Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 02 February 2011
02 Feb 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (No 3) Regulations 2010
I hear SNP members shouting “Jobs, jobs.” I will come back to jobs in a moment. Perhaps those members are referring to the 8,000 jobs that the Scottish Retail Consortium has said could be under threat from the measure.
Alex Salmond opened the headquarters of Tesco Bank—I am talking about a company with profits of £3.4 billion—and it received a £5 million RSA grant. I could also mention Asda or Sainsbury’s, which Linda Fabiani mentioned last week. I am curious as to why the SNP’s policy is to cut the corporation tax that all those companies would pay. Why reduce that tax from 28 per cent to 20 per cent for companies with the broadest shoulders? The SNP has said that those companies have the broadest shoulders.
SNP members said that the large retail levy would rebalance employment between large and small businesses, but John Swinney said in the Local Government and Communities Committee meeting last week that it would not. He said that it would make no impact on investment choices, but SNP MSPs said that it would. Who is right? SNP members said that the levy would stem the growth of supermarkets, but John Swinney said that it would not; he said that there would be continued growth. Who is right? SNP members said that it would fund the council tax freeze and social workers. Alex Salmond said that it would fund 1,000 nurses, the small business bonus scheme and town centre measures, but John Swinney clearly said that it could not and would not. Is he right, or is the SNP website right? Both cannot be.
Let me say this about large-scale developments to all the SNP MSPs who have said that the large retailers should pay more:
“It could be argued that these will be significant developments which can contribute to economic growth and there may be a case for not imposing a financial burden on these developments, particularly at a time of economic downturn.”
Those are not my words; they were in the SNP Government’s consultation on planning fees, which John Swinney introduced in July 2010. When the SNP came to office, the maximum planning fee for the largest-scale commercial developments in Scotland, including large retail and out-of-town developments, was £14,500. In England, the maximum fee was £50,000. That increased to £250,000 in England in 2008 to reflect the costs borne by councils in dealing with planning approvals for the largest developments. The SNP Government made no changes, other than to increase by 10 per cent the fee maximum for the companies with the broadest shoulders.
That means that, in Scotland, the maximum fee for the largest-scale development—the type of development that the SNP Government is now saying puts town centres at risk—is now £15,950. In England, it is £250,000. Even now, the SNP Government believes that the fees should not be increased to be near the English levels. If those companies have the broadest of broad shoulders, why can they be charged up to £250,000 by English councils for very large planning applications, but the maximum that has been set by the SNP in Scotland is £15,950? I thought that those businesses had the broadest shoulders. Can they not spare the pennies, as Linda Fabiani might put it? Of course they cannot, because, as John Swinney might put it, that might affect the financial burden for those developments. That is simply a further inconsistency that is born of a lack of discussion and the arrogance of a Government that has not listened to concerns since it announced in November that it would introduce the measure.
That is not the last inconsistency, because we know from a recent e-mail from the First Minister that the SNP is considering reducing the poundage by 10 per cent compared to that in England and Wales. The very companies that the SNP wishes to tax would get a tax cut as a result. How would that £200 million black hole be filled?
The Parliament should make no further movement on the proposal because it would be an arbitrary tax on growth and would set back Scottish businesses. It should go no further in the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that nothing further be done under the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (No.3) Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/441).
16:40
Alex Salmond opened the headquarters of Tesco Bank—I am talking about a company with profits of £3.4 billion—and it received a £5 million RSA grant. I could also mention Asda or Sainsbury’s, which Linda Fabiani mentioned last week. I am curious as to why the SNP’s policy is to cut the corporation tax that all those companies would pay. Why reduce that tax from 28 per cent to 20 per cent for companies with the broadest shoulders? The SNP has said that those companies have the broadest shoulders.
SNP members said that the large retail levy would rebalance employment between large and small businesses, but John Swinney said in the Local Government and Communities Committee meeting last week that it would not. He said that it would make no impact on investment choices, but SNP MSPs said that it would. Who is right? SNP members said that the levy would stem the growth of supermarkets, but John Swinney said that it would not; he said that there would be continued growth. Who is right? SNP members said that it would fund the council tax freeze and social workers. Alex Salmond said that it would fund 1,000 nurses, the small business bonus scheme and town centre measures, but John Swinney clearly said that it could not and would not. Is he right, or is the SNP website right? Both cannot be.
Let me say this about large-scale developments to all the SNP MSPs who have said that the large retailers should pay more:
“It could be argued that these will be significant developments which can contribute to economic growth and there may be a case for not imposing a financial burden on these developments, particularly at a time of economic downturn.”
