mr Mackay told us that it wouldn't happen and wouldn't even be considered. His view was that the best way to achieve the strategic objectives of boosting air connectivity and generating sustainable economic growth is to apply ADT equally to all areas and airports, and a differentiated approach is likely to increase complexity, administration and difficulties in compliance. However, those propositions clearly do not marry, and I find it deeply concerning that the Government will dismiss one proposition without investigation simply for expediency and apparent ease while pursuing a differentiated policy fraught with complexity and EU red tape simply because that's the way it's always been and an assumption that is the way it should stay. Deputy Presiding Officer, I said at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives were backing the bill before us today, and it's clear why. There really isn't much of substance in the bill to oppose, but what is much more interesting, which of course I use as a euphemism for concerning, is what is not included, what has been assumed, what has been decided without independent investigation. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate in support of the Government's proposals to reduce and then eliminate the passenger duty, the tax imposed by the UK Government on people every time they fly. The UK imposes the highest taxes than anywhere else in Europe. In fact, more than three times the rate that France applies on around double what Germany and Italy charges there, citizens. Since the tax was introduced in 1993 by the Tory Government at the time, the tax rate for long-haul trips for the lowest class of travel has increased by a spectacular 630 per cent and raises about £3 billion a year. So, when Scotland reduces the tax from as early as April next year, it will place us in a much more competitive position and will mean that our version of this tax will be much lower than it is in England and Wales. In fact, England and Wales would remain the most expensive for banned B economy flights, while Scotland would drop to ninth in that category. The boost that cut in this tax initially by 50 per cent could bring to Scotland will be significant. It helps us to achieve a more level playing field with the other European airports, and the shift to Scotland of many of those flights would make a significant economic impact for us, too. I am happy to take James Kelly's intervention. Thank you, Mr Coffey, for taking the intervention. You are outlining all the money that is going to be saved in tax—£189 million a year is going to be taken from the Scottish Government budget. What areas are going to be cut to find additional revenue? Thanks for raising that, Mr Kelly. Labour seems to be completely overlooking and forgetting the economic impact that it will have. When I come to Prestwick airport, I would hope that Labour and Mr Kelly would support the investment and the growth in jobs that it could bring to the earth's economy. That perhaps explains to Mr Kelly and Labour why there are no MPs and no MSPs in that county of this part of Scotland. If I could continue. EasyJet has said that it will increase capacity in Scotland to accommodate an extra £1.5 million passengers, and Ryanair, on top of its 17 new routes, has said that it will add a further million passengers when the 50 per cent cut takes place. The impact on abolishing air travel tax in Ireland has been significant, not just for the city of Dublin. Since its third tax was abolished in 2014, Dublin has seen the highest rate of passenger growth in Europe, with year-on-year rises of about 15 per cent. As a direct response to abolishing the travel tax in Ireland, Ryanair introduced 25 new routes and guaranteed an extra £1.2 million passengers each year. Dublin handles about 28 million passengers per year compared to Edinburgh, around £12 million and Glasgow at £9 million. However, the regional airports in Ireland have benefited too, with increased frequency serving Cork, Shannon and Donegal. Dublin's managing director said that the growth in passenger numbers has had a significant impact on the whole Irish economy, with higher visitor numbers and increased trading investment coming in. According to airlines UK, when Netherlands abolished its aviation tax in 2010, we saw an increase of 20 million departing from Dutch airports. The Edinburgh airport study here suggested that, by 2020, the policy will create nearly 4,000 new jobs and bring about £200 million extra to the Scottish economy. However, it is not just Edinburgh and Glasgow who would benefit from the cut in this tax in Scotland. Prestwick in Ayrshire stands to benefit from the tax reduction, as have the Irish regional airports. In 2014, at a meeting of the British Irish parliamentary assembly that I attended, Ryanair's Michael O'Leary said that, if Scotland was to abolish what he described as a mindlessly stupid policy, he could double passenger numbers at Prestwick alone. Only a few weeks ago, Ryanair said that scrapping of the tax will enable Ryanair to base more aircraft in Scotland, add more routes and create thousands of additional jobs—a huge opportunity for Prestwick and the wider Scottish economy. Prestwick currently contributes about £16 million a year to the Scottish economy, and it is well placed, as members will know, to become the front-runner in the site selection to become the UK's first spaceport due to its existing facilities, infrastructure and meteorological conditions. It would be welcome if all parties in Ayrshire got behind Prestwick airport and distanced themselves from comments made by Ayrshire Tory councillor who said that Prestwick airport should shut. In terms of our committee's examination of the Government's proposals, 11 of our 12 members supported the general principles, while asking the Scottish Government to provide more analysis of the economic and environmental impacts of the policy. I am pleased to note that the economic assessment that all members seek will be carried out and published no later than the autumn of this year, as the cabinet secretary said in his opening speech. On the emissions issue, I expect that other colleagues will want to focus in on this a bit more closely, but we did hear that the policy could give rise to an increase of 3 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions, representing around 0.1 per cent in total Scottish emissions, which was described as managed by the UK Committee on Climate Change. The economic opportunities that the policy brings to Scotland and to Prestwick airport in particular are immense. The Irish experience is that for every additional million passengers that they have achieved, they have managed to create an extra thousand jobs. That will be a fantastic boost for Scotland and for Prestwick, and I am delighted to back in Scottish Government's proposals to reduce and then get rid of the travel tax. Neil Findlay to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. There are many competing priorities for any Government. There are so many areas of our society that need urgent attention, attention of both government and this Parliament. The public services that civilise our society are under huge pressure with many at breaking point. Whether it is the school system that educates our children, the care service that looks after our elderly and vulnerable citizens or the police who keep our streets safe, they are all under pressure like never before. In those areas should be the priority for this Government and this Parliament, but clearly they are not. The First Minister says that her priority is education in closing the education attainment gap, yet she cuts the budgets of councils and colleges year on year on year. The Government has overseen the loss of 130,000 college places, cuts lecturn staff and failed to implement national bargaining and we are going to see strike action, all of this driven by over 200 million cuts to the budget. So where is the bill or legislation to address these issues? What about our local services? 