Chamber and committees

That is useful. Thank you. The SFC assumptions about behaviour change and some in your work are because we have limited evidence in Scotland, so far. Are you aware of any UK-wide and international evidence that significant differences in sub-state and state-level changes in tax policy make a difference to people moving over the border from France to Belgium when France increases its income tax rates, for example, compared with people moving between cantons in Switzerland? Is there a significant difference in the effect on behaviour, particularly migration?

Thank you. I am conscious of the amount of time that I am taking up, convener, but I have one last question.

On exactly that point about other taxes, I will pick up on something that you said in response to, I think, the convener around LBTT. You were somewhat critical of the impact that it has had on people’s ability to move, which is fair enough, but you singled out the additional dwelling supplement. Will you expand a bit on that? My assumption is that the rate for the additional dwelling supplement is not having a negative impact on people's ability to move because they do not live in their holiday home—they live in their primary home, and they do not pay ADS if they are buying another primary residence.

Surely, if ADS is set at the right rate, it should have a positive impact on people’s ability to move home because it is designed not only to raise revenue but to have a behavioural impact by discouraging people from buying holiday homes. That will free up more properties for people to live in as their primary residence.

Thanks very much. That was all really useful.

Good morning, guys. Like Craig, I will jump around between a couple of different topics because so many threads have opened up this morning. The first is income tax and the starter, basic and intermediate rates. In your paper, you make a perfectly legitimate point that it would be more progressive to have a zero per cent rate and then go straight to 21 per cent. Therefore, the progressivity point is fair enough.

However, on your other point around complexity—that word is beginning to feature quite a lot in commentary around the Scottish income tax system—I struggle a little bit, because half a dozen bands are still not that many. I have met plenty of workers who are on much higher incomes and who are interested in what their marginal tax rate will be and are somewhat interested in the relative complexity of having that many bands. I do not know whether I have ever met a worker on an average income—in that range—who is concerned by the apparent complexity of a system that has half a dozen tax bands.

Will you talk me through what the problems are? The word “complexity” is used with negative connotations here, so what are the negative impacts of having a number of different bands?

I understand that the SNCT is within the purview of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, but it is a tripartite body. A lot of the workforce issues that we discuss in this committee in relation to schools are for local authorities, as the employer, to address, and the SNCT directly involves the Scottish Government as the third partner.

I understand that you cannot clarify the situation this morning, but will the Scottish Government give a clear position on that ahead of the stage 1 debate, perhaps in response to the committee’s report? It is really quite important for members, before we vote at stage 1, to understand the Government’s position on the terms and conditions aspect.

Moving on to a not entirely unrelated issue, how do you view the impact of the bill on the relationship between the Scottish Government and local government, particularly in the context of the Verity house agreement? Has the Government given any consideration as to how the bill would fit in with the new agenda that is being attempted and the reset of the relationship?

Thank you.

On the wider point, do you acknowledge that the bill has, among other things, raised the profile of the fact that we currently rely on a huge amount of good will and volunteering from classroom teachers to take their classes away on such trips? Regardless of the outcome of the bill, however enthusiastic I am about it, there is a need to address the fact that we expect a huge amount from teachers, over and above what is currently in their contracts.

I want to follow up on the line of questioning from Miles Briggs around teachers. Minister, I presume that the trade union to which you referred is the NASUWT. In its evidence to the committee, the NASUWT was clear that it felt that if the bill was passed and outdoor education provision was moved on to a statutory footing, that would require the renegotiation of teachers’ terms and conditions at the SNCT.

What is the Government’s position on that? Do you agree with the union that passage of the bill would require the issue of terms and conditions to be raised at the SNCT, with a view to potential renegotiation?

I agree with that: there is obviously a tension, because we are trying to reset relationships and give local government more flexibility. You can understand the scepticism when the Scottish Government raises such issues, given the many other areas of spending in which the Government prescribes to local government. Councils do not have a choice about the 1,140 hours of early years and childcare, for example: Parliament agreed to that. There is an on-going debate about how the £145 million for teachers is spent, with the spectre of a clawback of that money.

Will you elaborate on why the proposals in the bill are potentially overreach, in terms of national Government directing local government, while all the other areas that I have mentioned, even just within the education, children and young people portfolio, are not?

Sticking with national insurance contributions, and accepting that the primary goal was to raise revenue, if the UK Government had taken a different approach, would it have had the same kind of consequences? For example, it could have lifted the 2 per cent cap on earnings above £50,000, albeit that that would have raised perhaps not quite half of what the employer national insurance contribution increase does. The primary impact will be on sectors with large numbers of people on lower incomes of far less than £50,000.