 The action plan I have requested that officials bring forward is the�� stening to drive forward and to monitor how that is effectively implemented across the country. The next light of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill on the Jim Clark Rally Incidents—the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Kenny MacAskill. Cabinet Secretary, you have up to 10 minutes. I would like to make a statement about the fatalities that occurred near Swinton in the Borders last Saturday during the Jim Clark memorial rally. I know that the whole chamber will wish to join me in expressing condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed or injured. The three spectators who died were John Leonard Stern aged 71 from Bearsden, Elizabeth Allen aged 63 from Barhead and her partner Ian Proven aged 64 also from Barhead. Above all, our thoughts are with their grieving families at this difficult time. It is important now that we give the bereaved all possible support, but also the time and privacy to grieve in peace and to make funeral arrangements. The two casualties who were transferred to Edinburgh royal infirmary are continuing to receive on-going care there. One is in a satisfactory condition and the other remains in a critical condition. We all hope and pray that they will both have a full and speedy recovery from their injuries. Just after 4 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, a rally car left the road at the Swinton section of the Jim Clark rally and collided with a number of spectators. Three people died and one was seriously injured. One casualty was later evacuated by air ambulance to Edinburgh royal infirmary. Earlier, on the same day at around 2 p.m., another rally car left the road during a different stage injuring six people. All six were taken to the border general hospital for treatment. One of those injured was also subsequently transferred to Edinburgh royal infirmary. This incident came as a tremendous shock to that Berwickshire community and to the wider motorsport family. All across Scotland and far beyond, people are sharing the sadness of this tragic event and stand ready to offer whatever support they can. As the First Minister said on Saturday, this was desperately sad and difficult news for the borders. People out for the weekend to enjoy their motorsport and to remember the achievements of one of the world's great racing drivers did not return home. That was the tragic outcome of this year's rally, an outcome that shook us all and that will live with us for years to come. Saturday was a black day for the rally, for the borders and for Scotland, but we must learn lessons and we will learn lessons. We need to understand what caused Saturday's fatalities and ensure that those tragic events in the borders will help us to make future rallies safer. The Lord Advocate and I went to Kelso yesterday to receive a briefing on Saturday's tragic events from Police Scotland and Scottish Borders Council. We were briefed on the event, the incident, the emergency response and the spectator safety arrangements. I also spoke at the weekend with David Parker, the leader of Scottish Borders Council about the incident and have met with the council chief executive. All three emergency services, Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Ambulance Service, as well as the national health service and Scottish Borders Council, were involved in the immediate response to the incidents. Police Scotland family liaison officers have been deployed to support the next of kin of the deceased and I would like to thank everyone who assisted in the response to this terrible incident. A full police investigation under the direction of the crown is now under way into the circumstances and a Police Scotland major investigation team is in place. Primacy lies with the investigation by the police. The decision on holding a discretionary FAI is for the Lord Advocate to loan, as is any decision on whether criminal prosecution is appropriate. The Jim Clark memorial rally, which began on Friday, is a hugely popular annual event in the Borders, attended by thousands of spectators over three days. This year's rally commenced in Duns on Friday 30 May, moved to the Kelso area on Saturday and was due to conclude at Duns on Sunday. Following the second incident, the Jim Clark rally executive committee, Scottish Borders Council and Police Scotland, took a joint decision to abandon the rally and the final stages scheduled for Sunday were cancelled. Scotland has a strong tradition and a great history in motorsport. Jim Clark's name is up there alongside Sir Jackie Stewart, David Coulthark and the McRae family. The legacy of those sporting heroes is immense and has been proudly continued by the lights of Dario Francitti, Alan McNish and Paul de Resta. It is a fitting tribute to the late Jim Clark that the rally in his name has taken place in the Scottish border since 1970. It is the largest rally in the UK, with some 250 competitors taking part. It is also the only rally in the UK mainland that takes place on closed public roads, with many special stages over 310 miles. The Jim Clark rally limited is a company owned by the organisers—Berican District Motor Club Ltd and Border Ecos Car Club Ltd. The rally is organised by the Jim Clark rally executive committee with assistance from the Scottish Borders Council and the British Rally Championship, and is one of seven rallies on the 2014 British Rally Championship calendar. The rally is organised in conjunction with the Motorsports Association. The MSA is the governing body in the United Kingdom and is responsible for the governance and administration of all major forms of motorsport in the UK, controlling the technical and sporting rules across the various disciplines. Rob Jones, the chief executive of the association, has said that the incident will also be subject of full inquiries by the association once the police investigation is concluded to ensure that any lessons are learned to assist in the constant drive to provide the highest possible safety standards at all motorsport events. I know that the Jim Clark rally is a long-standing event that has been part of the local community for 44 years and has a good safety record. It is a hugely popular event that has brought enormous benefit to Berwickshire year after year. The Scottish-led Government receives an annual report from the organisers. This process allows a review of the effects of the rally on the grounds of public safety in order to ensure that lessons learned are carried forward for future. The legislation governing the rally was passed in 1996 and provides that ministers may either prohibit the holding of the rally or permit it, subject to certain terms and conditions. In the light of Saturday's events, the Minister for Transport will be giving careful consideration to the public safety aspects of the 2015 rally and the need for conditions. Clearly, that decision will be dependent on the information that comes forward from the safety reviews of the event. We have had discussions with Police Scotland about the need to review spectator safety more generally. We are moving into an unprecedented summer. The longer nights are with us and with this in mind, I think that it is appropriate to review safety at public events and to do so very speedily. Across the country, there is a busy calendar of events and a huge amount of careful planning already done. Although the Jim Clark rally is unique because it is a closed road and unticketed motor rally, the Scottish Government will ask Police Scotland to work with event organisers and local authorities to undertake a health check of event planning for events taking place this summer. That will ensure that robust safety regimes and risk assessment procedures are in place and that licensing conditions are being met. Police Scotland has undertaken to carry out this review over the next four weeks. Spectator safety must always be permanent. In the light of the weekend death, the Scottish Government will commission a review of motorsport event safety in Scotland, drawing on safety experts and the knowledge and expertise of the motorsport community. The review will also include Scottish Borders Council, Police Scotland, the Motorsports Association, event organisers and other key stakeholders. It will include a review of the training and deployment of stewards, as well as all other safety-related controls. Scottish ministers have the power to impose conditions on the rally and the Minister for Transport will wish to have sight of review of motorsport event safety recommendations before deciding whether to do so. Sadly, Scotland has seen human tragedies at sporting events in the past. We have come through those traumatic events, learned the hard lessons and acted on them so that, for example, our major sports stadia is now far safer for large crowds of spectators. That can be of small comfort to those who grieve today, but it is a process that is necessary and important. On behalf of this Parliament, once again, Presiding Officer and this country, I extend our deepest sympathies and condonses to those families of all three victims. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement and tend to allow around about 20 minutes for the questions after which we will move on to the next business. It would be helpful if members wished to ask a question, would press a request to speak better now, and I call Graham Pearson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement today and associate Scottish Labour with the sentiments expressed by him during that statement regarding this terrible tragedy. There are no doubt pressing questions that we would all like answers to, and I realise, as many will in this chamber, that we must await the outcome of the police inquiries. Nevertheless, can he tell us who will lead on the longer-term Government review of motorsport events safety and what timescales does he envisage for a report back to this chamber? We are currently inquiring as to who wishes to come on board on that. I have made it clear to the chamber that we intend it to be wide, including the local authorities, those involved in motorsport, and we are seeking to obtain some expert advice, but Government ministers will ultimately be in charge through officials. Obviously, we have to awake the availability of some information that would be necessary for those who have been involved in that review. Therefore, the timing is difficult to be precise because we have to ensure that the appropriate information is available and can be released by the police and the Crown, but it is certainly the intention to do so as expeditiously as possible, balanced with the necessity of making sure that we get it right. However, I can give the member an assurance, given the manner in which she has asked and contributed to this, that we will be more than happy to ensure that we engage with other political parties within the chamber, as well as with the broader stakeholders, to make sure that primacy is given to the police and to the Crown, that events, whether they are an FAI or thereafter, and that is for others, can take place. However, at the same time, we ensure that we get on with the review to ensure that motorsport, which has provided benefits to Scotland, can continue, but it does so in a manner in which we can ensure that those who go to watch it will not be endangered. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for Advanced Copy of his statement. As the cabinet secretary stated, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and friends and also for those who are still in hospital. We should also have thought to those spectators and marshals who witness the horrific scenes on Saturday afternoon. Clearly, it is welcome news that a full investigation will be carried out. However, can I urge caution against any knee jerk reactions in terms of how we respond to this tragedy? This is a long established event in the Borders, and, although everyone is shocked by the events at the weekend, I think that it would be regrettable if any premature decisions were taken about the event's future. Furthermore, can the cabinet secretary assure me that there will be close cooperation with the Motorsport Association, the Berwicken District Motor Club and the Borders Crossed Car Club to ensure that any additional controls are realistic and achievable to allow the continued running of these and similar events? I cannot give the member the assurance that we are not going to rush to judgment, as Mr Pearson clearly indicated. There are those who are charged and who require to carry out the investigation, and now we will do so. What we will ensure in this wider review is that those with skills and expertise are brought on board, they are part of that review. However, the member may make a valid point, as I did not reference in the initial statement that Scotland has a proud history of those who have been very successful in motorsports as well as those who have simply participated or indeed spectated and enjoyed it. This event has run for 44 years without any previous tragedy. Therefore, we have to ensure that we do not rush to judgment. We do have to ensure, though, that lessons are learned and, once those lessons are available to us, that they are implemented. However, I can give the member the assurance that those who are involved at the co-face will be part of those discussions, not simply the operators in terms of the gym-clark rally that is limited, but, more importantly, the Scottish Borders Council and, indeed, other councils elsewhere in Scotland, because, although the borders are significant in its input and contribution, not least with the late gym-clark, many other areas in Scotland will also welcome and benefit from that. I, too, would like to extend my deepest condolences to all those affected by this tragedy. Is the cabinet secretary aware of why the rally continued after the first accident, and whether there was any consideration given at that time to cancelling the rally? Yes, that was a matter that was raised with the Lord Advocate myself. The rally does have a joint agency basis, and there is a safety committee that includes not just the gym-clark rally executive committee but also the Scottish Borders Council and Police Scotland. After the first incident, an investigation inquiry was made by all those organisations who came to the conclusion that it appeared to have been a mechanical error, that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the site, and it was on that basis that the rally continued. So, certainly, it would appear that full consideration was given by all those involved in the safety committee. It was something that was not related to the subsequent incident and did appear to relate to a mechanical failure on the vehicle, and there was nothing to do with any safety-related aspect of the route. Can I join with others across the chamber today in expressing condolences and wishes for speedy recovery of those who were involved in the tragedy? I can also ask the cabinet secretary what advice is to be given to spectator events, including such things as on-road cycle events this summer. In the meantime, while health checks, as they are referred to in the cabinet secretary's statement, and the broader review proceed. No, I welcome the member's contribution. That is clearly something that the Government, and in particular the Cabinet Secretary for Sports and Commonwealth Games, is very concerned about. That is why we have engaged with Police Scotland. We have no reason to believe that there is anything untoward that many of those events have already been properly scrutinised, not simply by police but by local authorities. However, after discussion with DCC Ian Livingstone, it has been made clear that Police Scotland will carry out the investigation over a period of four weeks. It will report back. As I said, it already believes that there has been proper investigation and nobody should be under any cause or fear alarm. However, after having seen what occurred at the weekend, it is right and proper that the quick review is carried out to provide as much assurance as we can that those who will be going to events over coming weeks, large or small, whether relating to cycling, motorsport or anything else, can be assured that they will be as safe as they can be. Christine Grahame, followed by Eileen Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would extend my condolences to an area that I used to represent in that part of the Borders. I agree with the cabinet secretary that this is not a circumstance where a mandatory FAI should be held. However, could I respectfully suggest to the Lord Advocate—he is not here, but to hear this—that I think that this is where we must have an FAI, and given that it takes so long that this should be done expeditiously? Cabinet Secretary? Well, the member is quite correct. It is a discretionary FAI, but obviously the Lord Advocate has taken special interest in this, travelling down yesterday not only to be briefed by the council and indeed the divisional commander and gold commander at the time, but also to visit the locuses. It will be for him. It is his discretionary aspect, but I think that I can give the member the assurance that the Lord Advocate will seek to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible and is giving it his own personal investigation. Eileen Murray, followed by Jim Hume. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sure that all our thoughts are with the victims of this tragedy and their families. Cabinet Secretary, I understand that there is an existence of motorsports safety code in that the programme for the event actually made reference to that. Will the review of the motorsport event safety, which the Scottish Government is commissioning, include the way in which this code is disseminated to spectators and volunteers at events? Yes, I think that clearly the member makes a valid point there. Some of these aspects will clearly come out in the investigation and indeed whether in an FAI or not, but they are aspects that do have to be reflected and reviewed upon. It is for that reason that the review that we are setting up will include those who currently have expertise, but also others who can perhaps take a fresh perspective to ensure that the expertise is as up-to-date as it can be and takes into a proud all-appropriate criteria, including information that will come to light for the investigation. I think that I can give the member that assurance. Jim Hume, followed by Clare Adamson. I thank the cabinet secretary for making this statement to the Parliament. Our thoughts, too, are with the relatives and friends of those who have tragically died on a day that should have been about enjoying their sport. Also to those, of course, who are still injured. I think that it is appropriate to also recognise the emergency services who are to deal with this tragedy. The minister, the cabinet secretary, is correct. This is the 44th Jim Clark rally. We know that it brings in an annual local spend of £3.3 million, but safety and precaution of life must be paramount. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether now is an appropriate time to look at how rallies are resourced on the ground in terms of students' and spectator's safety? We will also support counselling of those who may have traumatic stress after this tragic event. Cabinet Secretary? I think that there are two separate items here. I think that the member himself said that it is a matter of balance and I would agree with that. Clearly, I think that we are required to learn the lessons and it requires to be taken on board. We have to balance the great enjoyment, the benefit and prestige that has gone, as well as the benefits to the local community in terms of income with public safety that always has to be paramount, but lessons will be learned there. In terms of post-traumatic stress disorder, that is a matter that has already been raised with me by my colleague Paul Wheelhouse and I will happily engage with the Scottish Borders Council regarding that. I do not think that this is an event perhaps where it would be for the victim support Scotland but there are other resources available and we will engage with the council and indeed with other agencies to see what can be done. Clearly, there were people who were present. Doubtless saw the tragedy unfold before their eyes and may very well require treatment. Clare Adamson, followed by Jackson Carlaw. Can I also associate myself with the contollings that is expressed by my colleagues this afternoon in the chamber? I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I am a convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness, which is previously considered both road safety and safety in leisure and sporting activities, and indeed many of its members will have been directly affected by this tragic event. Are there any indications at this early stage of the key lessons to be learned in terms of accident prevention and safety awareness? Can the cabinet secretary express how those lessons will be imparted to both professionals and the wider safety community? We are intent that it will be imparted through the review group that will report back and members will be made available. I think that it would be premature. Clearly, police officers have been at the scene, especially road traffic officers. There will also be the on-going investigation, as I remember, in which the Motorsports Association will be taking part. I think that we have to leave it to those who have expertise to ensure that the site is properly examined, time was taken, including ensuring that the bodies were removed with dignity. Lessons are currently being learned. The circumstances are being looked at by those with the expertise over many years. What I can confirm to the member is that those lessons once learned from those experts will be imparted across. We would expect, as an administration, for them to be taken on board by all who have a responsibility for running an organisation of such events. Jackson Carlaw, followed by Gordon MacDonald. As someone who came from a family business that had within it a motorsport division that entered and won rally races across Scotland, I share the dismay of all those who love motorsport in Scotland today. I add my condolences to those who have lost their lives, particularly the West of Scotland constituents in Barhead. You are right, cabinet secretary, to say that this event has an exemplary track record, but the code that many people observe actually arose out of previous tragedies that occurred albeit many years ago. I wonder as well as looking at what fresh safety advice might be required. We look, or those looking at this, also look to see whether, in fact, a degree of complacency may have grown simply because of the absence of accidents in recent years. In fact, the advice that we have is very robust but needs to be properly implemented to ensure safety at these events. I think that the member makes a fair point at us for that reason that the review will not simply concentrate on the Scottish borders, because we are aware that there was a tragedy up in the north of Scotland just a year or so ago that related to a motorsport event. Lessons have to be learnt in every locality. I cannot speculate as to whether or not there was complacency. What I can say is that the Motorsports Association and those involved with the running of this rally I think are deeply shocked by this, are quite willing to cooperate and it is certainly our intention to go forward in a manner of learning lessons seeking to make sure that they are taken on board and that the appropriate lessons will be properly implemented by those charged, whether Police Scotland, local authorities or indeed the event organisers. I also add my condolences to those people who have been affected. Can the cabinet secretary provide the chamber with further information on the response by the emergency services on the day to this terrible incident? The response was outstanding. Police Scotland was there. They were part of the organisation, indeed Fire and Rescue, and indeed Ambulance were also there because those events, as many events, whether music festivals or indeed sporting events such as this, do have great implications for crowd safety. Plans and preparations are always made, hopefully in most instances. They never required to be implemented, but clearly Police Scotland were on the scene. At the time of the second incident, it was agreed by all parties that the rally should be cancelled forthwith, and that allowed Fire and Rescue, Ambulance Services and indeed Scottish Borders Council, along with the police, to do their job. Again, I put on record my gratitude and thanks to what must have been a very distressing incident for those, although it is their job and what they are trained to do to have to deal with three fatalities as well as the consequences. John Pentland, and then finally John Mason. Cabinet Secretary, the review may well result in the additional responsibilities being placed on local authorities with regard to sporting events, for example, with regard to risk assessment and safety procedures. Can I get the assurance that any such duties will be fully funded by the Scottish Government? Cabinet Secretary? I think that it would be premature for me to rush to judgment to mean that I know how Scottish Borders Council welcomes the rally but equally how it is conscious about the safety. It welcomes the rally because not only does it provide good fun that many of its residents contribute to and participate in, but it also brings a great deal of benefit into the local community. I think that this is not a matter of pound, shillings and pens. We cannot put any evaluation on the price of those that we have lost. What I can say is that every organisation, national or local government, council or private consortia has an obligation to ensure that public safety is paramount and no price or safety can be put on that. John Mason. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can assure us that there has been or there will be full engagement with the local community and that any views that they have about the future will be taken into account. Absolutely, that is why on Sunday I phoned the leader of Borders Council on the Monday, along with the Lord Advocate that we met with the chief executive and members of staff. That liaison relationship will continue. We appreciate that this has deeply affected many locally and that is why arrangements have been made for those who wish to pay tribute to lay flowers can do so, but we will work with Scottish Borders Council and indeed Borders Health Service to do what is necessary to support the local community as well as to support the families elsewhere and throughout Scotland who are grieving. Thank you. That ends the statement from the Justice Secretary. We move on to the next side of business, which is a debate on motion number 10185, in the name of Keith Brown on air passenger duty. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press the request speak buttons now. I will give a few seconds for people to reorganise themselves. I say to members who are taking part in the debate that we have a wee bit of time in hand, so we will be slightly generous if you take interventions. I see the ministers now ready. I call on Keith Brown to speak to me with the motion. Minister, 30 minutes. I welcome the opportunity to come to the chamber today to restate the strong case that we have set out for control of air passenger duty coming to Scotland. As members will be aware, our proposals for APD enjoy widespread support, including from Scotland's airports and a growing number of airlines. Our case for Scotland having control of APD is based on the facts. While Scotland has a decent return in terms of its European network, we continue to play catch-up in relation to longer haul international connectivity. Our strategic approach is to work with our airports to entice more direct international services but also to improve connectivity where we have to do that to hub airports. There have been some notable successes recently. Edinburgh's new routes to Chicago and Doha are prime examples of airports and the Government working together to secure success. Those successes have happened despite the current application of APD, and Scotland's airports are absolutely clear and unanimous that APD is a barrier to further success. I also believe that what Scotland has to offer in terms of its tourism places is in the heavyweight bracket. It is clear, though, that APD is having a severe impact on the ability of our tourism industry to punch at its proper weight. The rationale is straightforward. More direct international flights make it easier to attract more tourism to our country and to increase our share of that vital market. A stark illustration of the effect of the burden of air passenger duty is that, together with other burdens such as VAT, the UK as a whole, despite the excellence of the cultural offerings that we can make, is rated by the World Economic Forum as the 139th least competitive tourism country from a list of 140. The country occupying 140's place is Chad. Our tourism industry is geared for success and its unmatched natural and human resources to work with. When a family of four travelling to Scotland from North America are presented with an excess of £276 on their airfare, other parts of Europe can start to become a better alternative. Notwithstanding changes announced in the last UK budget, which I will touch on shortly, research work conducted in 2012 estimated that increases in APD rates between 2007 and 2011 could result in a loss of 2.1 million passengers to Scotland's main airports every year by 2016. That same report concluded that, in the five-year period from 2007, rates for short-haul flights had increased by around 160 per cent and long-haul by up to 360 per cent. Those figures in 2014 now stand at 160 per cent and 385 per cent respectively, and there could be no justification for that level of rise. Furthermore, a separate piece of independent economic modelling carried out in 2013 concluded that abolishing APD could provide the UK with a short-run increase in GDP of almost half of 1 per cent, rising investment and rising employment, and a permanent boost in GDP into the medium term. It is worth thinking for a moment about the effects of APD in increasing carbon emissions. Many people now go to Dubai via Dublin, rather than fly direct from Scotland, because it costs them more to do that with APD. We add on a short-haul environmentally damaging flight on to the actual flight itself. APD is working against our targets in terms of climate change as well. For some time, APD has been at the top end of the most expensive aviation duties in Europe, with significant annual rises bucking the European trend. Indeed, there appears to be a growing realisation among European neighbours of the negative economic impact that air passenger taxis can have. The Irish Government, for example, abolished its three-euros airport travel tax in April. It is also worth saying that the APD that we have is the most expensive tax of its kind in the world. We can compare the effect that it would have in Ireland in the reduction of APD with the reduced offering at some Scottish airports. We should not forget the importance of the economy of our airports in their own right and the vital importance of their success. They are major employers in their areas, both directly and through contractors. Glasgow Airport, for example, employs more than 400 staff directly, while contractors and service providers boost that figure to indirectly employing 4,500. We also need to recognise that successful airports are catalysts for economic development and that we should do everything that we can to support that ambition. Despite some of the misgivings that we have seen on Opposition Benches, our strong desire for Scotland to have control of APD is not based on the idea of power for the sake of power. It is based on a problem that we have identified, which is widely observed in the industry. It was also recognised by the Carlin Commission in June 2009, in which the UK Government has had ample opportunity to deal with it. It has chosen not to deal with it. You remember that the Carlin Commission further suggested that air passenger duty should be devolved, especially if it was devolved, to Northern Ireland, which it has now been. However, there are no reasons, no adequate explanation given as yet, for not dealing with it in Scotland. For some time, it has been apparent that the UK Government aviation policy has been, if we can call it, Heathrow centric. In an APD context, the captive market to which Heathrow represents makes it easier to charge APD at whatever rate suits the Exchequer. I have long argued that regional airports do not have that luxury and have drastically different capacity and demand issues. It is therefore just common sense to acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all policy will not work. The UK Government appears to have only partly seen the merits of that argument in relation to Northern Ireland. The recent changes in the UK budget betray the UK Government's singular focus. The reduction from four bands to two represents a tangible and immediate benefit for existing and soon to be introduced long-haul services. With that in mind, it would be no surprise to see the current direction of travel continue, whereby Heathrow looks to optimise its restricted capacity by encouraging more long-haul services at the expense of regional ones. When APD is charged on both sectors of a domestic service, the disincentive to airlines is also clear. The continuing squeeze that you have seen on our Heathrow connections and the barrier to enhanced international connectivity, which APD has provided, currently applies for company comprises something of a double whammy to passengers. The UK budget changes could in theory add more potential to future discussions with the Chinese and other long-haul markets but has little impact on the present. Our airports do not currently have direct scheduled services falling into the upper two bands for which the rates are being reduced. The MD of one of our larger airports told me recently that the changes affect around 4 per cent of his business. The impact that Heathrow and Gatwick, of course, are much more significant. Recognising the need for quick but also considered action, our commitments for APD in Scotland's future deal with the short term and the future. We are committed to a 50 per cent reduction in the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament with full abolition at a time when public finances allow. It is Scotland focused and does not have to reconcile unintended consequences at Heathrow or other large UK airports. That continues to be an insurmountable challenge, apparently, for the UK Government. Those are recognised throughout the industry as radical proposals but absolutely necessary for the position that we find ourselves in. That is a view shared by the industry. Scotland's airports have been supportive of APD control coming to Scotland for some time. Indeed, I had a call today with one of the airlines, FlyBU, who called to say that he wishes all the best in his debate and hopes for widespread support also among the opposition parties in relation to that. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce and others business organisations agree that they want to achieve executive of BA's payment group suggests that APD would be dealt with in a more progressive manner in an independent Scotland and the UK Government would be well advised to listen to that. I will also note the position taken previously by Ruth Davidson that APD should be abolished and the Liberal Democrats' position on federalism. We have, I think, the grounds for some consensus in Parliament, although that is quite a confused picture. I understand yesterday that, despite the fact that the Parliamentary Commission, which the Conservatives supported, has not taken a reaction on its own recommendation, Ruth Davidson felt that it is necessary to restate her support as I understand it for the devolution of APD, although that has since been contradicted in the report and the Guardian today. She has also mentioned that she sought its abolition from David Cameron, who point blank refused. What a perfect example of why we have to have independence in this country when a vital change, even if the Conservatives agree, should happen, is dismissed out of hand by the UK Prime Minister. Perhaps later on in the debate we will get some more certainty as to the Liberal Democrat position. We have also confirmed the Conservative position, but in relation to the Liberal Democrats we had a statement before from the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that this would be happening. Low and behold, it has not happened, so perhaps we can get some consensus or some clarity from the Liberal Democrats in relation to that and also how their refusal to move on this is reconciled with their position on federalism. I note in relation to the Labour parties, but yes, I will do. Alison McKillor You asked for clarity. Perhaps we could have some clarity from you. Yesterday, we learned that the SNP proposed to increase benefit for carers by £58 million. Given that that was not included in the page of costings in the white paper, can you tell me if that policy comes before or after ABPD in the queue for money? Alison McKillor A request from me from the Liberal Democrats evokes a response asking for clarity about a childcare policy. I think that you really could answer the question. Perhaps you can use your own time to answer the question in relation to the question that I asked rather than avoid it in the way that you have done. If you look at the Labour party's position, that has changed quite dramatically between April 2013 and March 2014. Originally, the proposal was to support devolution of APD and that has changed in the latest devolution proposals. I do not know what the rationale for that is, but perhaps we can have some clarity on that in relation to this debate subsequently. I have to say that those not currently in favour of control of APD coming to Scotland are swimming against the tide. We have laid out the reasons why it is important that Scotland should have control over this tax. It is quite clear from the York aviation study and other studies that have been done that the cost of Scotland has been estimated at, I think, around £200 million per year at 2014 levels. We know that it is the case that, in Southern America and North America, people are looking at this and they are saying to themselves that flights from Mexico are the examples that I have been given. Entire plane loads of people taking a decision rather than coming to the UK and to Scotland will decide instead to go to Paris or other European capitals, citing two reasons, one of which is APD and the other is in relation to visa controls. There is real cost here, because those people, had they come to this country, would spend money in our shops, in our hotels, in our restaurants to the benefit of the people of Scotland, and that is no longer happening. The £2 billion that the York aviation study mentioned across the whole of the UK is a huge figure and a huge loss. We can boost jobs, we can boost the economy, we can cut back on some of the very expensive connecting flights that we currently have to have by having more direct flights. For that reason, I am happy to move the motion in my name, that control over APD is passed to the Scottish Parliament. Thank you very much. I now call on Mark Griffin to speak to and move amendment 10185.2. Mr Griffin, you have nine minutes, which is interesting. Nine minutes. What we have here is another day and another debate on independence. Once again, we talk about powers and process when we could be talking about reducing poverty and inequality. Another debate where we end result will be that SNP MSPs vote one way, we vote another way, and not a single thing changes in Scotland in terms of transport connectivity. We have thought long and hard about air passenger duty, and we are still unconvinced about removing it. We have discussed it through the Parliament commission and introduced it for debate in our devolution commission, and while we feel that air passenger duty is in need of reform, a 50 per cent reduction in total removal would not be sensible without further consideration of the economic and environmental impact. Mark Griffin can say then why it was a point of principle for the Kalman commission to agree that it should be devolved. He might quibble with the proportion at which it is cut, but how is the principle that it should be devolved to Scotland changed from the conclusions that Labour reached during the Kalman commission? The point of principle is that we need to take into account the economic assessment and environmental assessments, which I will go on to try to cover some of that in my speech. From the first principles, we need to make judgments and take those assessments into account before we decide where the tax is best administered. We are not closing the door to devolution to Scotland, but we think that further consideration is required before a decision like that is taken. I do not think that the Scottish Government seems somehow surprised by that, but we just cannot remove what is an environmental levy without considering those impacts thoroughly. It is no surprise that the Scottish National Party wants this power over tax, since the Government is an all-centralising force here in Edinburgh. I never missed that opportunity to demand more powers. We have to look deeper at what the Government wants this power for. When we look at those reasons, we see that SNP Tory Alliance two parties propose the evolution of air passenger duties, two parties propose tax competition across the UK, with the benefits going to big airlines and the costs being borne by the public purse and the environment. It is a debate that is a mirror image of the one on corporation tax, where the Scottish Government pursues a low-tax economy while claiming that they are a progressive force. I thank Mr Griffin for giving way. I am just wondering in terms of what Mr Griffin and Labour Party's views on the York aviation report showed the devastating effect that APD has on Scottish airports and the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which went into some detail into the economic advantages of scrapping APD across the UK. There has been a failure of the Government to have any assessment of the policy before it is introduced. The papers that the member mentioned agree that there would be an increase in passengers coming to the UK. That would be a benefit, but, similarly, the member has to appreciate that there would be an increase in passengers leaving the UK and so home-based revenue for tourism would surely be affected as well. Surely that makes sense. However, what is progressive at all about the tax cut to big business of £135 million through the reduction of air passenger duty on top of the £385 million that is given back to big business through a cut in corporation tax that is 3 per cent lower than even George Osborne is proposing? That is more than £0.5 billion of a tax break to big business on day 1 of Scottish independence and no answer from the Scottish Government on where those cuts will fall on public spending. At the detail of the proposal, the Scottish Government has said that the costs of reducing APD could be offset by increased VAT receipts as a result of increased tourism. Apart from the fact that that revenue would go to the UK Treasury and that that seems to be the reason that the Scottish Government is not introducing its childcare policy, but we can leave that inconsistency for another day. It has been indicated that a 50 per cent reduction in air passenger duty would increase passengers by 3 per cent. A 3 per cent increase inward passengers would generate additional income and revenue in Scotland. However, it is enough to offset that £135 million in lost revenue. Similarly, as I said earlier, we were predicting an increase of 3 per cent investors. Surely, logic dictates that we would expect a 3 per cent increase on Scots flying out. How much would it cost the Scottish economy and the public purse if more Scots decide to go on foreign holidays rather than stay and visit UK destinations? Have you yet to see any detailed figures produced by the Scottish Government on the likely impact of the policy, other than what we know for certain, which is that the public purse will be £135 million worse off? I wonder if the minister can say today, then, in the interest of transparency ahead of the referendum, which public services would be cut or who would be paying higher taxes to fund that? Will it be teachers, nurses or police, local government or the care for the elderly? The Scottish Government can have no credibility on that issue when it has no costings and is not willing to say where spending will be reduced or taxes increased. Members are not taking intervention from you, Mr Sibori. That is not to say that we are opposed to the reform of air passenger duty. I just think that when it is considered, the full implications of any reform should be known. I think that it should also be remembered that air passenger duty was introduced as an environmental levy. The white paper makes a clear commitment to decarbonisation. Now, how are those two policies consistent? The white paper states that we will be able to align transport policy with energy policy to achieve Scotland's ambitious decarbonisation tactic targets. Under section 33 of the Climate Change Scotland Act, the Scottish Government has made a commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 46 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, with a further reduction of 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. That was a target unanimously backed by this Parliament. The act also requires the Scottish Government to hit annual emissions targets. In report back to Parliament, both of those targets have been missed, making the subsequent targets more difficult to hit. In the annual report on proposals and policies, the Scottish Government has also been criticised by Opposition parties and a number of environmental organisations for having too many proposals and not enough policies. Criticism such as basing lumb term goes on vague assertions such as new technology being available in the future. It seems strikingly similar that, in this debate, the Government can only offer those vague assertions again that everything would be okay. No costings to consider, no figures for how much they would be offset in the context of the environmental impact in carbon reduction targets and no proposals for any reform of air passenger duty to reduce carbon emissions from air travel. That debate is essentially about transport connectivity, but, as with everything else, it is about transport connectivity in independent Scotland. At the start of my contribution, I said that nothing will change after today. It will simply carry on as we were. That would not be the case if the Government is serious about transport connectivity. We could have been debating the actions and the options that the Scottish Government has today, right now, to make Scotland a more connected place and a more attractive place to come and visit for business or leisure. The Government could be well on the way to delivering a real link to Glasgow airport, boosting one of our most important city regions, but here we are again talking about powers and process and our continuation of this Government's independence agenda of tax cuts for big business. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I start by moving the amendment that stands in my name, lest I forget to move it at the end, for a terrible error that would be. I start from a position of enormous advantage in this debate, and that is because I was brought up to believe that all tax was evil. My experience of a career in politics has only tempered that slightly in that I now believe that tax may be a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. Occasionally, a tax comes along that causes everybody to round on it and attack it because of the damage that it is doing. An air passenger duty is exactly that kind of tax, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves here today debating APD once again having debated it I believe on 20 November 2012. To be perfectly honest, not a great deal has changed in the interim. One of the things that has not changed in the interim is the fact that the SNP is still desperately trying to quote from the York aviation report. The only difference is that, a year and a half down the line, it has demonstrated to be out of date and unworthy of our concern. However, I will go into some more detail on that. If you consider that the report said or claimed that increases in rates of air passenger duty could result in 2.1 million passengers being lost to Scotland and by 2016, 210 million less pounds would be spent in Scotland per year by inbound visitors. It also suggested that the initial doubling of APD in 2007 had had an effect at that time of reducing 1.2 million passengers over the country. However, in terms of the knock-on effect, it predicted that the Scottish economy as a result of ADP air passenger duty would lose inward investment, trade and competitiveness. Yet, if we look at the figures that have been produced since then, Glasgow airport in 2013 handled 7.4 million passengers up from 7.2 million in 2009, bucking the trend of the predictions in the York aviation report. Edinburgh had 9.2 million passengers up from 9 million in 2009. Those figures would appear to indicate that there is a growing trend. That trend is at its greatest in Aberdeen, where the handle of 3.5 million passengers in 2013 compared with only 3 million in 2009. It would appear that even with the recession that we have gone through, the predictions of the York aviation report did not materialise. Nevertheless, I found myself sitting through the minister's initial opening contribution to the debate agreeing with a great deal of what he said in terms of economic impact of taxation. I thank Mr Johnson for the intervention. Given that he is a fine-died in the world Tory, would he not agree with going by his own political judgment in the past and whatever that perhaps the change of ownership, the competition aspect in terms of Edinburgh air port particularly, might just have helped matters in terms of the numbers? There you go. A positive contribution made from outside Scotland. Let's now look at what we're actually saying in terms of this tax, what it was meant to do and the effect that it's having. Of course, we all know that it was initially put forward as a green tax. It was meant to tax those who were travelling by air and polluting as a result. It's now simply considered as a revenue-raising measure, but at the same time we should never make the mistake of believing that taxing people out of the air is likely to cause positive effects in terms of environment. As we all know, not only have passenger numbers increased in recent years but predictions that airlines would not invest in new or cleaner aircraft have also turned out to be wrong. The result is that the emissions from our aircraft, especially measured per passenger, are now dropping very quickly as fleets are renewed and efficiency is improved. However, a key part of that is that larger aircraft will tend to travel from hubs and, as a result, we in Scotland will rely, as we have always done, on feeder services to those major hubs rather than hoping that we can bring all those services directly into Scotland. The consequence of that is that we must concern ourselves about the air passenger duty not only being paid in Scotland but that that is paid in London, too. As I stand here, I am willing to hold out the olive branch and say that, yes, the Cullman Commission said that air passenger duty should be devolved. Yesterday, the Strathclyde Commission, the Conservative Party's document, which sets out what we are prepared to do in the event of a no-vote, a detailed document that goes into great length about the generous proposals for devolution that we will have in that event. Yet one small part of it, the part that is said that we would like to see APD devolved, is the one that the SNP is getting most excited about. However, what they miss is that devolving APD, even if we are to abolish it all—and not just the 50 per cent that they have committed to during the lifetime of the First Parliament—what they miss is that the only way that we can get rid of APD, rid Scotland of APD, is to abolish it on a united kingdom basis so that Scottish passengers do not have to pay it at London-end, as well as the Scottish-end, briefly. Why is it okay to give the power to Northern Ireland in terms of reducing APD and not Scotland? The irony of Chick Brody's position is that he takes the place of the Unionist, the man who looks from the centre and believes that everything should be equal in all directions. I take the position of the politician who believes in devolution. I believe in different solutions for different countries. That is why I, as a true devolutionist, who believes in decision-making right here in Scotland, am prepared to propose that we, as two political parties, with so much that separates us, reach out and link hands going forward together for the benefit of Scotland and its air passengers in order to secure in the long-term a sound commitment that this evil tax will ultimately be a burden removed and not one that we have to suffer any longer. Colin Patrick-Harvie, six minutes. Are you there by Mr Harvie? How do I follow that? I think that I can only reflect, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I think that I must have been raised with a fundamentally different understanding of the word evil than Alex Johnson. I was raised with an understanding that the decisions that we make collectively to provide the public services that we all depend on are investment in the future, and, indeed, hopefully in future, struggling towards a more sustainable economy. Those are profoundly to the good, and nothing could be further than the truth and to call that kind of approach evil. Given that that is the starting point, I have got a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that Mark Griffin was making not just about whether that would be a good change or a bad change in aviation terms, in transport connectivity terms, but how is it to be paid for? Just as we have reached an agreement between Labour and the Greens on the Government's approach to co-operation tax, the same argument applies here. If the Government wishes to cut a tax, it is going to have to say where that revenue will be replaced from other taxation or where it will be cut from the budget. Can you tell me why we have to replace taxes when, in the Netherlands, they got rid of APD because it was attracting 250 million euros and yet they were losing 750 million in tourism and VAT? Why do we have to replace the tax? If you stop raising a tax, then you have less income coming to the public budget, and that is going to have to be cut from somewhere. To move on to this question about whether cutting or even abolishing air passenger duty is a good idea, we have to begin with a comparison to other transport modes and an acknowledgement that the aviation industry already enjoys massive tax breaks compared with other transport modes. Since 1947 and the Convention on International Civil Aviation, as well as many EU directives and EU-US trade deals since then, the aviation industry has paid no fuel duty compared to every other transport mode that pays some taxation on its fuel. Aviation also enjoys—it is covered by VAT, but it is zero-rated in this country. Consumers pay no-VAT on tickets, airline fuel is zero-rated and no-VAT is due on the purchase of new aircrafts, aircraft servicing, air traffic control, baggage handling, aircraft meals and many other aspects of the industry. Those massive tax breaks that the industry already enjoys, can we figure out how much they are? The UK Government, with whom I would not agree on many things, has made an assessment saying that, whether the UK would charge a fuel duty and VAT on tickets, that could result in revenues of around £10 billion. That estimate was from 2008. I am not suggesting that those are things that one country can unilaterally do, that those changes would not be effective if one country unilaterally embarked on them, but we need to begin with an acknowledgement of the scale of the tax break that the industry enjoys. However, is its taxation through air passenger duty still too much of a burden? Too much of a burden to bear holding the industry back? I do not think so. I