 Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to the 15th meeting of the 2017 of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I remind you to put your mobile phones on silent. The first item on our agenda is to consider the Air Departure Tax Scotland bill at stage 2. We're joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution, who are welcome to the meeting. And Scottish Government officials make sure who's the bill manager, John Sinclair, who's the senior principal legal officer and Fiona Lincoln, who's the parliamentary council of us. I welcome the cabinet secretary and his officials to the meeting. Members should note that because officials cannot speak on the record at stage 2, and all questions should be directed to the cabinet secretary. Members should have with them a copy of the martial list of amendments and the groupings, and we'll take each amendment on the martial list in turn. My question is that section 1 be agreed or we all agreed. A call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 1 and will speak to it together with other amendments in this group. As I committed to doing so in my response to the committee's stage 1 report, those amendments provide for passenger exemptions under ADT, as well as making minor consequential changes as a result of those exemptions. All of those exemptions command strong stakeholder support and replicate those currently in place for UK passenger duty, and two of the UK APD passenger exemptions have not, however, been included in this group of amendments. First, as I set out in my response to the committee's stage 1 report, the Scottish Government strongly supports having an ADT exemption for Highlands and Islands flights. However, after careful consideration, the Scottish Government has concluded that such an exemption has to be notified to and assessed by the European Commission under stated rules before it is implemented in compliance with European Union law. The Scottish Government is working closely with the UK Government to resolve this issue, and I will ensure that the Parliament and stakeholders are kept regularly updated on this matter. If notification to the European Commission is successful and subject to the Parliament's approval, the exemption will be introduced in secondary legislation under powers in section 8 of the bill. Secondly, the Scottish Government is not minded to introduce an ADT exemption for passengers and flights lasting under 60 minutes, which depart from and arrive back at the same airport. That exemption would appear to be the singular benefit of airlines, which operate fear of flying courses, and as airlines already lavery charges for those courses, it is not clear that the viability of such services would be impacted by an ADT charge. It also has no impact on the Scottish Government's overall connectivity and sustainable economic growth objectives. The Scottish Government considers it to be fair, therefore, that the aircraft operators running such courses should be liable to pay ADT on those flights. It is important to note that short pleasure flights, such as those that are often run at air shows, will remain exempt under the existing chargeable aircraft conditions that are already set out in section 3 of the bill that has then been produced. Any members want to contribute to the stage? I understand the idea of, broadly speaking, following the exemptions from the current tax regime. I suppose that the question that I would want to ask is, in deciding what level of exemptions or what nature of exemptions ought to be applied, it surely demands that we first know what the purpose of the tax is. That is a question that seems to have been opened throughout the entire stage 1 process. We understand that the purpose of the bill is to levy the tax, but I do not think that the Government is clear on what the purpose of taxing aviation at all is. The only Government policy objectives that the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening remarks around economic growth and connectivity, which we have best served if the Government did not propose this bill at all and wanted to exempt aviation from taxation altogether. Clearly, I would oppose that, but I would ask the cabinet secretary to tell us what he believes the purpose of taxing aviation is in order that we can then decide what the appropriate level of exemptions is. I know more members that the cabinet secretary wishes to contribute at this stage. Murdo? I really want to welcome the amendments in the generalty that reflect what the committee resolved in the stage 1 report on putting those on the face of the bill, and it is very helpful that those have been brought forward. I just wanted to get clarity on one issue in relation to section 8 on amendment 12, in terms of the ability of ministers by regulation to amend or remove the exemptions. I would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could just advise what the process would be, should the decision be made to exercise that power to amend by regulation in the future. I would like to echo what my colleague Murdo Fraser said about seeing those exemptions as amendments to primary legislation rather than to be made by secondary instruments thereafter. It is not appropriate for bills to be brought to this Parliament that fail on their face to define the scope of taxable activity or behaviour. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary a question about the notification procedure to the European Commission and, in particular, what the cabinet secretary understands the timetable for that might be. Is there any prospect that that notification process could be completed so that the relevant exemption can be made at stage 3? Again, it is an exemption that is on the face of the bill rather than to be dealt with subsequently by secondary instruments. If not, what is the kind of timetable that we are looking at in terms of the notification procedure? I am going to allow the cabinet secretary to answer three questions that he has had, and I am going to allow him to deal with them so that we can get them dealt with properly. I still have two other members who wish to ask questions. As opposed to Mr Harvie's question about the purpose of the tax, I mean arguably it was introduced by previous UK Governments as a green tax. We could argue whether that achieved its purpose or not. Then it has contributed to the revenues of the state and the dialogue and discussion with processes that have led to it being devolved to Scotland. Of course, it forms part of the budget, but the Government has clear aspirations around connectivity and supporting the economy. Therefore, it is a power that the Scottish Government will have or the Scottish Parliament will have. It generates revenue, but it can be deployed in a way that supports our strategy around connectivity and, as I say, general economic growth. On Mr Fraser's question about the order to amend exemptions, it would be a firmative order, so that, of course, that would require the proactive engagement with Parliament and approval of Parliament to amend in future those exemptions, which takes me to Mr Tomkins' point that, once we have a resolution to that issue around Highlands and Islands exemption, rather than necessarily go through a bill process, we would want to have the power to do that through secondary legislation, so it makes the point about how we would want to use the powers in the bill to be able to affect change, when, in accordance with the parliamentary procedure. On the exact details