1.8 billion has been cut from council budgets since 2010. That is a 16 per cent cut to our local communities, social services, schools and environment. No legislation, no bill to address those issues, certainly if you want to expand. Murri Todd Can I ask the member if he welcomes the commitments that are already made by commercial airlines to bring more business to Scotland as a result of the policy? I will move on to that point in a minute, but the point that I was making is that all of those issues that I have raised are down to the political choices made by the Government. Excuse me, Mr Finlay, could you move on to address the motion that is under discussion? All down to the political choices made by this Government. Because what I would have expected is bills to address that, but what have been the bills brought forward? There have been a bill on independence, surprise, surprise and then a bill on air passenger duty. Yes, with a plan to set up a system and bureaucracy to administer it, but behind it a plan to cut it, then eradicate it completely. That is the plan. We are in a period where our public services are crying out for investment, where cuts are crippling services and jobs are being lost by tens of thousands. What is the action of this Government? Is it to take a progressive position, raising money from those who can afford it to pay for services to help those in need? Or is it to address the crisis in those public services? No, it is to rip another two to three hundred million of scarce revenue from those services, while handing a £73 at minimum tax cut a year to the wealthiest people and a £4.50 tax cut to the least wealthy. On which planet is that progressive or fair? I will give way to the finance secretary if he wants to tell us how the policy he promotes is progressive. There you go, glued to his chair. The finance secretary can't answer that because he knows that it's not. Here's Merlin going to tell us how it's progressing. It says a lot that the member has to invite you by making some sort of insult. I would certainly say to Neil Findlay that he does not care for the employees of, for example, Edinburgh airport, who are trying to make an economic success of that, which is part of our connectivity, our economic success story, and ensuring that we continue to grow our economy in a way that's good for everyone, not least those who happen to be employees of airports and airlines. Neil Findlay defeats his argument, because Edinburgh airport is hugely successful without that cut, but you don't champion the public services that are crying out for the investment that's going to disappear. No mention of that, Mr Mackay, and you have still to tell us where the cuts will land. On which planet is the 50,000, 60,000, whatever it is, extra tonnes of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere consistent with the Government's stated environmental policies? Again, there appears to be some magic trick going to be done where we have all of these increased flights, and yet there will be no impact on the environment. 13 per cent of greenhouse gases come from travel, and the Government's analysis shows that there's an effect. The effect of the cut will be to increase their travel and the associated emissions by more than 50,000 tonnes. The minister cannot explain how that is progressive, and he most certainly cannot explain how that is good for the environment. If we go back to why APD was introduced, it was because the aviation industry was heavily undertaxed, not subject to that, and yet this Government wants to give more tax giveaways for the industry. I am firmly, absolutely firmly, off the belief that this Government is completely in the grip of the aviation sector. There is no evidence that a cut in APD is beneficial to the economy. There may indeed be a loss of income from domestic tourism, and there is no evidence to support that cut. That is a Government that claims to implement evidence-based policy. The finance minister is throwing away £230 million on a wing and a prayer. Is there any surprise that Murdo Fraser and the Tories support it on a day that they want to rip tax credits from rape victims who want to give a big tax cut to the aviation industry? I remind members that they should always speak through the chair and not to each other, and I have Patrick Harvie to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by echoing the thanks of Bruce Crawford to our committee colleagues, the clerking team and support staff, and to our witnesses during the stage 1 inquiry. I did not expect to like the bill. I should imagine that the cabinet secretary did not expect me to like it either. A few things have surprised me during the process. One surprise is the additional delicious irony of debating the bill at stage 1 just before a debate on earth hour, where everyone will pat themselves on the back about the lovely little symbolic gestures that we are making. I have even seen press releases over the last month from airline companies saying how great they are because they switched the lights off in their corporate headquarters for an hour for the planet. Aren't they good? No, they are hypocrites, and so is anyone else who takes that kind of stance. I was also surprised in a way that the bill is so close to being one that I could support. I think that confusion at the heart of the Government's policy intention is the reason for that. Normally, when we see a Government bill, you would see a policy memorandum that says what the objective, what the purpose of the legislation is. However, the only purpose of the legislation in strategic objectives, paragraph 8 and onwards in the policy memorandum, those purposes would be served by not passing the bill, by having no tax on aviation at all. If the strategic objectives that the Government sets are what it really cares about, it would not pass the bill at all, it would not even propose it. That is a tax being legislated by a Government that thinks that that tax ought not to exist, and so it is understandable that we see a bill that is bereft of meaning, of intent, of purpose. I think that there is good purpose in taxing aviation differently than other forms of economic activity, because it has disproportionate impacts on the environment and in terms of social inequality, and we need to mitigate those forms of impact. We need to manage those forms of impact in a way that is consistent with economic objectives, but tax is an important means of achieving that. A bill that was very clear that that is the purpose of an aviation tax would be somewhat different, perhaps not radically different. It would not give a free hand to ministers simply to say, we will come back to you and let you know what the rates and bans are going to be, and then you as Parliament will nod them through, Deputy designing officer. We won't have the ability to amend those proposals when they come forward. We will either nod them through or we will be told that we are giving the aviation industry an even bigger free gift by way of not taxing them at all. A bill that I could support would constrain ministers somewhat to at least consider the factors that are important. Let's look at the economic factors. The Government and PAC Benchars, including some in the debate today, have said that there will clearly be a really positive economic boost for Scotland from this. Evidence? Evidence, we have seen none. I think that Mr Kerr in his speech recognised the fact that the Government said to the best of the cabinet secretary's knowledge that they have conducted no economic