have to look at the increases that we have seen just recently. Aberdeen airport in 2013 had apparently its busiest year in history, beating the record high from before the economic downturn, seeing 3.48 million people pass through that airport in 2013. Glasgow airport has enjoyed its busiest year since 2008, after seeing 7.4 million passengers through its doors in 2013. That is a 2.9 per cent increase, and Edinburgh, which has been mentioned already, has used 9.8 million people in 2013. That is an increase of 6.3 per cent, beating the global average of increase of the aviation industry, most of which is seeing its increases in more rapidly developing countries. That remains a very expansionist industry. It is a very profitable industry. Just a few days ago, published profit forecasts for the airline industry globally said that the airlines are expected to make an excess of £10 billion profit. European airlines made some 240 million in 2012 and 300 million in 2013, and that is projected to rise to £1.7 billion in 2014. It is fascinating to hear those figures, but can you express those same figures in terms of percentage profit? What you have seen from the European Airlines is clearly a large percentage increase, between 240 million and 300 million up to 2014. It is a dramatic increase. That remains very clearly an expanding and a highly profitable industry, which enjoys massive tax breaks. That is my starting point, and I find it hard to take a different view. What should a fair contribution through taxation be from this industry? For me, it has to be related to the social and environmental impacts of the industry, on noise and traffic impacts on the ground, as well clearly as the CO2 impacts, which, of course, are higher, given those emissions at altitude. Abta, in its briefing to members, accepts that aviation should pay its proper environmental cost but, quite laughably, goes on to say that it believes that that cost is more than reflected in the current APD levels. That is particularly true with the introduction of the emission trading scheme. It covers only 25 per cent of aviation emissions in Europe in that scheme. That is an industry that makes a far lower contribution through tax than other transport modes and has a far higher impact on climate change through its emissions. As for Keith Brown's argument about short-haul flights being more environmentally damaging, that is exactly the same spurious rationale that was put forward for the Air Route Development Fund, which saw continual increases in long-haul as well as short-haul flights. The assumption underlying the industry's argument and the Government's position is that aviation can just keep growing, while the rest of society aims for dramatic CO2 cuts. I do not think that the industry can be given a free ride for much longer, and I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. We now move to open debate, and I call on Mike Mackenzie to be followed by Graham Day up to seven minutes. Presiding Officer, this year of air passenger duty, Ali states, much that is wrong with Westminster Government, not just this Westminster Government but the institution itself. There is a good Scots word to describe it. That word is thrown. The case for reducing or abolishing air passenger duty has long since been made. It is a proverbial non-brainer, not my words, the words of Mike Cantlay from Visit Scotland. For there is no case at all to be made for a tax that acts against the public interest and at the same time deprives the exchequer of revenue. It has long been shown that reducing air passenger duty will more than pay for itself. It will pay for itself an increased tourism and associated visitor spend. It will pay for itself an increased VAT and an increased take from the whole basket of taxes. It will pay for itself in job creation and in decreasing welfare costs. As if that is not enough, it will pay for itself in increasing our competitiveness and increasing business that will flow from this. It will pay for itself in increasing our global connectedness and the increased trade associated with this. Scotland, unlike the rest of the UK, is increasingly an exporting economy. We export our oil and gas expertise and, in fact, our oil and gas supply chain now earns more money internationally than it does in the North Sea. The member is making a case that this would have a beneficial impact on the rest of the economy through all the oil men flying all over the world. That would be great, but it clearly has a cost to the Scottish budget. Can he understand that reducing a tax means that you have to find that money from somewhere else in the Scottish Government's budget, even if he says there is a benefit in the wider economy? I am surprised that Mr Harvie does not properly understand the nature of taxation, where sometimes you give away with one hand to collect much more in the other hand. From the whole basket of taxes, virtually every single tax in the basket will deliver an increased take. If I can continue, Mr Harvie, we also export our food and drink. Exports in this sector have increased by 55 per cent since 2007. They are now worth £5.4 billion, with a target of achieving over £7 billion by 2016. In doing so, in pursuing this exporting success, we contribute greatly to the UK balance of trade, which the UK Government does not like to talk about. Without Scotland's exports, the UK will face real balance of trade difficulties. Without Scotland's exports, the UK trade deficit would double. That is one reason why, despite its current posturing, UK politicians will be pleased to enter into our currency union with Scotland after independence. Participating successfully in the global economy, as Scotland does, requires travel. In the modern world, that implies air travel. There is quite simply no other way to do it. Tourism brings in more than £4 billion a year to the Scottish economy, and a significant proportion of that is via air travel. Therefore, it makes no sense to throttle our trade with the rest of the world. It makes no sense to stifle our tourism potential. It makes no sense at all to limit our economic potential by imposing air passenger duty. That is no doubt why the Cymru recommended that APDs should be devolved to Scotland. That is why the Tories Strathglyde Commission, as I understand it, recommended that APDs would be devolved. That is why the Liberal Democrats Home Rule Report, the federalism for the best future for Scotland, back in October last year, recommended the devolution of APDs. However, as usual, the UK Government is too slow, too dull and too deaf to listen to the compelling case that has been repeatedly made to devolve this tax. That is why, with independence, we intend to immediately reduce taxes. Brian Brown said that abolishing the taxes is a no-brainer. He said that we would make up every penny and more in other taxes, so why does he not favour immediate abolition upon independence? I am very glad that you asked that question because, of course, you do not just pull on that lever and suddenly get the windfall of taxes the same day. It takes time. It takes time. That is why sensibly the Scottish Government has pledged to reduce the tax to 50 per cent on independence and, thereafter, as those taxation from other parts of the basket of taxes roll in and pour into Scotland, then, at that point, ultimately we will abolish the tax completely. I am sure, Mr Brown, that you agree with me that that makes good economic sense. Of course, it is for those reasons that the aviation industry and all who depend on it and, increasingly, people across Scotland are indicating their support for independence. It has been estimated that, by 2016, if nothing is done to tackle APDs, that damaging measure will cost the Scottish Tourism and our economy some £210 million per annum over a four-year period by virtue of lost inbound tourist spend. However, we do not have to look far to seek tangible evidence of how reducing such taxation can impact positively. In Ireland, they have just scrapped the equivalent of APDs and are anticipating one million more visitors coming there annually as a result. On the back of the move, Ryanair has opened up 21 new routes in and out of Dublin, Shannan and Nock, which, of course, is advantageous not only for visitors but affords the Irish greater scope for travelling themselves, not to mention potentially opening up new business opportunities and theirs the rub for Scotland. We are not competing on a level playing field. We are even remotely resembling that with one of our closest tourism rivals, rivals whom we are going head-to-head with in the areas of both golf and heritage tourism, particularly in the US market. Of course, independent Ireland already had an advantage over us, having as 25 other European nations have reduced their VAT rate on tourism a little over two and a half years ago. That latest move makes it even harder for our industry to take them on. Right now, we are trying to participate in a competitive marketplace with one hand tied behind our backs. The UK Government, despite the Scottish Government's imploring, has steadfastly refused to look at the VAT issue and, as with APDs, such a decision can, of course, only be taken by them. The Irish Tourist Board commissioned a report into the impact of the first two years of a VAT reduction from 13.5 to 9 per cent. I mentioned this partly to answer part of Harry's point about budgetary impact. That report showed that tourist numbers were up 10,000 jobs being created across the industry as a result of the measure, and the income to the treasury surrendered by the cut had been more than made up for by the tax take from those in employment and economic spending on the part of tourists. The figures that I just developed were that there were €95 million in total coming from additional income tax and social welfare savings in tourism spend set against €88 million of a drop in VAT receipts. That proved a winning move, so too will be the abolition of their APD, even though it was pitched at a far lower level than that in the UK. As any of us who fly know, the cost of taking to the skies to and from the UK is grossly inflated by APD. It hits barren off on short-haul flights for long-haws that really are punitive. Although the Westminster Government plans to tinker with this in 2015 by pegging the charge for all flights exceeding 2,000 miles at £284 for that family afford, the negative impact of the continuing leaven of APD at such levels on the Scottish economy and our airports could go beyond the obvious. It is much cheaper, even factor in the cost of a connecting return flight over the Irish Sea now, to fly to some destinations already served by Edinburgh from Dublin than it is from Scotland's capital. Can I just give three examples involving three different carriers flying to Philadelphia, New York and Paris in July of this year? In the case of Philadelphia, there is a £184 per flight saving to be made. In the case of New York, £404 per flight. In the case of Paris, it is £30 per flight. Remember, Edinburgh is actually closer to Paris than Dublin. Unless this issue is tackled either through APD being involved or the control of it is secured through independence, the more desirable option by far, we could be facing a bleak time of it, with Scottish holidaymakers snubbing direct flights from this country in favour of cheaper alternatives to be had elsewhere. I do not want Scotland to be operating in some sort of regional hub linking people into London or Dublin. I want to see Scotland developing more comparably affordable direct flights and properly exploiting its potential as a first choice tourism destination. Ryanair's Michael Leary has predicted that full abolition of APD would see visitor numbers to Scotland double over five to ten years, except we are not talking about full abolition, but at 50 per cent reduction moving towards removal of the tax when the public finances allow would certainly see much of that potential materialise. The Westminster Government might be planning on abolishing two bands of APD for journeys in excess. James Kelly? I thank the member for taking the intervention. Just on his proposal for the partial abolition of APD, that would take £135 million out of the Scottish budget. Can he tell us what he raised in the budget he would cut to replace a shortfall? Labour's amendment claims that a 50 per cent cut in APD would remove £135 million from an independent Scottish Government's budget. However, what about the positive countering impact such a move would have? The PricewaterhouseCoopers report last year suggested that if APD were abolished across the UK as a whole, it would generate the equivalent of 0.46 per cent of UK GDP in a year, rising to £16 billion plus within three years, leading to the creation of 60,000 jobs. I am no economist, but I think that that suggests tackling APD would be a pretty good thing, especially if it were married to looking at the VAT in the tourism sector as well. Who knows? We might just start to see people from the north of England travelling to an independent Scotland to catch flights from here, rather than the present situation, which is quite the reverse. If an independent Scotland were to be reducing and ultimately scrapping APD as the UK remained on the path that it presently is, the boost to our airline sector and the economy could be significant. Scots-based travellers would surely support our own airports instead of heading south in pursuit of a saving, and perhaps some travellers from over the border might be tempted north by cheaper fares. The fact is that we need action on this issue. That action needs to go beyond simply devolving APD. Scotland needs to control this measure as it does every other power associated with a fully independent country. We have heard from the minister and Mike McKenzie and Graham Day about the economic factors behind air passenger duty. I would like to take this opportunity to concentrate on the environmental impact and aspects in the debate, as well as the role of air travel in general transport connectivity. My Labour colleague Mark Griffin has already argued that the benefits of devolving air passenger duty at this stage still need to be assessed. I do not intend to go into those arguments again. The SNP plans to abolish the duty, and I quote, as I understand it, when public finances allow, whenever this may be. Frankly, this does seem somewhat simplistic and rather disingenuous. Far from detailed research on the economic and environmental consequences being carried out, we do not have any information on that. We need to understand the full picture of what the Scottish Government is saying, both in terms of the 50 per cent and later on. As I have already highlighted, in many debates and other members across the chamber have, in 2009, the chamber voted to pass the Climate Change Act, which committed us to reducing carbon emissions by 46 per cent by 2022 and by 80 per cent by 2050. As the Scottish Government has been made all too aware, as my colleague Mark Griffin highlighted, by stakeholders outside this Parliament, this is no easy task. We acknowledge that across the chamber in all parties. Our targets are the most ambitious in the world and difficult to achieve, but the long-term benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions were recognised by all parties and led this Government and those that will follow in the future to commit to taking the issue of climate change very seriously and developing policies—no, I will not take an intervention, I am just developing what I want to say, sorry—and developing policies accordingly. It is the pathways that matter, and these are complex and difficult for us all. As such, I am struggling to understand how cutting APD, which encourages more air travel, is comparable with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I am sure that the minister does not need me to point out that air travel produces one of the highest levels of emissions of any global sector, so why is it that the Scottish Government is aiming to cut this tax? The member has concentrated on environmental issues. I think that she would acknowledge that we have seen a 12 per cent reduction in transport emissions in Scotland since 2007, but, in addition to that, she is aware that we intend to spend £1.3 billion on environmental measures from 2013 to 2016. Is it her position that the Labour Party on principle does not support the devolution of APD to Scotland? That is not clear so far from what has been said. That is a number of questions that the minister has asked. We are looking at that possibility, and my colleague Mark Griffin has already highlighted that there are both economic and environmental issues that need to be assessed before we take that final decision, and I thought that that was already clear. In making the decision that the Scottish Government has made, has the Scottish Government assessed what the likely increase in air travel might be due to a cut and further has the Scottish Government considered the increase in carbon that would be created and how that would be offset in relation to carbon emissions. The tax breaks to aviation industry are major, as Patrick Harvie has already highlighted. However, in terms of low carbon, the SNP's own white paper announced the intention, and I quote, to align transport policy with energy policy to achieve Scotland's ambitious decarbonisation targets, a commendable goal to be sure. However, it surely sits uncomfortably with the status aim to bring much of the economic support to a potential independent Scotland from oil revenues and, as part of the fossil fuel mix, and, indeed, the cut in aviation tax. In this case, we should surely—I will not take an intervention, but I will just go on to a new point. In this case, we should surely be encouraging people to fly less wherever possible, I stress, not creating another needless incentive to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. I am afraid to say that that is somewhat hypocritical in my view and has been a running pattern of this Government, forever making grand pronouncements on environmental issues, then, at the same time pursuing policies that contradict their previous intentions, be it with North Sea oil and energy or in the marine environment. The Scottish Government's policy on sustainable economic growth, in my view, is in danger of losing that word in the middle, sustainable. In any case, the debate today on air-patterned duty only is in itself somewhat of a red herring. The issue of transport connectivity should be viewed as a whole, rather than concentrating on one aspect of the transport sector in isolation in this debate. We heard in the chamber last week about the new Caledonian sleeper franchise and how that will greatly improve rail connections to London. There are also opportunities to further develop rail travel to mainline Europe to consider. Of course, no-one is saying that all air travel should be discouraged. Most non-domestic journeys require