Official Report 326KB pdf
We move to agenda item 2, which is further evidence on the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the committee Dr Peter Kenway, director of the New Policy Institute, which has done a considerable amount of work on the subject of council tax and possible alternatives for local taxation.
Thank you for the invitation. As we are, in a sense, self-appointed experts on the subject, we are always grateful to be asked for our opinion. I do not want to make any opening remarks, except to say that, if it is not evident from what we have written, I am a strong supporter of retaining but reforming the council tax. We wait to see what will happen in England when Sir Michael Lyons reports at the end of the year and whether that will have an impact on anybody's thinking.
Your position is that you support a reformed council tax. I note from your paper that you would support more bands, both at the top and at the bottom, which would obviously amend the gearing ratio between what someone at the bottom would pay and what someone at the top would pay. Have you done any work on the level of gearing that the council tax system could support? The current gearing varies by a margin of 3:1. Do you have a figure for what you think is an appropriate gearing system?
I should say that we have done no detailed work on Scotland. In fact, we have done no work at all on Scotland as far as council tax is concerned, and the answer to the question is closely related to the underlying numbers. I do not mean to be obscure in answering your questions, but we think that the answer in England is that the multipliers or ratios between bands B and F are broadly about right. We say that because of their relationship to average income of households in those bands. Our argument then is that there should be extra bands at the top and bottom. In the English case, that certainly means splitting band G, which is self-evidently a double band, and splitting band A so that there might be three bands there.
Just to be absolutely clear, when reform of council tax has been discussed in the past some people have suggested that it would result in a large percentage of council tax payers facing a substantial difference in their local taxation bills. However, if I understand you correctly, if the Scottish Executive were to go down the road that you suggest, leaving the heart of the system between bands B and F more or less as it is and introducing more bands at the bottom, people in the middle bands would pay the same local taxes as they currently pay, people in the new lower bands would pay less, and the only people who would pay more would be those in bands G and H.
That is correct. If there was reform, a revaluation would almost certainly be done, so anybody who happened to move up a band would pay more and anybody who moved down a band would pay less. You summed it up correctly. In a sense, we are trying principally to deal with the ends of the system.
You talked about the number of bands that we could have to make the council tax work better. You will have seen that the bill proposes five bands of income. In your assessment, is such a policy conducive to making the system fairer?
We have not studied the proposal. It certainly has the considerable advantage of clarity, but one could argue that the community charge had that. In taxation, there is always a trade-off between clarity and justice; much of the detail is there for good reasons. I do not think that one would want to go down to five bands of council tax, although in a sense it is a question of the distribution of property values in Scotland. The system is driven by the numbers in an unhealthy and unhelpful way. One has to know the detail of those numbers before deciding on the principles, and that is rather tricky.
It seems to me that the principle is a sound one. We want to help people who struggle to meet their council tax payments. Those in society who are most disadvantaged should not have an unfair burden placed on them. However, we cannot ignore the fact that any change might have an impact elsewhere in the economy. Do you believe that, in attempting to alleviate problems for the poor at one end, the proposals might create general instability in the wider economy, and that despite their intentions, they might have an adverse effect?
The danger in abolishing the council tax is that we might do away with an important form of taxation on dwellings. For obvious reasons, basing local authority tax on houses is an extremely good idea: houses do not move and it is clear why someone is being taxed by a certain authority. We are taxed on most things that we do—that is a fact of life. It would be unwise, and there could be unsatisfactory consequences, if we did away with a tax on the size of properties. The proposal would obviously have a big impact on people with high incomes, but presumably it represents an incentive for property prices to soar, with no control on that.
At present, local authorities set their expected tax take in any given year based on the number of people who pay tax and the amount that they expect to recover. Should a downturn in the economy occur in a particular area, the council tax benefit system would maintain the level of taxation that the local authority receives. With the Scottish service tax, or even a local income tax, if people stop earning, they stop paying. Would that have a detrimental impact on local authorities' ability to deliver services as planned in any given financial year?
It would certainly introduce uncertainty into local authority incomes. However, whether services would suffer or the Executive would have to provide additional money is a separate question. You are right that one of the drawbacks with income-based taxation is that revenue is uncertain in advance, whereas the council tax, subject to collection rates, is a certain tax, which is obviously a strong argument for it.
As I said last week, one of the challenges that we would face in collecting the service tax relates to those who are self-employed. At present, we are able to identify their wealth through their property, but it would be more difficult to identify people's wealth using an income-based system, because of creative Inland Revenue returns. Do you accept that that is an issue?
Yes. Accountants cannot help people with their council tax, but they can help with income tax. That obviously makes the council tax unpopular among some people, but it makes it a sensible tax, as it is hard to evade.
In the evidence that we received last week, there was concern that the loss of revenue from the Treasury through council tax benefit could affect the economy locally. Do you accept that?
