Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 17 December 2013
17 Dec 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill
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 changed in the bill since then.
A highlight of the debate was John Mason’s attempt to compliment the cabinet secretary on his personal qualities—I hope that John Mason never finds it in his heart to pay me a compliment, given the strength of his compliment to the cabinet secretary.
The prediction of landfill tax receipts is worthy of greater investment of time from the Scottish Government. In paragraph 12 of its response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government set out its forecast for receipts between 2015-16 and 2024-25. The table looks pretty good, but the Government noted that the forecast
“has been produced internally by the Scottish Government and has not been independently verified”,
and went on to say:
“Tax rates are assumed to remain as they are at present. No allowance has been made for receipts from taxing illegal landfilling at this stage.”
It would be helpful if the Scottish Government published the work that it has done in a bit more detail, to give the outside world some background about the modelling that it used and information about what would happen to the projected receipts if certain things changed, such as the rate of the tax, how tax rates increase, and whether there are two or three rates. That would help us to take matters forward.
I think that I am right in saying that modelling by the Scottish Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility thus far has been on the tax as it currently stands. It would be useful to know what sort of tax the Scottish Government intends the landfill tax to be and what rates it proposes. We would then be able to get predictions on the tax from the OBR and from the Scottish Government that enable us to see what would happen if changes were made.
When the cabinet secretary makes his closing speech, it would be helpful to hear for how long he intends to set the tax when he sets it for first time. What approach does the Scottish Government intend to take? A number of witnesses to the committee made suggestions or requests in that regard. For example, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made a formal request in its written submission for the tax to be set for a five-year period. Other organisations suggested shorter periods. It would be useful to know the Government’s intention, so that we can try to give a degree of certainty to the people who will be affected by the tax.
In paragraph 2 of its response to the Finance Committee, the Scottish Government gave the impression—I do not know whether this is correct—that it intends to set the tax on a year-by-year basis, when the draft budget is published each year. It would be helpful to know whether that is the case or whether the Scottish Government intends to provide a degree of stability and certainty by setting the tax for a longer period.
There is much to commend in the bill. There are issues to consider—waste tourism, the taxation of unauthorised disposals, the landfill communities fund and the tax rates that will be set—but I reiterate that we will support the bill at decision time.
A highlight of the debate was John Mason’s attempt to compliment the cabinet secretary on his personal qualities—I hope that John Mason never finds it in his heart to pay me a compliment, given the strength of his compliment to the cabinet secretary.
The prediction of landfill tax receipts is worthy of greater investment of time from the Scottish Government. In paragraph 12 of its response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government set out its forecast for receipts between 2015-16 and 2024-25. The table looks pretty good, but the Government noted that the forecast
“has been produced internally by the Scottish Government and has not been independently verified”,
and went on to say:
“Tax rates are assumed to remain as they are at present. No allowance has been made for receipts from taxing illegal landfilling at this stage.”
It would be helpful if the Scottish Government published the work that it has done in a bit more detail, to give the outside world some background about the modelling that it used and information about what would happen to the projected receipts if certain things changed, such as the rate of the tax, how tax rates increase, and whether there are two or three rates. That would help us to take matters forward.
I think that I am right in saying that modelling by the Scottish Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility thus far has been on the tax as it currently stands. It would be useful to know what sort of tax the Scottish Government intends the landfill tax to be and what rates it proposes. We would then be able to get predictions on the tax from the OBR and from the Scottish Government that enable us to see what would happen if changes were made.
When the cabinet secretary makes his closing speech, it would be helpful to hear for how long he intends to set the tax when he sets it for first time. What approach does the Scottish Government intend to take? A number of witnesses to the committee made suggestions or requests in that regard. For example, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made a formal request in its written submission for the tax to be set for a five-year period. Other organisations suggested shorter periods. It would be useful to know the Government’s intention, so that we can try to give a degree of certainty to the people who will be affected by the tax.
In paragraph 2 of its response to the Finance Committee, the Scottish Government gave the impression—I do not know whether this is correct—that it intends to set the tax on a year-by-year basis, when the draft budget is published each year. It would be helpful to know whether that is the case or whether the Scottish Government intends to provide a degree of stability and certainty by setting the tax for a longer period.
There is much to commend in the bill. There are issues to consider—waste tourism, the taxation of unauthorised disposals, the landfill communities fund and the tax rates that will be set—but I reiterate that we will support the bill at decision time.
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. ...