Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 17 December 2013
17 Dec 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill
Like the land and buildings transaction tax, the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill has been very technical, but it has had a remarkably straightforward and consensual passage on to the statute book.
It is important to observe that, although they have never been a major obstacle to the smooth passage of the bill, some concerns remain that many aspects of the tax are to be contained in subordinate legislation. To an extent, that approach has created a lack of clarity and certainty about issues such as rates of tax and the power to change the list of materials to be taxed, as Iain Gray pointed out.
Although the use of subordinate legislation has been somewhat contentious, members will know that I have been particularly exercised about the potential for the landfill communities fund to be raided for purposes that are beyond communities that are directly impacted by having landfill sites located near them. There can be no doubt that the landfill communities fund’s purpose is to provide benefits from the taxes that have been raised from landfills where there is a clear and recognisable disamenity to local communities.
During evidence taking in the Finance Committee, I became concerned that organisations with a good appreciation of environmental issues indicated that they have designs on the resources available from the fund and are seeking to siphon off some of the moneys to help projects that are no doubt worthy but are entirely unrelated to the communities around which the landfill tax is generated. The suggestions that those groups put forward to review the scope of the landfill communities fund rang alarm bells with me, so I am glad that, despite the cabinet secretary’s rejection of my efforts to have the issue addressed in the bill, he has moved from where he was at stage 1 to accepting the validity of my concerns and agreeing to develop in guidance the points that I have made about ensuring that the connection between disamenity and funding is made.
As I said at stage 1, any change to the current scope of the landfill communities fund would be fundamentally unfair and would violate the principles of environmental justice that we hope to deliver. There is no doubt that communities that are near landfill sites face more environmental problems as a result of landfill than those that are not. People who live near landfills have to deal with odours, dust, litter, noise and often visual intrusion, and changing the latitude of the fund would leave their communities with less money to mitigate the effects of landfill.
Opening the fund to broader environmental objectives coupled with the envisaged reduction in landfill tax receipts will inevitably produce less funding to landfill communities in the long run. It is only fair that the communities that are the dumping ground for waste should receive the maximum possible benefits from the taxation of those landfill sites. At the end of the day, the money is raised at the expense of communities near landfills, so the money should be dedicated to those communities.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the issue on board. It is because of his efforts that I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in voting for the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill.
15:45
It is important to observe that, although they have never been a major obstacle to the smooth passage of the bill, some concerns remain that many aspects of the tax are to be contained in subordinate legislation. To an extent, that approach has created a lack of clarity and certainty about issues such as rates of tax and the power to change the list of materials to be taxed, as Iain Gray pointed out.
Although the use of subordinate legislation has been somewhat contentious, members will know that I have been particularly exercised about the potential for the landfill communities fund to be raided for purposes that are beyond communities that are directly impacted by having landfill sites located near them. There can be no doubt that the landfill communities fund’s purpose is to provide benefits from the taxes that have been raised from landfills where there is a clear and recognisable disamenity to local communities.
During evidence taking in the Finance Committee, I became concerned that organisations with a good appreciation of environmental issues indicated that they have designs on the resources available from the fund and are seeking to siphon off some of the moneys to help projects that are no doubt worthy but are entirely unrelated to the communities around which the landfill tax is generated. The suggestions that those groups put forward to review the scope of the landfill communities fund rang alarm bells with me, so I am glad that, despite the cabinet secretary’s rejection of my efforts to have the issue addressed in the bill, he has moved from where he was at stage 1 to accepting the validity of my concerns and agreeing to develop in guidance the points that I have made about ensuring that the connection between disamenity and funding is made.
As I said at stage 1, any change to the current scope of the landfill communities fund would be fundamentally unfair and would violate the principles of environmental justice that we hope to deliver. There is no doubt that communities that are near landfill sites face more environmental problems as a result of landfill than those that are not. People who live near landfills have to deal with odours, dust, litter, noise and often visual intrusion, and changing the latitude of the fund would leave their communities with less money to mitigate the effects of landfill.
Opening the fund to broader environmental objectives coupled with the envisaged reduction in landfill tax receipts will inevitably produce less funding to landfill communities in the long run. It is only fair that the communities that are the dumping ground for waste should receive the maximum possible benefits from the taxation of those landfill sites. At the end of the day, the money is raised at the expense of communities near landfills, so the money should be dedicated to those communities.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the issue on board. It is because of his efforts that I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in voting for the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill.
15:45
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. ...