I do not think that I could comment on that specific point. The issues of money that Scotland gets from Westminster and money that goes back to Westminster are important—the tax credits system is a similar issue. Council tax benefit is a reserved matter but, given that it is integral to the local taxation system, it strikes us as "curious"—that is the word that we use in our submission—that that should be so.
Do you accept that, as the bill contains no proposals to provide council tax benefit, the income that comes from the Treasury through that benefit would no longer be available to the Scottish economy?
I presume that that is correct, unless Scotland could somehow negotiate the money, for which precedents exist. However, there is no need for a council tax benefit arrangement in the bill because of the particular details of the proposal.
I might not like it, but it is a given that the Scottish Parliament cannot deal with issues such as council tax benefit or pension levels. You are beginning to come to the inevitable conclusion about where council tax benefit powers should lie. Will you say more about that and whether you think the Scottish Parliament should have control over the issue to enable us to deal with the council tax issue more effectively?
It is easy for me to sit here and say that council tax benefit should be a devolved matter—which I think it should—but that opinion does not have much weight. It seems strange that the Scottish Parliament should have control over only part of the system and not over all of it. As I have said, council tax benefit is an important part of the system.
My question is probably hypothetical. Has the New Policy Institute considered the Treasury's likely interpretation of the Scottish service tax as another form of general taxation?
No, I am afraid not.
Do you have a view on the matter?
No.
What about the work that you have done in England on local authorities' accountability, which arises as a result of the council tax but would not arise as a result of other forms of taxation?
In some ways, we began as great radicals on the issue, but, in a sense, we have become conservatives. We think that the accountability of local authorities to their electorate that exists as a result of the council tax is an important feature of the system that should not be lost.
I presume that you agree that the current proposal that is before the committee, to entrust the collection of the proposed new tax to Government, virtually removes the point of having local government.
That is my understanding of the situation, and it is a feature of the proposal that I do not like at all. It would be a bad step for local government.
Do you feel that local government should collect a larger percentage of its funding?
The fact that local government collects only about a quarter of its funding is certainly a major problem. When asked, the public think that it collects three quarters of that funding. It would be easier if local government collected and had control over more of its funding. The answer probably lies with the business rate. I know that there are arguments both ways, but it seems sensible that, if local government is able to run a policy that improves the prospects of business in its area, it should be able to get some of that money. There is also the problem that the business rate rises with inflation rather than with council tax. In England, although people such as ourselves, experts in local government and committees such as yours debate the minutiae of the system, what caused the trouble was the 13 per cent hike in the business tax in 2003 on the back of a steady rise since the tax was introduced in 1993. Levels are important in this.
Peter, I say from the outset that I am disappointed in your paper. To be fair to you, I would say that the invitation to you to give evidence is probably misplaced. It would have been better if you had given evidence to the independent inquiry into council tax; we are scrutinising a bill that, frankly, you have not read or understood. I do not blame you for that, as your work is on council tax. However, in the one observation that you make in your four-page paper, you state that the purpose or outcome of the tax would be
I have read the bill, but I do not want to give the impression that we have studied it or the work that you have done. Perhaps I am wrong. My understanding is that the proposed tax would be levied on individuals rather than on households. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Let me ask you a second question to check that we have understood your work correctly. As I understand it, the detailed figuring rests on the assumption that households are one-earner households. Is that correct?
We are illustrating the problem here, in that you are now asking me as many questions as I am asking you. The research on which the policy memorandum is based is from the Scottish Parliament information centre. It is independent research, the analysis of which was based on one-earner households. At 46.8 per cent of households, one-earner households are the largest proportion of households in Scotland. If SPICe had based its research on two-earner households, would you be surprised to learn that 95 per cent of households would gain, not 71 per cent?
The basis of the analysis cannot affect the number of gainers and losers. I agree that about half the working-age households in Scotland have two earners in them. What I am saying is that if one wants to consider the impacts of shifting from a household-based tax such as council tax to the Scottish service tax, one cannot just list a group of people in different jobs; one must also take account of their partners. The way in which the outcomes are represented is an incomplete picture.
I have to caution you a wee bit. I know that you do a lot of research, some of which is very useful, but by questioning the basis of the research for the bill you are questioning independent researchers, who have used gross household income in Scotland, broken down to the best data that are available, and the breakdown of income per household to the best data that are available. If we were to apply this tax on the basis of one-earner households, the gainers would be 71 per cent. SPICe makes the point that if we base the tax on two-earner households, based on the breakdown of incomes throughout Scotland, the gainers would be 95 per cent. To illustrate that, my colleague Michael McMahon gave a reasonable example last week that disproves your point. He talked about two houses, one in which there is an earner on £50,000 and one next door in which there are two earners, each on £25,000. Under the proposal, the earner on £50,000 would pay more than the household next door. However, you say in your evidence that the effect of the tax is to put the taxation in favour of one-earner households. You can see how false that premise is when you consider the details of the tax.
