 Rwy'n ochr i ddod o'r gwaith y cyfnod trwy'r cyffredinol yng Nghyrcofod records a phabat erbydd gael i gyntaf, rwy'n gweithio cymdeithas methau o'r ddiffrithio'r môl, ac oedd nifer o'r hu Incledigol nhw. Rwy'n gweithio'r yr ystod hoffiam hwn yn yr agenda a sy'n dweud ei gael i'w rwyf. Eir gwaith o'r tax Scotland eraill leaks yma â'r pas, ac eitb o'r cyffredinol nhw o'r dweud gwaith o'r grilledJean. I welcome to the meeting with Derek McKay, the cabinet secretary of finance and constitution. Mr McKay is joined by the Scottish Government officials. I welcome them back. I welcome James McLeil in the head of devolved taxes. I welcome John St Clair, the senior principal legal officer, and Mike Stewart, the bill manager. I welcome to the meeting with Mr McKay. I will invite him to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement on the air departure tax Scotland Bill. The devolution of air passenger duty was recommended by the Smith's commission following the passage of the Scotland Act 2016. The Scottish Parliament now has the power to legislate for attacks that will replace APD in Scotland. In the programme for government, the Scottish Government announced that a bill would be introduced to establish attacks to replace APD in Scotland. It also reaffirmed the Scottish ddim yn cael ei gyffraith cyfathur o'r pergylchedd yn 50 per cent o dmell oedd y dyfodol bydd yn adonion y ffordd ddau oedd ar y gleimddach a'r sefydliadau i'r ddweith iechyd o'r arall. The Scottish Government has taken a consultative approach to engaging stakeholders on the replacement of FFAR APD. We published a policy consultation last year, which generated a range of views and we have worked carefully to refine our legislative proposals reflecting on the responses that were received. In addition to that, we established a stakeholder forum I chair to provide expert input into the development of our policy and legislative proposals for ADT. I have also been listening to the responses to the committee that you have received at stage 1 call for evidence. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed to a thoughtful and thorough discussion of the issues so far. The committee has taken evidence from a range of different stakeholders and the Government will reflect carefully on all the points that have been raised. As the committee is aware, the bill was introduced on 19 December 2016. Under terms agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments and the Fiscal Framework, APD will cease to apply in Scotland from 1 April 2018, and if the bill is enacted, ADT will replace it from that date. The bill establishes the general structure and operation of ADT. The bill also includes the power for Scottish ministers to set tax exemptions, tax rate amounts and ban through secondary legislation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Scottish Government hopes to pass the bill in advance of the summer recess and, with core foundations of the tax in place, will then bring forward tax rate amounts and tax ban through secondary legislation in the autumn. This secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals at a later date and they cannot come into effect without Parliament's approval. Setting tax bans and tax rate amounts in subordinate legislation is consistent with the approach adopted in relation to other devolved taxes in Scotland. The Scottish Government is considering all exemptions for ADT in the round, together with options on tax bans and tax rate amounts. I have listened to the environmental concerns that have been raised by some respondents and the Scottish Government is committed to undertaking a full strategic environmental assessment. As an example of good practice, openness and transparency, the screening scoping report was made available for full public comment. The SEA process will continue to develop as the policy proposals are further developed. An environmental report setting out the findings of the assessment will be published and made available for comment alongside the policy proposals as part of the next phase of the SEA process. More widely, the recently published draft climate change plan sets out how the Scottish Government proposes to meet the statutory emission reduction targets under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009. Those targets, which have been set at the levels recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, comprises all emissions across the Scottish economy, including domestic and international aviation. Revenue Scotland, Scotland's tax authority for devolved taxes, will be responsible for the collection and management of ADT. It has been since April 1, 2015, for LBTT and Scottish landfill tax. The Scottish Fiscal Commission will assume responsibility for developing a model of ADT, and once the policy position has been set out, will produce independent forecasts of revenues to inform the Scottish Government's draft budget 2018-19. I look forward to answering the committee's questions this morning. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I know some of my colleagues will get into the specifics of the bill itself, although it is fair for me to open up a question on the issue of evidence on the Government's policy, because there is a lot of comment being made in evidence to the committee previously about that, both by the airline industry and environmental groups, who have talked about the lack of the evidence base with regard to the Scottish Government's stated aim of a 50 per cent reduction in the level of ADT in the current parliamentary term, particularly in regard to economic and environmental issues. I heard what you said in your opening address, and I note your reference in your letter on 24 February, in regard to the impact of emissions on 50 per cent reduction. How would you respond to that wide-ranging criticism about the lack of evidence that is currently available? Evidence specifically on the environmental concerns? Environmental and economic assessment. I think that there are a number of reports out there, and there is a great deal of evidence. You can draw your own conclusions from each piece of evidence on what it might mean, but I suppose that I can hone in on what we understand, that this being one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world, and certainly the highest in Europe. Self-evident, there is an issue in that tax. When our agencies engage with airlines and airports, they inform us that it is a key consideration when airlines are looking where to establish routes. So, in attracting economic growth in new routes, it is a consideration, a key consideration in which destinations and airlines would go to, and it seems to be, from that evidence and that information, that experience, a barrier to Scotland developing new routes. There has been some success in some Scottish airports, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example, and some are in a less strong position and have not enjoyed the same growth as Aberdeen, for example. The experience coming from the airports is that APD has had an impact, does have an impact in attracting and sustaining routes. In terms of the reports, and as I said, a number of reports have been published, there is something of a consensus around the economic benefits that would come from a 50 per cent reduction, some consistency around that. Then, if we go beyond, what would a policy change look like? Two operators, in particular, have identified how they believe that they would then allocate routes in future ease. I would reference EasyJet and Ryanair, who have both said that they would increase capacity if there was a change in the tax by way of a reduction of 50 per cent cut. I suppose that that is the different pieces of evidence that I will draw from. What has been published, what operators tell us has been the experience, airports tell us has been the experience, what would assist us in our economic case and what would improve our international connectivity, recognising the rate of the tax across Europe and then more widely? Further to that, the World Economic Forum has identified their links as an important driver of global competitiveness. On the environmental side, obviously there has to be more work done around the specifics of the policy. This stage is the enabling legislation to allow us to collect the tax. More detail comes from the tax rates and bans, and from that more information around what the impact of that would be would require that strategic environmental assessment, which would have to consider those matters and then publish the evidence specifically on what the policy would look like for rates and bans. Looking at the Government's ambitious environmental policies, it is recognised that we will have to work harder in other areas to recognise that