Chamber and committees

Good afternoon. I will start with a question about the public health levy. In 2024, the Scottish Government did some engagement exercises and consultation with stakeholders with a view to considering whether such a levy could be added to the non-domestic rates scheme. That was before the UK Government’s decision on employers’ national insurance contributions, which I presume has played a role in the Scottish Government’s decision not to go ahead with the levy this year. Will you clarify whether the Scottish Government believes that there is a potential role for a public health levy as part of the non-domestic rates system in future years?

I have previously raised with you the issue of the small business bonus scheme. At present, shooting estates benefit from small business bonus scheme tax breaks. In the grand scheme of a £0.25 billion tax break programme, only something between £3 million and £5 million goes to shooting estates, but my view is certainly that they are not the intended recipients. We have discussed disaggregating the data and, in essence, separating shooting estates from crofts. Is the Scottish Government still intent on finding a solution to that? Does it believe that shooting estates should be excluded from the small business bonus scheme if the issue with the data disaggregation can be resolved?

Thanks. That is useful.

There is one point of clarification that I would find useful, given something that the First Minister said last week in the context of an exchange about income tax. He was quite firm in saying that there will be no further tax changes this side of the election. Was he specifically referring to income tax or was that a wider statement about all devolved taxes? If potential tweaks to council tax are identified that have cross-party agreement—potentially to go further on second and empty homes—is the Government’s position that they will not take place this side of the election either, or was he just referring to income tax?

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.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

I take the point that the corporate body is not the employer of MSP staff, but, at the same time, clearly MSPs cannot pay them any more than is within our staff cost provision. I also acknowledge Jackson Carlaw’s point that not all MSPs fully utilise that provision as it is.

However, the core of the objection from the MSP staff unions—the three that wrote to the corporate body—is that the move to using AWE represents a cut. Further, AWE is not directly linked to the cost of living. It relates to the earnings of other workers outside the Parliament rather than directly to the cost of rent, food, energy bills and so on for the staff who work here. Did you take that into consideration when you looked at the basket of measures? I accept that, in any individual year, any individual measure can be deeply flawed, but that was perhaps an advantage of using the basket approach. Did you take into account the fact that AWE does not directly reflect the cost of living? It does so indirectly, but not in the same way as a direct inflation measure such as CPI.

That would be useful.

Finally, alongside the draft budget, the Government published a memorandum on borrowing policy that includes a section on the first phase of due diligence around the issuing of Scottish Government bonds. A list of conclusions is included, rather than any detail on what that first phase threw up. Is there any more detailed documentation on that in the public domain? If there is, I was unable to find it. If not, could the details of that first phase of due diligence be published? What is in the borrowing memorandum document is very high level.

Were the Scottish Government to move ahead with issuing bonds, it would be a significant step and one that would require significant parliamentary scrutiny. At the moment, there is not enough on the public record to allow effective scrutiny to begin. I recognise that it is only the first phase of due diligence, but I do not think that what is there is sufficient for transparency.