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 bill commands broad support across the chamber. It was a pretty good bill at stage 1 and it has been strengthened marginally during the stage 2 process in that the order-making powers in relation to the liability of controllers and the power to vary disposals have been changed to become subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the bill would have been marginally strengthened again today by having the provisions relating to the Scottish landfill communities fund on the face of the bill. From listening to the cabinet secretary, though, in the previous debate and subsequently in his opening speech in this debate, I think that he and the Government are broadly in the same place as the Finance Committee. I hope that that translates into regulations of the type that he discussed.
Obviously, we welcome the increase to 7.48 per cent in the credit available. The aspiration of having lower administrative costs is commendable and we hope that it becomes the case in practice. I put on record my view that the cabinet secretary did engage on that issue. All that I would say in passing is that I wonder whether there is a way of ensuring that, when the consultation happens, residents of the communities that are most likely to be affected are able to be a direct part of it. Those organisations that regularly contribute to consultations are pretty adept at doing so, and I wonder whether there is any way of levelling the playing field, so to speak, so that communities that are definitely affected but are perhaps not good at voicing their concerns can be heard through that process. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could say something about that in his closing remarks.
Although there is nothing wrong with the bill, it is worth while to reflect on a couple of areas in which the Government will have to do further work when it comes to secondary legislation and the regulations. Waste tourism has already been touched on today and was heavily focused on in the committee process and the stage 1 debate. In my view, the analysis of waste tourism is still a little underdeveloped. Resources ought to be put into that at a Government level so that we can get to the bottom of whether it is likely to exist. We had strong representations to the committee about how sensitive small differences could be, and strong representations in the chamber from those who felt that waste tourism would not be an issue as it would not exist at all.
The issue matters because whether and the extent to which waste tourism exists will have an impact on the rates that the Government might put forward and that we might set as a Parliament and on decisions on whether it is worth having more than the two bands that we currently have. It also matters because it is a factor in whether we play about with what is in each band or in what would be in each band if we moved to having three bands, for example. It would be useful to hear from the Government what it intends to do as regards waste tourism in dealing directly with the UK Government. The Government said that it will continue to have discussions on the matter, but in paragraph 4 of its response to the committee’s report, it stated:
“The Scottish Government has had no direct discussion with the UK Environment Agency on this matter.”
That might have been superseded since the response was produced but, if not, it is important that the Scottish Government takes those discussions forward so that we can get to the bottom of the waste tourism issue.
The next issue on which it is worth while to reflect a bit more is the taxation of unauthorised disposals. The cabinet secretary mentioned that in his speech and, again, I think that it is welcomed by members throughout the chamber. A tax charge on illegal dumping sends out a signal to those who do it and potentially will bring in a stream of revenue for the Scottish Government to use on suitable measures.
Obviously, we welcome the increase to 7.48 per cent in the credit available. The aspiration of having lower administrative costs is commendable and we hope that it becomes the case in practice. I put on record my view that the cabinet secretary did engage on that issue. All that I would say in passing is that I wonder whether there is a way of ensuring that, when the consultation happens, residents of the communities that are most likely to be affected are able to be a direct part of it. Those organisations that regularly contribute to consultations are pretty adept at doing so, and I wonder whether there is any way of levelling the playing field, so to speak, so that communities that are definitely affected but are perhaps not good at voicing their concerns can be heard through that process. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could say something about that in his closing remarks.
Although there is nothing wrong with the bill, it is worth while to reflect on a couple of areas in which the Government will have to do further work when it comes to secondary legislation and the regulations. Waste tourism has already been touched on today and was heavily focused on in the committee process and the stage 1 debate. In my view, the analysis of waste tourism is still a little underdeveloped. Resources ought to be put into that at a Government level so that we can get to the bottom of whether it is likely to exist. We had strong representations to the committee about how sensitive small differences could be, and strong representations in the chamber from those who felt that waste tourism would not be an issue as it would not exist at all.
The issue matters because whether and the extent to which waste tourism exists will have an impact on the rates that the Government might put forward and that we might set as a Parliament and on decisions on whether it is worth having more than the two bands that we currently have. It also matters because it is a factor in whether we play about with what is in each band or in what would be in each band if we moved to having three bands, for example. It would be useful to hear from the Government what it intends to do as regards waste tourism in dealing directly with the UK Government. The Government said that it will continue to have discussions on the matter, but in paragraph 4 of its response to the committee’s report, it stated:
“The Scottish Government has had no direct discussion with the UK Environment Agency on this matter.”
That might have been superseded since the response was produced but, if not, it is important that the Scottish Government takes those discussions forward so that we can get to the bottom of the waste tourism issue.
The next issue on which it is worth while to reflect a bit more is the taxation of unauthorised disposals. The cabinet secretary mentioned that in his speech and, again, I think that it is welcomed by members throughout the chamber. A tax charge on illegal dumping sends out a signal to those who do it and potentially will bring in a stream of revenue for the Scottish Government to use on suitable measures.
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. ...