of notification, because the UK Government is the member state, it will be for them to take that forward in the engagement that I have had with the financial secretary to the Treasury. It will be the process in which we will engage with them, and I would also want us to engage directly with Europe also, so I do not have a timescale for that. I think that it would be incredibly ambitious for it to be concluded by stage three, but, of course, our aspirations work is hard as possible for it to be concluded before the tax is levied in Scotland in the next financial year, but that is in the hands of the UK Government as a member state, but we will certainly work as hard as we can to try to achieve that within that timescale. However, I think that, for completion at stage three, it feels very unlikely in the engagement that I have had with the UK Government. As committee members will know, the belief that exemptions to air departure tax should be set out in the bill and that the earliest opportunity was a recurring theme in evidence to the committee from the Institute for Chartered Accountants to the Chartered Institute of Taxation, a significant body of expert opinion called for exemptions to be set out in the bill, as opposed to, through regulation at a later date, to reduce uncertainty. Our colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee were also clear that delegated powers should not be used as a substitute for proper policy development. I would therefore welcome the Scottish Government's decision to set out proposed exemptions on the face of the bill through these amendments. I ask you to clarify that those proposed exemptions are consistent with practice within the other nations of the United Kingdom and are any of those types of exemptions reciprocated by our other jurisdictions, perhaps in Europe or elsewhere? Does any other member wish to contribute at this stage? Can I ask you to wind up and deal with that question from Willie in the wind up? I have no further points to make about the substance of the amendments and can confirm that those exemptions, apart from the two that I have given mirror the UK exemptions. I am going to assume, cabinet secretary, that all your amendments you are going to be pressing them all, not withdrawing any of them, so I am not going to go through that process as we go through this morning. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that section 2 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now, I call amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, all on the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 2 to 6. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 2 to 6? Cabinet secretary, you need to move. The question is then that amendments 2 to 6 are agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 8, 9 and 53. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 7 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 7 and speak to it to gather with other amendments in this group. As I committed doing so in my response to the committee's stage 1 report, those amendments provide for aircraft exemptions under ADT, as well as making minor consequential changes as a result of those exemptions. All of the exemptions command strong stakeholder support and replicate those currently in place for UK air passenger duty. Any other members? No members want to speak, so there's no need for a wind-up. The question is then that amendment 7 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 3 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, has already debatered with amendment 7, 5 to move formally. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, who has already debated with amendment 7, 9, 5 to move formally. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed, or we'll agree? Jewish Pride Dwy Amendment 10 We are agreed. The question is that section 5 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 6 and 7 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. Amendment 12, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 1. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed or we all agreed. The question is that section 8 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. Amendment 13, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 1. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that section 9 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are agreed. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are agreed. Amendment 66, in the name of Patrick Harvie group with amendments 70 and 71. Patrick Harvie to move amendment 66 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener. This group is the only substantial policy proposal that I'm bringing, so I hope that it's already been spent a few minutes setting out the rationale for it. I've written far too much, but I promise to try and skip through some of it to save time. As I've observed at stage 1, this is the first time that I can recall any Government asking Parliament to pass legislation to create a tax that the Government itself seems to think ought not to exist. It's a peculiar situation and it's unsurprising to me therefore that the Government seems unclear about the puppets of that tax, but it's not only the Government that's been unclear. I can't think of many stage 1 inquiries when so little evidence has been put forward by so many for so long on a policy change. On the environmental impact of aviation, I've also found it extraordinary that the Government is so completely convinced that other actions in other parts of the economy will be able to achieve the additional emission reductions necessary if aviation levels increase. Yet it can't say by how much it's willing to see those aviation emissions go up. It's just not possible to have confidence in the claim of additional emission cuts elsewhere if there's no clarity about the scale of the task being created by the decision to give airlines a free pass. My amendments here aim to put some purpose into the bill. They require ministers in exercising the power to propose bans and rates for the new tax to be clear about what they intend to achieve. I'd like to begin with amendment 70. That requires the Government, before the first exercise of the power, to consult on and adopt an aviation emissions policy. In deciding how to be prescriptive in framing that, I'll look at the positions both of those representing the airlines and the Scottish Government's chosen adviser on climate change, the UK Climate Change Committee, which previously offered advice to both Governments on the capping of aviation emissions at 2005 levels by 2050. As far back as 2009, that was an active discussion between the committee and the UK Government. The aviation industry, meanwhile, in the same year 2009, adopted a set of targets to mitigate CO2 emissions from air transport. Those included an average improvement in fuel efficiency of 1.5 per cent per year from 2009 to 2020, a cap on the net aviation CO2 emissions from 2020 onwards, so-called carbon neutral growth, and a reduction in net aviation emissions of 50 per cent by 2050 relative to those 2005 levels. Tim, all those laid of airlines UK in giving evidence to this committee at stage 1, restated those commitments. He said, I can give you the assurance that that is still the commitment. He said, as a global industry, those are the commitments that we have made. We have made them for a number of years and we are on target to hit them. The Scottish Government's adviser thinks that aviation emissions