Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 17 December 2013
17 Dec 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill
I think that the minister has more confidence in RPP2 than I do, but let us see what happens as time unfolds.
That said, on diversion from landfill and increases in recycling, there has been tangible progress, to which the cabinet secretary referred. To that degree, we can claim that the landfill tax has been a success. At the time of its introduction, 54 million tonnes of municipal waste were sent to landfill per annum UK wide. By 2012, the figure had fallen to 19 million tonnes. Therefore, the tax that we inherit is a successful one, which is why it has support from across the chamber and those of all shades of political view. In legislating to pursue landfill tax as a devolved tax, the most important thing must be to create a framework that ensures that the tax continues that success. After all, by the Scottish Government’s own calculation, landfill still emitted in 2011 the equivalent of 600,000 tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere.
What the devolution of landfill tax does then is to give us the opportunity to consider how it operates and how we might use and change it so that it even more effectively and further reduces waste. It seems common sense that there is a law of diminishing returns here, with the gains made from a serious effort at recycling and reusing being easy progress to secure in the early years, and as time goes on there being a necessity to try harder and be smarter about how we deploy measures such as the landfill tax to get further gains.
Therefore, it is a pity that about something as basic as the rate itself and how many rates there might be, we still know very little. The cabinet secretary has said at every stage that he is minded to set a rate that is no lower than the one that he will inherit in April 2015, although he will not confirm that for us until September next year. At stage 1, there was considerable debate around waste tourism and whether differential rates would lead to reduced income as landfill was exported to England or, conversely, whether waste would be imported to landfill in Scotland. I do not think that we ever really got to the bottom of that, with the cabinet secretary expressing a view that it becomes an issue only if there is a differential of £15 per tonne, although committee witnesses suggested that £10 per tonne would provoke such an effect.
That issue matters because it implies a rather limited capacity for us to use the new powers to choose our own rates and it seems to me to reflect a rather cautious approach by the cabinet secretary. Perhaps it is for the same reasons that we still do not have an indication of whether the Government favours an escalator in rates. That has been significant in the landfill tax’s success in the past, as there is surely a connection between its effectiveness in reducing waste and the fact that we are heading for a rate 10 times the original one introduced.
For the moment, we remain in the dark on whether the Government has any plans to introduce new rates to differentiate further between types of waste or, indeed, move any categories of waste between existing bands. The landfill tax is a fairly blunt instrument and an opportunity seems to have been missed to explore properly whether and how we could sharpen it. However, as regulations follow the legislation, we will no doubt return to those issues because there is a pressing need for action on waste and carbon, and we must do more than simply frame the bill.
On the positive side, I am pleased that if and when the changes are made, they will now be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am glad that the cabinet secretary listened to representations to that end. I regret that he did not find a way to meet on the face of the bill Michael McMahon’s concerns about the danger that the landfill communities fund might be diverted from the communities that are most affected by landfill. However, overall, the landfill tax is useful. It will now be appropriately devolved and it is potentially a powerful tool for the Parliament in pursuit of our environmental agenda. We shall certainly give the bill our whole-hearted support at decision time this evening.
That said, on diversion from landfill and increases in recycling, there has been tangible progress, to which the cabinet secretary referred. To that degree, we can claim that the landfill tax has been a success. At the time of its introduction, 54 million tonnes of municipal waste were sent to landfill per annum UK wide. By 2012, the figure had fallen to 19 million tonnes. Therefore, the tax that we inherit is a successful one, which is why it has support from across the chamber and those of all shades of political view. In legislating to pursue landfill tax as a devolved tax, the most important thing must be to create a framework that ensures that the tax continues that success. After all, by the Scottish Government’s own calculation, landfill still emitted in 2011 the equivalent of 600,000 tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere.
What the devolution of landfill tax does then is to give us the opportunity to consider how it operates and how we might use and change it so that it even more effectively and further reduces waste. It seems common sense that there is a law of diminishing returns here, with the gains made from a serious effort at recycling and reusing being easy progress to secure in the early years, and as time goes on there being a necessity to try harder and be smarter about how we deploy measures such as the landfill tax to get further gains.
Therefore, it is a pity that about something as basic as the rate itself and how many rates there might be, we still know very little. The cabinet secretary has said at every stage that he is minded to set a rate that is no lower than the one that he will inherit in April 2015, although he will not confirm that for us until September next year. At stage 1, there was considerable debate around waste tourism and whether differential rates would lead to reduced income as landfill was exported to England or, conversely, whether waste would be imported to landfill in Scotland. I do not think that we ever really got to the bottom of that, with the cabinet secretary expressing a view that it becomes an issue only if there is a differential of £15 per tonne, although committee witnesses suggested that £10 per tonne would provoke such an effect.
