Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendment, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 28A, and the marshalled list, which is SP bill 28A-ML. Should there be a division on the amendment, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. The period of voting will be 30 seconds.
Section 20—Credit: bodies concerned with the environment
Amendment 1 is in the name of Michael McMahon.
I will not take up much of the Parliament’s time, because we have moved on in relation to the issue since stage 1.
When I heard evidence at the Finance Committee on the new criteria for the use of the landfill communities fund, alarm bells rang for me because, although the provision is well intentioned, we heard that organisations that seek to promote or further environmental projects in areas where there is no direct link to a landfill site foresaw the potential to use landfill communities fund moneys to further those projects. That is not of itself a major problem, but it takes away from the general principle of the landfill communities fund, which is that it should benefit those who suffer the disamenity of having a landfill site in their vicinity and who are subjected to noise and air pollution because of their proximity to a landfill site. The fund that supports those local communities should not be diminished in any way to support projects that have no connection to a landfill area.
We have to address the problem, as it is a matter of principle. I have had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, which have moved the issue on a fair way from where we were initially, for which I thank him. However, having spoken to representatives of those who use the landfill communities fund, I know that they are concerned that the fund might be diminished if the criteria are not set down clearly in the bill. They know the benefits that go to the local communities that are affected. That is why I have lodged amendment 1. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board the genuine arguments that have been made by those who see the inherent danger in changing the criteria to widen the scope of the landfill communities fund. That would be a retrograde step.
It is not sufficient to have any protections in guidance; we have to see them in the bill. We must be absolutely clear what the landfill communities fund is for.
An organisation in the constituency that I represent administers the landfill communities fund to a range of projects, some of which do not take place in communities adjacent to landfill. I ask Michael McMahon to clarify what would happen to the projects that that organisation funds, which are welcomed in my constituency, if his amendment was agreed to.
There is a set criterion at the moment that communities within a 10-mile radius of a landfill site can benefit from the tax that is collected in their area, which works well. We do not want to move away from that system. There is flexibility in it. We have heard arguments about its application in areas such as Skye, where the landfill site is 25 miles from the nearest settled community, but all the traffic to the site goes through that settled community, so there is a clear link between the landfill site and the community, which is affected by the site being in close proximity to it.
I am talking about the fact that, as we heard in evidence and discussed at the committee, projects that have no direct link with where the landfill fund comes from are looking on it as a source of funding. That is not right and it must be changed. That is why I hope that the cabinet secretary will support my amendment.
I move amendment 1.
Three members wish to contribute. I intend to call all three but I urge them to be very brief.
I thank Michael McMahon for giving us an amendment to debate.
As Michael pointed out, he met the cabinet secretary—
Use full names, please.
Sorry?
Full names. It is Michael McMahon.
Sorry. As Mr McMahon pointed out, he met the cabinet secretary—I see you preening yourself after saying that and putting me down, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]
Michael—sorry, Mr McMahon—met the cabinet secretary along with me and Jean Urquhart to discuss the issue because there is broad agreement on the committee about it. The issue with which the cabinet secretary and, to be frank, all committee members have been wrestling is how we put what Michael and all of us want to achieve in the bill in a way that allows us to deliver it—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr McMahon. Of course, there are diminishing resources from the landfill tax because we expect the take to decrease as the Government’s zero waste policy continues to progress and achieve the zero waste targets that we all want to achieve.
We all want to achieve what Mr McMahon wants to achieve; the difficulty is how we put it in the bill. My concern is that the amendment does not do what we want it to do. I am keen that we have what he proposes, but guidance is a much better way of delivering it because we can include in that some of the nuances that he mentioned. There are so many anomalies, such as those that Mr McDonald mentioned, that we must deliver Mr McMahon’s objective in guidance.
As the Finance Committee said in its report, we need the issue to be dealt with in a much less bureaucratic way. The money from the landfill communities fund must also be provided to community groups that do not have particularly high levels of community capacity. At the moment, some of those groups are losing out in favour of bigger organisations that are much slicker and which employ public relations companies and lobbyists. We want to ensure that the money goes to the people who should get it—those who are closest to landfill.
As was pointed out, 10 miles might not be a long distance on Skye but, from where I live in Kilbirnie, it is the distance to Paisley. It could be the distance from one side of the Glasgow to the other, and it is really ludicrous to suggest that one part of Glasgow would benefit from a dump on the other side of the city.
I am broadly sympathetic to, and supportive of, what Michael McMahon wants; I am just not convinced that the amendment is the way forward.
15:00
Amendment 1 is an improvement on a similar amendment at stage 2 that was ultimately withdrawn. The lead committee said:
“The Committee is supportive of the principle that those communities most affected by landfill sites should be the ones to benefit most from the fund.”
In response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government said that it
“is working to ensure this principle is reflected in the future design of the fund.”
That principle is more likely to be reflected if it is embedded directly in the primary legislation. After reviewing section 20 of the bill, I do not think that the amendment would be out of place. The amendment does not go into greater depth than other subsections of section 20, so it would be entirely appropriate.
The issue is more important now than it was when the landfill tax was first envisaged for the very reason that Kenneth Gibson gave: resources will be diminishing. Therefore, it is even more important that the most affected communities benefit. That is why I intend to support the amendment.
I support Mr McMahon’s amendment 1. Gavin Brown was right to use the word “principle”. The bill is based on the principle that polluters should pay, and behind the amendment lies the principle that the landfill communities fund should be used to benefit communities that directly suffer the impact of landfill sites. Those communities should benefit directly from the compensation or mitigation that the fund provides.