analysis of their own, and he referred the committee to some pre-existing reports. Reports that are based on outdated information about the labour market, unreliable information about the fiscal impacts of this policy from the Government, reports that simply cannot be depended upon as evidence, and in fact some of which have come into the public domain after the SNP adopted its policy not before. We should be making policy on the basis of the evidence, not scrounging around to see if we can work up some evidence after we have adopted the policy. The economic impacts are entirely unclear, and the Government should be undertaking that analysis prior to adopting a tax policy. The environmental impacts have been spoken about, and I think that Mary Todd was the first to talk about the limited increase. The limited increase is only going to be a small percentage increase from our aviation emissions as a result of the Government's policy. As far back as 2009, the UK Climate Change Committee was saying not that we need to limit the increases but that we need to restrict aviation emissions. In fact, by 2050, they need to be held back to 1990 levels. We need to be seeing reductions in emissions, not just modest increases. Even the industry, in fact, in giving evidence to the committee, said not only that they could achieve that restriction back to 1990 levels. They are saying that a 50 per cent reduction by 2050 relative to 2005 levels, a 50 per cent reduction relative to 2005 levels is an even more ambitious goal. I do not take for a moment seriously the suggestion that they are doing what it would take to achieve that, but if they think that they can, we should lock them into it. We should say to the minister that he has to ensure that the tax rates are compatible with achieving that. The figures that the Scottish Greens have published today demonstrate that, of the 89 million plus that would be saved from just UK leisure passengers alone, 33 million of that will go to the richest 10 per cent of households, 60 million to the richest 30 per cent of households and just 8 million to the poorest 10 per cent of households. All those issues—economic, environmental, fiscal and social—should be written hardwired into the bill. Greens will move amendments to do that. If those amendments pass, then we could support the bill at stage 3, otherwise we will oppose it. Tonight we will abstain on the basis that this bill is fixable and will make every effort to persuade the Government that it needs to be fixed. I give notice to the closing speakers, please, that I am going to have to shave some time off you. I call Mike Rumbles, followed by Kate Forbes. On 7 October last year, the First Minister said that the Scottish Government is committed to acting on climate change and limiting global temperature increases to below one and a half degrees. The SNP website says that we hope, for example, that it can embolden the international community. On her recent self-publicity tour of the United States, Nicola Sturgeon added, and I quote, that we are not complacent about climate change and there is still much to achieve. Well, she hasn't really been listening to her own SNP MSPs during this debate, has she? Analysis by Transport Scotland has concluded that cutting air passenger duty by 50 per cent, which is what the SNP intend to do, will lead to an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide by up to 60,000 tonnes a year. That figure has hardly been mentioned in this debate. Where are all our environmentalists? Aren't we all supposed to be environmentalists now? What is the Government's response? The SNP reaction is to say, well, we can offset this huge increase in emissions by making other changes in the transport sector. Oh, really? If that is the aim of the Government, I wouldn't put too much faith in the transport minister to deliver this offsetting, especially when he appeared in front of the committee when he said that he simply accepts Transport Scotland's other prediction of increasing car use in Scotland by 27 per cent within the next 13 years and failing to come up with any real ideas on how to combat this. If you have an idea that you could mention to the transport minister, I am sure that he would be delighted to hear it, but I would like to hear it, too. In the interests of accuracy, I would like to challenge the word huge increase in that it is only a 0.1 per cent increase of total emissions. There we have it. The SNP believes that an increase of 60,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and increase is minor. I am afraid of any reading of the situation. I am glad to see the transport ministers back in his seat. Like so many policy areas, the SNP Government has no interest in doing what is right, only in doing what is politically expedient to their cause. Air travel is the highest emitter of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre. It is the only sector where emissions have risen significantly during the past two decades. The SNP wants to add to the increase by cutting tax on air travel. SNP members, rather than apologising for them, should be asking their ministerial colleagues how pumping the extra 60,000 tonnes of carbon into Scotland's environment and losing at least £125 million of revenue each year will help the Scottish Government to build a sustainable legacy for our children. Scotland's aviation sector is in good health. It is flourishing, with passenger numbers growing by £5 million in the past five years. On a personal level, I am delighted that my son is an airline pilot in Scotland. It is great news. I know a little bit about the aviation industry, but there is no good reason to give aviation a free pass. We need everyone to meet their carbon reduction responsibilities and pay their fair share. As MSPs, we get many approaches from lobbyists, giving us their view, and this subject is no different. I was particularly taken by the response of the Church of Scotland to the debate. I read its comments with great care. I will highlight them. The Church of Scotland is disappointed by the proposals on three grounds. One, we believe that they are inconsistent with Scottish Government commitments to reduce Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions. Two, they promote inequality. Those on high incomes fly most and will benefit most. People like me, people like us, while those living in poverty fly least and will benefit least if at all. Three, they put pressure on the UK Government to follow suit. No, not only is it simply the wrong thing to do to tackle climate change, it leaves at least £125 million a year whole in the public finances, a whole that needs to be filled. Either the Scottish Government will need to raise those taxes another way, and where will that burden fall? Or it will have to reduce expenditure and cut budgets, and where will those budget cuts fall? Finally, for those who say that this vote is simply an enabling vote, and I have heard that too, to allow this tax to be levied in Scotland, just look at part 3 of the bill, a whole section on tax rates without any mention of what those tax rates should be. Where is the policy memorandum? It does not exist. It simply says in section 10 subsection 3B that regulations under this section may modify this act. In layman's terms, if we pass this bill, then Scottish ministers may change what they are like in it. No, Presiding Officer, this is a terrible bill that gives far too much power to ministers and not enough power to this Parliament and deserves to be thrown out. I am with the Church of Scotland on this one, and the Liberal Democrats will be voting against this bill at decision time. I call Kate Forbes to be followed by Rachael Hamilton. The Government's motion asks the Parliament to agree to the general principles of the air departure