That issue matters because it implies a rather limited capacity for us to use the new powers to choose our own rates and it seems to me to reflect a rather cautious approach by the cabinet secretary. Perhaps it is for the same reasons that we still do not have an indication of whether the Government favours an escalator in rates. That has been significant in the landfill tax’s success in the past, as there is surely a connection between its effectiveness in reducing waste and the fact that we are heading for a rate 10 times the original one introduced.
For the moment, we remain in the dark on whether the Government has any plans to introduce new rates to differentiate further between types of waste or, indeed, move any categories of waste between existing bands. The landfill tax is a fairly blunt instrument and an opportunity seems to have been missed to explore properly whether and how we could sharpen it. However, as regulations follow the legislation, we will no doubt return to those issues because there is a pressing need for action on waste and carbon, and we must do more than simply frame the bill.
On the positive side, I am pleased that if and when the changes are made, they will now be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am glad that the cabinet secretary listened to representations to that end. I regret that he did not find a way to meet on the face of the bill Michael McMahon’s concerns about the danger that the landfill communities fund might be diverted from the communities that are most affected by landfill. However, overall, the landfill tax is useful. It will now be appropriately devolved and it is potentially a powerful tool for the Parliament in pursuit of our environmental agenda. We shall certainly give the bill our whole-hearted support at decision time this evening.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08609, in the name of John Swinney, on the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to spe...
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney)
SNP
I welcome the fact that we have reached the stage 3 debate on the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill, which is the second bill establishing devolved taxes in Scotl...
Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)
SNP
I put on record my thanks to the Government for the way in which it has engaged with me on a matter concerning my constituents in Blanefield. We are grateful...
John Swinney
SNP
I welcome Mr Crawford’s comments. He has advanced the interests of his constituents in the Blanefield area using all means available to him through the legis...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
There is no time in hand. I call Iain Gray. You have a maximum of seven minutes, but I would like you to take less than that if possible.15:26
Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
In the stage 1 debate, I referred to the landfill tax as a new tax. In his closing speech in that debate, the cabinet secretary corrected me—it is, of course...
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse)
SNP
Would the member accept that even in the worst-case scenario that is set out in “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027. The ...
Iain Gray
Lab
I think that the minister has more confidence in RPP2 than I do, but let us see what happens as time unfolds.That said, on diversion from landfill and increa...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I now call Gavin Brown, who has five minutes or less.15:33
Gavin Brown (Lothian) (Con)
Con
I think that the bill commands broad support across the chamber. It was a pretty good bill at stage 1 and it has been strengthened marginally during the stag...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
You are in your final minute.
Gavin Brown
Con
However, it is worth while to think more carefully about the ultimate policy objective of that. Is it simply to tax the same level of investigations as we cu...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I am afraid that you must close.
Gavin Brown
Con
It is worth while to reflect on that. We will certainly support the bill this evening.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
We turn to the open debate. I am afraid that I can only give speeches of three minutes to four members. I apologise to the fifth member, whom I will not be a...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
It is always good to welcome a new tax, although I take the point that the landfill tax is, in fact, a replacement tax and that it is probable that many peop...
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Lab
Like the land and buildings transaction tax, the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill has been very technical, but it has had a remarkably straightforward and consen...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
SNP
As convener of the lead committee, I first thank the clerks, officials and witnesses who helped the Finance Committee in its deliberations as the bill progre...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
An important argument in favour of increasing levels of fiscal devolution is that it can incentivise economic activity that brings more revenues to this Parl...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I apologise to Jean Urquhart, whom I have been unable to call. Gavin Brown, you can have a maximum of four minutes.15:51
Gavin Brown
Con
This has been a pretty good, if short, debate, which did not differ enormously from the debate at stage 1. That reflects the fact that very little has change...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Iain Gray. I apologise that I can give you only five minutes.15:55
Iain Gray
Lab
This has been a short but interesting debate. It has also been a bit of a Donald Rumsfeld debate because a lot of known unknowns have been discussed. We do n...
John Mason
SNP
I wonder whether the member will accept my main point, which was that we can put more faith in John Swinney than we can in George Osborne.
Iain Gray
Lab
The degree to which we have to put faith in Mr Swinney is exactly the point to which I am coming. I thought that Mr Mason was rising to apologise to the cabi...
John Swinney
SNP
It is a mark of the fact that there has been no real division on the substance of the debate that Mr Mason has been harangued by Mr Brown and Mr Gray. We sho...
Gavin Brown
Con
Does the cabinet secretary accept that one reason for having a three-year lead time was so that we could look at the twice-yearly estimates until a position ...
John Swinney
SNP
It is a lot more stable now because the original estimate was complete baloney. If the member goes back to the December 2012 forecast, he will see that liter...
Mike MacKenzie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
I wonder whether that would encourage us to take other OBR forecasts, for instance for oil and gas revenues, with a very large pinch of salt.
John Swinney
SNP
We have to take care on a lot of those issues. Mr MacKenzie knows that the Scottish Government has a different view from the OBR on oil and gas predictions. ...