Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 17 December 2013
17 Dec 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill
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 cabinet secretary, but perhaps he will do that privately.
Because of all the things that we do not know, I think that the cabinet secretary has been intriguingly enigmatic about the detail of the bill. I say to Mr Mason that it is true that we will have to take a lot of the cabinet secretary’s reassurances on trust. For example, throughout the bill process, he has insisted that the Scottish Government will be able to levy the tax more efficiently than has previously been the case. That would be extremely welcome, but I am not sure that the cabinet secretary has demonstrated why or how it will be possible, particularly because we do not yet know what the administrative arrangements for raising the tax will be. That is something that we have to take on faith.
We also have to take on faith that the cabinet secretary believes in the principle that communities that are most directly affected by landfill sites will be the ones that benefit directly from the tax credits, as they do at the moment. That is important because, as I have said already, the fund is likely to reduce.
Communities such as mine in East Lothian have benefited significantly in the past from those tax credits. Although I would be the last not to have faith in the cabinet secretary, he said that he wants to ensure that the communities that suffer get the benefit of the fund and then he said that he also wants to take account of the wider impact on the environment. That seems to be a complete contradiction. It is the former that we need to secure, and Mr McMahon’s amendment would have done that. I still regret that the cabinet secretary did not feel able to support it.
In closing, I return to a point that I made at stage 1. A particularly welcome aspect of the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill is that it has its origins in the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2012 that followed. It is therefore a significant demonstration of the fact that devolution is a flexible and dynamic constitutional arrangement.
During stage 1, I pointed out that it was the latest in a long line of changes to devolution, from the devolution of rail infrastructure through to the devolution of the Scottish welfare fund. On that occasion, I could hardly believe it but the cabinet secretary wilfully misrepresented my argument by suggesting that I was arguing that devolution was now complete and could never develop. That was not my point.
My point was that the bill demonstrates that devolution is the kind of dynamic and flexible settlement that the people of Scotland want: it allows us to sustain the benefits of shared risk and opportunity by being part of the bigger United Kingdom while making Scottish decisions—both administrative and fiscal, where that is appropriate—that enable us to be most effective, for example in reducing waste and landfill.
We will support the bill at decision time. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government as it develops the detail of secondary legislation on guidance and as we debate further how we deploy this new power most effectively for the benefit of Scotland.
16:00
Because of all the things that we do not know, I think that the cabinet secretary has been intriguingly enigmatic about the detail of the bill. I say to Mr Mason that it is true that we will have to take a lot of the cabinet secretary’s reassurances on trust. For example, throughout the bill process, he has insisted that the Scottish Government will be able to levy the tax more efficiently than has previously been the case. That would be extremely welcome, but I am not sure that the cabinet secretary has demonstrated why or how it will be possible, particularly because we do not yet know what the administrative arrangements for raising the tax will be. That is something that we have to take on faith.
We also have to take on faith that the cabinet secretary believes in the principle that communities that are most directly affected by landfill sites will be the ones that benefit directly from the tax credits, as they do at the moment. That is important because, as I have said already, the fund is likely to reduce.
Communities such as mine in East Lothian have benefited significantly in the past from those tax credits. Although I would be the last not to have faith in the cabinet secretary, he said that he wants to ensure that the communities that suffer get the benefit of the fund and then he said that he also wants to take account of the wider impact on the environment. That seems to be a complete contradiction. It is the former that we need to secure, and Mr McMahon’s amendment would have done that. I still regret that the cabinet secretary did not feel able to support it.
In closing, I return to a point that I made at stage 1. A particularly welcome aspect of the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill is that it has its origins in the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2012 that followed. It is therefore a significant demonstration of the fact that devolution is a flexible and dynamic constitutional arrangement.
During stage 1, I pointed out that it was the latest in a long line of changes to devolution, from the devolution of rail infrastructure through to the devolution of the Scottish welfare fund. On that occasion, I could hardly believe it but the cabinet secretary wilfully misrepresented my argument by suggesting that I was arguing that devolution was now complete and could never develop. That was not my point.
My point was that the bill demonstrates that devolution is the kind of dynamic and flexible settlement that the people of Scotland want: it allows us to sustain the benefits of shared risk and opportunity by being part of the bigger United Kingdom while making Scottish decisions—both administrative and fiscal, where that is appropriate—that enable us to be most effective, for example in reducing waste and landfill.
We will support the bill at decision time. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government as it develops the detail of secondary legislation on guidance and as we debate further how we deploy this new power most effectively for the benefit of Scotland.
16:00
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. ...