tax with the detail coming later. I, of course, generally support the devolution of the tax, but I would like to set out quite broadly why I believe that the Scottish Government should take advantage of the devolution of this tax to bring air departure tax in line with international competition for the benefit of residents and small businesses in my constituency and across Scotland. The Highlands and Islands has benefited enormously from air travel exemptions, and they would benefit even more from a Scotland-wide reduction. In the Highlands and Islands, the challenges of connectivity are exacerbated, and yet our economy is dependent on movement—movement of goods, import and export, and movement of people, tourists or entrepreneurs scoping out and developing business opportunities. Air travel is a necessary part of free movement, which is why I have welcomed more flights in and out of Inverness, why I strongly support reopening the air strip in Skye for commercial flights, and why better connectivity goes right to the heart of population retention, of job creation, of growth and resilience in the economy. It stands to reason that, as a small island country of 5 million people, domestic and international travel and movement is critical. If we are ambitious for economic growth—which I am—we need new connections, more connections and attractive connections between Scotland and destinations around the world. That is more challenging when air passenger duty in the UK is one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world, and by far the highest in Europe. The international opportunities for businesses and jobs in my constituency are clear. Take the food and drink industry. There was a huge increase in the value of food and drink exports last year, as food exports alone grew by 22 per cent to £1.5 billion. Fish and seafood—much of it caught by the fishermen in a minute—much of it caught by the fishermen on that highland west coast recorded the largest overall increase of a whopping £156 million. Andy Wightman I accept, however, that Prons and whisky will never pay their departure tax. Does he agree that the simplest way of reaching the Government's goals of eliminating this tax would be not to waste our time here by passing any bill and just let it fall? Kate Forbes Sorry. I know that, in the Highlands and Islands, we need more opportunities to be creating jobs in order to keep our young people, to keep families, to increase the income that is generated from those jobs. The growth in businesses, allowing entrepreneurs to take advantage of new opportunities, directly goes towards retaining our population. That is certainly one of my priorities. It is not done yet. Scotland's food and drink industry is sourcing much of its fine fare in the Highlands. It is Scotland's fastest growing major sector with ambitions to grow further. What is really important is that it is not just the big businesses, but the small and medium-sized businesses that are benefiting. To capitalise on that, we need to internationalise more. In doubling food exports since 2007, we have also seen a transformation in growing markets like Asia. The chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink has said that the game changer for food and drink over those years has been developing a national brand for Scottish produce in export markets, with industry and Government working hand-in-hand to invest in overseas trade exports and activity, and that success story has much further to go. We know that smaller towns in rural Scotland are the most entrepreneurial in Scotland, places such as Ullipool and Newtonmore, which topped the list, where 17 per cent of the population is self-employed. Many of those small businesses are based on tourism or food and drink, which are dependent on travel and movement. Both sectors are doing well overseas visitor expenditure, as there is in 23 per cent between 2005 and 2014. However, how do those entrepreneurs and small businesses grow and develop? It is by building relationships ideally face-to-face with partners, investors and customers. I appreciate that the Scottish Government is doing much to facilitate that this month. The First Minister opened Scotland House in London, a platform for making connections and growing businesses. There is a wealth of opportunities out there in London, in Europe and beyond for Scottish businesses. That is the connection between Malig, between Carbos, between the Black Isle and overseas. However, it does not matter how many opportunities are out there if we do not have good travel links. That is why I believe that reducing air departure tax will make an enormous difference for travel to and from all Scottish airports and directly have a positive impact on families of the Highlands. Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by Ivan McKee. It has almost taken a year, but we have before us stage 1 of a bill to debate in this Parliament. Finally, the powers that be have decided that focusing on issues other than a rerun of the same debate about Brexit is worthy of parliamentary time. This is a debate about air departure tax. As the chamber has heard, the Scottish Conservatives are supportive of this bill at this stage. The air departure tax will replace the current UK air passenger duty and will come into effect in 2018, if passed. As such, the Scottish Conservatives welcome Derek Mackay's commitment to amendments for stage 2 to make detailed provision for exemptions from the definition of chargeable passenger and chargeable aircraft definitions that are currently not present. As such, the bill does not even say which category or aircraft will not be subject to tax. Further, evidence on social, financial and environmental impacts is needed. As the finance committee has highlighted, before MSPs are asked to set the band rates, the approach of the introduction of this bill that took almost a year was described as odd by Transform Scotland because without the full facts available about the nature of tax and the bands that apply to this bill, it is difficult to scrutinise. The Scottish Conservatives, however, want to see a more ambitious approach to the skies. Modo Fraser announced that we propose to remove the air travel tax on flights longer than 2,000 miles, and that this will incentivise airlines to provide new direct links from Scotland to America, China and other global destinations so that families and businesses do not have to travel via London's pat airports. That is good for Scotland. It will promote Scotland as a visitor destination and as a business destination. Making Scotland easy to access makes it an easier place to do business and an easier place to get out and see our sights. All of this is part of our plan to get Scotland connected to the global economy. To put this into perspective on the uncompetitiveness of the current situation in the UK, the World Economic Forum's 2015 global travel and tourism report lists the UK as 137th out of 140 countries in terms of ticket tax and airport charge competitiveness. It is therefore possible in this Parliament to open Scotland's doors wide, reap the rewards and see millions more passengers come to Scotland. To close, I and the Scottish Conservatives will support this bill at stage 1, but at stage 2 we hope to see amendments that make detailed provision for exemptions from the definition of chargeable passenger and chargeable aircraft. Of course, we want to see the removal of the air travel tax on flights longer than 2,000 miles and an immediate freeze on APD for short haul flights to the UK and Europe. However, what I want to see, and I am sure others from opposition parties want to see, is a bill to come to this Parliament to be debated that can be fully scrutinised with the full information available to do so. It has taken almost