can be capped at 2005 levels by 2050. The industry thinks that it can go much further and get a 50 per cent cut against that baseline. I am sceptical about the industry's commitments, but my amendment only requires that the Government commits to some target for aviation emissions in 2050 expressed as a percentage below 100 per cent of those 2005 levels. Anyone who takes seriously the industry's commitments must clearly accept that that is easily achievable in their terms. That needs to be set in combination with an evidence-based use of the powers in section 16.3 of the Climate Change Act given the additional climate impact of emissions attitude. Amendment 70 worked with amendment 66 to ensure that, in setting rates and bans, the minister acts in the way best calculated to help meeting the target set in the aviation emissions policy. Clearly, it is not the only measure that we would need to be taken if we were going to achieve such an aviation emissions policy, but it has to be one of them and it has to be used. Finally, amendment 71, the last in this group, is in response to the paucity of evidence offered for the Government's stated tax policy of a 50 per cent reduction in ADT take. The minister agreed to come forward with various forms of evidence at a later stage, and I was slightly surprised not to see an amendment along those lines from the Government. If we were to achieve agreement as a committee on the nature of the evidence that we seek, then it seems to me that we should define it in the bill by placing our requirement on ministers. My proposal is for an assessment that covers the fiscal, economic, environmental and social impacts. Fiscal impacts include the revenue raised or foregone. They also include indirect impacts. I would be interested to see if the very surprising claim from the Scottish Tourism Alliance of decreased welfare spend and increased income tax generated have any rational basis at all. An assessment of economic impacts would end the guesswork that seems to have been going on about the number of jobs that will be created by the Government's policy. On environmental impacts have included both greenhouse gas emissions and impacts on local air and noise pollution in the vicinity of Scottish airports. In social terms, the amendment would require an assessment of the share of the increase or decrease in ADT that would be paid by each income desile group. That information is easy to collect from information that is available from the Office of National Statistics. As an example, my party recently published figures based on the assumption that would apply under a 50 per cent reduction in ADT take. We show that the richest 10 per cent of society would enjoy four times the financial gain of the lowest income 10 per cent. If our figures are wrong, the Government is very welcome to correct it to publish the accurate assessment, but in either case that assessment would require to be conducted before exercising its power to set rates and bans. It is clear that in order to continue to levy a tax on aviation, the Parliament needs to pass a bill. It does not need to be a bill that sets that power into a policy vacuum. If the Government is unwilling to be clear about the purpose, the positive purpose of taxing aviation, then the Parliament should pass legislation that places the requirements on ministers. I do not have much expectation that the Cabinet Secretary will agree with those arguments. If he wants to argue against the detail instead of the principle, then it is possible that we might agree on adjustments before stage 3. However, the intention of those amendments, from my perspective, is to make the bill itself supportable. To pass it without any such constraints on the actual impacts that tax power would have would be irresponsible. I move amendment 66. As committee members will know, many of those who contributed to the Scottish Government's consultation and this committee's own evidence on the bill express substantial concerns about the impact on aviation tax cuts could have on both the environment and the public finances of Scotland. Indeed, a majority of those who participated in the Government's consultation opposed the very course of action that the Government is now proposing to take. We heard from campaigners like Transform Scotland that the aviation industry is already one of the most likely taxed industries in the country and that tax reductions would increase aviation emissions. The Government is nonetheless proposing to target this industry for a tax cut. We heard that the tax cut being proposed would reduce Government revenue by over £150 million per year at a time when public services are under pressure. We also heard that those who are frequent flyers and on higher incomes would disproportionately benefit as Patrick Harvey has just outlined. There was also a considerable degree of doubt as to whether a tax cut would actually boost or benefit the economy in any meaningful way. No credible or convincing evidence has been presented to this committee to suggest that a growth in passenger numbers, for example in Ireland, had anything to do with the abolition of their air passenger duties. Remember that here in Scotland airports are reporting record growth in passenger numbers, and we saw figures just last week highlighting record passenger numbers at Scottish airports under the existing air passenger tax regime. Domestic and international traffic both up in Aberdeen, while over a million people passing through Edinburgh Airport last month. Glasgow Airport reporting its 50th consecutive month of growth, and that is all with existing levels of air passenger duty. The case for the proposed tax cut is not stacking up, and it would therefore seem perfectly prudent and reasonable to require the Government to set out exactly what the impact of their plans would be before they proceed with any changes to rates or bans. We believe that the Scottish Government should be required to set out its policy intentions with regards to aviation and to conduct an impact assessment before setting the new tax levels. It is essential that the Scottish ministers provide details of the evidence and information that they are using to justify the tax and tax cut. The amendment, not amendment 71, in particular from Patrick Harvie, places a reasonable and clear duty on ministers to keep the Scottish Parliament informed about their plans. Thank you, convener. I propose rejecting the amendment because I believe that a statutory target for aviation emissions would be inconsistent with the approach that is taken under Scotland's climate change legislation, in particular that emission reduction targets are set across the economy as a whole, not for specific sectors. The calculation is that that would lead to a 3 per cent increase in aviation emissions, which is only 0.1 per cent of the total. I think that that is perfectly manageable and could be managed within the whole economy and within that specific sector. On the impact assessments, some of the assessments that are required under this amendment are ones that would be undertaken anyway. I think that some of them would be very difficult to estimate. Some of them refer to taxation powers that aren't the remit of this Parliament. Before this is laid before Parliament, we will see strategic environmental assessment, an updated greenhouse gas emissions assessment, a noise assessment and an independent economic assessment. I think that that is sufficient impact assessment for this. I think that, from Mr Harvey's point of view, those are perfectly reasonable amendments to lodge. My concern is that they are very prescriptive in their detail to be put up on the face of the bill. When we discussed those issues at stage 1 and we took evidence from the cabinet secretary, I think that it was quite clear at that stage that when regulations were laid before Parliament to amend the tax rates and bans, evidence would be presented by the Scottish Government. At that point, Parliament will have the opportunity to assess that evidence and either support or reject those proposals from the Scottish Government. I am not sure that it is necessary to put this detail on the face of the bill, because Parliament will get an opportunity to consider those matters. It might be helpful before we come to the vote of the cabinet secretary to explain in a bit more detail exactly what evidence will be presented to Parliament at the point when Parliament will be asked to consider the setting of rates and bans. I want to speak in support of the amendments that have been lodged by Patrick Harvey. I think that it is absolutely crucial that the Government and the Cabinet Secretary provide proper impact assessments and that the policy is backed up by an evidence base. There is broad agreement about the need for the legislation in terms of allowing those rates to be set. However, it is quite clear that the Government's policy intention in doing that is to reduce the level of ADT. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to outlay its policy evidence for backing that up. There are two strands to it. As Patrick Harvey said, the level of carbon emissions has been capped at 2005 levels by 2050. We heard the evidence from the airport operators, for example, that the introduction of the tax and the reduction of the tax would therefore result in an increased number of air travellers and increased economic activity. However, the logic of that is at odds with the Scottish Government's policy on reducing carbon emissions. I do not accept the argument that has been put forward by Marie Todd that in some way you can exempt the airline industry from that. I think that it has got to be clearly included as part of that policy. The Government must explain how a policy that logically will mean more people travelling and therefore increased emissions squares with a policy of reducing carbon emissions. The second strand of it is the fiscal impact. Reducing ADT by 50 per cent would have an adverse effect on the Scottish Government budget of £189 million. The Government needs to show how £189 million would be replaced. It also has to address the arguments that Patrick Harvey put forward in terms of who would benefit. We have heard evidence that those in the top earning groups would benefit from a reduction in the tax, as opposed to those in the lower earning groups. There is an argument about fairness and the impact on the Scottish Government's budget. For those reasons that are outlined, I support the amendments that were submitted by Patrick Harvey. I think that everybody has agreed that there should be an economic assessment and an environmental assessment. I think that the question here is what is the best way to bring effect to that. I understand that, as the Government has already launched an economic assessment, I look forward to understanding how the numbers stack up. That will be done in the context of what the proposal is for the rates and bands that it will bring forward. At that point, it will give us an opportunity to understand that in detail. On environmental impact, that is important. We want to see the data on that and understand that the Government has already undertaken a strategic environmental assessment on that. That needs to be understood in the context of the whole economy approach and the times model, which looks at what the most effective way across the whole economy is to drive carbon reductions to meet the targets in which the Government has committed to taking into account everything that is happening across all aspects of the economy and all sectors. We talk about aviation, but it has been highlighted that it is a very small percentage of the total greenhouse gas emissions in totality. It is important that we look at the whole economy picture because, to put something in here that constrains what happens, that part of it does not stack up with the way we approach policy across the rest of the economy, which impacts 97 per cent of the environmental impact. For consistency, it does not make sense to include that here. I think that the Government has got a process on the economic and environmental impacts, and we will see the data on that before we proceed to debate and agree on the rates and the bans later this year. I think that we did hear some evidence at stage 1 about the positive effect in Ireland of the tax being removed. It is not just for Dublin, but for the original airports in Ireland, too. The chief executive of the INA is in record as saying that removing the tax in Scotland could have a hugely beneficial effect for an airport like Presswick Airport down in Yershire near my constituency. I think that there is enough evidence led at a previous stage, convener, to suggest that there is a positive economic effect of that kind of measure. I would just like to ask the cabinet secretary, Fife, to share that view. The cabinet secretary does not support the amendments in this group. In relation to amendment 70 and amendment 66, which depends on it, setting a statutory target for aviation emissions would be inconsistent with the approach that is taken under Scotland's climate change legislation. Under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009, statutory emission reduction targets are set at the level of the whole economy rather than for specific sectors. The whole economy approach, which has been supported by the Committee on Climate Change, allows for the delivery of overall emission reductions in flexible and cost-effective ways. The draft climate change plan, recently scrutinised by Parliament, sets out how we propose to meet targets out to 2032 on this statutory basis. Setting a specific target for aviation emissions, as proposed by amendment 70, would establish a precedent for less flexible sectoral emission reduction targets and challenge the basis of the whole economy approach established in Scotland's climate change legislation. The Scottish Government has noted the Committee's support for an aviation emissions strategy within the climate change plan and will be responding to Parliament in due course on this matter. In relation to amendment 71, the Scottish Government has already committed to undertaking and publishing a series of impact assessments on its ADET tax band and rate amount proposals before it lays secondary legislation before Parliament. Firstly, the Government has commissioned an independent economic assessment of our overall 50 per cent ADET reduction plan. A contractor has now been appointed and the report will be published in the autumn. Secondly, a strategic environmental assessment is already under way, and the next step of the SEA will be the Government publicly consulting over the summer on our overall 50 per cent reduction plan, as well as publishing an environmental report that will outline the findings of the assessment of the plan against a wide range of environmental topics such as climate factors, air quality, material assets and biodiversity. Thirdly, the Scottish Government is currently undertaking a quantitative assessment of the