It is not false. You have quoted one particular case, and I fully understand that a £50,000 single-earner household would pay more tax than two £25,000 earners. What I am saying, in essence, is that the analysis cannot be on the basis that all households are one-earner households or that they are all two-earner households. There are important ramifications there for what households decide to do. I am not necessarily making the observation that the analysis is wrong; it is an observation on incompleteness, which we are saying must be taken into account. Equally, one cannot ignore council tax benefit. However poorly the benefit works, there are plenty of low-income households that pay no council tax. That point needs to be made, not abstracted from.
Would you accept that the overwhelming majority of the points that you have made in your paper are beyond the remit of the Parliament and the committee, because we do not have control over how council tax benefit is administered and evaluated?
Yes, I accept that; we have already touched on that. The reason why I am not really prepared to make a judgment on the proposal is that I recognise that in some senses it is trying to take advantage of the powers and the scope that you have in Scotland. It is not the same as sitting down with a Labour Government—or any Government—in London and saying, "This is what the local taxation system ought to be." I recognise that your situation and which powers you have and do not have make a difference to what you can sensibly propose and not propose.
I can only apologise then, Peter, because I had hoped that that is exactly what you would have done, given that we are supposed to be scrutinising the bill. I thought that you would have analysed the bill and criticised it—or, indeed, praised it—where necessary.
The implications for poverty of the measure would be very good—there is no question about that. Council tax is a real problem for working-age households, whether people are in work or out of work, but something could be done about that at the stroke of a pen. It is a question of making the system a great deal more generous than it is at the minute.
If I was to suggest to you—
I want to bring in other members.
I apologise. I thought that I was getting in only because there were no more questions.
I have one more point to make on the proposal, which is that I am sure that it would increase consumption at the bottom. Again, that would be a good thing.
I am glad that you made that point. You said that you believed that the council tax was unpopular but that you were not sure what support there would be for alternative systems. Just for your information—I will make this evidence available to the committee—two NFO System Three polls have been conducted in Scotland on the matter. They were not on the service tax proposal, because most people would not understand what that means. The polls were on a tax that would be based on personal income. In 2001, 71 per cent of respondents supported such a tax as a replacement for the council tax, and in 2003, 77 per cent supported it. That shows that the level of support for an income-based tax is increasing.
There were two or three questions in that. On the last point, those provisos are in the bill, although I could not say whether I think them sufficient. The question is not whether people's liability for tax is connected with whether they own property—I think that the community charge basically worked like that—but whether the amount that people are liable to pay is related to the size or value of their property, or, possibly, to the notional rental value of their property, as with rates. That link is worth saving and protecting.
If you were to assess whether or not the Scottish service tax as proposed by Tommy Sheridan was beneficial to individuals, and by what degree, would it be fair to exclude council tax benefit and council tax discounts from such an analysis?
They should certainly be included in the analysis; they are an important part of the system and it would not be too difficult to include them.
We heard last week from a professor of economics that high differentials in taxation could lead to differences in individuals' economic behaviour. I asked him whether he believed it likely that having marginal tax rates on income at the higher levels of 18 per cent or 20 per cent—higher in Scotland than in England—might lead to some individuals deciding to move to other parts of the UK. Do you believe that differential rates would lead to some higher earners deciding to seek their living elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
I am sure that it would lead to some shift—one does not need to be an economist to come to that conclusion. It is impossible, however, to quantify that—this is where the economist's black arts come in. Would only five people leave, or would the number have a lot of noughts on the end? Some people would certainly change their behaviour, but I do not know how many, and I would be surprised if the economics professor to whom you referred knew either.
Before embarking on such a radical change to the taxation system, would it be reasonable to conduct some research into how many people would lose out and into the possible impact on the yield of the tax?
Of course I think that it would be a very good idea to conduct some research—that is my job. At the risk of being inaccurate, my understanding is that very little external research was done when Wales changed its council tax system to the one that was introduced this year.
I asked a number of witnesses at our meeting last week whether they felt that a hospital consultant who was given the choice of working in Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh or Glasgow would make the economic decision that it was better for them as an individual and for their family to work in Newcastle or Manchester, rather than Glasgow or Edinburgh, if the marginal rate in Scotland were 20 per cent higher. If people were to make such decisions, would the positive benefits of the proposal in terms of poverty alleviation have to be weighed against the lack of specialist medical practitioners?
I have said that not taxing anyone until their earnings reach £10,000 and then introducing tax at 4.5 per cent is a desirable approach and would certainly have an impact on poverty. Wearing my poverty hat for a minute, I can tell members that in Great Britain—the figure will not be different for Scotland—nearly half the children who are in poverty have someone in their household who is working. The council tax is a big part of the burden that low-income working households bear, so those features of the service tax are extremely attractive. They would have to be weighed against the disadvantage that you mention, but the advantages should not be overlooked, because they are important.
It would be possible, given your proposal for a reformed council tax, to reduce the burden of the tax on low-income households by introducing more bands at the lower end and by reforming the council tax benefit system.
It certainly would. We had not thought that the council tax benefit system would be so generous that a person's income would have to get to £10,000 before they started to pay council tax. At the moment, people start to pay council tax long before they start to pay income tax. Various simple things could be done to align the systems, and then the question would arise whether the income tax system should also be more generous at the bottom. It would certainly be possible to move quite far in that direction.
Do you accept that sometimes it is dangerous to generalise when talking about some of these concepts? We can accept at face value the proposal that people will change their behaviour and move because of high taxation levels and suddenly having to pay a bit more. However, would it not be equally relevant to point out that people living in the city of London have to pay exorbitant property costs and have a higher cost of living than elsewhere, yet London is not empty; it is a thriving metropolis? Working people have to pay a lot to rent or buy property, therefore, if taxation levels or outgoings in general affect behaviour, why has there not been a considerable outward migration from the London conurbation?
There has been. London's population is not stable; the city is a melting pot. Middle-aged, middle-class people like me are departing in droves to leafier suburbs and places that are further out of town. London is an extreme version of what is happening in every city in Britain. It attracts a huge number of immigrants—highly skilled, low-paid workers from across the world—and its economy runs on them. The situation is quite extraordinary. Council tax is a burden for low-income workers, who are key workers. The worry is about what will happen to those people if, after the revaluation in 2007—which, to an extent, is what has triggered much of the discussion about this subject—their properties go up two bands, which could easily happen.
In relation to the back-and-forth argument about fiscal flight, are you aware of Kay and King's work of 1991 on the British tax system? It stated:
Those are very old pieces of research, especially the one from 1981. You asked whether I was aware of them and the answer is that, if I once was, I have since forgotten about them. I would assume that the mobility of labour situation is extremely different from what it was 25 or 20 years ago. Were those studies referring to people moving between various parts of the UK or between the UK and France, Germany, the United States of America and so on?
To be fair to Kay and King, they published their research in 1991.
That is still quite a long time ago.
The point is that there has been no other study since.
That might well be true. In such circumstances, our gut feeling might be all that we have to go on. I would agree with you entirely that economic research should be more relevant and helpful.
My final question relates to the New Policy Institute's attitude to the argument about marginal tax rates. Under the proposal that we are discussing, someone with an income of more than £90,000 a year will have an effective marginal tax rate of 20 per cent, which means that the portion of their income that is more than £90,000 will be taxed at a marginal tax rate of 20 per cent.
I agree absolutely: the situation is absurd. There are reasons for the tax rates—as there always are—but you are right. The disincentive for people to enter work is enormous. People can face rates that are above 90 per cent, because they lose housing benefit and council tax benefit. If their income rises, they start to lose tax credits. Those are big issues.
Mr Sheridan referred to reports from the early 1980s—I am surprised that he did not go back to one by Mr Marx in 1848 to make a point. He also mentioned the independent review that is taking place.
I think that Michael McMahon said 1948; he might have meant 1848.
I think that I said that.
It might have been by Groucho.
The independent review continues. Dr Kenway talked about the political decisions that must be made. From an academic point of view, is it better for politicians to wait for the outcome of independent studies before making political decisions on the way forward?
In some ways, the answer is no, because the question is deeply laden with values. One danger is that civil servants get hold of something and politicians are offered this or that. Guidance is needed, although it is obvious that deep political divisions will exist between and within parties.
Would it be best to stop the review and deal with each proposal from each party one by one until we have agreement?
I do not know enough about the details of the review. I presume that what is decided in London will influence your thinking a little bit—you never know.
That is unfortunate for those of us who believe in independence.
I have a couple of final questions. I am sure that Tommy Sheridan was accidentally misleading when he said that the marginal income tax rate that the highest earners would pay was 20 per cent, because they would pay 20 per cent on top of the existing 40 per cent tax rate, so the marginal tax rate would be 60 per cent.
If the marginal income tax rate and the marginal service tax rate are added together, they make 60 per cent, but in this context, 20 per cent is the marginal rate.
Tommy Sheridan quoted research that shows that, aside from taxation, factors that influence where people choose to live include family ties and language. Given that a significant proportion of medics in the Scottish national health service were born in England and that the language that is spoken in England is—the last time that I checked—broadly the same as that in Scotland, if income tax is added to that, are they not three reasons why a medic who was born in England might want to return there?
Tax is clearly a factor. A study might have to be undertaken to determine how big a factor it is. I say with respect that I suspect that 25-year-old studies are probably not relevant. Important differences already exist between what happens in Scotland and in England. One would not go so far as to say that you cannot have any differences. I do not know whether a rate of 20 per cent is too big a difference—one would have to find the appropriate point. I do not think that you are saying that no room for manoeuvre should exist; some room for manoeuvre clearly exists, but I cannot say how much.
That brings us to the end of questions. I thank Dr Kenway for his evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Our next evidence-taking session on the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill is with two representatives from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I welcome John Park, who is the STUC's assistant secretary, and Dave Watson, who is from Unison Scotland. Their written submission has been distributed to members in advance, but they have the opportunity to make some introductory remarks before we move into the question-and-answer session.
I will say a few things about our submission, then Dave Watson will say something about Unison's position.
Unison's position, as set out in the STUC submission to the previous Local Government Committee's review and in our own submission to Sir Peter Burt's independent review of local government finance, is quite clear: we do not support the proposed Scottish service tax.
Thank you. I note that the STUC does not have an agreed policy on the Scottish service tax or on a form of local income tax that others have suggested. You say that some unions are moving in that direction, and that other unions still support the council tax, albeit in an amended form. Which unions have adopted which position?
Sorry, I should have mentioned that. The Public and Commercial Services Union, the Fire Brigades Union and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—are in favour of the Scottish service tax. We have not carried out an internal consultation. A couple of methods are used to make policy decisions in the STUC; one is through the general council and the other is through the annual congress. Time has not allowed us to have the debate that we need to have on the matter, but the other unions have told the STUC as an organisation and me as an individual what their positions are and the reasons for them.
Apart from Unison, does any of the other unions support the council tax?
Sorry, have I answered that question the wrong way round? Unison and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have told us their position. We have a policy position that we arrived at through a discussion at general council or through debate at congress four or five years ago.
Could you encourage the STUC or its affiliates to make their views clear? It would help us to hear the views of the whole trade union movement. You will recognise that several major trade unions have not expressed a view on the matter one way or the other.
We have already started to do that. When we spoke to the unions about the fact that we were to give evidence to this committee, we told them that our closing date was 30 September. We hope that they will participate.
Dave, you said that a reform of council tax should include a reform of council tax benefit. Should the threshold at which people start to pay council tax be raised? Should there be an additional alleviation of council tax for those on a fixed income? I am thinking particularly of pensioners.
Yes. Some of the work that we commissioned from the New Policy Institute has formed the basis of our policy discussions. We tabled much of that work to colleagues when we were discussing our policy position. Its work showed us that low-paid members in particular were suffering as a result of how council tax benefit is calculated at present. That is an area that we want to deal with.
Does Unison Scotland conclude—as I have concluded—that reforming council tax and council tax benefit would improve the fairness of the council tax system and alleviate its heavy impact on many people at the lower end of the income threshold?
That is precisely our position.
Do the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Unison share the same position on council tax benefit?
Yes, our position on reforming council tax, spreading bands and so on is broadly similar.
Do you want council tax benefit to be brought under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament?
We are silent on such matters.
John Park said that he would provide on paper the views of other unions on the service tax. However, are you able to give us any reasons why they might be for or against it?
I am encouraging other unions both to engage with the committee and to participate in our consultation. Earlier, I was given a letter from PCS that provides a broad view of why certain unions support the service tax. PCS broadly agrees that the
Bruce Crawford mentioned the obvious benefit of the service tax to lower income groups. However, what about the other end of the scale more generally? How do you think—
Sorry—I cannot quite hear what you are saying.
Is my microphone not working?
It might be my ears.
In response to Bruce Crawford, you said that the service tax would help people on lower incomes. What has been the feedback from various unions with regard to society in general and the economies of Scotland? For example, we have heard that people in Scotland on higher incomes might move to England simply because they would be disadvantaged by the service tax.
I must admit that the matter has not been discussed much. However, as someone who has moved about the country for work, I was struck by the same point when I read it. I have to say that, although it might be an issue, it might not be relevant to many Scottish trade union members.
My question was only a general one.
I want to discuss the role that the trade unions play in setting the council tax and—considering the future of their members' jobs—the role that they would play under the Scottish service tax proposal. At the moment, the unions have an opportunity to make representations to a local authority when it is setting its council tax. However, that will not be the position under the Scottish service tax. Do you believe that the unions' role to make such representations will be diminished?
As a predominantly local government union, Unison strongly supports the concept of local government autonomy. For that reason, we believe that local authorities should control their own spending. That also involves returning business rates to local authorities, which would provide them with just under half their income to be determined at a local level.
Just to be clear, you argue that your opportunities to represent your members should increase or that you are satisfied with the current level, but that you could argue for an increase. However, those opportunities would definitely diminish and almost be obliterated under the proposed bill.
It is not so much the opportunity that we have; we argue that it is the opportunity that all civic society has in a particular locality to be able to argue its case, not least of all to turn out a council through the ballot box if it does not like the decisions that are taken. That is democracy.
Both the STUC and Unison have raised concerns in the past about those businessmen who seek to evade paying tax and you touched on that in your earlier presentation. However, under the proposed bill, would those individuals who make creative Inland Revenue returns evade the only opportunity that exists to identify and tax that wealth?
One of the reasons why we favour a property tax is that it is more difficult to avoid than income tax—I emphasise "avoid" rather than "evade"—because a property is difficult to move. One can see it, touch it or photograph it. Our members can and do assess that.
That was really where I was headed. I ask both gentlemen about the revaluation comment that was made. How would they structure bands? Dave Watson just gave me the impression that he would not change the bottom bands. Will you explain?
We would favour changing the bands at the bottom and the top. The middle bands are probably about right. The difficulty with being too specific is that you have to look at the circumstances when you fix the bands. I would not say, "Band D should be X pounds at this time," because you need to look at the impact of a revaluation. Although people say, "A revaluation means we all jump up a band," a revaluation would also result in some adjustment of the bands. The impact of revaluation is a relative difference in property prices between one part of Scotland and another. That is where the impact might occur and where you would have to do something about transitional arrangements at the very least.
That said, if there was a revaluation tomorrow, the total take of council tax would not necessarily increase.
That is absolutely right. In our view, revaluation should be a revenue-neutral exercise. In other words, when the revaluation was done and the banding arrangements were changed, the new bands should be worked out such that the process would be revenue neutral.
You mentioned special groups such as pensioners. How would those groups be dealt with in a rebanding exercise? I presume that means testing would be used.
They would be dealt with by revising council tax benefit along the lines that the New Policy Institute has indicated in the work that it has done for us in a booklet on the reform of council tax benefit, which we and a number of other trade unions, including PCS, sponsored; I could make a copy available to the clerk. The booklet sets out a number of ways in which council tax benefit could be reformed. Our primary concern is how that could be done in such a way as to benefit low-paid workers, but there is also a need to look after the interests of pensioners, especially those who are on fixed incomes.
What is your union's principal argument with the proposed Scottish service tax?
Our principal argument is that we believe that property should be part of the basket of taxation. The effect of moving tax away from property would be that people in employment would be taxed more heavily. In effect, most of the burden of taxation would be placed on income. We believe that a basket of taxation that includes income, sales and property is the best way of raising revenue.
Mr Park, I appreciate that your organisation has not yet come to an official view, but do you agree with some of the comments that your colleague has made?
Broadly speaking, we agree. Part of the reason for having Unison at the meeting along with the STUC is that we broadly agree with its position. In addition, Unison obviously has an interest in local government.
Before I bring in Tommy Sheridan, I want to clarify whether Mr Watson's reason for wanting to retain a property element in the taxation system is the fact that property can be a key indicator of wealth in the same way that income can.
To answer that, I must again rely on some of the work that the New Policy Institute has done in the area, which shows that it is right that property is a broad indicator of wealth. I would not dispute that, in many ways, income would be a better judgment of wealth if we had a properly progressive income tax system. However, there is a broad correlation between property wealth and taxation and, in our view, that is of value when it comes to the basket of taxation, even though the use that is made of property in the present tax system is not perfect, as I think I made clear at the outset.
My question is for both Dave Watson and John Park. Is it fair to say that neither Unison nor the STUC has examined the detail of the bill?
No. I do not think that it is fair to say that. We and the STUC have a long-standing position in favour of the council tax and of property as the basis for taxation. We could have just maintained that position and said that an income-based tax was not in line with our view, but we reviewed the position in the past 12 months in the light not of the minute detail but of the broad proposition. Some colleagues in Unison argued in favour of the SST proposal and some argued in favour of other income-based tax proposals. Given that we are a big trade union with 150,000 members, it is inevitable that a variety of views will be held. Discussions took place at several levels, culminating in a full debate at our Scottish council, in which all our branches are represented. The decision was taken to stick to our view that a broad property tax is the best way forward and not to support the SST proposal or other forms of local income tax.
I do not want to be unfair to you. If I picked this up accurately, you said that one problem would be that a foreign businessman who owned property in Scotland would end up paying nothing under the proposed tax. You also said that the big problem with the proposed tax was that Unison thought that property should be at least part of a basket of taxation.
That is exactly what I said.
Under section 2(1)(c) of the bill—I believe you have a copy—one of the conditions for a person to be a "qualifying individual" is that he or she is
I read section 2(1)(c) and I am familiar with heritable property. I might be more an employment lawyer than a property lawyer, but I am familiar with what I learned at law school—I am a Scots lawyer as well—which certainly touched on heritable property, although it was a rather tedious part of the course. I agree that, as I read the bill, such businessmen would be qualifying individuals. However, you would still have to find the income on which to tax them. I know that a number of highly paid tax lawyers and others are skilful in ensuring that such businessmen's income does not qualify in Scotland or the UK; they do not pay UK income tax on much of their income. I accept that a person could be a qualifying individual under section 2(1)(c), but I fail to see how they would qualify in relation to their income, or what you would tax—that is where I am struggling. If we read section 2(1)(c) by itself, you are right that there is a theoretical element of property in the proposed tax. However, with the current council tax, property qualifies as a significant element of the basket of taxation; it is not a marginal element. It is right that property sales and income should be part of a basket of taxation.