such a policy could lead to an increase in emissions. Putting those emissions into context, as I understand it, an increase of 3 per cent in aviation emissions would be 0.1 per cent in total Scottish emissions, but there is a recognition that that is an increase and therefore there has to be efforts in other areas based on that evidence that it has an environmental impact. So there can be environmental studies into the generic policy, but then more detail following on from the rates and bans because that gives more clarity on what the environmental impact and indeed what the economic output would be from that. Obviously, we are dealing with the principle just now of whether there should be a tax or not, understand that. Can you give us any understanding of what the timescales might be of cut? First of all, I want to come back to the coming next stuff, but in terms of the strategic environmental assessment, can you give us any details of the timescales when you think that might be forthcoming? Obviously, as the statutory instrument emerges around these, if and when it does, that will be a key determiner for committee members about whether the evidence then exists to examine the statutory instrument at that time. That is right, convener. I think that we have to have that information on the SCA as we are setting the tax policy. Mike, could you cover the timescales in that building up to that determination? First of all, the remaining step of the SCA process is to publish an environmental report as well as a set of proposals from the Government on the tax banding and tax rate amounts over a 12-week period for public consultation. That is a statutory part of the SCA process. That consultation process must be concluded and a reasonable amount of time allowed after that conclusion before the secondary legislation for the tax bands and tax rate amounts could be laid before Parliament. The Government's plans are, as the cabinet secretary said, to set out the tax bands and tax rate amounts in secondary legislation, so that will follow enactment of the bill. Most likely, we would probably be laying those secondary legislation sometime in the autumn, so working back from that with a 12-week process, that would mean that the SCA consultation, as I said, would not be in a position to give exact timings, but most likely before the bill was, before summer recess, most likely. Yeah, but at least 12 weeks before the statutory instrument came into being or was brought before Parliament? Yes, plus a reasonable amount of time has to be allowed after the conclusion of that consultation as well to enable the Government to take on board any feedback that comes in, because, as with most consultations, most of the responses tend to come in right at the end of a consultation period. Okay, let me deal with the economic impact assessment now. Obviously, the committee members are aware that there has been a number of pieces of work done by either the airports or the airline operators about what their view is of this. However, as the Government itself undertakes any economic assessment of the impact of reduction to 50 per cent. Our officials have certainly looked at all the reports and considered them. We have not commissioned, to the best of my knowledge, any independent research of our own, but we have certainly looked at all the reports that have been published and provided, as well of course as the experience in Ireland as well. Do you not—okay, would you commit yourself today then to carrying out that independent assessment of the economic case? If committee wishes me to look at that, I will certainly consider that absolutely. I want to make the point, convener, that this is the enabling legislation to allow us to collect the tax. Obviously, a key stage is at what levels we set the tax. The consideration of that will probably tell us much more about environmental and economic impact on that. If committee wishes me to consider that as one of your recommendations, yes, I will consider that. I think that that is probably highly likely that we will do that, but we will not get to considering a report for a couple of weeks yet. Okay, that is a helpful beginning. Ivan, have you had issues around the economic issue? Yes, I wanted to drill further into that. I suppose that it might be difficult to go further, because what you are saying is that you do not have an independent economic assessment at this stage. I always want to go into a bit more detail on that. I suppose that I am starting from the position that clearly one of the aims of the 50 per cent reduction specifically was to generate more economic activity. Obviously, it is believed that it would also generate more money back into the public sector finances as a consequence. There is some analysis that we have seen from Edinburgh Airport or from bigger economics on that. I always want to go a step further and say that if you look at the range of different types of routes and different types of passengers, clearly some of those have a much higher impact on potential economic growth than others may have. Okay, inbound tourism is clearly preferable to outbound tourism. Depending on medium, long haul, it may give different economic benefits depending on where the routes are going. Business passengers clearly would give more of an economic benefit perhaps than tourism. Have you looked at segmentation in that sense and which of those segments would give the most economic benefit and, as a consequence, tailoring the tax in order to enable that and encourage that to happen? Or is it just a blanket view of the thing that says that we are going to make the change in the hope that it stimulates economic activity across the world? I think that it is the case that we would absolutely want to refine the policy in the next stage of rates and bans to what helps us to achieve the Government's economic strategy, which clearly will have to adapt to the circumstances, the changed European outlook, for example connectivity, how our business opportunities and tourist opportunities have changed as well. In terms of the report, the question that was asked by the convener was, had we as a Government commissioned our own independent survey, no, we haven't, but we've looked to all the other pieces of work that's in the public domain and who's commissioned them and who they were for and the summary of each report. All of that can feed into, once we have the power and the ability to collect the tax, how we arrive at the decisions around the rates and the bans. There's environmental issues within that and there's the economic opportunities, but the Government's economic message being around Scotland being open for business, also supporting tourism, wanting strong connectivity, believing that airports are drivers for many members around this table, understanding how airports can be a driver for the economy, our messages around connectivity, strengthening our position in Europe. All of those things would feature in that next stage of what gives us economic benefit and then the economic, frankly, the spending plans of the Government as well. How it ties in with all of that is a matter for future consideration. Of course, we would look at how any reduction in the tax should be applied and distributed. Right. I'm not prejudicing that this morning, convener. As I say, this is for me the foundations of the legislation to enable us to collect the tax and not putting out in the public domain what our proposal is because that's yet to be determined. No, that's clear. As we've cleared, you will look at the data, you will consider segmentation depending on what different segments of the market might generate the most economic stimulus and then that will come back for consideration at the next future stage. Thank you, convener. I think that it is disappointing that you're bringing forward a major piece of legislation and the Government hasn't conducted its own research and assessment on it. I know your comments that you'll await the committee's recommendation on that. But just to go on a specific and preparing for the bill to bring it forward, have you given any consideration, for example, to the impact of Brexit? That's certainly a consideration as to how you would apply the reduction or how you would set rates and bans. Of course, I think that that's a helpful point to show how putting everything in primary legislation wouldn't necessarily be the appropriate thing to do because the world is changing, routes are changing, operations are changing, politics are changing, budgets reconsideration. The same way that in our other taxes, I think that we have to be quite flexible and adept, of course those international connections issues would feature a policy going forward naturally. Does that mean that you're reconsidering your policy