a year for the first bill to come before us and even in that time we still do not have something that can be appropriately scrutinised. To use the words of transport Scotland is slightly odd. The transfer of air passenger taxes to the Scottish Parliament is part of the latest round of devolution to give Scotland the opportunity to design and implement a system of tax that will support our specific economic development needs. The UK-wide air passenger duty will cease to apply in Scotland from next April, and that bill is therefore necessary simply to put in place a replacement tax. The bill presentably will only provide the structure for this tax and the details of bans and rates that will be proposed by the Government later this year and will be subject to parliamentary approval. However, the Government has also stated its policy objective to reduce the burden of ADT by 50 per cent, so while rates and bans are not contained in the bill, the committee took evidence on the shape and structure of the proposed 50 per cent reduction and the consequent economic and environmental impacts. Scotland is an international outward looking nation, and our links to our European neighbours and to countries further afield are critically important to us. That is especially so in the context of the UK Government's headlong rush towards a hard Brexit that threatens those links. Scotland's place in the world depends on our international connectivity. Direct international flights are a key part of that connectivity and steps to increase that connectivity should be encouraged to boost business, including inbound tourism, further develop cultural links and encourage free movement. It is important that the policy focus is therefore on the primary objective of enhancing economic growth, and I am glad to see that that imperative is recognised by the Government. As the committee report states, the Scottish Government will design and structure ADT in a way that boosts Scotland's air connectivity and economic competitiveness, encouraging the establishment of new routes that will enhance business connectivity and tourism. The committee has highlighted the need for robust economic data that addresses the economic impact of any proposed rates and bans that the Government will propose. That is critically important to understanding the most effective way to use this tax leaver to drive economic growth. If the member is right and that that economic analysis and data is the effective way to decide how to use the devolved tax, why does the member think that the Government has decided its policy of a 50 per cent cut and then scrapping the tax so long before that data is available to it? I do not think that there is anything unusual about having a policy of it. I have just asked what the Greens do for the full economic analysis of their additional rate tax proposal, of 60 per cent, I believe that it was, which, under any analysis, would reduce the amount of tax that it takes. Do you have an economic analysis of that? There is an intent to reduce by 50 per cent the ADT. As the committee said, robust economic analysis is essential to understanding the shape and how that would look. The ultimate objective must be to recover more than the tax loss through the cut from increased air activity and tax receipts from economic growth. We do, of course, need to recognise that any data can only be an estimated projection of what the economic outturn will be. Indeed, anyone who has been watching the committee's investigations into the role of changes to LBTT will understand the challenge in assessing economic impact of policy changes that have already taken place. Never mind those still not implemented. Unpicking policy impacts from wider economic trends is not always easy as is the assessment of our old friend, the counterfactual. Nevertheless, a thorough economic assessment in advance of changes to ADT policy, together with assessments of impacts on an on-going basis, is required to give substance to the policy. I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to return to Parliament with evidence regarding economic and environmental impacts of its approach to ADT prior to bringing forward specific proposals on rates and bans. The committee also recommends that the social, economic and environmental outcomes arising from ADT should be regularly evaluated and reported upon every second year to Parliament. The most effective use of reductions in air departure tax as a mechanism to drive economic growth will come through understanding that a one-size-fits-all policy is too blunt an instrument to maximise that objective. The committee heard that simplicity of implementation and operation of the tax is a factor in the design of a future ADT system. It is also important not to lose sight of the primary objective and to deliver a reduction in that tax, which recognises that reductions for some types of flights may deliver significantly more economic benefit than others. In other words, a differential approach. The committee heard about lifeline flights to communities in the highlands and islands, where alternative transport solutions are limited and the need to support those communities is well understood and measures to ensure that those flights are free from ADT should be a priority. Flights from the central belt to London and other large cities, however, compete with frequent fast rail routes. As an argument, the ADT reductions in that context would deliver too little to support the primary objective of maximising economic growth. Measures that encourage direct flights to European cities and beyond, on the other hand, can deliver significant benefits to our economy, in particular if targeted allocations where the scope for business and inbound tourism is greatest. The UK is one of the highest rates of air-passionary taxes in the world, and that might make sense to maximise revenue from London airports for demand outstrips supply. However, in that, as in many other UK Government policies, what works for London and the south-east is not always the best policy for Scotland, and we need to derive a policy for ADT that makes the most sense in the Scottish economic context. In conclusion, I look forward to receiving the Government's economic analysis on its proposed rates and bans. I look forward to crunching the numbers and working through them in committee with the cabinet secretary and his officials, and I look forward to Scotland implementing an ADT policy that supports economic development and international links. We move to closing speeches. I call on James Kelly to wind up for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start reiterating the comments from our colleagues in the debate, thanking the clerks on the finance committee and also Spice for the excellent work that they did in backing up the narrative that was produced in the stage 1 report. In terms of the Labour Party's position in this debate, we will support the general principles of the bill as Neil Bibby outlined in his opening speech. Clearly, the air departure tax is a logical conclusion of the Smith commission and the devolution of the replacement of APD. We support that tax because it gives an additional lever to raise money from those who can afford air travel to contribute towards the Scottish budget. We also support it from the point of view of seeking to reduce carbon emissions, so there is a logic in having that tax in place. However, the Scottish Government's reason for bringing the bill forward is to ultimately reduce the tax by 50 per cent and ultimately abolish it. It has to be said that, in terms of supporting that policy, the evidence in the bill brought forward by the cabinet secretary, Derek Mackay, has been wholly inadequate. The policy memorandum clearly sets out that the objective is to