In earlier debates, we established that the 10-mile limit is too limiting. In my constituency—East Lothian—there is a landfill site at Dunbar. The community there suffers the most direct effects of the site, but it is true that towns and villages throughout the county suffer a concentration of lorry traffic, for example, that brings waste to the site. It therefore makes sense that they, too, should be able to benefit from the fund.
Many extremely worthwhile and important projects in my local communities have received funding in the past as a result of landfill tax credits. I simply want to ensure that that is protected, particularly as resources reduce. The fund should therefore not be opened up to projects that might be worth while and desirable but which are really national rather than local and are far from the direct impact of any landfill site. Such a principle should be in the bill. I support amendment 1.
As Mr McMahon said, amendment 1 would insert the condition that money from the tax credit scheme or the landfill communities fund should be spent on environmental activities in the locality of a landfill site that is affected by the site’s operations. In addressing the amendment, I will set out three points. We have had a number of constructive discussions inside and outside the Finance Committee that have helped to inform what I will say to Parliament and the position that I hope Parliament will support.
The establishment of eligibility through proximity is better set out in guidance and regulations. I intend to submit the draft regulations and guidance to a consultation process, in which views from all stakeholders can be taken on board and the correct balance can be arrived at.
In feedback from the consultation on the bill, one criticism was about the amount of red tape under the existing arrangements and the administrative burden that is associated with the scheme—Mr Gibson talked about that. That proved to be a deterrent to applications from potential beneficiaries. I fear that Mr McMahon’s amendment would—inadvertently—further entrench that red tape and disincentive to applying.
On paragraph (a) in the amendment, I am keen to avoid a situation in which every project—such as the renovation of a community hall by a group—would have to prove that it is directly affected by and suffers a disamenity from a landfill operation. A project that was close to a landfill site that complied with environmental protection legislation and with permitting rules would be likely to find it burdensome and difficult to prove that it was directly affected by the site’s operation, if we translated Mr McMahon’s amendment into practice in administering the scheme. Away from the transport network, that may limit the spending of the fund to areas in very close proximity to a landfill site.
The presence of a landfill site has two main effects. The first is the disamenity that such a site causes to communities in its vicinity, and the second is the detrimental effect that it has on the wider environment. In my view, the fund should be able to address both those issues.
An overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation supported the view that—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will.
Surely that is exactly the point on which the assurances that have been given cause concern. The argument that landfill has an impact on the environment and that a project anywhere in Scotland that addresses the environment would therefore legitimately benefit from the fund is exactly what the amendment seeks to avoid.
Mr Gray must consider some of the other possible implications of the amendment, such as that of making it ever more restrictive for applications to be successful under the fund rules and the tax credit scheme. I am concerned that we should avoid making it ever more difficult for projects to get past the threshold for support by specifying that threshold in a fashion that makes the hurdle too great for projects to get over.
I have advanced the argument today that those issues should be dealt with in the detailed guidance that we will produce, on which there will be consultation. That would assist us more than creating an approach that would essentially make it much more difficult for projects to prevail.
An overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation supported the view that funding for environmental and biodiversity projects should continue to be available through a Scottish landfill tax communities fund, on the basis that landfill sites contribute to climate change and are responsible for a sizeable element of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, landfill emits 600,000 tonnes of carbon and equivalent greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.
I agree with the principle that those communities that are most affected by landfill should benefit from the money that is available in the fund. The fund that will be established under sections 18 and 20 of the bill will, I am sure, significantly benefit the communities in the locality of a landfill site. I agree that the fund should not be available to communities further afield that suffer no disamenity from having a landfill site nearby. However, we must also consider how the fund should reflect the impact that landfill sites have on the wider environment. Those issues need to be considered in the consultation process.
Although I have great sympathy for what Mr McMahon is trying to achieve, I believe that amendment 1 would impose conditions that are too restrictive. A community in the vicinity of a landfill site might not be able to access the fund simply because it was in the vicinity; it would also have to show that it was affected by operations at the site.
I believe that regulations and guidance are the best place in which to set out those mechanisms, which would allow for greater flexibility in their application. I assure Parliament that there will be detailed consultation on the formulation of any regulations and guidance in that regard.
I recommend that Parliament rejects amendment 1.
Members will note that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on the group to finish. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A of standing orders to allow the debate on the group to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. That means that I can call Michael McMahon to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 1.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to wind up, Presiding Officer.
I thank the cabinet secretary for genuinely trying to reach an accommodation on my desires on the matter. We have moved to a point where there is not much distance between us, but, as often happens, that has become the sticking point.
I do not believe that there will be any additional red tape or obstacles put in the way of local communities that are directly affected. We are trying to uphold the criteria that currently exist; the 10-mile criterion takes away the problem, because a community in the vicinity of a landfill site is allowed to access the landfill communities fund.
Those who administer the landfill communities fund have done so successfully for a number of years, and the system works well. The problem is that other people now have designs on the funding, and we want to prevent them from accessing it. The obstacles that amendment 1 would put in place are aimed at stopping the dissipation of a fund for local communities so that it cannot be used for projects that have no direct link to local areas that currently benefit from that funding.
Unfortunately—although we have come very close, cabinet secretary—I will press my amendment, and I hope that the Parliament will support it.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first—and only—division at stage 3, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
15:10
Meeting suspended.
15:15
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly.