Written evidence submitted by the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— RSPB
Scotland is part of the RSPB; this submission has been prepared
by RSPB Scotland based on their experience of working with the
Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. This submission is
focussed on matters where policy is recommended to be further
devolved or re-reserved where this has the potential to impact
on environmental outcomes.
— The
RSPB welcomes Clause 24, which presents the Scottish Government
with an opportunity to develop and implement a comprehensive "green
tax policy" to drive forward its environmental objectives.
In the next Scottish Parliament, the successor Committee to the
Rural Affairs and Environment Committee should therefore hold
an inquiry into the opportunities to achieve environmental objectives
from the operation of the Parliament's fiscal powers (including
borrowing powers, Landfill Tax and other devolved taxes).
— If
the Landfill Tax is devolved, Scottish Ministers should
be encouraged to maintain or increase the current level of hypothecated
taxation through Landfill Tax, and to retain the LCF model or
equivalent as a crucial source of environmental funding but with
greater flexibility in the allocation of funding to remote and
rural projects.
— If
Stamp Duty is devolved, the current model of implementation
with regard to 100% relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax for charities
needs to be retained.
— Marine
nature conservation powers should ultimately
be devolved. Such powers are not currently included in the Bill,
and given the delayed implementation of the UK and and Scottish
Marine Acts we see some justification for not devolving nature
conservation powers at this time. However, if they remain
absent from the Scotland Bill, there should be a review in the
near future into how the two Marine Acts are working together
with a view to future devolution.
BACKGROUND
1. RSPB Scotland has extensive experience of
working with colleagues across the UK and overseas, encompassing
a wide range of constitutional arrangements. This experience together
with our conservation and environmental expertise leads us to
conclude that the arrangements in themselves do not necessarily
affect the quality of environmental outcomes. As a result, we
do not have constitutional preferences and comment only where
anomalies have arisen, or these issues impede the achievement
of positive environmental outcomes.
2. This submission is focussed on matters where
policy is recommended to be further devolved or re-reserved where
this has the potential to impact on environmental outcomes. Our
comments are therefore focussed on the devolution of Landfill
Tax (including key considerations for implementation), Stamp Duty,
further devolved taxes, and matters concerning the marine environment.
3. This submission follows previous contributions
from Scottish Environment LINK to the Calman Commission on Devolution
in the form of oral evidence given on 10 October 2008 by Lloyd
Austin of RSPB Scotland, and written evidence submitted by RSPB
Scotland to the Scotland Bill Committee at Holyrood on 14th January
2011.
Question: What are the fiscal and financial
implications of the provisions in the Bill for Scotland?
Green tax opportunity: Clause 24 of the Scotland
Bill
4. Clause 24 of the Scotland Bill allows for
the creation of further devolved taxes. Parts 5.109 and 5.208
of the Calman Commission report refer to "green taxes"
as an important policy lever in relation to environmental issues.
5. Implementation of Clause 24 could present
the Scottish Government with an opportunity to develop and implement
a comprehensive "green tax policy" to drive forward
its environmental objectives, which would complement the devolution
of other green taxes such as Landfill, and we see great potential
for future Scottish Governments to use these powers.
6. We welcomed Calman's recognition that the
Scottish Parliament could achieve more positive benefits for the
environment with fiscal policy options, and we have recommended
to the Scotland Bill Committee at Holyrood that the new powers
under Clause 24 of the Bill be considered in this light.
7. We further recommended that, in the next Scottish
Parliament, the successor Committee to the Rural Affairs and Environment
Committee should find time to hold an inquiry into the opportunities
to achieve environmental objectives from the operation of the
Parliament's fiscal powers (including borrowing powers, Landfill
Tax and other devolved taxes).
Landfill Tax
8. Taxing waste going to landfill encourages
us to produce less waste while delivering positive environmental
benefits. It is a good working example of a hypothecated or "ring-fenced"
tax—it has compensated for an environmentally damaging activity
by funding projects which improve the environment for the benefit
of biodiversity and the communities who live near landfill sites.
9. In particular, allowing landfill operators
to contribute towards environmental projects through the Landfill
Community Fund (LCF) has enabled valuable biodiversity work to
take place across Scotland and delivered many positive environmental
outcomes (Please refer to the Appendix to this document which
contains short case studies of LCF-funded projects in Scotland).
10. RSPB Scotland has recommended that if Landfill
Tax is devolved, the Scottish Government should, at a minimum,
strive to implement a similar scheme by allowing landfill operators
to pay a percentage of their Landfill Tax into an LCF or similar.