air travel, especially intercontinental ones. However, there is a proliferation of intercity flights within the UK, which I believe could be countered by arguments for more train travel. Although, of course, no-one has acknowledged yet, I do not think, the importance of the exemption from the APD for the Western Isles, where it would not be possible to make this journey in a realistic way otherwise. Members will agree that it is fair and sensible to go forward looking at this in the round, I hope, in terms of connectivity. It can sometimes take just as long to get to some of our major cities from Edinburgh by flying, as it does by going by rail. One of the main reasons for the choice of flight is sometimes the cost, having googled a lot of train costs and found that those are not necessarily affordable for people either. Thinking laterally also is the Scottish Government working with Visit Scotland to encourage families to consider holidaying in Scotland and not having to fly abroad, although I put my hand up and say that occasionally I do that as well. However, we need to look at the issues in the round and not just look at the passenger duty today. The SNP's bold assertion that it will abolish the APD when the public finances allow, I ask the question of the minister. Has this been properly weighed up in relation to economic and environmental impact? Or is it yet another example of the politics where we can offer where the SNP can offer something beyond independence to hold out in front of people and in front of businesses and not have it properly costed? We will never know if it would happen or not. Thank you. Thank you so much. I now call on Colin Kear to be followed by Chick Brody up to seven minutes please. Can I thank you, Presiding Officer, for calling me today. There are a few things that bind those within and outside the aviation industry more than their hatred of APD. Fair Tax and Flying is an alliance of over 30 airlines, airports, tour operators, destination and travel trade associations, who are all calling on the UK Government to make UK aviation tax fairer. When you add to those people such as the Chamber of Commerce, certainly here in Edinburgh, who are of the same mind, there is a very broad opinion that there is something wrong with this tax. Introduced in 1994, I believe that it was brought in on the back of it's an environmental tax. It's certainly not that now, it's just a tax. Nobody even claims it to be anything close to an environmental tax. It started off, of course, with just five pounds for short journeys and ten pounds elsewhere. Now, of course, we have rates which the World Economic Forum reported last year stated that the UK has the world's highest rate of APD. We've seen, over the past couple of years, the PWC reports. Incidentally, a report written by people who used to work in the UK Treasury and, of course, the York aviation report that was commissioned by the Scottish airports. I think in terms of the Scottish airports, as Mr Johnston pointed out, we've had some pretty good figures. These have been in spite of air passenger duty. It's been a demand for more direct flights and it's investment due to the hard work of those people who run the airports and are looking for route development. The one thing that we have had here is success that way. We could make it better, and I believe Edinburgh, particularly as the local MSP, which has the airport and the constituency, is a driver for the economy. Everyone in the business sector accepts that, and it is there that it needs to be encouraged. We need jobs and we need to get the economy moving, and it is starting through the aviation industry. Given what we've heard so far from a number of people, we can see the difficulties in economic terms that those in the aviation industry are faced with, as I've explained in terms of Edinburgh airport. Indeed, as the minister pointed out, there has been a comment from the chief executive of Flyby, Sid Hamad, who said, and I'll quote him here, across the aviation industry, scrapping air passenger duty would not only incentivise airlines to provide new routes and enhance travel for Scotland's passengers, it would also significantly boost business and the economy. Scottish business people and consumers have to count the cost of paying this tax twice when travelling domestically to an English airport, a disproportionate financial penalty that must not be allowed to continue. I'm sure that the airport operators association that works in the UK, and particularly those in the north of England, such as Newcastle and Manchester, are all saying the same thing, and that's what makes it even more worrying. I'm sure that the comments made by some members of the Labour Party there today will be sending shivers down the back of this industry, because they are looking for support. It's a simple fact of it, and it is shown by the comments of many people. Scottish business people and consumers generally have had to count the cost of paying this tax twice, as was said, and this is really the crux of the problem. We have a geographical problem and a hub problem that means that we end up paying twice. It's nothing more than Westminster's demand for a tax, as I say, it's not a green tax. It's a constant source of amazement that the chancellor has so far failed to respond to the pleas of business leaders such as Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic, Willie Walsh of BA, Carl McAuliffe of EasyJet and, of course, Hamid of Flyby, as well as Michael O'Leary, to stop trying to make their businesses as uncompetitive as they are in an incredibly difficult market, and uncompetitive it is. In the case of the UK, the competition isn't just between carriers and airports, it's between nations. The last time I looked, I think, is mentioned by the minister. APD was paid by a family of four in a holiday to Florida. That is £276 against £154 for the equivalent family in Germany going to the same destination. Then, of course, there's the Republic of Ireland, as Graham Daze pointed out, which scrapped the tax. Indeed, unlike Scotland, where we were promised through Calman that this would be devolved, of course, it got devolved to Northern Ireland in an attempt to be more competitive with Dublin. Of course, what's the difference between Belfast and Dublin to Belfast and Glasgow? We're talking airplanes here. I believe that this is put Scotland at a competitive disadvantage anyway. But Westminster demands to hold on. The Labour Party appears to have… We seem to think that they'd seen a bit of merit in devolving powers. Now we're not terribly happy. Oh, okay, Mr Brown. Gavin Brown. I'm great. We're just thinking through his example there. How does making it cheaper for families to go to Florida to help the Scottish economy? Well, I would have thought that the complete infrastructure of business in terms of travel, ticketing, the services provided, the amount of money you may well spend with your family as you're waiting on a flight and all the basic stuff like that has got to show that that's business. People are making money out of this and the taxation that comes from that is such. I have to say that Tory's now appear to be mildly supportive of APD, but as the minister pointed out, the original Guardian online article seemed to suggest that the leadership in London and the Treasury are just completely against it. I'm sorry if I take what's been said in your launch the other day there with a pinch of salt. What's certainly true is, I certainly don't believe there being much in the way of expectation that any one of the better together parties will actually provide relief for travellers in the event of a no vote. APD just doesn't work. It hurts the travelling public. It hurts businesses and it hurts Scotland more than any other part of the UK. Ordinary people who have to save for months, unlike some who have a lot of money to have to save for months to take their family on the holiday that they want to take, are penalised because of this tax. Why on earth should we be taxed for this? Just to travel through London, we end up paying double the cost. APD is also a barrier when it comes to airports vying for new routes. I'll finish off very briefly saying it's not just ourselves, but the south-east of England is paying the penalty for it. We'll do it through the amount of direct flights that are won by those here in Scotland. The sooner we get the power to have APD under our full control in a full independent nation, the sooner the better. Of any one matter, any one tax illustrates and confirms the Westminster Coalition inhabits and its predecessor inhabited the economic madhouse, then APD is it. In 1993, when the then Tory chancellor, Ken Clark, said a quote, I need to raise revenue, but to do so in a way that does least damage to the economy. He went on. I proposed to Libby a small duty on all our passengers from UK airports set at £5 for departures to anywhere in the United Kingdom and £10 for departures elsewhere. Of course, it's £340 for a family of four to visit Australia. He went on. There would be exemptions for transfer passengers and most flights between the Scottish Islands and they would not bear the tax. When first announced, the Tory Government argued that the new duty was most unlikely, most unlikely to have a big impact on the sales of flights. In a written answer at the time, the then paymaster general, and he was a general, Sir John Cope stated that, I quote, the overall, the tax is expected to reduce demand for air travel by around 2.5 per cent. It brings to mind burns. It's, hey, Johnny Cope, are you walking yet, or are you sleeping, I would wit. One thing is for sure, we've been sleepwalking into an unmitigated disaster for an important element of our economy, our jobs, our tourism and our vibrant air industries as this tax has grown and grew over the last 20 years of Westminster management. Never mind the Tobin tax on financial tax transactions, here we have the topsy tax. Kalman commission was right that we should have had at the power over APD and the UK government is and was wrong. It's not just Scotland, of course. Kalman commission today, could you just remind me the extent of the SNP's engagement with that commission? On the basis, one thing that he said to Mr Johnson was all good will, man may learn wisdom even from a foe. The rationale behind that was that Scotland had made quite clear that it was looking for full independence and not a halfway house. It's not just Scotland that affects, but the UK exchequer. Patrick Harvie is right to make the point about the effect on climate change aspirations, because none of the conversations have meaningfully at least emanated from the Chancellor's checker or the Treasury body considering fuel efficiency or the need to move to modern aircraft. The same application of duty applies to very old aircraft. A clear lack of long-term strategy that will, I believe, see Heathrow almost paralysed. Gatwick and Stansett also just so at peak times, while airports and mitigation elsewhere can, where and would fight for and seek international direct routes. Much better than lose London as a significant international hub. Of course, the law of diminishing returns has never been a shining feature of the UK Treasury economic management. No one diminishes the taxing time for our airports. I specifically welcomed the decision recently on Prestwick, but I want to see all of Scotland's airports flourish as they can under the professional management that manages them and see it flourish in what I believe will be a growing economy. Passengers and departure taxes such as APD erode the economy, certainly the profitability of the airlines and the consequently jobs in these airlines and at airports. Not to mention the enjoyment of customers, Mr Brown, who would like to go to Florida. This is the case across Europe, but the Netherlands, Denmark and now Ireland have abolished such a tax. For example, in the Netherlands, the point that I was trying to make to Mr Griffin, I think that there might be some confusion when I answered Patrick Harvie, the point that I was trying to raise with Mr Griffin, and as I raised with Mr Harvie, is that the Netherlands can the tax after one year because the €250 million that it was bringing into their economy was losing them, on the other hand, €700 million in tourism and VAT income. Of course, there are tourism prospects yet again. While some Europeans still levy air duty, none has seen the increase of the 165 per cent since 2007 in air passenger duty, which we have seen and felt in the UK. I know where does that resonate more than its impact on Scotland? I know that the opposition party is all real because many have developed a unique skill in proposing nothing and opposing everything, but if they want a perfect illustration of why Scotland's economy could benefit from independence, then APD is the perfect canvas. Scotland's major airports management and the associated airline management are unanimous. They are professional managers involved in the industry. They are professionals who know and agree that we should set off on a journey to reduce and then eliminate the topsy tax. We have to do to improve our exports in knowledge transfer, in trade, in competitiveness and in tourism, which is an export activity. If we are to ride the punches of global competition, we need more direct and international connectivity, which is vital for business and, by the way, indirectly helps the rest of the UK economy, as London and the south-east could choke currently if we do not do something on a limited air transport capacity. I will not, Presiding Officer, with your agreement dwell on the likely negative impact on Scottish expenditure and jobs if Boris's fantasy becomes reality. It really is fantasy island. In this significant area of international tourism and business, as in many other areas, Scotland is increasingly divergent from London and the rest of the UK. Economically, with jobs at its heart, we need to be able to at least develop a competitive advantage where we can. We would rather do that than whinge about it. The independent ability to reduce and eliminate the iniquitous tax would allow us to share the investment and the motivation to achieve the jobs that I know we all want. That will only come about, I believe, with the sovereignty of independence. It will then be up to others outside to meet the economic challenge that we would introduce, which I submit and suspect would be in their economic interests. I believe that members would advise that they could have up to seven minutes for the speeches, and that is all that is available for members. Aileen Murray, to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Listening to this debate, I am not sure that the Scottish Government's arguments have really progressed much beyond the debate back in November 2012. I do wonder that there is a wee bit of a motivation to try to embarrass members of other parties and possibly even people like myself, who admitted at that time that there was a case for the devolution of APD. I am not going to deny what I said at that time, but I think that there are issues that need to be counterbalanced with that. If I can illustrate some of those problems, perhaps with the difficulty that there could be about having two different regimes in the United Kingdom by a local example. For my constituents, I would like to illustrate it with my local example. I am sure that you might have a local example if you are speaking that you wish to use. My constituents in the north of England are as accessible as those in the central belt of Scotland and are probably more widely used. In fact, passengers can take a train directly into Manchester airport from Lockerbie or from Dumfries and Annan in Gretna by changing at Carlisle. In fact, there has been a long cherished wish in the Solway Basin to have Carlisle airport open to passenger flights. Unfortunately, the aspiration has been disappointed in March this year when an application for the development of Carlisle airport was overturned in the high court after a challenge from a local farmer. Nevertheless, the Stobart Group still hoped to bring forward another application, which they hoped would result in daily passenger flights to Dublin and London. Obviously, if that aspiration is realised, and except it has been discussed for many years without much in the way of significant progress, but it is eventually realised that it could really open up additional tourism potential for Dumfries and Galloway. If it is unfair that passengers tuning from Scottish airports may have to pay air passenger duty twice if there is no direct flight from that airport, I made that point in the debate in back in November 2012. Equal it is unfair that passengers travelling to and from airports in the northern parts of England, which could include some of my constituents who are crossing the border duty, indeed, you can have the opposite situation where people are travelling from the north of England into Scottish airports. Why should any of us have to pay twice because there is no direct flight from our own airport? Indeed, the airports in the north of England and their passengers could be disadvantaged with respect not just to London but to Scotland and Wales too under the devolution of APD. It is a complex situation. Our amendment back then in November 2012 urged the UK Government to take action to resolve that anomaly because it is disadvantaging passengers from airports in Scotland, Wales and the north of England. I am not quite sure with some of the reforms that are proposed by the UK Government whether that is being addressed and perhaps the Conservative Speaker could enlighten us on whether there are any intentions to resolve that anomaly. Devolving APD at this particular stage could result in tax competition, as we have heard from Mark Griffin and others, rather than resolving the wider issues around the way in which a tax operates. The great thing about devolution is that it can be reviewed and refined in the light of experience, and that is happening. Unfortunately, if you take the decision of independence, there is no way back if you do not happen to like it. When the tax was introduced in 1994, climate change was far further down the agenda in terms of priority. As Claudia Beamish pointed out, the Scottish Parliament passed the climate change act in 2009, which committed ourselves to a 42 per cent reduction in emissions only six years from now in 2020, and 80 per cent by 2050. It is very important that the bill included our share of emissions from international aviation and from shipping. That was quite a bold thing to do, and we recognise that as part of the ground-breaking legislation that we passed. At the same time, the Scottish Government has missed its annual reduction targets for two years in succession, so we have got a problem. We set ourselves targets and we did not reach them. I do not know that APD, as it stands, is the best way of controlling aircraft emissions. I do not endorse any approach simply about reducing tax and eventually removing APD altogether without replacing it with some other form of taxation on aviation emissions. Perhaps taxing passengers is not the best way. Perhaps there are some ways in which taxation could be aimed at those companies that use aircraft or fuels that are more polluting. There might be ways in which we could refine it, but I do not think that it is correct to take the tax away altogether. In fact, I recall from that debate to which I refer that Stuart Stevenson had some quite interesting examples of possible ways of tackling the actual aviation fuel emissions in terms of types of fuel and so on. I think that there needs to be consideration of how APD could be reformed. That is what Labour colleagues in Westminster have been urging the UK Government to do. The Scottish Government says that it would reduce APD by 50 per cent in the first term of an experiment. I am slightly puzzled as to why it only wants APD to be devolved if there is a yes vote in September, whether previously I thought that it wanted APD to be devolved full stop. That is what the motion says. That aside, however, the Government's proposal to cut APD by 50 per cent would remove, as we have heard, £135 million from the Scottish budget without any indication where the money would be coming from. Now, I expect that, like the £385 million proposed cut to co-operation tax, its answer will be—in fact, I have already heard—economic growth. However, there is still a problem. I cannot remember which member of the SNP has got, but he has got one of them to admit the problem. Even if there is an economic growth in the unlikely event that the Scottish Government's highly optimistic assertions were correct, it is not going to happen instantaneously, but the cuts to the budget will bite as soon as they are implemented. At the start, £135 million would be removed from the budget in order to make it cheaper for Scottish residents to fly off on holiday. Now, we all like a cheap holiday idea as much as anybody else, so that would be popular. Is that really the best use of £135 million? If £135 million is just kicking around with nothing to be done with it, might it not be better to use it to invest in our public transport system, which gets people to and from work every day and contributes to economic growth? Or perhaps to reinstate some of the rail projects that the Scottish Government has either abandoned or delayed? Those would also contribute to economic growth and they would contribute to economic growth in a sustainable manner. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government, having included aviation emissions in the Climate Change Act 2020, seems now to be retreating rather fast from action to tackle aviation emissions. APD might not be the best way, but would the Scottish Government bring in an alternative green tax if it gets rid of APD or will it bring in alternative green tax to tackle the issue of aviation emissions? I find the debate somewhat bizarre, because it seemed that, not so long ago, folk from across this chamber were supportive of the devolution of air passenger duty. In fact, about 18 months ago, an attend an event that was hosted by Tory MSP Jamie McGregor, where there was a cross-party support for the tourism industry who wanted to see the demise of air passenger duty. We heard from those people that some folks were no longer coming to Scotland for trips because of that APD. We heard from the Kalman commission that APD should be devolved. The Strathclyde commission said that APD should be devolved. The Campbell commission from the Lib Dems said that APD should be devolved. The Labour interim report on devolution said that there is a case for APD to be devolved. Yet today, we are hearing from all fronts that they no longer believe that that is the case. I would say to the people out there that they should be extremely skeptical of what those unionist parties are saying on any given thing, because they are inevitably going to turn that around and say, no, we do not believe that that should be the case. Be very, very skeptical indeed. Dr Murray has just talked about the situation where she does not want to see two different regimes in the United Kingdom. The reality is that we already have two different regimes, because Northern Ireland has had APD devolved. What is the difference between the north of Ireland and Scotland in that regard? Let us get back to what people out there are actually thinking. I represent the north-east of Scotland, and I get lots and lots of moans and groans about the fact that there are not enough reach from the north-east of Scotland and the costs of flying from the north-east of Scotland to other parts of the world. Nick Barton, who was the interim managing director of Aberdeen international airport for a while, said that numerous studies have spelled out the impact that it is having, and we have even seen rival airline bosses standing shoulder to shoulder united against APD. At the same time, we are working within an industry that, by its very nature, is exceptionally mobile and airlines looking to serve new markets will ultimately choose other European countries at the expense of Scotland, and we have seen that happen. I will give way to Mr Johnson. Is this note a classic example of how the SNP would rather stand isolated and impotent than work together across this Parliament to achieve our long-term objective? This is not about isolation at all. This is about creating new international routes so that we can connect with our partners right across the globe. The isolationism here comes from those folks who feel that we have no option but to keep APD powers at Westminster. That is what is creating isolationism. I want to see internationalism. Let's move on to the current managing director of Aberdeen airport, Carol Benzie, who said that what is becoming increasingly clear are the implications of this tax on UK businesses. Simply put, APD adds to the burden of running a successful company. 65 per cent of our passengers in Aberdeen are travelling in a professional capacity, and ultimately the responsibility for paying APD in each and every one of these cases is being passed back to their employer. Firms in Aberdeen are connected globally with links in emerging and existing markets. Those businesses are paying APD twice if they choose to use a hub airport in the UK and are taking their business elsewhere in increasing numbers to avoid this tax. Ultimately, APD, which we are told is helping to get it back to growth, is doing more harm than good. I think that we should be listening to those folks who are involved in a day-to-day basis in this business and, beyond that, listening to the folks that I do regularly, who are travelling from Aberdeen to all parts of the globe, whose competitiveness is being damaged by this tax. As Carol Benzie rightly says, many folk are choosing to use hub airports elsewhere. They are travelling to Charles de Gaulle, to Skiphall and various other places. They will be travelling to Northern Ireland very soon, I am sure, now that they will see APD going. I want to see less of the short-haul flights to hub airports and much more direct routes from Scotland, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick to all parts of the globe. That is much more environmentally friendly rather than having those short-haul flights. If that is the consequence that he anticipates flowing from the policy of halving and then scrapping passenger duty, why does the Scottish Government's assessment of the carbon impact so that emissions would rise as a result of that policy? I think that we all know, Presiding Officer, that short-haul flights have the greatest impact on the environment. The York Aviation report, which some folk have poo-pooed here today, and I think that that is a very wrong thing to do, says themselves that APD is seen as a pseudo environmental tax, despite the fact that rates take no account of the actual environmental impact of a flight. Future plans have never sought to reflect aviation's entry into the EU, ETS in 2012. The new coalition Government appears to view APD more simply as a revenue-raising instrument. I agree that that is what they are doing. I think that we should have those powers and I think that we can do much better with them. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Iain Gray. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It was in November 2012—I last spoke on the subject, as many of the rest of us also did. I think that there has been quite a lot of talking about it. I think that perhaps time we should be thinking about what Benjamin Franklin once said. He said that well done is better than well said. Well, there has been an awful lot said that it is now time to move from talking about things to actually doing things. The debate has been quite interesting, and I suspect that I can make quite significant common cause with Iain Murray and perhaps one or two others. I am going to try to talk about two things. First of all, the economics and secondly about the environmental opportunities that there might be from a different approach. Let me just run through. I have done this in the back of an envelope, so I do not pretend that this is the final word on the subject or anything like it. An average vacationer coming on a short-haul vacation to Scotland will spend 3.6 nights in Scotland. If they are spending—and this is the average spend—120 pounds on a hotel, that is 72 pounds in vat, new tax from somebody who would not be coming. They probably will get the taxi from Edinburgh Airport into the centre of Edinburgh and the taxi back out to the airport, because the kind of tourists might get the bus, they might get the tram. I am in favour of trams, wrong route, but that is a different issue of another day. That is another four pounds in fuel, duty and vat on the taxi journey. They will have three restaurant meals, let us say at £25 a time. That is a further 15 pounds in tax. We are now up to 93 pounds in tax. We have not taken any account of the spending in our shops that they will undoubtedly undertake. When I do my little calculation that is capable of criticism, but you cannot argue with the principles, you are looking at a tax take for a new passenger of something of the order of £150 to £200 for an average short-haul visit. The APD is, of course, around the £20. Of course, you take the £20 off everybody who is already coming and you gain the new people. I do not think that there has been enough economic analysis or look at that subject in the debate so far. I think that we should look at it further. I do not think that we have reached the end of the story on economics, but there is a clear indication that if you get new people here, you get new tax take. We have to make sure that we get enough new people to offer. I am not going to, for time reasons, and because my argument, as I have said, is not complete and comprehensive, I will let the member deal with that in his closing remarks. I want to just address one of the two things that have been said. For example, Patrick Harvie says, I think, said, all airlines don't pay that, not quite true. In Scotland, the routes from Oban to Col, Collinsay and Islay and from Kirkwall to the outlawing islands and from Tengwell to the islands in Scotland, they all pay that on their fuel because they burn Avgas rather than Aftua. I admit that it is a small proportion of what goes on. It does not seem to make much difference one way or the other, to be honest. I think that there is certainly a case for looking at the way in which we tax airline operating companies. However, the essential thing is that it is a regressive tax. We charge people this and deny ourselves more. Last time, I talked about a few things. The point about having the powers over APD, that is fine, but what we actually need is the powers over the whole picture. I must say, is APD the answer? If it is, then it is a very silly question indeed. If we could use APD, and that would be a crude way of doing it, for saying turbo prop aircraft, you pay less APD per passenger, because turbo prop aircraft are less polluting for two reasons. You burn less fuel per mile and you fly lower, so the radiative forcing effect is similarly reduced. If you are down at the bottom in an un-pressurised aircraft flying our little flights around Scotland, your radiative forcing is halved again and your fuel cost is down to a third. If we adopted a Norwegian model, where many of your commuter flights have flown in aircraft like the Cessna Caravan, which is a single-engine turbo prop aircraft, and by the way, single-engine light aircraft have a better safety record than multi-engine aircraft, the American Federal Aviation Authority has all the numbers on that. Almost uniquely, the UK won't allow that kind of operation for our scheduled services in instrument conditions, and it would have an environmental benefit, as well as an economic benefit, and it would make some routes safer, for example, from the sky down to Glasgow economically more viable. APD is part of that, and we can do things with it. We could, as I said in my contribution in 2012, differential APD, if you tow your aircraft out to adjacent to the runway. On average, that stops five tonnes of fuel burden in a 757. Five tonnes of fuel is burnt just to get from the stand out to where the take-off point is, tow them out and you save £5, using APD to encourage people to airlines to do that, because they need to invest in trucks to tow things out, so we give them something on that basis. It's not just about getting APD, it's about having all the policy levers that surround APD, and that is one of the huge difficulties in the way the devolution settlement has been constructed and operates. I don't say anybody set out to do this deliberately. They set out with a good and honest heart to construct a settlement, but it actually doesn't work. You piecemeal devolve little bits instead of devolving policy areas where you can take a proper, co-ordinated approach to all the issues in an area. APD, yes, let's get that, because I think that we could use it more imaginatively, we could use it for economic and environmental benefit, but if we got all the powers that surround that, then we could do so much more. It's in that spirit that I say, whatever the outcome in September, let's get it across here, because if it's a yes vote, we're still under Westminster until 2016, there's time to start getting the benefits quickly, even in a yes vote, but a yes vote guarantees we'll have them sooner rather than later and forever. Most of this debate has been devoted to colleagues denouncing the evils of this particular tax. Indeed, Mr Johnson began by denouncing all taxes evil, and I'm happy to disagree with him, but I'm also happy to accept that this one, the air passenger duty, is a mess, and it does undoubtedly need to be reformed. I am, however, no longer convinced that simply devolving it is necessarily the solution. Part of the problem, and Mr Johnson referred to this to and others have as well, is that it was introduced as an environmental levee, a green tax, but it's now clear, Mr Johnson said this, I think that Mr Keir said this as well, and one or two others, it is now simply another tax providing revenue, and I think that that is a fair assessment, and one of the reasons that it does need to be reformed. After all, the impact on climate change of aviation is central to this debate. Transport is the second largest source of carbon emissions, and aviation is the most polluting form of transport, as Mr Harvie spoke about in some detail. Mr Brown did try and make a fist of this argument that somehow reducing tax and making aircraft travel cheaper would be a green measure because there would be more direct flights, people wouldn't go to Dublin or to sheeple. I really don't think that that is an argument which has a great deal of credibility, but there are real anomalies about the way that tax operates at the moment, and many have referred to them. For example, in the Highlands and Islands the APD doesn't apply, it never has, that is an anomaly. We've seen changes in Northern Ireland and indeed the Republic of Ireland, which have now led to anomalies, but that actually argues against devolution of this taxation as a solution, because it is clear that what is going to happen with devolution all around of this tax is simply a race to the bottom on taxation, which will amount to the end of air passenger duty, but will leave us with no answer to the problem of how we try to tax air travel in order to compensate for the damage that it does to the environment and to our climate. That is clearly an international problem, and we need to address solutions nationally and internationally, not in smaller and smaller bits. Mike McKenzie's microphone, please. I'm afraid that there isn't any extra time. Could you be quick, please, Mr McKenzie? I hope that you acknowledge the great reduction in emissions from and the greater fuel efficiency in aviation over the last 30 years. I certainly hope that that is possible, but I hope that the member will also acknowledge that the Scottish Government has repeatedly missed its own carbon emission targets, and so it has to address how it is going to reduce the impact of aviation among everything else. The one thing that we can be sure about if we cut air passenger duty is the impact on the public finances—£135 million—which we would have to be replaced in order to pay for public services, and this argument that that change is somehow cost-neutral or even will bring in more money makes no sense, because if it did, why does the white paper say that the second 50 per cent can only be abolished when public finances are allowed? If there is no impact on public finances, you should get rid of it all at once. You don't believe that, and neither do we. The truth is—I'm sorry, not after that—if what we are concerned about is more direct flights from Scotland, it would be an argument that we could take more seriously if the Scottish Government had found a replacement for the most successful route development fund anywhere in these islands, which brought in 41 new direct flights and which they simply abolished. Flights such as for Mr Stewart's constituents from Aberdeen to Stavanger, flights to Stockholm, flights to Dubai, all delivered by RDF, or if we were really concerned about business connectivity at our airports, we wouldn't have a Government that had cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link. I also cancelled the Edinburgh airport rail link. I say to Mr Kear that Edinburgh airport rail link could have made the airport that he quite properly supports in his constituency. One of the best-connected airports anywhere in the world—indeed, Elaine Murray's constituents—might have been able to get a train to an airport in Edinburgh instead of going to Manchester or Newcastle, as they have to at the moment. However, the truth is, of course, that all of