Chamber and committees

Just to clarify, are you saying that, timescale and context aside, given the consideration that took place last year, the Government recognises that there is potential value to that policy? Should the right circumstances come about—the right economic context and wider UK tax context—is there potential to introduce that policy in recognition of its value?

I will return to the questions around the staff cost provision. I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of the National Union of Journalists, which is one of the unions that represents MSP staff and has made representation to the SPCB.

In a joint letter that you received, the GMB, the NUJ and the parliamentary group staff union took issue with the SPCB’s decision to move solely to AWE as opposed to having a basket of measures. In the first instance, can you outline what level of engagement the corporate body has with unions—both those representing SPCB staff and the MSP staff unions—ahead of making such a decision?

Thanks very much.

It would be useful if you could write to the committee about that, because the commitment was made some time ago. I recognise the challenges with the legislative timescale.

On the wider point about the reform of local government finances and specifically council tax, the committee made a recommendation in our pre-budget scrutiny report that was based on comments that you made to us previously about the Government’s perception that it is very difficult to make progress on substantive council tax reform without cross-party consensus. That was an entirely fair and legitimate point, but, in our report, the committee put it back to the Government and asked what steps it is taking to create the space in which that consensus can emerge.

I was quite disappointed by the Government’s response to that recommendation in our report, because it indicated that there would be no further action—essentially, it was a recap of what the joint working group with local government has already done. Will you clarify what your expectation or desire is for May 2026 on council tax reform? What does the Government want to achieve in the remainder of this parliamentary session?

I will turn to council tax. Before we get into a wider conversation about that, I note the interim steps that the Government has taken. I welcome the fact that councils now have the ability to double council tax on second homes, alongside the existing powers on empty properties. However, when the policy was announced, the Government said that it would also explore moving beyond that. In Wales, councils can levy 300 per cent council tax on second and empty homes. The consultation on council tax for second and empty homes in Scotland, which took place in the spring of 2023, showed very strong support for empowering councils here with a similar option to the one that councils in Wales have, but that would require primary legislation.

Is it the Scottish Government’s intention to introduce such legislation during the remainder of this parliamentary session? If so, what would be the legislative vehicle for that? I am not aware of an obvious choice, but I can see the matter being within the scope of a couple of options.

The local authority has written to the Scottish Government. I apologise, but I cannot remember whether the letter was directed to you or to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

Thank you.

I have one final question—

Turning to colleges, I note that, in your letter to the committee a couple of weeks ago, you referred to colleges diversifying their income streams and increasing the income and revenue that they get outwith the SFC grant. I think that that is entirely legitimate and sensible. Indeed, in my region, Ayrshire College and NHS Ayrshire and Arran have a fantastic partnership, with a lot of the training needs for the local health service delivered through the college. That sort of thing could be expanded nationally. Can you outline the Scottish Government’s aspirations for the sector?

I think that that also points to the wider feedback that we have been getting for years from the college sector that it wants much more direction from Government, as this is an area where more direction would be helpful. Does the Government have an objective in that respect, whether it be cash-terms targets or a percentage of overall revenue? What exactly are you aiming for colleges to achieve in terms of income generation beyond the SFC grant?

Good morning. In the first instance, I return to Willie Rennie’s question about international students and university finance. I presume that the Scottish Government would agree that it is an unacceptable risk for any individual institution to be existentially dependent on tuition fees from students from one particular country, but that is currently the case, as a couple of institutions are dependent on international students from China in particular.

Whether it be through supporting individual institutions to diversify income streams or a wider reform of student funding and funding of universities, has the Government set itself an objective of supporting the university sector to ensure that, in three or five years from now, say, or on whatever timescale is set, no institution in Scotland will be financially existentially dependent on international students from any particular country?