likely greenhouse gas emission and noise impacts of the overall 50 per cent reduction plan. The noise assessment will be published in the autumn and the emissions assessment will be published next month as supporting information to the SEA consultation. The Scottish Government fully supports and recognises the importance of robust analysis of policies after implementation. Therefore, in addition to the analysis that is already being carried out, the Scottish Government has asked the contractor to undertake the independent economic assessment to consider the best way to design a robust monitoring and evaluation framework so that that can be put in place for assessing the social economic and environmental impacts of ADT into the future. The Scottish Government is therefore already carrying out a range of impact assessments that will be published before Parliament is asked to consider our secondary legislation that sets out the plans for tax bans and tax rate amounts. The Scottish Government also considers that requiring Scottish ministers to undertake a series of detailed and potentially time-consuming impact assessments before every time it wishes to propose changes to tax bans and tax rate amounts would restrict the flexibility to respond at short notice to economic shocks. That is not something that Parliament considered necessary for the other devolved taxes, land and burden transaction tax and Scottish landfill tax. It is also important to note that the arrangements already exist in relation to some of the assessments listed in Mr Harvey's amendment. For example, the Scottish Fiscal Commission will assume responsibility for producing independent forecasts of receipts from ADT to inform the Scottish Government's draft budget 2018-2019 and the budget bill. Those forecasts will reflect the Scottish Government's policy for ADT. If the Government proposes any further changes to ADT beyond its plans for a 50 per cent reduction in the overall tax burden by the end of the current Parliament, and if those further changes were considered lightly to have a significant environmental effect, it would be a requirement of the Environmental Assessment Act 2005 that an SEA be carried out before those plans could be legislated for or implemented. The Scottish Government does not believe that it is necessary or desirable to make duplicate provision in the bill by requiring that an environmental assessment be undertaken. In conclusion, convener, I therefore invite Patrick Harvie to not press amendment 66, 78 and 71. On reflecting on the contribution of members, I think that Mr Fraser is right that we would not want to be overly prescriptive. If I can work further and have further discussion with Mr Harvey on wording that could be introduced at stage 3 to explore the burdens on ministers and what we should consider and reflect further on the bringing together of the various reports that I have outlined, I think that that is worthy of further exploration, but not being overly prescriptive and not putting unnecessary burdens on the face of the bill, I am happy to consider that matter further. The cabinet secretary, Patrick Harvie, to wind up in, could you indicate, Patrick, whether you intend to press up with the law as well, please? Thanks very much, convener. Well, not for the first time, my favourite quote from the discussion comes from Murdo Fraser, who says that, from Patrick Harvie's perspective, those are not unreasonable amendments. If I ever have been damned with faint praise, I think that that was it. However, I think that the suggestion implicit is that we should reject those amendments purely on the basis that the Government has offered to come forward with some evidence base in future, and Parliament will then have the opportunity to support or reject the rates and bans that are being proposed. That is the point. Parliament will only have the ability to support or reject. What I am asking is that we place duties on ministers that they have to consider in developing their proposals. How we pass that legislation is our only ability to affect the process that ministers go through in developing the proposals that Parliament must then wholesale accept or reject without the possibility of amending. I would restate the case for placing requirements on the face of the bill in respect to those factors. The cabinet secretary mentioned earlier that the UK Government originally introduced that in part as an environmental tax. If that was its purpose, I would agree that it could be improved. It could be a much better environmental tax than it currently is, but that does not seem to be the Government's purpose. The only purpose that the Scottish Government seems to have—certainly the only one that the cabinet secretary referred to in discussing why he is proposing this legislation to create this new replacement tax—is revenue raising. However, the Government does not seem to want to keep raising that revenue in the long term. I will be welling if those amendments fall to discuss with the Scottish Government what else they intend to do, but I am afraid that I will have to have that discussion with a dose of cynicism when I have it. I think that there has been some discussion of the evidence that has come forward. Parliamentary committees tend to refer to everything that we have heard, the oral and written submissions as evidence. In normal language, there is a big difference between evidence and claims. I think that many of the claims that have been made for the Government's policy are without serious evidence. I am not claiming that there will not be any economic impact from the Government's policy, but rather that that needs to be set in the context of other impacts and for us to understand the different kinds of economic impact that might be achieved. The Government says that it is going to be consulting not only on the evidence that it intends to produce but also on its overall plan of a 50 per cent reduction in ADT. I would be curious to know whether the cabinet secretary is going to consult on what the overall ADT plan ought to be or merely hears our plan. That is what we are going to do. You can now tell us what you think. Consultation can be open or it can be closed, but it does not undermine the argument that I made on several occasions during the stage 1 inquiry that evidence ought to come before a policy is adopted. However, the cabinet secretary restates the fact that a 50 per cent cut in ADT is his policy, before we have any of the evidence that would be rationally required to decide what the policy ought to be. Finally, in the argument that the cabinet secretary and one or two other members have made, the argument that this is somehow inconsistent with the Climate Change Scotland Act and the idea that emission targets should be across the whole economy is exactly the problem with the Climate Change Scotland Act. I say that as the member who had the privilege of chairing the committee that led the scrutiny of that legislation. I think that many of those sessions in this room, all political parties agreed to set those ambitious targets and agreed nothing about how to actually get there. We all agreed on the destination, not on the actions, and we patted each other on the back for our ambition. The idea that we can simply repeat the same process and not now, years after the fact, begin to differentiate the level of emissions that we think are acceptable from different parts of the economy and decide how we are going to reach that objective. The actions that are necessary