I want to be absolutely clear about what you are saying. Do you accept that, under the bill, foreign businessmen who own property in Scotland would be liable for taxation? You might have questions about whether we can force them to pay their tax, although they would be breaking the law if they did not. If the bill were passed, it would be law and people would have to pay the tax based on their income wherever it was declared. If they did not pay the service tax based on the heritable property qualification, they would obviously be breaking the law. I am sure that Unison would not want individuals to do that. You accept that the legal architects of the bill have tried to close as many loopholes as possible, particularly in relation to UK-resident individuals, who might be very wealthy and sometimes use Scotland as a playground for second, third or fourth homes, but do not pay any taxation on that basis. You accept that those individuals would be liable, but you question whether we could trace them.
I accept that such people would be qualifying individuals under the bill, but there are two aspects to collecting a tax. First, a person has to be liable and, secondly, they have to pay it. Income tax is based on declared income. That is the difficulty, particularly in relation to foreign businessmen, which would be the issue. The Inland Revenue has well-documented cases of such circumstances. I will not name names, for obvious reasons, but there are some well-kent individuals in Scotland who pay little if any income tax in Scotland or the UK. I accept that you have tried to plug that gap, but the difficulty is that if you opt for an income-based tax and give up on property-based tax you will inevitably rely solely on tracking down income.
Fine. You continually say that we are putting all our eggs in one basket, but we do not accept that everyone is in the same position as the Al Fayeds of the world, or others. There are people in that position, but we should not accept that. We are certainly rigorous in pursuing people who do not pay council tax; I hope that we would be just as rigorous—in fact, even more so—in pursuing people who did not pay the service tax. I am sure that Unison would support that. The people at the top end should not be able to avoid taxes just because they are rich.
First, I should perhaps declare an interest as far as Mr Al Fayed is concerned, in that I am a Fulham supporter and any income that he might acquire might strengthen the squad of my team. Even allowing for that, we ought to track him down.
You just denied yourself your next striker.
Yes.
You made the point that the SST might shift the burden of taxation on to working families. However, the evidence from the independent research centre here at the Parliament indicates that only people on higher incomes—in the region of £40,000 and beyond—would pay more under the SST. Given that that level of income is in the top 10 per cent of incomes in Scotland, do you accept that the majority of Unison members would stand to gain from an increase in disposable income because they would pay less than they pay at present?
Out of fairness to the witness, I should point out that the evidence to which Tommy Sheridan refers is evidence that he commissioned. Other members of the committee received it only during the course of today's meeting, so they have not had an opportunity to interrogate it fully. [Interruption.] I received it during the meeting, but I do not think that other members have it. Asking the witness to comment on research that has been available only briefly—
Let me rephrase the question. The research that we have available indicates that the level at which individuals would start to pay more is in the region of £40,000. There are a lot of qualifications because £40,000 is the household income but there may be one, two or three earners and so on. The more earners that there are, the better it is for the bill. Given that the majority of your members would be on earnings below £21,000, because that is the average wage in Scotland, do you accept that the majority of your members would benefit?
I have not seen that evidence. I have, of course, read the policy memorandum and when we were developing our policy I read the material that your political party had produced, so we are aware of that argument. My response is that the comparison figures that you produced are comparisons with the council tax as it is, but Unison's position is that we do not defend the council tax as it stands. Our view is that council tax bands should be made more progressive and that we should reform council tax benefit. If that were done, a comparison could be made with the Scottish service tax.
I do not know whether you heard the previous evidence sessions, but the evidence is based on a one-earner household because that is the largest section of households in Scotland: 46 per cent of households in Scotland have one earner and 43 per cent have two earners. If you assess the evidence from the independent research, based on two-earner households, the gainers increase rather than decrease. That position is favourable because the level of income in Scotland is so low and so badly distributed.
We have done some quick calculations in relation to typical Unison families, such as members who live together, for example a social worker and a member of another Unison profession. Clearly, that would bring household income way above some of the figures that have been mentioned. In fairness to your proposal and to our position, we think that to make such comparisons is not fair on either argument because apples are not being compared with apples. Your proposal is being compared with what is, in our view, an unreformed council tax.
I hope that Dave Watson and John Park accept that, with the best will in the world, we must compare the proposal with what we have rather than with what we would like to have, because that is the reality. You guys deal in reality every day of the week. If I were to come to the committee and talk about how we would like things to be, I am sure that quite a few members would say, "Well, Tommy, you have to live in the real world." In the real world we are dealing with council tax as it is here and now and with a council tax benefit system that is regressive as it is.
We do not currently have a position on the SST. We do not have a position on it in its current form, because we have not had our discussion on it. Normally, a motion would go before our annual congress. For issues that are as complicated and technical as the proposed tax, I think that that is the best way to secure the full support of congress. People have the opportunity to debate a resolution and to talk about the sort of issues that you and Dave Watson were discussing for about 10 minutes about the various possible approaches. I think that that would be the best way to proceed.
The SST proposal is clearly inconsistent with STUC policy as set out in the paper that is before the committee. If colleagues from other unions want to make a case for changing their policies, the STUC has a democratic procedure through which people can make their case. We will argue our case accordingly.