Those are not my words; they were in the SNP Government’s consultation on planning fees, which John Swinney introduced in July 2010. When the SNP came to office, the maximum planning fee for the largest-scale commercial developments in Scotland, including large retail and out-of-town developments, was £14,500. In England, the maximum fee was £50,000. That increased to £250,000 in England in 2008 to reflect the costs borne by councils in dealing with planning approvals for the largest developments. The SNP Government made no changes, other than to increase by 10 per cent the fee maximum for the companies with the broadest shoulders.
That means that, in Scotland, the maximum fee for the largest-scale development—the type of development that the SNP Government is now saying puts town centres at risk—is now £15,950. In England, it is £250,000. Even now, the SNP Government believes that the fees should not be increased to be near the English levels. If those companies have the broadest of broad shoulders, why can they be charged up to £250,000 by English councils for very large planning applications, but the maximum that has been set by the SNP in Scotland is £15,950? I thought that those businesses had the broadest shoulders. Can they not spare the pennies, as Linda Fabiani might put it? Of course they cannot, because, as John Swinney might put it, that might affect the financial burden for those developments. That is simply a further inconsistency that is born of a lack of discussion and the arrogance of a Government that has not listened to concerns since it announced in November that it would introduce the measure.
That is not the last inconsistency, because we know from a recent e-mail from the First Minister that the SNP is considering reducing the poundage by 10 per cent compared to that in England and Wales. The very companies that the SNP wishes to tax would get a tax cut as a result. How would that £200 million black hole be filled?
The Parliament should make no further movement on the proposal because it would be an arbitrary tax on growth and would set back Scottish businesses. It should go no further in the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that nothing further be done under the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (No.3) Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/441).
16:40
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on Parliamentary Bureau motion S3M-7841, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) (N...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
SNP
Before I call members to speak, I point out that time is limited, so we had better stick to the speaking time limits. I call Jeremy Purvis, who has seven min...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
LD
This is the third time that we have brought to Parliament concerns about the rates that businesses in Scotland pay. In advance of today, we have consistently...
Jeremy Purvis
LD
I hear SNP members shouting “Jobs, jobs.” I will come back to jobs in a moment. Perhaps those members are referring to the 8,000 jobs that the Scottish Retai...
Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con)
Con
The Scottish Government’s proposals are nothing more than an ill-judged raid on retail at a time when it least needs it. At the beginning of the process, bac...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind)
Ind
As another Lothians member, I am intrigued as to how much it is estimated the 12 stores in Princes Street will lose. Does the member have those figures to hand?
Gavin Brown
Con
From the most accurate figures that I have seen, which involved adding up the stores that we knew about—in which we were assisted by the Edinburgh Chamber of...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
Each?
Gavin Brown
Con
That is the total for Princes Street. It might be slightly more or less, but that is the ballpark figure. That is additional taxation, on top of the rates th...
The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism (Jim Mather)
SNP
To what extent does the UK Government consult on rises in VAT and other changes that it makes?
Gavin Brown
Con
I took that intervention for a specific reason and the minister was unable to tell us what dialogue took place. There was nothing—not even a bit of brainstor...
Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Nonsense.
Gavin Brown
Con
We hear the loyal SNP back benchers, but the point is that, because the Government could not be bothered to do a business and regulatory impact assessment, w...
Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lab
In last week’s debate on the budget, I said that rising unemployment was the signal failure of nearly four years of SNP Government. When John Swinney deliver...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
The member mentioned Princes Street. Has he seen Princes Street in Port Glasgow, which has been decimated by the huge Tesco at the bottom of the street?
Andy Kerr
Lab
I am not sure about that part of the country, but I know that the new Sainsbury’s in Strathaven has enhanced the retail offer and the shops are surviving and...
Andy Kerr
Lab
Labour is not in a position to support this unacceptable policy, which was created by an SNP Government in crisis. As we have seen from leaked documents from...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
SNP
Order.
Andy Kerr
Lab
John Hannett is the leader of the workers on whom the SNP’s tax will have the greatest impact. He said:“The proposed levy is at such a high rate that it is l...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Green
Greens can support two policy objectives that might be addressed in small part: revenue raising to offset the worst of the Tory cuts in Scotland, of which I ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney)
SNP
As I explained to Parliament when I set out the rationale for the draft budget for 2011-12, we have had to face tough decisions. The United Kingdom Governmen...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
LD
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
John Swinney
SNP
I give way to Mr McNeil first.
Duncan McNeil
Lab
How much of the £30 million tax take will go to small businesses?
John Swinney
SNP
Mr McNeil fails to understand the nature of the budget process. Interruption.
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson)
NPA
Order.
John Swinney
SNP
If we want to provide a balanced budget to the Parliament, we must be able to afford all the priorities in it. The budget contains support for the small busi...
Gavin Brown
Con
Why was a business and regulatory impact assessment not undertaken? Did the cabinet secretary intervene personally to block that?
John Swinney
SNP
I made it clear that there was no need for such an impact assessment because the proposal will affect 0.1 per cent of the business property base in Scotland,...