to get there I think would be a mistake. The idea that aviation emissions can be managed within the whole economy, well, maybe they can, but only if we know what they are going to be and how high we expect aviation emissions to be allowed to rise. That is necessary information if we are going to be confident that other actions in the rest of the economy are going to be adequate to overcoming that additional emission increase. That is all that those amendments propose. They propose that we know what we are dealing with, we know what level of damage we are going to allow the aviation industry to inflict on the climate and what level of actions are going to be necessary to take to counteract that damage. I will press amendment 66 and the others to the vote when the time comes. If they fall, I will consider what other possible routes are available to discuss those issues at stage 3. The time has come then. The question is that amendment 66 will be agreed to or will be agreed to. There will be a vote in that case. Those in favour, please show. Those opposed, please indicate. I guess there are no abstentions. There are no abstentions. There are three, four, eight against. There are zero abstentions. I call amendment 67, the name of Patrick Harvie, group with amendments 68 and 69. Patrick Harvie will move amendment 67 and speak to all amendments in the group. The group might be a little bit less controversial and, to be honest, I am open to hearing what the cabinet secretary has got to say about it. I have lodged it only because the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its consideration of the bill came forward with a recommendation and this committee in our stage 1 report agreed with the recommendation. Essentially, section 10 contains provisions that enable the Scottish ministers to set those tax rates and bans, but the DPRC committee sought clarification from the Government on the scope of the power. In correspondence with the Government, the Government stated that the provision was intended to provide the Government with sufficient legislative flexibility to change provisions about rates and determination of a chargeable passenger's final destination with regard to three criteria. The DPRC accepted that in principle, but considered that the section appeared to have been drafted more widely than necessary to give effect to the Government's stated policy intention. Their recommendation was that the Government bring forward an appropriate amendment to more closely align the power in section 10, too, with its stated policy intention. The committee agreed with that recommendation from the DPRC, so I discussed with the legislation team what amendments might be necessary to give effect to the committee's original recommendation. I would be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say in response. OK, another member wants to contribute at this stage. Convenience, the Scottish Government does not support the amendments in this group. In relation to amendments 67 and 68, the Scottish Government considered that these amendments are either unnecessary or too wide, depending on what is intended. If they are intended to clarify that subsection 2 of section 10 of the bill does not duplicate the power already provided by subsection 1, we think that amendments are unnecessary. Subsection 2, when read in context with subsections 1 and 3, already makes it clear from the use of the word other that it only provides the power to do what cannot be done under subsection 1. In other words, subsection 2 already excludes the power to set tax, bans and tax rate amounts. However, the wording of the amendment 68 suggests that Mr Harvie wishes to narrow the scope of subsection 2 by ruling out any provision that relates to tax, bans and tax rate amounts, because the purpose of the power in subsection 2 of section 10 is to revise the structure of the tax when necessary, and because the structure of the tax currently comprises bans and rates, it is difficult to imagine what subsection 2 could in practice be used for if amendments 67 and 68 were accepted. The Scottish Government has a similar concern with amendment 69, which could be read as restricting the Scottish Minister's power to amend section 9. If all three amendments were accepted, subsection 2 would be so restricted as to provide no power at all. The amendments would rule out any provision that was made that amended section 9 or related to tax, bans or tax rate amounts. The Scottish Government needs to retain the flexibility to adjust the structure of the tax in whatever way it considers appropriate, and that could include, for example, redefining the tax rate categories that are currently set out in section 9 on changing definitions of terms used in section 9. The current wording of subsection 2 provides the necessary flexibility. The power does not need to be constrained in the way that Mr Harvey proposes. It is already constrained by the tight wording in section 80L of the Scotland Act 1998, which only devolves power on a tax charged on the carriage of passengers by air from airports in Scotland. The nature of the tax might not be changed in any way. Any change that is proposed would require an affirmative vote of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I invite Patrick Harvie to not press amendments 67, 68 and 69. I think that there is one person who just wants to ask a question. Can they ask a question? I know that it is not normal at this stage, but I don't mean that. I think that there is an issue that you want to ask. Thank you, convener. If I may, I am not sure that I fully understand, and I just so that I can understand. Section 10 subsection 2 talks about the structure of the tax. Section 10 subsection 1 talks about bans and rates. I am not sure that I understand what is encapsulated within structure that is not encapsulated within bans and rates. What does section 10 2 allow you to do that you are not able to do under section 10 1? I know that this one feels quite technical, but there is clarity around what we are required to do as a Government for making a substantial change. That is mainly rates and bans. In essence, any other amendments might be around terminology or understanding of that terminology and relation to the tax. It gives us flexibility there, but not changing in any substantial way the nature of the tax or how it is levied through the rates and bans. I still think that the situation is a little unclear. I am not entirely convinced by the cabinet secretary's comments, but I would like to withdraw section 67 and consider how that issue might be addressed if necessary at stage 3 in light of the cabinet secretary's remarks. Did the committee agree with the withdrawal of section 67? The committee agreed. A call amendment 68, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is already debated with section 67. Patrick Harvie to move or not move? Not moved. A call amendment 69, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is already debated with amendment 67. Patrick Harvie to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. I will agree. A call amendment 78, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is already debated with amendment 66. Patrick Harvie to move or not move? Move. Those in favour, please show. Those opposed, please indicate. There are no abstentions. There are 3, 4, 8 against. There are no abstentions and therefore the amendment falls. A call amendment 71, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is already debated with amendment 66. Patrick Harvie to move or not move? Move. Okay. Those in favour, please show. Those opposed, those who are abstaining. There are 3, 4, 8 against and there are no abstentions and the amendment therefore falls. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. We all agreed. No, no, no. I'm sorry, I apologize. I apologize. The question is that sections 11, 12 and 13 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. A call amendment 14, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, group with amendments, is shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in the group. You may now move amendment 14 and we'll speak to it together with amendments in this group. These amendments deal with the requirements to apply to Revenue Scotland to register and deregister for ADT. The bill is introduced requires any aircraft operator who is either or will become a taxable person to apply to Revenue Scotland to register for ADT. The bill also requires a registered aircraft operator who is making quarterly tax return to apply to Revenue Scotland to deregister for ADT if they cease to become a taxable person. Further engagement by Revenue Scotland with stakeholders has demonstrated that it would not be practical to register occasional aircraft operators who, by their nature, only make infrequent or one-off flights from Scottish airports, in most cases with only a few people on board. This group of amendments provides that only aircraft operators who are or will become liable to make quarterly tax returns under section 17 of the bill must apply to Revenue Scotland to register for ADT and the requirement to apply to register for ADT would not apply to aircraft operators making occasional returns under section 18 of the bill. Any other member who wants to contribute at this stage? There's no need for the cabinet secretary to wind up in that case. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to, and we all agreed. We are agreed. I now call amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18 all to name the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 15 to 18 on block. Moved. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 15 to 18? No member has objected that the question therefore is that amendments 15 to 18 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I now call amendments 19, 20, 21 and 22 all to name the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 19 to 22 on block. Moved. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 19 to 22? No one objects. The question is therefore that amendments 19 to 22 are agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, remove a 23 and speak to all amendments in the group. Convener, I move amendment 23 and speak to it together with amendments in this group. Some of which have been brought forward as a result of the written evidence submitted to the committee during stage 1. Those are all minor technical amendments to either help to provide more clarity and consistency with the provisions in the bill as introduced or are considered necessary for the efficient collection and management of ADT. Accordingly, I move amendment 23. Any other member wants to contribute at this stage? No one is indicated. No need for the cabinet secretary to wind up in that case. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 16 and 17 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 24 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 25, 26 and 27. Cabinet secretary, remove 24 and speak to all amendments in the group. Convener, I move amendment 24 and speak to it together with other amendments in the group. Those amendments deal with the eligibility criteria for aircraft operators to be able to, should they wish, to make occasional rather than quarterly tax returns to Revenue Scotland. Following further engagement by Revenue Scotland with stakeholders, in order to ensure the efficient collection and management of ADT, it is considered necessary to amend section 18 of the bill by changing the eligibility criteria for making occasional returns in two areas. Firstly, by providing a more precise number of flights condition so that an aircraft operator intending to carry out taxable activities on more than 12 days in any 12-month period is not eligible to make occasional returns, and this amendment improves certainty as to the threshold level of taxable activity. Secondly, by increasing from £5,000 to £20,000, the maximum ADT liability in any 12-month period at an aircraft operator can incur in order to be entitled to make an occasional return. That is to ensure that the tax liability threshold is set a realistic level in light of the threshold level of taxable activities. It is therefore considered necessary to amend section 18 of the bill by changing the date by which an occasional return is due, from 7 days to 30 days after the date of the taxable activity, and that will give aircraft operators and their representatives more time in which to make an occasional tax return and pay any ADT due to Revenue Scotland. I wonder if I could just ask the cabinet secretary to say a bit more about that change of threshold from £5,000 to £20,000. The explanation seemed a little vague, and I would like to ask specifically why £5,000 was proposed in the first instance. What is the rationale for setting it at that level when the bill was drafted? What is the rationale for £20,000 specifically rather than any other figure? What are the types of operators who will be treated differently in respect of returns as a result of that change in threshold? In the various discussions that the Government has had with stakeholders, are there any specific organisations that have lobbied for this change of threshold, and who are they? Any other members want to contribute at this stage? Any other members want to contribute? We do with that point as you wind up as well. While essentially Revenue Scotland had been engaging on it, the £5,000 figures understand that it was the same level of UK APD threshold that has been sustained at that level, so we had an opportunity to look further to what is appropriate. We felt that £20,000 as a threshold keeps within the seasonal flights rather than, say, the major operators and airlines, so that level felt as part of the balance as the appropriate threshold as opposed to what we inherited from UK, which was just £5,000. I can get further information on that if required also. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed or we all agreed. I suppose that there is a version that is here, but I do not know. Call amendments 25, 26, 27 and 28, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 25 to 28 on block. Does the member object to a single question being put on amendments 25 to 28? No member objected. The question is that amendments 25 to 28 are agreed or we all agreed. I call amendment 29, in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that section 18 be agreed or we all agreed. I call amendment 29, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 30, 31, 36 and 38. Cabinet secretary, move amendment 29 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 29 and we will speak to it together with other amendments in the group. Amendments 29 to 31 make better provision in the bill for agents who may or may not be tax representatives to submit ADT returns to Revenue Scotland on behalf of taxable persons. Where that is the case, the agent must declare on the return that the taxable person has declared to the agent that the information provided in the return is to the best of the taxable person's knowledge, correct and complete. That provides equivalency with the legislation for land and bound transaction tax and Scottish landfill tax. Amendments 36 and 38 are considered necessary to ensure that taxable persons continue to be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of information in a tax return. Even where they have been appointed a tax representative, those amendments prevent a tax representative from making a declaration in a tax return that should be made by a taxable person. Any other members wish to contribute at this stage? On the need for the cabinet secretary to wind up in that case, the question is that amendment 29 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We agreed. I call amendment 30 and name the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 29. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 32 and name the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 32 and name the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I agree. The question is that section 20 be agreed. I agree. I call amendment 33 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 34, 39, 41, 42 and 48. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 33 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 33 and we'll speak to it together with other amendments in this group. Amendments to section 21 of the bill make it clear that the voluntary appointment by an aircraft operator of a tax representative will not take effect for the purposes of ADT legislation until the details of the appointment are notified to Revenue Scotland. Amendments to section 26 of the bill will make clear that when the appointment of a tax representative takes effect, different rules apply for depending on whether or not the appointment is voluntary or is required under section 21 of the bill. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Any other members want to contribute at this stage? No one's indicated therefore that the cabinet secretary doesn't need to wind up. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 34 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 33. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 35 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 21 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 22 be agreed to or we'll agreed. I call amendment 36 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 29. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 23 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 37 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 29. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 24 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 25 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 39, 40, 41 and 42 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite cabinet secretary to move amendment 39 to 42 on block. Is there any member object to a single question being put to amendment 39 to 42? There is no objection. The question therefore is that amendment 39 to 42 are agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 26 be agreed to or we'll agreed. The question is that section 27 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 43 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 44 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 28 be agreed to or we'll agreed. The question is that section 29 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 45. Convener, I move amendment 45 and I'm sure the committee will appreciate this as my final amendment to discuss. At the moment the handling agent services defined in section 30 of the bill only include the allocation of seats to passengers and the supervision of passengers boarding, which matches the UK APD approach. Business and private jet aircraft operators are increasingly self-service, however, with some only using handling agents for passenger baggage handling arrangements. The amendment is therefore considered necessary to ensure that Revenue Scotland is able to give notice under section 31 of the bill to a handling agent who only provides a passenger baggage handling service to aircraft operator. I thank you, cabinet secretary, and I just want to make a contribution at this stage. No one wants to make a contribution, therefore no need for the cabinet secretary to wind up. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 30 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that sections 31 and 32 are agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. I call amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49. All will name the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 46 to 49 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put to amendments 46 to 49? No member objects. The question is that amendments 46 to 49 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 33 be agreed or we'll agreed. The question is that section 34 be agreed or we'll agreed. I call amendment 50 in the name of the cabinet secretary, I already debated with amendment 23. The cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 35 be agreed to or we'll agreed. We agreed. The question is that section 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. Now call amendments 51, 52 and 53, all with the name of the cabinet secretary in all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 51 to 53 on block. Left. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 51 to 53? No member objects. The question is that amendments 51 to 53 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We agreed. The question is that section 37 be agreed. Is it be agreed? Are we all agreed? We agreed. The question is that section 38 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We agreed. I call amendment 54 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 14. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Left. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 23. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Left. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. The question is that sections 39 and 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. I call amendments 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, all in the name of the cabinet secretary in all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 56 to 65 on block. Left. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 56 to 65? No member objects. The question is that amendments 56 to 65 are all agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We agreed. The question is that sections 41 and 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That end stage 2 consideration of the bill. Members will note that the bill will now be reprinted as amended. The Parliament is not yet determined when stage 3 will take place, but members may lodge amendments with legislation team. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments once it has been determined. I am going to suspend this meeting of the committee for a few moments to allow the cabinet secretary and his officials to leave, and I thank you for your attendance this morning. The next item and agenda is to consider a negative statutory instrument in relation to the Scottish landfill tax regulations. I ask members if any comments wish to report on this instrument. No indication given. In that case, the committee notes the instrument and agrees to make no recommendation to it. I now close this meeting of the Finance and Constitutional Committee. Thank you very much.