this is really just another proxy for the independence debate. As with childcare, pensions and carers who have seen this week, all of this is just another reason to claim that, after a yes vote, everything would be more and cheaper, that Scotland wouldn't have to face difficult decisions or the great challenges of our age, be that demographic change or the change in climate. None of that is credible. I know that, throughout the debate, many have quoted support from industry, but for industry, of course, the aviation industry, independence is just a proxy for the APD debate. Of course, they want to see a reduction in taxation in their industry, but even Willie Walsh has made it quite clear that, even were those changes to happen to APD, he would not plan to introduce more long-haul flights in Scotland. He is absolutely clear on that. As for Mr Leary—well, I met Mr Leary years ago when I was a minister—I got him perfectly well with him—which was difficult because he spent the whole meeting dressed as Bob the Builder for a reason that escapes me now. Mr Leary also said this about climate change in Scotland. If global warming meant temperatures rose by one or two degrees, France would become a desert, which would be no bad thing. The Scots would grow wine and make buffalo mozzarella. When it comes to the future of aviation, we need to have a serious debate about Scotland, but it should not be a proxy for something else. It is a debate that, after September, perhaps we can return to with some seriousness. I take this debate extremely seriously because Glasgow International Airport is a major employer for my constituency, and it is actually in Paisley. However, it is not fully in my constituency, it is in Derek Mackay's, and I have been told by the minister to make that plainfully obvious to everyone in the place. However, there is a key employer for our area because of everything that is new. They are the gateway to Scotland for merry tourists and business people. In a previous life, I know exactly what it is like to try to get from one end of the islands to the other, having to use aviation. The way that Scotland does aviation is more important to us than it is to other parts of the islands. However, Glasgow Airport has 30 airlines, 100 destinations, and it has already mentioned 7.4 million passengers a year. That is £200 million generated to our economy from Glasgow Airport, and it is still the principal airport for Long Hall. It is also extremely involved in our local community in Renfrewshire. It has the Flight Path Fund, which covers Renfrewshire, East and West in Bartonshire and Glasgow, and the three key areas that it counts with are employment, environment and education, making sure that many groups get the opportunities to learn from some of the things here. They are a valuable part of my community, and I can only see how, in spite of all this that they have been working with APD, having a damaging impact in the Scottish economy and contributing to the community that I represent. It has already been mentioned that APD, if there was a reduction, would cost Scotland £200 million per year, £200 million that we would be able to put back into our economy. We also would give it the opportunity to ensure that we could discuss what we are doing about connectivity throughout the world, instead of having to sit here and pay APD twice effectively by going to one of the hub airports. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned that some of the problems that are down, and he threw at the moment the turmoil that he threw of currently got himself into with regards to their proposed expansion plans. Chick Brodie mentioned earlier on the problems that we have with the mayor of London, who has a fantasy idea about having an airport somewhere in the middle of London. I would say that we have to look at ways in which we can use our ability to be able to get connectivity for our businesses throughout Scotland. One of the things that have been mentioned— Yes, I will. James Kelly. Thanks a lot, Mr Adam, for taking the intervention just on connectivity in airports. Does he now support the establishment of a rail link at Glasgow airport? Presiding Officer, can I just say to the Labour group in this—let it go? Let it go and let's move on to the proposal, because Glasgow airport is working with the Scottish Government on other ideas with regard to interconnection with Glasgow in the surrounding area. It's time for the Labour Party to move on, and its history in capital spend projects aren't very good. When you look at the trams that were just announced recently, that was one of their other babies. Also, do you want Gareth to go into the stage like he had? Even this building here, Presiding Officer, under Labour, went massively over budget, so I won't get told about capital spend by anybody from the Labour Party. As we say here, when you look at some of the—not at the moment, thank you—when you look at some of the companies that are involved with Scotland and who are backing—some of my colleagues already mentioned—Edinburgh airport, Gordon Dewar, chief executives already said that this tax has now hit tipping point, where the damage that it is doing to Scotland far outweighs the benefits. Also, Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow airport said, on the question of devolution of APD, Glasgow airport has always been supportive of this proposal, given the Scottish Government's more progressive approach to aviation and its greater appreciation of the role of industry plays. Even Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce says that current rates of APD seem more suited to controlling capacity constraints that he throws than they do with the needs of regional airports. Devolution of this tax would afford the Scottish Government the opportunity to create an air transport package for Scotland, designed to improve our direct international connectivity. There is a group of individuals and people and even the airlines. Flybear, a unique example, was already mentioned by one of my colleagues. They actually are a regional airline that are managed to have a unique model within aviation, but they also are one of the ones that go throughout these islands from covering all our regions and areas. Their CEO recently said today, we welcome today's debate an important step towards rectifying this taxation, which places us a regional airline at a competitive disadvantage and continues to damage Scotland's aspirations for economic growth. Can I just finish this point here? New destinations going hand in hand with considerable more passengers can only mean one thing, growth. Is that not the most important thing as the growth and investing in our economy, which a lot of the members on here seem to not understand? How would the devolution of this tax help Scottish passengers from Scotland arriving at London to connect with other flights? Surely he understands that the abolition of this tax on a UK basis would be far more beneficial to Scottish passengers than simply devolving it in a bullish way. Mr Johnson misunderstands my argument. It is about connectivity and direct flights to the world, to make Scotland part of the world and getting directly there. You know, one of the things when I listened to the road to Damascus speech that I heard earlier on from Mr Johnson with regards to APD, you know, the Kalman commission mentioned that we devolve APD. Lord Strathclyde's commission said, devolve APD. So here we go. Promises, promises from the Tories. Why don't they just stick it in the Queen's speech? In fact, why don't you take one of the flights down, pay the APD and actually say to one of your colleagues down there, why don't you stick it in the speech and let's see and put your money with your mouth as Mr Johnson, I would say, Presiding Officer, so that we could actually have the argument and they could actually do something instead of doing their continual. Just all they are doing at this stage is just pandering, trying to be relevant in the current independence debate. Well, this, along with many other things within the Scottish Government have promoted, is another reason why we need independence. And I believe that if we get that opportunity, we can make Scotland connect with the rest of the world and change our lives of people in Scotland. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Patrick Harvie up to six minutes, Mr Harvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Most of the arguments we've heard about the tax side of this debate, just as with the Scottish Government's approach to co-operation tax, seemed to meet a boil down to little more than laffercurve mythology. This notion that you can take a theoretical graph and from it extrapolate an argument that cutting pretty much any tax is justified in any circumstances, it's cover for an ideological position which I reject. I don't think it's true, but even if it was true, the argument that Elaine Murray put forward at one point in her speech is also very clear. Even if it was true that cutting tax increases revenue, there's a delay effect and the Scottish Government's budget would take the hit in the short term. There are those who might want to extend this argument and abolish a whole host of other taxes, no doubt to Mr Johnson's joy, but I hope at least that we can challenge this notion that doing so would increase tax revenues. We've heard several arguments about this notion of incentivising long-haul connections to replace short-haul connections and that that would have some benefit. We heard that from Mr Adam, who a few minutes ago seems to be the latest in a list of members who hasn't noticed that we can actually get to London by train. This notion was used by the previous administration, the coalition Labour-Lib Dem administration, to justify the air-root development fund as well. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Even if additional long-haul flights are put in place, that simply frees up slots at airports where the connections would have happened, those slots quickly get filled up by other long-haul flights and the increase in emissions continues. That's what happened under the air-root development fund. We saw continual increases in emissions. That's what would happen under that scenario. Some have talked about fuel efficiency in aviation as being something that can reduce the emissions from the industry. It's true that only fuel efficiency can hold back the increase in emissions that come from increased aviation. It cannot prevent it altogether, just as we saw on the efficiency of cars, which increased dramatically during the 20th century and increased use of those cars meant that overall fuel consumption and overall pollution went up as well. That's what's happening with aviation as well. I'm going to quote from the industry's own figures, the International Air Travel Association, saying that fuel efficiency gains have partially decoupled CO2 emissions from expanding air transport services. It says that a 1.9 per cent improvement on fuel efficiency projecting a further 1.7 per cent in 2014, a 1.7 per cent increase from fuel efficiency. That said against a 5.2 per cent increase in air transport itself. You still got an increase in emissions of some 722 million tonnes of greenhouse gases before you factor in the radiative forcing effect. I wonder if you are aware that the solar-powered aircraft impulse 2 had its maiden flight yesterday and that, along with electric cars, those technologies will ultimately solve a lot of the drawing board as well. I'll be interested to see when that comes into commercial operation or any other zero-carbon aviation mode. We're limited at the moment by what's available at the moment, what the industry is doing today around the world. Those increases in fuel efficiency will be limited by two things, what's practically achievable and what's profitable for the industry to invest in. No public policy can change the former. The lack of fuel duty reduces the incentive for the industry to invest in more efficient practices and reduce emissions that way. Claudia Beamish was one of many members who talked about the CO2 impact. I started asking the Scottish Government questions about the CO2 impact of that policy as soon as it was announced. It must be more than two years ago now. 18 months of a delay continually asking after the First Minister had given a commitment that the impact of that policy on carbon emissions would be assessed. At that point, the climate change and transport ministers were vacillating between themselves about who was going to answer the question. Two months ago, Paul Wheelhouse confirmed that the SNP's air passenger duty policy would increase emissions. I thought that was the final word, but now it seems that the transport minister is rowing back from that again. That simply isn't credible. It does begin to sound as those are just making it up as they go along. If we are going to take that policy seriously or any replacement for air passenger duty seriously, we need to assess the impact before the Scottish Government makes its decision. We have heard from others as well that this policy is supported by the aviation industry. My jaw was on the floor at that point. It really was. The idea of a profit-driven private sector business that does not want to pay tax? Believe it or not, I am not arguing that we should dig up the runways to plant cabbages. I am really not. The air passenger duty damage done by the air passenger duty outweighs the benefits. If we continue to allow the industry to expand and not to pay its environmental costs, it is the industry that will cause more damage than the benefit it provides. I am saying that this is an industry that must pay its share and is not doing so today. I am saying that it is an industry that we cannot allow to grow forever if we are serious about climate change. I am saying that our real priorities should be on good quality, reliable and affordable alternatives. Many thanks, Colin Gaffin Brown. Six minutes, please. Presiding Officer, we have had a very interesting debate today with a range of views from tax being described by my colleague Alex Johnson as a necessary evil from across the chamber, an argument saying that you have to balance the economic benefit versus the impact on the public finances. Those behind us who are against any reduction in APD on a point of principle, primarily an environmental principle and those in the middle of the chamber, so enthusiastic, so enthusiastic for the abolition of APD that it must be gone at some unspecified point after 2020. It is such a no-brainer that we will get so much more taxation in that it must be gone at some point after 2020. That was classic SNP hyperbole, a classic attempt to try and turn it into yet another debate about the referendum, because once again the Scottish Government has complained loudly and bitterly about the powers that they do not have. They do it day in, day out, week in, week out, but they refuse to do anything with the powers that they actually do have. If you look at the taxation powers that they currently have, whether it is LBTT, which is coming into force, whether it is business rates on the tourism industry more broadly, they have done nothing with business rates specifically for the tourism industry. They are refusing to say point blank what they are going to do with LBTT when it comes into force. If they genuinely wanted to be credible on this, they would demonstrate it with actions with the current powers that they have. I am happy to give them that. Mike McKenzie. I wonder if Mr Brown would agree with me that what the earliest rates perfectly is the inadequacy of any partial devolution, because the art of taxation is that you achieve good public outcomes by giving away with one hand and recouping with another. That is the whole point in art of taxation, and that is what the limited devolution offerings of a wee bit more tax here and there do not allow us to do it. The thing that it does demonstrate is the inadequacy of the approach of the current Scottish Government, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am going to come back to this recouping tax with the other hand point, because there is a classic example of SNP spin in relation to this, which was handed to me just a couple of minutes ago. However, specifically on airlines, the Scottish Government does have the power over an air route development fund. That was a policy brought about by the previous executive in 2002 that was successful. The Patrick Harvie made reference to it in a way that he did not like, but he did state quite clearly that it was successful both for short-haul and for long-haul flights for Scotland. I think that it was fair enough to scrap it at least temporarily in 2007. I think that the result of the EU ruling made it difficult for it to continue in its current form. However, seven years later, had there been the political will of the Scottish Government, it could have found an EU-compliant successor to the air route development fund. What work has been done on it by the Scottish Government? Perhaps the transport minister will tell us. What papers have they published about the investigation into how it might be done? Let's hear from them later. Let's see what work is currently being done to see that what they could do with an air route development fund, because I think that there is definitely scope to do something. However, let's come to the point that I want to make in response to Mr Mackenzie, because every SNP member today, including the minister, said that it is a no-brainer because he would recoup far more VAT than the money that you get from APD. They have reports from PWC, they say that they are not making it up, they have reports from PWC, they have reports from your aviation, and all of them said that you would recoup more money from VAT. Mr Stevenson admittedly said that it was the back of an envelope calculation, pointed out—he said that it was back of an envelope—how you would get more money via hotels and restaurants through VAT. That is very interesting, because I have in my hand a copy of Travel GBI, the number one magazine for domestic travel tourism and business use across the United Kingdom. It says this. Are we going to collect more VAT? No, because the tourism minister is promising here a tax cut on VAT for all of the tourism and hospitality industry. Scotland Tourism Minister Fergus Ewing has confirmed that an independent Scotland could reduce VAT on tourism. We should cut VAT on the hospitality industry from 20 per cent to 5 per cent, Deputy Presiding Officer. MSP Graham Day, no wonder he is sitting at the back of the chamber today, said that the VAT rate on tourism in Scotland and the refusal of the UK Government to cut it is just one of the many examples of why Scotland's interests would be best served by being an independent country. Let me just ask this question by how much would tourism need to increase in order to recoup all of the VAT and all of the money from APD that they say they are going to cut within the first few years of independence? Ian Gray said that this was a proxy for the independence debate. Yes, it has been exactly that, and they have been found out, Deputy Presiding Officer, making promises that completely do not stack up whatsoever, and I think that it is about time that the Scottish people saw them in their true light. It has been a very interesting afternoon. It started off with Mr Johnson spelling out the evils of taxation. As I listened to some of the speeches from the SNP backbenchers, I did not realise that Mr Johnson was so influential. We have so many Reaganite-type speeches against taxation. It is quite clear that this is the afternoon for the right wingers on the SNP benches. No wonder Christina McKelvie looks embarrassed. There are three central themes that come out of this debate. The impact on the Scottish budget, the attitude of the Government to climate change and its central view on transport policy. In terms of the Scottish budget, Ian Gray and Patrick Harvie are absolutely correct. If you are going to propose a 50 per cent cut in APD, which is going to take £135 million out of the Scottish budget, you need to explain to people where you are going to make those cuts. Does that mean that we are going to have less classroom assistance, that we are going to have less nurses, that you need to be upfront and that you need to be honest with people about those things? If you have got Alex Neil at the weekend saying that he wants to get rid of 15-minute care visits, how can you do that when one of the first acts of an independent Scotland for an SNP Government would be to cut corporation tax and cut APD by 50 per cent, taking half a billion pounds out of the budget? It is time that we had some honesty. I think that the whole issue about climate change has been a very interesting one in this debate. Claudia Beamish made a very substantive contribution in terms of action that is needed to tackle climate change emissions. It was interesting that, with the exception of a brief interlude from Stuart Stevenson, the SNP backbenchers just completely ignored the climate change issue in this debate. It was almost as if it shut your eyes and it would go away. We do not need to talk about that. I give way to Mr Harvie. I wonder if Mr Kelly is being unfair. We heard from Mike Mackenzie that there is a one-seater solar plane that is going to solve the problem. To be fair to Mr Mackenzie, he said that it was still at the drawing board. Do not misrepresent his position. It is not quite taken off yet. In terms of the attitude to climate change, it is all very well. I was in this chamber when the climate change act was passed. Everybody in the Parliament agreed to it, and we all clapped away. There were lots of happy clappers on the SNP benches, but you cannot clap away like that and say that it is great. We want a 46 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. However, we also want a 50 per cent reduction in APD. Those two policy objectives do not sit together. What should really happen in this debate is that the SNP Government should have brought in Paul Wheelhouse. He should have answered the debate and answered how the policy of a 50 per cent reduction in APD squares with trying to reduce carbon emissions. It is sheer hypocrisy. The third point to touch on is the wider issues around transport policy and how that affects airports. A number of people have spoken about the importance of connectivity. That is something that perhaps the Government should have been concentrating on this afternoon. We have the commonwealth games coming up shortly, and we are going to have people arriving at Glasgow airport. There is no airport rail link there to take them to the commonwealth games venues. It is quite interesting if you look at what is happening at Glasgow airport because there is not an airport rail link. What you are starting to see is a real growth in the number of car parks around the airport. What is then happening is that people are driving in their cars to the airport, therefore increasing carbon emissions. If there was proper connectivity, if there were better public transport links in place, people would not need to go to the airport car parks and they could reduce emissions. I wonder whether the member recalls that the study into Garel showed that it would take 15 cars off the M8 in the peak travel hour. The reality is that money should be invested in ways that are effective in getting cars off the road, perhaps even improving the bus services until other options can be made available. It is a pity that the SNP Government chose to pour £30 million of public money from Garel down the drain instead of investing in a link, which could have been a real benefit to Glasgow. What we need in relation to how to move it forward is that we need some proper evidence as to the environmental impacts and the economic impacts. That will allow us to take an informed position not only on whether APD is correct but also on the level of APD. As many have said, this is a proxy debate for independence. What we have had from the SNP is that it starts off with uncosted promises, which come forward in the form of cuts to APD but also not able to square that up with reductions in carbon emissions. That manifests itself in all things to all men's policy, which completely lacks in coherence. What we need is a proper and growing-up discussion about transport policy and APD. The SNP needs to stop kidding themselves on. Post-September 18, whatever the result, we can properly discuss these issues so that we can support transport policy in Scotland's airports properly. I have been quite a relative interesting debate, as James Kelly said at the start, and there have been some very good contributions. Mike Mackenzie and Graham Day made very effective contributions. Claudia Beamish is also very much concentrating on the side of environmental benefits. She mentioned trying to improve the prospect of rail visa v air travel. I agree with that point, but the question has to be why the Labour Party has still not committed to bringing high-speed rail to Scotland. The biggest single development that will receive moral shift from air to rail still does not support that. I have to say that, to be fair, neither did the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats, despite their manifesto commitment to do that. However, I do agree with many of the points that she made and that Elaine Murray made. In relation to some of the points that she made in terms of either incentivising better fuels or penalising more damaging fuels, I think that those have to be dealt with. I think that you said this yourself at an international level. That is how they are dealt with currently. That is how we would have to take that forward. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I do not agree with the snydding approach to the new technology that Mike McKenzie outlined in terms of the solar plane. Those are how things develop over time and I hope that that certainly succeeds. I think that it is also true to say that what we have seen here today is a remarkable degree of displacement among the Unionist parties. Anything but a straight answer to the position that they now hold. Even having listened to Alex Johnson in his initial speech, I still do not understand whether the Tory supports the devolution of APD or not. He started off by saying that the tax is evil as we have heard and then said that maybe it was a necessary evil. However, he did not say whether he supported its devolution or not. I thought that what was really interesting was the attack that he made on the aviation industry, not least when he was laughing along with Patrick Harvie in his attack on the aviation industry, and in particular your aviation report. Essentially, the point was, well, look at the growth in the airport, you are doing all right anyway, you can live with his tax. Kind of undermines Ruth Davidson's speech yesterday when she was talking about devolving the tax. It is also true to say that the Tories are really very much all over the place, but what was really interesting I think was Gavin Brown's contribution. At one point he seemed to be arguing for its abolition immediately, one of the questions that he put to a backbencher. Then he had an incredible question that I found when he was challenging what the benefit would be of not charging Scottish holidaymakers going to Florida. What would be the benefit in reducing that tax? This is the party that supports Hayek and Friedman and Keith Joseph. He is arguing for the most punitive tax in the world to be put on Scottish taxpayers. How does that square with his background of a low tax economy? There will be no benefit to the Scottish economy or Scottish individuals in reducing that tax, but there will be a benefit. He might want to think about this a bit longer. There will be a benefit to the airport themselves who do increased business by increased custom. There will be a benefit to the airlines themselves and, of course, there will be a benefit to the individuals. It is a relatively basic part of tax theory that, if you reduce taxes, you can increase economic activity. His argument is that you should have the heaviest possible tax on people trying to go to Florida. Just on that, the price of that, I remind the chamber, is the same family travelling to Florida for a holiday prior to 2007. £80 they would have paid in APD for their trip. In the summer of 2014, this summer, they will pay £276 for the same trip. Scotland will be interested to know that Gavin Brown supports that wholeheartedly. If we go on to some of the points that Patrick Harvey made, he mentioned the fact that it is a great benefit to the airline industry, and I think that he cannot deny that there is going to be a benefit to the airline industry. He does not seem to acknowledge—never acknowledge—in any of his contributions that this is paid for by passengers. It is passengers that pay this tax. I do not have the experience that Patrick Harvey has of globetrotting around the world on long-haul flights, as he has confessed to the chamber previously—well, he did in the last debate, if you remember—but I am sure that it is the case that he must realise that individuals pay this tax, not the airline industry that pay the tax. He also did not accept the point that he made that the shock—yes, give way to Patrick Harvey. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. One of the arguments that I was making, or questions that I was putting, is really whether the Government is consistent in its carbon assessment of the impact of this policy. Just two months ago, we finally got a confirmation from Paul Wheelhouse, the climate change minister, that this policy will increase emissions. Today, the transport minister seemed to imply the precise opposite. Which minister should I believe? I answered the question earlier on, but Patrick Harvey was not listening at that point. I mentioned the fact that we would have £1.3 billion in support to the delivery of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that we have reduced transport emissions in Scotland since 2007 by 1.7 million tonnes, around 12 per cent. I have also said, as has Paul Wheelhouse, that we will have a study on that once we introduce that 50 per cent. If we get the opportunity to reduce APD, of course we have to study the effects of that. I think that that is a responsible thing to have done. It is also true to say that the Labour Party—I really struggle to work out what the Labour Party's position on that was. We had from Ian Gray the idea that he went on at some length to describe that this is a bad tax, riddled with inconsistencies, riddled with anomalies. It was no longer an environmental tax, but his solution is to leave it to the people who invented it to try to deal with that. I think that we can make a better job in Scotland of dealing with that. It is also true to say that, in the same way that they have had the inconsistency from the Conservatives, they are calm and yes, then nothing happens for five years. Ruth Davidson apparently says yes, but no intention to do anything very quickly on that. As was quite rightly said by George Adam, there is no reason why that cannot be contained in the queen speech tomorrow. If you really believe—I am sceptical myself—that this tax should be devolved, that can be done tomorrow. Whether it is by train or by plane, you can get on to your people in Westminster and make sure that that happens. The simple fact is that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and, of course, the Labour Party agreed under Carmen that this tax should be devolved. What has changed in the meantime? What has been the big difference? Why has it not happened? Why the inertia on the part of the unionist parties? I think that it was different. People admittedly, Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie and either Tavish or Nicola Steevan, that why has nothing happened in relation to that. It is that ignoring of the real demand that is out there. There is the airline industry demand, if I can just finish this point. The airline industry is demanding this, but there is real concern among people that have seen the cost of their air travel go through the roof for a tax that everyone acknowledges. There is nothing to do with the environment and all about revenue raising. I will give way to Gavin Brown. What work has the transport minister personally done in the last couple of years in examining the Air Route Development Fund, a power that he currently has? I could certainly go through the different meetings that we have had with the airports and with the airlines and the documents that we have produced to try to speak to people about that, but to try to wish away the fact that this Air Route Development Fund was abolished— well, you just think—you do not believe that we have had those meetings then, is that your point? The simple fact is that he knows that Europe said that this was no longer possible to do. Trying to ignore that just leaves him without any credibility in the points that he is trying to put forward. We also have the Liberal Democrats, who are so weak on their position in relation to this. They have tried to turn it into debate, but childcare benefit. They then disappear for the entire debate with no Liberal Democrats here. That shows the weakness of the unionist parties in relation to this issue. The idea that this is just about the airline industry rather than individuals is completely wrong-headed. If you talk to people, they know that they are paying extra for this, they know that they are paying the highest tax of its kind in the world. It is a fairly straightforward thing to resolve. If the parties around here believe that this should be devolved, then that has been your position at various points so that it has changed, you can very quickly resolve that. Just get on to your colleagues then in Westminster. We have the quotes from Michael Moore saying that he supported it. We have had the quotes from people in the Labour Party saying that they supported it. We have had the quotes from the Conservatives. Just get on to them. You can sort this tomorrow. That will be a real example of the way that the union can work, as you believe, for the people of Scotland. Get on the phone and get that sorted out today. Despite all that you have said, you have done nothing. People do not believe you, just in the same way that you invented the figures last year, last week, to try to impress people that was going to cost £2.7 billion for the start-up cost of Scotland. Then it was found out that you magnified those by 12 times, totally discredited by the words of Professor Dunleavy. So you are also failing to serve the people of Scotland. It is a fairly straightforward thing today. You said you supported it. APD should be abolished. It is absolutely, perfectly deliverable. Get on the phone and get it changed. I move the motion in my name. That concludes the debate on air passenger duty. It is now time to move on to the next side of business. Before we go to decision time, can I remind members in relation to the debate if the amendment in the name of Mark Griffin is agreed? The amendment in the name of Alex Johnson will then fall. Whoever has got the mobile phone on, could the police switch it off, please? You can tell the person who went red in the face. Right, there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 10185.2 in the name of Mark Griffin, which seeks to amend motion number 10185 in the name of Keith Brown on air passenger duty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10185.2 in the name of Mark Griffin is as follows. Yes, 29. No, 63. There were 13 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 10185.1 in the name of Alex Johnson, which seeks to amend motion number 10185 in the name of Keith Brown on air passenger duty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10185.1 in the name of Alex Johnson is as follows. Yes, 17. No, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 10185.3 in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend motion number 10185 in the name of Keith Brown on air passenger duty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10185.3 in the name of Patrick Harvie is as follows. Yes, 4. No, 101. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10185 in the name of Keith Brown on air passenger duty be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 10185 in the name of Keith Brown is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 44. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. A point of order from Patrick Harvie. I apologise for not having given advance notice of this point of order, which arises as a result of the air passenger duty debate that we just had. I should say that I am very aware that matters of veracity are not a matter for the chair and I am not going to ask you to judge on the accuracy of a statement. We heard today from the transport minister that the impact in climate change terms of the air passenger duty policy has not yet been assessed. On 1 April, in topical questions, the climate change minister gave a figure for the climate change impact of the policy on air passenger duty and gave a clear indication that that assessment had been made. Given that we have two clearly contradictory statements from ministers under our standing orders, what is the best approach for my discovering the accuracy, not by asking you to judge on that, what is the best approach for my finding out which of those ministerial statements is in fact true? The member is quite right. The issues of veracity are not for me as the Presiding Officer. The member has also been here for a very long time, so he knows what mechanisms are open to him. That can be done by either a written question, it can be done by an oral question or it can be as a letter to the ministers themselves. That ends the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.