reduce the effect of ADT by 50 per cent by the end of the Parliament. As the financial memorandum sets out by 2021-22, that would have the effect of reducing the impact on the Scottish revenue to the Scottish Government by £189 million. We have not seen any analysis of how that money that would be lost from the Scottish budget would be replaced. Willie Coffey spoke about the economic benefits of the policy, but we have not seen anything from the Government to back that up. When the Smith commission set out the devolution of the tax, it also said that the environmental impact should be set out when it was going to be used, and that is something that has not been done in the bill. As Patrick Harvie pointed out, in terms of the submissions that we have seen that provide some analysis mainly from the airport operators, those submissions are in some way dated and not up to date. For example, they were all done before Brexit and they do not take any cognisance of the Brexit impact. We have a situation in which Derek Mackay has outlined today that he intends to bring stage 3 forward before the end of the summer recess. He is making it clear that any analysis would be later than that when the secondary legislation kicks in. We are going to be asked before the summer to agree the bill and to agree the basis of the policy memorandum without any proper analysis or submission from the Government. That leaves us in a position where, as Neil Findlay pointed out correctly, we need to question the fairness of that policy, because, as the ONS outlined, the top 20 per cent of earners will be 73 pounds better off, whereas the bottom 20 per cent earners would only be £4.50 better off. That is not a progressive policy and it is wholly unfair. If we look at some of the other impacts of people travelling throughout Scotland, for example, a student, when they turn 19, no longer has access to the young Scot rail card and has to pay a full season ticket fare, therefore incurring substantial travel costs, particularly if he is a student. Marie Todd made the point that airport travel in the highlands was an absolute necessity. If you are an apprentice staying in Canbus Lang and you are earning less than the national living wage but you require to travel to Canbus Lang to reach your place of employment to successfully complete your apprenticeship, then that travel is absolutely essential, but bus travel from Canbus Lang to East Kilbride and the substantial cost incurred heavily bites into the wages that you earn if you are on less than the national living wage. We need to ask the question how those priorities are going to be served and, as others have pointed out, how that lines up with a policy of seeking to reduce carbon emissions. I have heard minister after minister not just in this chamber but out at receptions and in media events to declare proudly about the world-leading climate change legislation that the Scottish Parliament has passed. That is absolutely correct, but the logic of this policy is that you are going to increase air travel and therefore increase carbon emissions. I am sorry, but I am running out of time, so it seems to me that it is not consistent with the Scottish Government's policy approach. In summing up, the Government's policy approach to this has been incoherent, and the submission of evidence to back it up has been inadequate. It is time to think again on that and put forward the most substantive evidence to back up its policy before we get to the stage 3 debate. Let me start by saying that it is welcome, if somewhat rare, opportunity to discuss draft legislation in this chamber. We have heard a range of different views on how the Parliament can use its powers in respect of air passenger duty or air departure tax, as it will be known going forward. Although each party clearly has different views on the future of ADT, the debate today has centered around three main issues. Concern about the lack of detail set out in the draft legislation, when and how do we get the details, the objectives of the Government's proposals, what is the Government trying to achieve and the next steps that are required to take the legislation forward, and in particular the level of parliamentary scrutiny of any secondary legislation. Looking at stage 1 of the legislation, Liam Kerr, James Kelly and others have highlighted the fact that the bill lacks detail in a number of important areas. It fails to set out the basis of liability for the new tax, which is a fundamental issue in any tax legislation. It also fails to identify which category of passengers or aircraft will be exempt from the tax. There are no details of the tax bans and the tax rates that will apply, and there has been, as we have heard, no independent assessment of the economic, financial and environmental impact. As Rachael Hamilton highlighted, the lack of detail led the Delegated Powers and the Law Reform Committee to express its disappointment that the legislation has been introduced in the absence of full development of the Government's policy. Given all of that, we would urge the finance secretary to undertake a full analysis of not just the economic and environmental impact of that, but how it will work in practice and avoid a repeat of the disastrous introduction of the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, which has today been described as ill-suttied by a study commissioned by the Government itself. Turning to the objectives of the legislation, we support the overall directional policy to reduce air departure tax, but if we are to proceed with a reduction, our preferred approach is to have a targeted reduction for long-haul flights, with the aim of increasing Scotland's global connectivity with major economic hubs in the US, China, India and Southeast Asia. That is where our approach differs from the less targeted proposal set out by Mr Mackay, who is advocating a blanket 50 per cent cut to ADT, including for short-haul flights. Evidence given to the finance committee has shown that cutting ADT for short-haul flights would not necessarily deliver economic benefits. According to the Scottish Association for Public Transport, cutting ADT for short-haul flights would merely see growth of domestic flights at the expense of rail travel. Given all that, we welcome the Government's agreement to undertake a full independent economic, financial and environmental analysis of its plans, and we would urge that analysis to look at the following issues. First of all, the benefits of cutting ADT on long-haul flights compared to short-haul. Look at how this policy can help to increase tourism from across the world. Scotland welcomes less than 50,000 tourists a year from China. That compares to more than 1 million Chinese tourists visiting London alone. Average long-haul tourists spent in Scotland is over £650 per visit, which is significantly higher than the level of air departure tax per passenger that would be foregone. Therefore, increasing tourism would be a welcome boost to the economy, but that analysis must show a link between reducing ADT and increasing tourism. As highlighted by Kate Forbes, we also need to look at how we can capitalise on more direct long-haul flights to increase our exports to the rest of the world, which have increased by 75 per cent over the past 10 years. Finally, we need to look at how we can minimise the environmental impact of those proposals. Other parties have expressed their outright opposition to any cuts to ADT. Labour's view, as summarised by Neil Bibby and others, is that that is a tax for those who can afford to fly, and it comes at the expense of other parts of public spending. However, I think that that looks at the wrong end of the equation. What we are suggesting here is that, if targeted properly, a reduction in ADT will boost