 To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Edinburgh airport report, the impact of reducing APD on Scotland's airports. The Scottish Government welcomes this report from Edinburgh airport. We have long called for the devolution of air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament. Devolving APD as soon as possible is backed by a leading aviation industry figures in Scotland and will help to unlock the country's full economic potential, bringing more international flights to and from Scotland, as well as cutting costs for passengers. We have confirmed that we intend to reduce APD by 50 per cent within the time of the next Parliament, with a view to eventual abolition of the tax when public finances allow. Given the importance to the Edinburgh and Wider Scottish economy, has the Scottish Government received any indication as to why APD could not be devolved sooner, as recommended under Cullman, and as for by business leaders, and indeed the cross-party group in aviation in this Parliament? As Colin Kear knows, the timetable for devolution of APD is a matter for the UK Government. No specific timetable has been given by the UK Government for passing the new Scotland bill, but we continue to press for that to happen as soon as possible. Only once the necessary legislation has been passed by the Westminster Parliament will the Scottish Parliament be able to legislate for a replacement tax better suited to the needs of Scotland's economy. Scottish ministers, though, have written to the UK Government on several occasions, and most recently in January 2015, to call for the devolution of APD using the order-making power introduced for this purpose by the Scotland Act 2012, which would be a quicker route for devolution of this tax than via the new Scotland bill. As Colin Kear says, that would bring forward the benefits of the change that we propose to make. Will the minister agree that it is wrong that, while the major hub facilities in the UK are London, Scottish passengers are at a financial disadvantage? Will he work with operators and airports to encourage more direct flights to and from Scottish airports? I am happy to give that undertaking and also to point out that we have been doing just that, mainly through incentive packages to different airlines and airports in terms of marketing and other benefits. We have seen substantial success at our larger airports for doing that, but Colin Kear is right to say that we could massively increase that benefit to both airlines themselves and airports, but more particularly to individuals by having one of the most punitive taxes of its kind in the world, first of all reduced and then eliminated. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that Scotland's airports would also benefit from the reintroduction of a route development fund, which came to an end in 2007? The RDF contributed to a dramatic improvement to Scotland's direct international air network, as over 50 new services were introduced. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet with me to look at a European Commission compliance scheme funded from the APD budget? I am of course happy to meet with Lewis MacDonald in relation to that, with Dave Stewart on that issue with no problem at all. I would say that, as I have just mentioned in response to Colin Kear, we have undertaken a number of initiatives that have been designed to maximise both the direct routes that we can have and the number of passengers going to and from our airports. Of course, if we can increase the number of direct routes, that also has a beneficial impact on the environment. We have done that within what we believe is a European Council, a European Commission compliance scheme. If he believes that there is some other thing that we can do, then I am more than happy to meet with him to discuss that, but I think that he should acknowledge that we have done a great deal to increase passenger numbers. I think that the airports around Scotland would see the same as well as Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, with whom we work very closely. Of course, I am happy to meet with him to discuss this further. Alex Johnson. Mr Stewart will understand that the most vital routes run from Scottish airports are the routes run to London. As a consequence, any attempt to devolve the tax can only ever result in us being able to abolish half of the tax paid by Scottish passengers travelling to London. Will he undertake to continue to work with the UK Government to seek the abolition of the tax across the board rather than simply devolving the right to Scotland to make decisions about our part of it? Of course, we have been asking for this for some time, but it is strange that the Conservative party, along with its unionist colleagues, agreed to devolve the tax back in 2009 through the common commission. Six years on, we are still waiting for it to be devolved. It seems a little rich to me for Alex Johnson to stand up and say that it should be abolished. Of course, he can make that case to the UK Government, but it seems not only if they have not listened to us in relation to the past six years, but they are not listening to him either. I think that, underlining his question, hopefully, is an acknowledgement that this is one of the most punitive taxes of its types in the world. There is a huge amount to discourage business coming to Scotland. I think that the estimates that I have have over £210 million foregone by 2016 every year because of the tax. Other countries have realised how bad this is for their wider economy, especially the Irish public and many others. If Alex Johnson is willing to support us in relation to trying to get this first of all reduced to 50 per cent, which is a very positive move, but ultimately towards abolition, it seems to me that the UK Government has not been listening to him, as it has not been listening to us, and perhaps what it should now do is start to listen and get on with devolving the tax. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that a 50 per cent cut in APD could mean that Glasgow International Airport in Paisley could receive a projected extra 200,000 passengers? Is it not also the case that the sooner APD is devolved to Scotland, the sooner our airports, passengers and the economy will see the massive benefits that are detailed in this report? I am glad that George Adam's reminder is that Glasgow Airport is in Paisley, and he is quite right to point out that there will be a massive benefit to Glasgow Airport. They have said the same thing to us, as have the airlines. It is remarkable, Presiding Officer, that when you have gone to, as I have these meetings over the past four or five years, where you have all the major airports in Scotland and also most of the major airlines, sometimes airlines who, in other situations, would be at each other's throats in a competitive environment, would sit together and say the same thing. The benefits in Glasgow would be the benefits in Edinburgh, the benefits in Aberdeen throughout the country, but most particularly the benefits to the individuals who currently have to endure one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world. Even better for the Scottish economy, you would have an increase in passengers coming to this country. Many of whom we know have said that we are not going to go to the UK, we are going to go to France. If they are coming from South America and various other parts of the world, they will go to France, not least because the visa requirements are less on the risk, but especially because the airport tax that is applied to them is much less in those countries. Let's get that business back and let's get this tax devolved. The economics of this report seems pretty spurious, given the claim that APD is a barrier to growth when we know that aviation levels have continued to grow and even in this report projections show an expectation that it will continue to grow. However, astonishingly, aside from the economics, there is not a word in this report about the environmental or social impact of this potential change. Given that the Scottish Government is now committed not just to scrapping but instead to replacing APD with a different tax regime, what can the minister tell us about how that new regime will be assessed, not just in terms of its economic but its social and environmental impact, so that any future decision can be informed by something rather more thorough than this transparent piece of industry spin? It is also true to say that other reports, other than the one referred to by Patrick Harvie by Edinburgh report, have also pointed to some of those benefits as well. The benefit that I would point out, as I have done before to Patrick Harvie in terms of the environment, is that if we are able, through the reduction and then perhaps the elimination of this tax, is to make sure that we can have more direct flights to Scotland, which cuts out the more environmentally damaging shorter flights, which we have to have, to connect for longer flights around the world. So there could be an environmental benefit from this. He is right to say, of course, that there is likely to be a small net increase, as he has heard before in the past from ministerial colleagues at Paul Whitehouse in terms of emissions from reducing APD, but there will be a positive impact for passengers, businesses and costs and connectivity from taking this action. The APD assessment takes no account of other trends in the aviation sector, such as the improving fuel efficiency of jet aircraft, something that we would want to encourage. So I think that there are pluses and minuses in relation to this. There are pluses for the environment, there is a huge plus for the economy and for the businesses that comprise our airports, and that is why we intend to move forward as soon as we have the power to reduce this tax by half with a view to eliminating it altogether. Thank you. That ends topical questions. We are now moving straight on to the next side of business, which is a debate on motion number one.