We have been talking about realities and where we are at present. The evidence that we have received with respect to those realities has taken account of the fact that the economy is cyclical and that, at any given time, it can either become more buoyant or go into decline. Tommy Sheridan will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see anything in his bill that says that the Scottish Executive should come to the rescue of local authorities should there be an economic downturn. In a tax system based entirely on income, if the number of people paying income tax were to be reduced, the consequence would be that local authorities' tax take would reduce. Has the STUC or Unison done any analysis of the levels at which service and/or employment would be reduced given a percentage downturn in the economy?
We have not given any consideration to that.
We have not done any detailed number crunching because there is a range of hypothetical factors. During the work that we did when we compared the various models, we considered the argument that one of the advantages of a local tax was greater certainty about yield in terms of the way in which the revenue comes in, subject to collection rates. There are particular issues in Scotland in relation to collection rates. The rates have been improving, but not as quickly as we would like. Our concern about any proposal for a local income tax is that there is a risk that the yield would go up and down.
I have a quick question about John Park's answer to my question about the obvious benefits to low-income families. He rightly said that there would be a benefit for union members, and that they might not be so concerned about higher earners. What I was trying to get at—Dave Watson might want to comment on this—is an issue that the convener has raised before about the higher-earning people such as doctors and consultants and the implications for an area if national health service staff were to decide to take a job in England rather than in Scotland. That might well have an effect on everyone in Scotland. I was trying to get at the wider picture and to find out how you view it.
The wider issue of retention is something that struck me when I read the paper. We could take it on the chin if some jobs and professions went, but in respect of others such as those Dr Jackson mentioned, there would be severe implications if such people were to consider leaving Scotland because of the local income tax.
We considered that point. The difficulty that we found is that although there is some evidence, it was based largely on what were viewed as penal tax rates in the 1970s. There are those—some even on the left of the political spectrum—who argue in favour of a flat tax, for example. That is very topical at the moment. There are not many people on the left who argue for that, but there are some and they argue for it on the basis that it would maximise yield from taxation, unlike a complicated taxation system with allowances, and based on the evidence—as they see it—of penal levels of taxation reducing the tax yield and not allowing it to deliver what the theoretical model says it might do.
On that last question, you acknowledge that there would need to be other mechanisms for retaining people such as consultants. Would it therefore be appropriate to say that the projected yield from the SST should also take account of any potential additional costs to the Scottish block grant of retaining such key individuals? Would some analysis of that potential cost be appropriate before we try to reach a decision about the impact of the bill on public finances in general?
Yes. In fairness, the lack of evidence makes matters difficult. In reality, no one would know what it might be like until it is done. It is difficult to come to a view based on the policy memorandum for the bill and to work out what impact it would have on the tax yield. We do not know how individuals would respond and therefore we do not know what other public policy measures might have to be put in place to take account of their responses. Clearly, the concern is that there would be an additional cost. We would have to work that out and take it into account in any decision.
To be fair to the research, I am sure that Dave Watson is aware that, if we compare like with like, the yield in the 2002-03 financial year from the service tax would have been £269 million more than the amount that the council tax generated. Therefore, although Dave Watson is talking about a loss, there would be a lot of slack before we got into problems as a result of there being less money available.
I have seen the figures in the policy memorandum. The question of how much a tax would raise is inevitably speculative, because we do not know what impact the yield might have. Of course, a political decision must be made about how high the tax should be.
I have two final points.
Be brief, Tommy, because the last one was the final point.
Sorry.
Your proposal would not be democratically neutral, because it would mean that the rate would be set at a Scottish level, rather than locally. Frankly, that is one of Unison's biggest difficulties with the SST proposal, given our view about local accountability, which I highlighted earlier. However, the proposal may well be revenue neutral, although that would depend on political judgments.
My point is that, if we give local councils back the power to set the local business rate but take away the power to set the local council tax rate, in terms of the proportion of the amount that councils decide to raise, my proposal would be democratically neutral.
Our position is clear: we would do both.
I know that, but that is not what I am asking.
Your proposal may be democratically neutral, but our policy is that, if we retain the council tax and return decisions on business rates to local councils, nearly half of local authorities' income would be determined locally, which would reduce the democratic deficit. It is easy to get into an argument over comparisons between the council tax and a theoretical level of another tax, but the important point is that we are not trying to defend the current council tax as compared with the SST; instead, we call for a reformed council tax. We have concerns about a move to an income-based rather than a property-based tax in respect of where the figures might come out, particularly for middle-grade professionals—in the £20,000 to £30,000 income level—and particularly where there is more than one person in the household. I accept entirely that the figures could be tweaked either way, depending on the yield, the level of taxation and what a new council tax might look like.
That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank Dave Watson and John Park for their evidence and I thank members for their participation.
Meeting closed at 17:05.
Previous
Ferry Services (Clyde and Hebrides)