Scotland's global connectivity and, if implemented properly, should result in a boost to the economy, encourage more people to do business in Scotland, with Scotland, to visit Scotland and to invest in Scotland. The SNP's proposed airline tax break will cost £189 million. Will the member tell us where those cuts will fall if he supports the SNP's position? The SNP has not told us where the cuts are going to fall, £189 million. Will he tell us where the Tories will cut to fund this policy? Last year alone, tourism in the Scottish economy was worth almost £2 billion, so if we were to increase tourism by 5 or 10 per cent, that would result in a much-needed boost to the Scottish economy. We are not looking at cutting, we are not looking at—no, I need to make progress—we are not looking at cutting spending, we are looking at growing the economy and, in future, growing the Scottish Government's budget in years to come. We also heard from others about legitimate concerns surrounding the environmental impact of any reduction to ADT. To address those concerns, we agree that a strict environmental impact analysis will be required and we look forward to debating that when published by the Government. Let me conclude by highlighting to Mr Mackay what the next steps required to take this legislation forward. The Government has to produce supporting evidence of the economic, social, financial and environmental impact of its proposal. We need this evidence to be made available to the chamber before we debate the tax rates and the bans for ADT in the future. We would also suggest to the Government that before any reduction of ADT is made final, it works to reach agreement with the airlines for them to commit to expand their routes in response to any cut to ADT, as has happened in other countries. Finally, we need assurance from Mr Mackay that he will listen to this Parliament, to the Finance Committee and to the independent analysis, before implementing those proposals and avoiding a repeat of the disastrous implementation of the land and buildings transaction tax. I heard the opposition demand for more time to continue this debate for those enthusiasts listening at home. I thought that it was a very consensual debate and I really do mean that, because many suggestions have been made across the chamber that I will reflect on. I hope that I have shown through the Finance and Constitution Committee's response that I have engaged with that committee, listened to the cross-party points of view and responded positively to a number of recommendations in good time for this stage 1 debate. I do not want to lose any of the consensus that exists to support this bill, but it is interesting to listen to Dean Lockhart lecture me about departure tax and APD, because the Conservatives are converts to the principle around reduction in this tax. However, I will not be childish on that point. I welcome that position from the Conservatives, but I would never hear other members say that Mike Rumbles remains opposed to the legislation. That does not necessarily surprise me, although it will reflect on the fact that one of the requests for an extension of tax cuts for airlines is not leased from its island counterparts who want to extend the air discount scheme to businesses and others that I have had the experience of as transport minister. I understand that requests having increased it as transport minister. I welcome the position of the Labour Party. I will not take it as red that any support for the principles of the bill is in any way support for our proposition on the policy on tax rates and bans or other matters, but I agree with James Kelly and Neil Bibby, not words I often say, but I agree that this is about the framework, the enabling legislation to allow the tax to be collected when the UK Government switches off the counterpart tax in April next year. Neil Bibby. The key questions that I think he's been asked by all Labour speakers today was to give us clarity on if there's £189 million of cuts. Where would they fall in the event of him getting his tax break through? Where are the £189 million of cuts is he going to choose to make should he get his tax cut through? Can I set out the policy intent of a tax reduction to stimulate economic growth, improve connectivity, support tourism and sustain the routes that we already have as well as secure new routes to Scotland that can be achieved by Scotland having a level playing field and an advantage over other areas? Of course, I will engage with other parties as this legislation works its way through Parliament. I have to engage with other parties to find compromise to ensure that the proposition on tax rates and bans is approved by Parliament. It was wrong for me if I can make some further progress, because there are a number of very important points that I would like to make. It would be wrong to say that this is transferring power to ministers when, ultimately, Parliament will have to approve the tax rates and bans and, indeed, exemptions that will apply in Scotland. That is why I have reflected on some of the changes that will bring forward at stage 2 to cover those points around, for example, the monitoring and evaluation impact report exemptions and, indeed, the independent economic analysis. The Government is not alone in believing that a tax reduction would stimulate economic growth. I could say that the Scottish Chambers of Commerce or CBI Scotland is well. However, the point is that this is about the principles and the enabling framework to be able to collect the tax and other matters will be determined at committee through affirmative procedure. I know how important the Highlands and Islands exemption is, and that is why I am working now with the UK Government to ensure that we can have that continuity of like-for-like exemption for that area and ensuring that, of course, it is compliant. However, on the point about independent economic analysis, I think that it should be welcomed that the Government is embarking on taking forward, yes, our policy aspirations, the evidence that we have seen from elsewhere. However, I think that a valid point was made around, some people might say, looking at the scrutiny or looking cynically at who has paid for some of the evidence. The point about our independent analysis is to arrive at an evidence-based decision, looking at it methodically, having looked at the modelling, what exists, and we know that having commissioned that evidence will be in a good place to make the right decisions for that tax in Scotland in keeping with our policy intent. As we approach the switch-off of this tax next April, I have heard the positioning of the different political parties. That is about the successful transfer of this power. It is about devolution and delivering up to that deal that was achieved. That is why I think that the Liberals would be wrong to oppose it at this stage, because it is about the transfer of power. However, when embarking on the decision-making, as we will in a timely fashion, we do it to deliver efficiency, certainty and clarity in the tax rates and exemptions going forward. It is Patrick Harvie who surprised me most by saying that he believes that it could be made a better bill. In his words, it is fixable to recognise the opposition that the Greens have to the policy intent, but also that the Greens would like the tax to be collected in Scotland. That is why I think that the principles are worthy of support, but there will be further engagement around the tax rates and bans. Patrick Harvie is grateful to the member for giving way. I set out some of the principles that I think should be behind a bill like this. The principles of ensuring that ministers have to give due consideration to social, economic, fiscal and environmental factors in setting their tax policy. Is there any reason why the cabinet secretary would be anxious or uncomfortable with having to place due consideration to those factors before he comes back to Parliament? What would be the objection to such amendments that put principle into the bill? I have been able to outline to the committee a positive response to a number of suggestions that have been raised by the Finance and Constitution Committee. One of those is about the on-going analysis and monitoring impact of our policy. We will take a close look at the impact of the decisions that we make as a Government and as a Parliament. We have been balancing issues around affordability, economic growth and environmental impact. We have been able to cover some of that. We will also be informed by further environmental analysis, including the strategic environmental assessment that will inform decisions around air departure tax. We have to look at this in a balanced fashion and continue to engage with political parties, recognising that this is a transfer of power. We want it to be successful and we also want to use the tax in a way that stimulates the economy and supports connectivity. In particular, in light of some of the economic challenges and the situation that is coming from Brexit, we need to use that in a way that supports the economy, while addressing the environmental concerns that are being raised legitimately, while looking at the wider transport envelope. A number of members have focused on environmental concerns. Of course, the Government is delivering on our environmental targets and will set out further actions through our climate change efforts. The Government's record is a very strong one in delivering ambitious climate change targets. I am almost ready to conclude, but I thank Mike Rumbles for his offer to intervene to further oppose the bill, which seems to have consensus across the chamber. There will be further engagement through stage 2 and stage 3 as to how we take it forward. I listened very closely to what the Conservatives and others had to say about sharing some of the further evidence and analysis and good time to be able to inform the decisions around rates and bans, of course addressing the exemptions issue in the way that I have outlined. A number of members have said that this is the first piece of legislation that the Parliament has considered. That is not the case. It might be a surprise to members, but we actually approved a budget bill that had various stages to become law and is delivering hundreds of millions of pounds of extra investment in the public services of Scotland. I look forward to engaging with all members to take that legislation forward following this very consensual debate to ensure that we deliver that tax in a way that is competent, that is clear, that is in keeping with the Adam Smith principles and follows on from the successful, currently devolved tax. He is such as land and build transaction tax and landfill tax to ensure that it supports the economy and delivers on the policy objectives as outlined. Therefore, I invite the Parliament to approve the general principles of the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 4995, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution for the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill. I would like to apologise for giving you only very late notice of my intention to raise that point of order about the financial resolution. Rule 9123 of our standing orders is the rule that requires a financial resolution in respect of certain bills, a financial resolution to be passed before a bill can progress past stage 1. I do not think that we are in breach of that rule in any way, but I would like to ask for you to reflect on it. The rule says where a bill contains provisions which charge expenditure on the Scottish consolidated fund or the likely effect of which would be to increase, significantly increase expenditure charge on that fund or give rise to significant expenditure payable out of that fund for a new purpose or for an existing purpose is the requirement for a financial resolution. With today's debate, however, a bill whose principal financial impacts are through taxation revenue, not through increased charges on the consolidated fund. The existing rule is indeed triggered in respect of that bill, but the financial memorandum that the Government has provided for us only addresses those additional expenditure aspects. The Government is not required to produce a financial memorandum that goes into the taxation revenue impacts of the financial impacts of a bill. Can I ask if you would consider whether that rule in our standing orders is still adequate now that we are in the era in which we legislate on bills such as this, whose principal financial impacts are on tax revenue? Thank you very much and thank you to Patrick Harvie for giving me some advance notice, a very little advance notice of the point of order. In this particular case there were other considerations in the bill which I had to consider and which did trigger the need for a financial resolution, so in this case we will be able to go ahead this evening. However, Mr Harvey does raise a very interesting point about the wording of this standing order, which I will take under consideration. However, having said that, could I ask the cabinet secretary to move the motion 4995 on the financial resolution for the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill? The next item of business is consideration of legislative consent motion 5286, in the name of Michael Matheson on the criminal finances bill. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. I would remind members that if the amendment in the name of Ruth Davidson is agreed, then the other amendments fall. The first question is that amendment 5282.4, in the name of Ruth Davidson, which seeks to amend motion 5282, in the name of Nicola Surgeon on child tax credit cuts, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll have a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5282.4 in the name of Ruth Davidson is yes, 31, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 5282.1, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of the First Minister. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Kezia Dugdale is yes, 91, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 5282.2, in the name of Alison Johnson, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of the First Minister, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Alison Johnson is yes, 91, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that the motion in the name of Nicola Surgeon as amended on child tax credit cuts be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 5282, in the name of Nicola Surgeon as amended, is yes, 91, no, 31. There were no abstentions, and the motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 5283, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill, at stage 1 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 5283, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes, 112, no, 4. There were six abstentions, and the motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 4995, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution for the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a division and we'll cast our votes now. The result of the vote on the motion 4995, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes, 111, no, 4. There were six abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 5286, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the criminal finances bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll now move on to a member's business debate, in the name of Morris Golden, on WWF Earth Hour 2017. I will just take a few moments to change seats.