11. In 2010/11 the potential value of credits
available through the Landfill Community Fund, and therefore available
for project applications, was £74.25 million (around £4
million in Scotland). For nature conservation organisations the
LCF has therefore been a lifeline at a time when funding for the
natural environment is being squeezed ever more tightly, and is
one of the few remaining funding streams for biodiversity work.
12. Biodiversity objectives should be a priority
of any similar hypothecated scheme in Scotland and need not infringe
upon any community benefit, as healthy biodiversity in itself
would deliver positive environmental outcomes for nearby communities.
We would encourage Scottish Ministers to retain this model of
implementation.
13. The existing UK-wide system of hypothecated
taxation through the Landfill Tax has worked well. However, there
are some issues which will need careful consideration if a devolved
Landfill Tax is to function as effectively in delivering positive
environmental outcomes, and we have advised the Scotland Bill
Committee at Holyrood on these matters as follows:
— Will
Landfill operators who currently work on a UK basis be restricted
in where they can distribute their funds? Will such operators
be prevented from distributing credit in Scotland? Failure to
resolve this issue could result in a substantial reduction of
funding available to suitable projects in Scotland.
— Current
guidelines from ENTRUST, the regulator of the LCF, recommend that
funding should be allocated to projects within 10 miles of a landfill
site (although this guideline can be flexed slightly if the applicant
can prove that there has been a significant disamenity to nearby
communities). Though we do not advocate complete abolition of
the "10 mile rule", we would like to see greater flexibility
in how it is applied, particularly across the rural and remote
parts of Scotland. In areas like the Central Belt or the South
East of England, for example, a 10 mile stretch is likely to pass
through many different communities, whereas 10 miles in any given
direction in the Highlands and Islands is not likely to take you
out of one community and into the next. Economies of scale means
that landfill from many communities is often processed in a central
location, and therefore it is reasonable that a project which
would deliver significant biodiversity outcomes, and therefore
a community benefit, should be eligible for funding regardless
of distance from the landfill site. The dispersed nature of communities
in the Highlands and Islands means that the way in which the LCF
currently operates puts rural communities at a disadvantage. A
devolved scheme could build in greater flexibility from the start,
without severing the link between disamenity to communities near
landfill sites and successful funding applications .
— Who
will regulate a Scottish LCF or similar scheme? Will ENTRUST,
the current UK regulator of the LCF, continue to regulate a new
Scottish scheme, or will a new enforcing body be established?
How will such a body be funded? Whilst we have no preference or
recommendations either way, we reiterate the need for any new
scheme in Scotland to be effective in delivering positive environmental
outcomes as a compensation for the environmental "bad"
caused by landfill sites. Such a scheme will require effective
regulation by a competent body.
14. If the Landfill Tax is devolved, Scottish
Ministers should be encouraged to maintain or increase the current
level of hypothecated taxation through Landfill Tax, and to retain
the LCF model or equivalent as a source of environmental funding
but with greater flexibility in the allocation of funding to remote
and rural projects. RSPB Scotland will be encouraging the current
and future Scottish Governments to commit themselves to this approach
if Landfill Tax is devolved.
Stamp Duty
15. We note the measures to devolve Stamp Duty
and have no view on whether or not it should be devolved. However,
as with Landfill Tax, we reiterate the need to retain the current
model of implementation with regard to 100% relief from Stamp
Duty Land Tax for charities.
Question: Which of the recommendations of
the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution are not implemented
by the Bill, and why?
Marine powers
16. We note that there is no provision in the
Bill to devolve marine nature conservation at this time. During
the passage of the Marine (Scotland) Bill, RSPB Scotland supported
the Scottish Environment Link position that marine nature conservation
should be devolved, given the unique opportunity to do so at that
time.
17. The Executive Devolution of marine nature
conservation agreed by the UK and Scottish Governments has the
potential to address environmental concerns previously outlined
by RSPB Scotland and LINK, but both the UK and Scottish Marine
Acts are still in the early stages of implementation. In light
of this, we can see some justification for not devolving nature
conservation powers at this time.
18. However, ultimately, we remain of the view
that marine nature conservation powers should be legislatively
devolved and, if it does not form part of this Scotland Bill,
we look forward to a review in the near future into how the two
Marine Acts are working together and would welcome the opportunity
to participate in that debate.
19. If no devolution takes place under this Bill
we advise that, in the course of the debate, both the UK and Scottish
Governments need to commit to such a review by 2015.
January 2011
| 