intent to reduce the size of the tax by 50 per cent? The policy intent was to reduce the tax by 50 per cent and then abolish when resources allow that 50 per cent reduction was over the course of the Parliament, so the policy intent has not changed. How that reduction is distributed is still to be determined. You're saying that it's enabling legislation but you're setting out a clear policy intent there, which is going to have substantial impact and therefore it is important that there is robust research that backs that up. Going back to the Brexit point, Parliament debated Brexit yesterday and there was a concern coming out of the economy report that the impact of Brexit would have an adverse effect on poor and elderly households. Is that a consideration that potentially reducing what's going to be collected by this tax? That would adversely affect. It would benefit families who are able to afford flights but adversely affect poor and elderly households, as underlined by the economy making out here in Parliament. I think that a wider point, Mr Kelly, is the one that you're making around the wider spending plans of the Government. I'm not dismissing that but what I'm saying around Brexit is that it makes the point around international connectivity and we want to ensure post-Brexit vote that it's clear Scotland has a desire to remain connected to the world. We also believe that connectivity is important for economic growth as well. Business growth and business organisations support that position as well, but you're right that there is a public expenditure point in all of that. However, there is international connectivity and there is engagement with Europe. There are decisions to be taken around the tax rates and how that is distributed but, yes, within the financial envelope. All of those matters have to be considered when we approach the tax rates and bans. However, we should be careful. I'm making the point that I'm not avoiding the policy and tent questions but that's not what I'm asking you to determine this morning. Murdo, you wanted to supplement and train this. Just a couple of brief points. First of all, to follow up from what I've been saying about the economic impact, I think that the evidence that we've heard, both foreign against and reduction, has been quite poor. I think that it will be very useful when you bring forward the orders to have that backed up with a proper economic analysis. I just want to reinforce the points that have been made earlier about how helpful I think the committee would find that if that was possible for that to be done. The real question that I wanted to ask was around timing. I understand that your policy commitment is to see a 50 per cent reduction by the end of the Parliament. Is there anything more that you can say today about when you would intend to bring that reduction in? No, I think that that's premature. I'm making the point that establishing the legislation allows us to collect the tax that we have to do. Then there's further discussion to be had around what a reduction looks like and how it fits within an economic plan, how it fits within our connectivity ambitions and environmental considerations. All of that should be taken together. Clearly, there is evidence from Ireland on what they did around abolishing the tax and the impact that that had there. However, we should be able to look at all of that evidence, everything that currently exists and what we're trying to achieve as a country and our economic strategy. I think that it's fair to say that we have to return to Parliament with the evidence around that. Specifically, what our preferred approach or proposal would be trying to achieve and does that make economic and environmental sense. We have a broad policy intent. How do you refine that into essentially the tax proposition to be considered? We will return to Parliament with that having established the ability to raise the tax. Certainly, the more information that's produced to support that case, the better. I get that point and I commit to doing that. Just so that we're clear on timing, you say that it will be the autumn that you introduced the instruments. That's your planned timescale at present. At that point, you have produced all the evidence to go along with it. That's correct. In advance of that, as has been set out, we will publish the SEA that speaks specifically to the tax options. I'm just going to get a couple of other questions around the wider issues of the economy and the environment and then I'm going to come to Patrick on some of the specifics around the policy content and link to the bill. If I've got this right, Neil, you'd have a wider economic question about the policy that we're discussing already. I think that Maria will have a question around the wider environmental issues and then I'll come to Patrick. I was just to follow up on the question that James Kelly was asking about, the impact on people in Scotland of a proposed cut. Will you, in addition to looking at your economic impact case, look at the impact that we'll have on the poorest sections of society versus the most well-off, will you look at the impact that your policy intent will have on those different groups of people in Scotland? Obviously, any financial decision that the Government takes has to, and should rightly, take into account those kinds of considerations, but it wouldn't be just a matter of what's raised by way of the tax. I think that we also have to reflect on the economic benefits that would come from growth, whether that's new routes, sustaining routes, supporting our airports. Mr Bibby partly covers Glasgow airport, as I do, to declare an interest in that same constituency, but there are wider benefits, of course, to supporting our airports and the employment that that brings as well. I think that there's many aspects to the policy, but clearly in determining attacks and potentially a tax reduction, that has to be considered as part of the Government's overall spending plans. In terms of the research that you've looked at, the ONS has suggested that plans to cut APD in half would save the top 20 per cent of emmer 73 pounds compared to the poorest, which would save just £4.50. The Civil Aviation Authority has previously identified that the mean income of those who fly from Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness is higher than £40,000. Are you aware of those reports? Is that part of your thinking in terms of reflecting on all the research that is available? I've looked through a number of the reports, but I say again that I don't think that you can justify the policy. I know that we're going beyond the legislation to set the tax into what you would make the rates potentially and where the reduction would be distributed potentially, but I think that I have to look more widely at all the economic benefits of the policy, if it generates economic growth, who benefits from that wider economic growth? There's a full spectrum of employment opportunities at an airport, for example, and I say that not all airports are in the strong position of Edinburgh and Glasgow. I think that it's a fair comment, so you have to look at everything in the round while making a determination on the rates. Finally, in terms of the example of the impact on the Republic of Ireland, have you also looked at the effect that that had on money going to the public person? Is the Republic of Ireland part of your research? It's funny that you should mention it, but one of the first meetings I had when I was in post was a flurry of meeting other finance ministers and a chancellor, so I had the pleasure of meeting Pascal Donoghue who was an Irish finance minister more focused on public expenditure, and I asked him about it because I was obviously interested in the tax decision there, and he absolutely believed that it was the right economic thing to do and has supported their economy. That was their expenditure finance minister's view, but looking at the evidence, it certainly has been supported and did deliver further economic activity, which they believe in turn helped fuel their economy. Looking at the figures since Ireland abolished its air tax in 2014, Dublin Airport achieved the highest rate of passenger growth of any major airport in Europe, with passenger numbers increasing by 15.4 per cent in 2015, and a year-on-year increase of 13.4 per cent in the first half of 2016. I am sure that they would argue that that led to further economic benefits and tax receipts that helped fuel the economy. More information on that would be helpful. Marie-Claire Thank you, convener. As you know, I represent Highlands and Islands, and there has been, certainly from the environmentalists, a reasonable case put forward that supporting rail alternatives would be more environmentally friendly, but I represent part of the country that does not really have rail alternatives, and there was some evidence put forward that the alternatives might not be so environmentally friendly, so a sole person driving a large car and getting a ferry is probably less environmentally friendly than a flight. I just wondered if you could give us your thoughts around that. I know that, again, we are talking about this. John Swinney It is a former transport minister. I am very pro-rail. Clearly, I am, and there are lots of benefits to it in terms of environmental impact. Domestically, of course, it is increasingly moving towards electrification as well. There are subsidy issues around rail as well, but I am absolutely pro-rail. As finance minister, I cannot just view the world through the prism of the central belt. That is why Highlands and Islands points are very well made that not everyone has access to the central belt stations to get to London. There are two points that are made. First of all, absolutely taking a national perspective on this, aviation and air travel give that level of connectivity that is not otherwise there, which I do think is significant. The second point is not everyone's destination necessarily convenient from those parts of the country to other parts of the UK. Aviation gives different destinations and routes compared to rail as well. I do not think that that is a battle between rail or aviation, because it presents different opportunities to different parts of the country. We must not view that solely through the prism of the central belt. William, was that a supplementary to that? Yes. Okay. Sorry, Patrick. So, you say quite rightly that not all airports are in a similar situation to Edinburgh and Glasgow, and you do not want to view things through the prism of the central belt. Will you be, when you do your robust evidence gathering, will you be investigating the possibility of differentiating schemes for different areas and different airports, depending on your preferred outcomes and what their local needs are? I think that it is a very fair point to consider local needs, but the best way to achieve that is to design a national policy that serves local needs. It may be difficult to establish a national tax policy that can be segmented in that way, but the key point is while we understand the needs of every part of the country in designing a policy, yes, ultimately. There is a different way to do that, but it has to be ultimately compliant and consistent and practical for operators to be able to administer. What I am trying to describe is that you do that by designing the right national policy, rather than trying to have different policies for different parts of the country, which is another way to do it. It might not be compliant legally. Thank you, Patrick. I think that the idea is that now that everyone has the plate spinning, my job is to make you drop one or two of them. Can I start with one of the first comments that you made? You said that, in relation to the economic evidence, there was a range of reports and research out there. Can you tell us which ones you rely on? I rely on the advice from officials that I have looked at them all to produce a consensus, so there is a range of reports here that I would not pick and choose between them and say which ones are more credible than the other, but they all inform Government position. I do not think that it would be right for me to give a hierarchy or prioritise. So there is not an economic projection about, for example, the number of jobs that you anticipate being created in the aviation industry or induced employment in the wider economy. There is not a projection that you consider reliable. There seems to be a consensus around a few of the reports converging on some of their benefits. The PWC, York aviation and Edinburgh airport reports seem to have some consistency in the outputs, but I would not pick any one individual report having looked at a review of them all. So the Scottish Government does not have a view about what level of employment would be generated or what level of economic activity would be generated by its current policy? Well, each report has looked at the policy and arrived at what they think the economic benefits are. To be absolutely accurate, clearly one of the determinants of that will be what operators do based on Government policy, what they commit to by way of additional routes or sustaining routes or capacity. And you do not know what will happen. Whatever that happens to be. What I am saying is that they are now saying, well, until they know what the tax rates are, they cannot give absolute certainty as to what they will do. Where the consensus is is that any tax reduction, of course the airlines would want the biggest reduction possible, will lead to more routes, more connections, more capacity, therefore more jobs, more economic growth. The extent to which that boils down to absolute numbers will be dependent on what the Government proposes by way of a tax reduction and how that is distributed and when. So you accept that claim about increased numbers of routes without question, even though, for example, in Northern Ireland, after abolishing their aviation tax, they have seen some routes simply shut down? I think that the tax rate does not change viability of the route itself. I think that it would change some. I think that it would change the viability of some clearly because of your behaviour. Which one is in the future in Scotland? Well, I do not know which ones because it would be hard to assess right now, but what I do know is from the airlines and the airports perspective, some routes are doing very well, some will change, some were announced last week, some will be successful, some won't, but the advice is that in trying to secure new routes to Scotland, we are not as competitive because we have one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world and that is a consideration for operators when they are looking as to where to locate new routes. Now, as I say, some airports have been quite successful of late, others not so, some routes are successful, others not so, but in establishing new routes, the first thing that an operator would look at is the tax take and therefore it is a consideration in all of that. But it is hard to be formulaic on the outcome of a tax policy without having set the tax policy, but of course that should be fully considered when we are determining the distribution on any reduction of how the tax is applied. So, you are still falling back on the advice coming from the industry who would like to pay less tax. Let's look at the tourism deficit. We know that tourism results in some people coming to Scotland spending money, but it results in more money being spent by Scots who travel overseas and have holidays elsewhere and spend a larger amount of money. There is a deficit there. Will your policy see that deficit go up or down? There is obviously economic return on people coming back when the routes are established, so there is economic return on that. The point is that a new route being established or a greater flow of traffic on an existing route will see money going in both directions. At the moment that we have a tourism deficit, will that deficit go up or will it be reduced as a result of your tax changes? It is hard to say, because I haven't proposed what the tax changes are. The overall policy that you stated is a 50 per cent reduction in the tax take over the course of this Parliament. To answer that, you are asking about what the impact will be on routes. What I am saying is that there will be more passengers, more capacity and more routes. Surely Patrick Harvie as an internationalist would welcome more international connections opening up to the world so that there is that engagement and ability to travel, but we believe that it will generate more economic growth for Scotland. You believe that, but you are still not citing any evidence to demonstrate it? You are asking me to cite evidence on what routes will change as a consequence of the tax policy that I haven't set out. Let's look at the fiscal impact then, the impact on the public purse. We've heard some evidence. I think that before we go there, I know that some of the questions that Ash had were around routes issues. Can we complete that bit and then we can come back to your fiscal impacts? Ash, do you want to kick off? I think that the new routes idea is quite key in terms of the economic impact. I have a friend who travels regularly for business and often finds it difficult to find direct flights from Edinburgh to whichever European destination they are going to, which means that they have to take two flights, and they have to be up by Heathrow to get wherever they are going. Obviously, that's not great from an environmental perspective and it's not particularly great from a business perspective. EY, I think that it was last year, brought out their report and they said for a foreign direct investment that this idea of regional connectivity is an important factor when businesses are making their investment decisions. I'm just trying to get to the bottom. Is this a main thrust of the Government's policy? Is this an objective that rather than, say, competing with, say, Newcastle Airport, what we're actually trying to do is compete with, maybe, Stockholm or Copenhagen for new routes? That's a key point. First of all, there has to be a benefit. I'm certainly not trying to prejudice where any reduction might be distributed, but there's clear economic benefit in getting access to hub airports because that then unlocks so many other opportunities in destinations, so absolutely focusing on the opportunities. Both direct flights, but direct flights to hub airports for all the connections that that brings. There is a view that this is just about competing with other UK airports. It's not, it's actually about competing with airports like Dublin or Stockholm or Lisbon or Barcelona, so it is about ensuring that we're able to attract the airlines to provide routes to Scotland. The competition is, as you described, much wider than that. Obviously, recently, Ryanair announced that, as a result of this policy, we're thinking about bringing 15 new routes to Scotland. What sort of expectations can we have around whether those routes will be long-term decisions? The issue is, I suppose, of airlines, particularly within Europe and particularly with some operators, they can be quite adept and flexible. Therefore, the more competitive we are, the better to attract those kind of operators with the access that they have. Some of those short-haul European routes are, how can we describe, easier to change than others that maybe have a longer term or a longer decision making period and then implementation and sustainability? Clearly, the Government would want new routes to be sustained, and part of this policy approach will be to try to retain what we've got. Final question. If we're talking about the economic impact for Scotland and that's what the objective is to increase that in a positive way, how will we judge if this policy has been successful? You could judge it through the Government's economic strategy, but in terms of international connectiveness, it's more routes, more passengers, more economic growth, more destinations reached through Scotland's airports and sustaining what we've got. That could be a judgment of success. On that specific point, the Chartered Institute of Taxation suggested that there should be some form of monitoring available to assess whether the outcomes intended by the bill actually delivered the policy memorandums objectives. Is that something that the Government would consider? That would be a helpful point to consider in evaluation of what the fiscal policy has achieved by way of economic output. There will be the environmental assessment as well, of course, but I'm very open minded to that evaluation of tax policy and intervention. It's obvious that some of us can reflect on when we come to writing a report. Willie, you were in the same sort of area as I was. Thank you very much, Bruce. It's just to fly you down to Prestwick for a wee moment. We did hear in previous committees that there was some evidence from Ireland about the positive impact in the regional airports in Ireland, and you mentioned just a moment ago the strong increase in passenger numbers at Dublin. When I attended a meeting at the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly in 2014, Michael Leary, Ryanair's chief exec, said quite clearly on record that he could double the passenger numbers coming through Prestwick worth the tax to go completely. That would be only on the London and Belfast routes that he said at the time. Given what we've said already, if you do and if you are asked to conduct any kind of analysis for the committee, could you make sure that there's some kind of regional impact assessment for airports like Prestwick so that we might be able to see the positive benefits that we might be looking forward to at that airport? Obviously, convener, I respect members' interests in Prestwick, but we're trying to support the sustainability of the overall sector. Yes, when we're looking at the issues, it's back to Liam Kerr's point about what is the local circumstance and impact as well. Those are all matters that we would consider in arriving at a decision on tax policy, but I'm very well aware of Ryanair's operation at Prestwick, and the comments that they've made in the press around what they would do if APD was reduced. Is there any more hard detail from Ireland about that impact in the regional airports? It's been mentioned several times, although we didn't hear the particular evidence presented to us or sent it. Is there any hard detail that can give us an indication of what was happening in the regional economy in Ireland as a result of the tax going? Convener, I'll see what further information we can provide to you. Okay, Patrick, back to the fiscal staff. I've got a number of folk who want to get in still. Several of the reports that you cited, cabinet secretary, claim that there'll be a benefit to the public purse through increased taxation in other areas. Reducing that tax generates other forms of economic activity that contribute to tax take. Do you agree with that and have you achieved an answer to the question that, for example, Edinburgh Airport were not able to answer to the committee? What proportion of that induced taxation will be paid to the Scottish Government in devolved taxes and what proportion to the UK Government in reserved taxes? No, I don't have an answer to that, but it's a fair question, but I tell you why it's not a reason for not doing anything. In areas where the Scottish Government might make an intervention to support the economy, the Scottish Government doesn't always get the tax receipt from it, but that in itself doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the right decision to grow our economy. I don't have the analysis of what would go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what would come to the Scottish Government. The economic consensus is that it delivers greater economic growth, but I don't have such a breakdown. Even if the Government's policy objective is fulfilled and you see the kind of economic activity that you would like to see generated, you don't know whether that will make public finances in the Scottish Government in a stronger position or a weaker position. Because of the nature, as Mr Harvey is aware of the block grant adjustment, we know specifically that, once it is being raised, what the return would be for the Scottish Government on a policy just on air departure tax. However, it would be hard for me to determine what share of other taxes we would benefit from if it improves employment. Of course, there would be income tax, and we will have an assignment of VAT in due course, but it would be hard to break that down. To try and give a figure now, I would pre-empt my point on setting the tax rates, which would then more adequately inform such an analysis. Income tax was one of the elements that I was going to ask about. The three studies that you cited as having some reliability did attempt to put figures on, for example, income tax being generated. However, they seem to be based on out-of-date income tax, rates, bans and personal allowance. Has the Scottish Government attempted to update that work, given, for example, how much above the personal allowance induced employment generated in the hospitality sector might be? Not specifically, and I make the point again, because I think that that is pre-empting what the tax rates might be. Still, for me, it reinforces the notion that you are asking us to pass a bill that does not place any requirements or constraints on ministers for the issues that they must consider in proposing rates and bans. Can I come on to the environmental aspects? I do not agree with that, because what I have said already at committees is that there should be economic and environmental consideration in advance and, as we put our tax position across, so what I am asking Parliament to consider right now is the ability to raise the tax. You would be open to placing those requirements on to the face of the bill? I have given a commitment to what information I think that the Government could provide. The SEA is certainly a requirement that we are duty bound to deliver in any event. I would prefer that that was conducted before a policy like a 50 per cent cut in APD was adopted. I would prefer that we looked at that analysis, the economic, the social and the environmental analysis, and then decided what the policy should be, rather than deciding on a policy and then going looking for evidence to support it. We are into the realms not of just what Governments propose and what political parties have proposed on a manifesto and why we have reached the decisions that we have. As I say, there is evidence that this supports economic growth, but I am saying that it is a dynamic situation because of international events, because of public expenditure, because of the dynamics of Parliament. There are a range of things that come into play. What I am accurately doing is outlining the steps that we will take before I put tax proposition to members and you are asking me specifically about the evidence that should rightly be considered before we take those, and I am being as open as possible on how that is presented to Parliament through committee in a due process. Yet you already have a policy decided, a 50 per cent reduction in APD over the course of this month. Because this Government does believe that there is— I made that point, Patrick. The environmental aspect, we have had a letter from one of your officials, from the deputy director of the fiscal responsibility division following our first evidence session, which tells us that the Scottish Government has made use of an energy modelling system to assess how effort on carbon reduction is best shared across sectors of the economy. Is there then a view in the Scottish Government about what share of that effort should fall to the aviation sector? Sorry, in terms of environmental effort. Carbon reduction, yes. We have set out a climate change plan. We recognise that there is increased emissions, potentially as a consequence of this policy, so we have to work harder in other areas. We will produce the SEA on our policy proposition. Sorry, I was asking quite a specific question. The energy modelling system assesses how effort is best shared across sectors of the economy. I am asking whether the Scottish Government has a view about the share of that effort that should fall to the aviation sector. Effectively, the UK Climate Change Committee thinks that aviation emissions should be capped at 2005 levels by 2050. The aviation industry says that it can halve emissions from that 2005 baseline by 2050. Whether we regard their efforts as credible in that regard or not, that is what they say they can do. Does the Scottish Government have a policy on what aviation emissions can be, how much they can be allowed to grow? Mr Harvey knows that I have responsibility for fiscal policy. I am happy to engage with the environment secretary and report back on the wider environmental view on that, but I am excited on the statistics. You have fully done that before this point in the bill. Yes, the environment secretary has led responsibility for environmental matters. You are asking more deeply. That is what I am saying. I will return to you with Rosanna Cunningham's position on the apportionment of climate change emissions contributions. You have not asked? Well, Mr Harvey, I was able to outline her position. If you want me to go through in more detail the position on the environment, I can do that. I am doing my best to give you the chance to do so. Yes, I covered in my statement earlier, convener, if you wish me to continue that we recognise— I am not going back and forward between the two of you in this regard at this stage, so I am just going to stop that particular conversation at this time. Do you have anything else that you want to ask her? Yes. The same letter says that the Scottish Government is prepared to work harder in other areas based on the increased aviation emissions. Can you tell us what that preparation has been? Well, as Mr Harvey knows, we have taken the climate change plan to Parliament. We have got a number of proposals and recommendations as what we do to reduce emissions across transport, housing, agriculture and energy efficiency, decarbonisation of the transport system generally. There are a range of policies for us to meet our statutory targets on the environment. We recognise that, even with some of the progress that has been made within aviation around fuel efficiency and technology, there is only so far that that will take us. We recognise that, if there is growth in the sector and there are more emissions, it has to be within an area that is tolerable to the Scottish Government. The contribution that increased emissions might make as a consequence of this policy could amount to an increase of around 3 per cent in aviation emissions, which is 0.1 per cent in the total Scottish emissions. The Committee on Climate Change, which has looked at that, has advised that any increase in emissions from reducing APD is likely to be manageable. We have published the draft climate change plan, which sets out how the Government proposed to meet its statutory emission reduction targets under the act in 2009. There is a range of actions and other portfolios in sectors that contribute to our environmental case, as well as looking at the strategic environmental assessment to see what else can be done and ultimately the decisions that we arrive at by way of tax rates. Your answer there, nor the draft climate change action plan, tells us what actions are going to be necessary in other sectors to pull the weight that aviation is not being required to pull because it has been given a free ride on climate change. It gives the overall targets on climate change and what we are doing in the other sectors to meet those targets, which are statutory targets, of course. Do not worry at all that your comparisons with Ireland, for example, and the economic benefit that they feel that they have will leave us in the same position that Ireland is in. They have less ambitious climate change targets and, at last report, I can find that they are failing to meet them. No, I do not believe that a land or minor climate change targets— Do not put the basis for that belief. You have had a fair crack at the whip on this in regard to this particular environment. It is just going back to a ding dong again, and it is not really getting us anywhere, so I am going to move on to exemptions in Adam. Thank you. You may or may not be relieved, cabinet secretary, to learn. I do not want to ask you about economic impact. I do not want to ask you about environmental assessment either. I want to ask you about something that is in the bill itself or rather not in the bill itself. I am clear that I have understood this correctly. Tax bans are not legislated for in the bill, tax rate amounts are not legislated for in the bill and tax exemptions are not legislated for in the bill. Is that correct? Why have you taken the judgment, cabinet secretary, not to legislate for tax exemptions specifically on the face of the bill? Why have you taken that judgment when tax exemptions are, as I understand it, on the face of the legislation in the current APD legislation and also on the face of the legislation in the LBTT legislation, which this Parliament passed in the last session? I think that the very good questions, convener. The specific reason is to have that consistency to be flexible and the ability to adapt. I should say how it is the Government's intention to match the current exemptions for passengers. We have said that ministers have previously agreed to retaining all the current UK APD exemptions under ADT. However, the difference between, as Mr Tomkins will be well aware, the Scottish legislation and what might be done at Westminster. Westminster has a finance bill every year, and it is something worthy of consideration by the Scottish Parliament. The budget review group may well conclude that. However, because we do not have that legislative route every year to change elements of finance policy or legislative policy, I would rather go through, and it is more appropriate to go through secondary legislation to change elements like that. It is not fundamental to the operation of the bill or the tax, but it might be something that we would want as a Parliament the flexibility to change tax rates and exemptions. You could take a view on whether it is right that exemptions in the past have been part of that primary legislation, but enabling power for ministers and Parliament to consider it is far more appropriate because it is far more flexible to change the circumstances. The UK Government did something by way of exemptions, and we felt that it was important to replicate that in Scotland. I feel on behalf of the Government and the Parliament that we should have the ability to do that without returning to primary legislation with all the stages that that requires, but it still has maximum parliamentary scrutiny through that secondary legislation. On rates and bans, that feature more with land and building transaction tax and landfill tax that are currently devolved taxes to Scotland, but exemptions should be secondary for the exact same reason that we should have that flexibility and ability to adapt. Are you going to take the exemptions out of the primary legislation and put them in regulations so that you can have more flexibility? I think—well, there is a suggestion in that. I am not proposing to do that, actually, but— So what is the difference between—this is what I am struggling to understand. Why does having the exemptions on the face of the primary legislation with regard to LBTT give you enough flexibility but putting those exemptions on the face of this bill would somehow not give you enough flexibility? I do not understand that point. It is a matter of fact that it does not give us the same flexibility. I am not suggesting that we revisit land and building transaction tax or Scottish landfill tax. Mainly on LBTT, the exemptions feel pretty static and it may well be that the exemptions for passengers for air departure tax is fairly static, like children under 16 on the date of travelling in economy class. It feels like something that is not about to change, but maybe some of the other exemptions might be subject to change. UK Government has, if they consider a change here, they could do it through the finance bill, essentially, in the House of Commons. I do not have that ability. It might be helpful, cabinet secretary, if you could give us a table of all of the changes to exemptions, both with regard to passenger exemptions and aircraft exemptions that have occurred at UK level since the introduction of this tax, so that we can see how frequently this flexibility is in practice required. I do not know what the data on that will show, but there is a twofold concern. Effective parliamentary scrutiny is important irrespective of the kind of legislation that we are talking about, but we all know that the most effective parliamentary scrutiny comes with primary legislation and that all forms of secondary legislation have secondary levels of parliamentary scrutiny. There is also a point about legal certainty and the rule of law. Yes, it is a fast-moving situation, particularly with regard to changing needs of Scottish connectivity, post-Brexit and all that. Nonetheless, fast-moving areas of Government regulation have to be subject to the rule of law. The way in which we subject Government discretion to the rule of law is by having as much as possible in primary legislation and not the other way around, not having as much as possible in the hands of the discretion of ministers. You would accept all of that, would you not? I think that some of that is deliberately provocative, but based on a premise that parliaments should have scrutiny of those functions, I absolutely accept that. I would not describe statutory instruments as escaping, ministers escaping the duty to attend to Parliament or make a case, whether it was negative or affirmative. I appear at committees for full scrutiny and the Parliament committees in the chamber, the full Parliament, can decide what to do with it. I am not asking executive order here, I am asking for statutory instruments to give us the ability to change. Executive order might be a totally different debate that we would be having, and maybe Mr Tomkins' case would have been stronger than that. I am not accusing you of replicating the style of administration. I am glad to hear it. That might have been one of the places that Mr Harvey was trying to encourage me to drop. I am just trying to understand the extent to which, Cabinet Secretary, it is necessary for you and your ministerial colleagues to have this flexibility to change not the bans and the rates, but the shape of the tax. Exemptions are qualitatively different from bans and rates. Bans and rates are about how much is liable. Exemptions are about who is liable to pay and in respect of what. That is a substantive and qualitative difference. My own view is that we have not heard enough about why it is necessary to put those exemptions into secondary instruments rather than on the face of the legislation when that has not happened with regard to UK legislation on air pass and duty and when it did not happen with regard to LBTT in this Parliament. Anything further that you can help us with in those regards would be helpful. I will happily provide a comparison where we can say one of the key reasons or two key reasons for doing that is to remain competitive. I think that we have to have the ability to be able to change and do that through due process, but if we so choose to do through statutory instrument. The second point is just deliberately why the difference in APD. As I say again, the UK Government has the, I am not sure I would describe it as the luxury of a finance bill, but the ability to take amendments through a finance bill which has its own process in Westminster in a way that I do not necessarily have here. That is my first point and I will happily provide more on that. The second point is just in considering the tax rates in the round. There might be a better way of delivering some of the exemptions through that as well. Again, it is just about having the ability to produce not just good primary legislation but good legislation that delivers on outcomes as well. There may be a better way to do things that the committee can explore. I might have missed some other areas of folks who have got some questions. Liam, you still got a supplementary that you want to do. That is a small one arising from Ash Denham's question earlier on, which is that you are obviously making a direct link between reducing the tax and an increase in flights and an increase in operators. You mentioned EasyJet and Ryanair. The thought in my mind is what modelling are you doing, what evidence are you taking to foresee the impact of, let's say, that you bring in a 50 per cent reduction and the Westminster Government immediately says, well, okay, we will bring in a 50 per cent reduction. Does that ruin the scheme? Does that negate any positive impact in your view? I think that it is a fair point that one of the drivers for what the policy intent is to make Scotland more competitive to give us that advantage, because it is one of the highest tax that was kind in the wild, certainly the highest in Europe, and we want to put Scotland in a stronger economic position. We want to improve our international connectivity, and the airlines and the airports are supportive of that. We would obviously have to revisit our decisions year to year around what we would do with air departure tax based on a number of factors around public spending plans, economic opportunities, the evaluation of what the policy is achieving and taking in light of what our other airports and airlines would be facing. We will have to analyse all that before we set out our proposition to Parliament on the tax rates and then keep that under review. Every year, the UK chancellor could change the position on APD, and every year Scotland could look to respond or not, as a case might be. I thought earlier that you told us, cabinet secretary, that this was not really an issue between, for instance, Newcastle and Edinburgh, but more about Stockholm, Lisbon and Barcelona. In which case, if that was the case, then what the chancellor did at the UK Treasury would have less real impact than what our decisions were here, if that was the competition that we were talking about. Have I got that wrong? Of course, there are the magic words spoken in the Finance Committee, block grant adjustment. The reason I make the point is that whatever we do, of course, is relative to what the UK Government does to arrive at our outcome of our figures through the block grant adjustment. Liam Kerr's point was specifically about what we do to respond to chancellor's position, which will obviously inform our own. Convener, you rightly make the point, that this is not about competition with just other UK airports. This is about competition with international airports, about securing routes to and from Scotland and sustaining what we've got, but we mustn't forget that, yes, this is part of the block grant adjustment. Neil, you still have a question outstanding. I can't remember on passengers' issues. If I may just briefly, when you answered that question about what would be the measure of success, you said more passengers, more flights, more operators. Is there any, obviously, one passenger more, one flight more, are there not any more specifics in terms of what a measure of success will be? I don't know if the committee wants me to break it down to absolute number of passengers, absolute number of flights, what's sustained, while I've described it as contributing to generally more, but I think that this will be, I suppose, better informed, as I've said repeatedly this morning. Once we set out the tax rates, which flows from the Government's economic strategy, that will then allow greater certainty from the operators as to how they will respond. As I said, two in particular have outlined what it would mean for them in increasing their presence in Scotland by way of routes and capacity, but once we are able to outline our tax proposition then that should inform the airlines of what's proposed and how they respond by way of growth. I think that you can take it as red from what we've heard around the table today, that the committee will be asking you, at least I'm making an assumption here, to carry out that independent economic assessment, because a lot of what the questions that were actually are germane to that bit of work being carried out. I don't think that you should wait if I'm seeing heads nodding around the table for our report, I think that you should just assume that it's going to be in it, so that we can actually begin to answer some of those questions that were around the table. Democracy. That is me applying my executive order. Let's watch my haircut in the future. That concludes this particular part of evidence that was taken on the ADT this morning. I'm now going to suspend the meeting until I let a change over the witnesses. Colleagues, we begin with the second item on today's agenda, which is to consider a Scottish statutory instrument relating to modifications to the Scottish Fiscal Commission remit. Before we come to the motion seeking our approval at agenda item 3, we have an evidence session on the order. Again, we are joined for this session by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution, John St. Clair, who is the senior principal legal officer. We are also joined by David Kerruchy, have I got that right, David? Scottish Government policy adviser. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite the Cabinet Secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. My opening statement also moves it. I hope that it can cover off both in a technical way. Anyway, I'll return to your guidance. So, I beg to move that the draft Scottish Fiscal Commission modification of functions regulations 2017, laid before Parliament on 27 January, now be considered. These regulations expand the functions of the Scottish Fiscal Commission to reflect the powers devolved through the Scotland Act 2016 and the fiscal framework agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments. Excuse me. In summary, the functions of the commission are expanded as follows. The addition of a function to prepare forecasts of demand-life social security expenditure and the addition of a function to require the commission to prepare Scottish GDP forecasts but not covering the value of oil, gas and other hydrocarbons produced in the Scottish sector of UK continental shelf. Those additional functions will take effect when the Scottish Fiscal Commission Act 2016, which I'll refer to as the 2016 act, commences on 1 April. The 2016 act was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 10 March 2016, prior to the Scotland Act 2016 gaining royal assent. It was therefore not possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the devolved social security forecasting during the bill process. The commission will also produce forecasts for the Scottish onshore GDP. This is important, as under the fiscal framework agreement, the Scottish Parliament has been given additional resource borrowing powers. Those additional powers are in part to assist the management of any additional risks and volatility associated with the further fiscal devolution in the 2016 Scotland Act. Those powers can play off onshore Scottish GDP falls below certain trigger points. As the committee will be aware, I laid the Scottish Fiscal Commission Act 2016 commencement and transitory provision regulations 2016 last year, which, among other things, brought the commission into statutory existence for the purpose of ministers consulting with the commission prior to amending its functions. This is a condition in section 8 of the 2016 act. As such, I wrote to Lady Rice, chair of the commission, on 9 November, and the commission responded positively to her draft amendments. Is there any member who has any questions for the cabinet secretary? No member has indicated any questions. The worth for a move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the motion on the order. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-03911. The Finance and Constitution Committee recommends that the Scottish Fiscal Commission bracket modificational functions bracket regulations 2017 draft be approved. I move. Do members have any further comments? I put the question, the question is that motion S5M-03911 be agreed to or all agreed or agreed. That takes us next item on agenda is to consider a Scottish statutory instrument that seeks to revise the landfill tax rates and bans for 2017-18. Before we come to the motion seeking approval on agenda item, again we are joined. We have never been in state concession and we are joined with the same people as previously. Cabinet secretary, do you wish to make an opening statement? I do. Thank you. Convener, the Scottish landfill tax standard rate and lower rate order 2017 specifies the standard rate and lower rate for the Scottish landfill tax as I have previously set out in the budget. These proposed rates ensure that the tax increases in line with inflation and matches the planned UK landfill tax rates for 2017-18 as provided in the Finance Act 2015. In setting these rates, I am acting to avoid any potential for waste tourism through material differences between the tax rates north and south of the border. In addition, I am providing appropriate financial incentives to support the delivery of our ambitious waste and circular economy targets, including our zero waste goal that no more than 5 per cent of total waste should go to landfill by 2025. The Scottish Government forecast that it will generate revenue of £149 million from the Scottish landfill tax in 2017-18, and that full-year forecast has again been endorsed as reasonable by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Any questions on that particular issue? Cabinet secretary, we are considering this at the very last possible moment, as far as I understand. If the committee was not able to reach a view this morning, then we would not be able to have a motion brought to the chamber this week, and it would fail to reach the 28-day cut-off point. Without wanting to get into the reasons why we are here, and it is clearly a relation to an instrument that I do not detect any objection to, I wonder if you could share your thoughts on how we can avoid this kind of situation happening again in the future, particularly if we are looking at the range of tax powers that are out there now in the Scottish Government, some of which are more contentious than this one. How can we ensure that we avoid more delicate, more dangerous last-minute processes than this in the future? I am very happy to give that further consideration. This will be a set for the year. The budget review group will help us to navigate our way through some of those process issues. I am happy to give that further consideration. It is not the intention of Government to feel that way around engagement on this, because I think that there are some positives in this and how it aligns with our environmental strategy. Further positive within it is the credit rate for the Scottish landfill communities fund, which is more generous than the UK equivalent. I make the point that it is certainly worthy of further consideration. I am happy to give that thought as to how we can ensure that there is a more meaningful timetabling in the future. I know that the budget review group will be looking at all those matters for the total budget process, but I am happy to give it a further thought. There are no further questions. In that case, we now move to agenda item 5, which is consideration of the motion on the order. I invite the cabinet secretary to remove motion S5M-03895, which the finance and constitution committee recommends that the Scottish landfill tax bracket standard rate and lower rate bracket order 2017 be approved. The members have any further comments? In that case, we are agreed. We will now produce a short report on both of those orders to the Parliament setting out our decisions. Sorry, I should have asked, do you all agree, and I had made an assumption, but we are agreed. Again, we will now publish a short report on both of those orders setting out our decisions. Thank you. That is the last item on agenda. I now close this meeting of the committee.