Seòmar agus comataidhean

That work has been kicked off to ensure that the strategies that are the key reference points are clear and that, where strategies are perhaps more historical and have been overtaken by events, that is made clear through the work that is going on. I think that we were going to return with the outcome of that by the end of June. That is the deadline—the work will be brought back to the committee before the end of this session.

We do not need 100 per cent agreement on council tax reform and we do not have to run off into the sunset holding hands. I am realistic enough to sense that that is unlikely. However, we might be able to agree on elements of reform. If we could build enough consensus around those elements, that would enable us, following the election, to get on with work in those areas where we agree.

Previous attempts at reform have fallen at the hurdles because of a lack of consensus about what the overall replacement for council tax should be. Rather than trying to get everyone to agree on the optimum change, we should be realistic and try instead to get agreement on pillars of change that could lead to improvements.

On your first point, the figure that you used relates to directly employed public sector staff. The point that we have been making—I am sure that it will be made this afternoon—is that there is another cost that is worth £200 million or thereabouts, which affects organisations that are intrinsically part of the public sector fabric. General practice surgeries, social care commissioned services and so on, which work as part of the system, will inevitably also have costs and difficulties.

My worry is that the cost will inevitably end up at the public sector’s door one way or another. Whether it is through negotiation of general practitioner contracts or social care contracts, such as for national care homes or local commissioned services, there will be a price to be paid for those additional costs. We must acknowledge that that will have to be worked through.

The figure that the Treasury talked about in its most recent communication is, essentially, not far off the figure that it indicated to us previously—just over £300 million. We have tried to give certainty to the public sector. I did that for local government previously: we will provide 60 per cent coverage, and the cost of doing that is £321 million. The figure that we have received from the Treasury is just above that amount, so it is more or less in line with the assumptions that we made.

We will not give up on that issue with the Treasury. There will be a finance interministerial standing committee—FISC—meeting at the end of next week at which it will be a major agenda item. The Northern Irish and Welsh Governments have similar issues—we are all in slightly different positions, depending on the sizes of our public sectors, but we all have a gap in respect of costs in this area. We will address that issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury next week.

A range of options was available to the chancellor—she chose not to take any of those but chose instead to hike employer national insurance contributions. The problem needs to be owned rather than deflected on to others—as you seek to do, Michael.

I am sure that you will contribute.

I point to the fact that the Scottish Land Commission is charged with looking at the potential for land taxes. It has the expertise to help us to understand the complexity of land taxation, and what could be done and what would need to be done with regard to the availability of data and so on. It may be later than 2015, but progress is being made on that.

It is incredibly difficult to build political consensus on these issues. Everybody agrees that something needs to be done—that there are people who are paying too much in terms of their council tax bands and people who are paying too little. It is a system that just does not produce enough funding for local government, and it is far from ideal, as everybody says, but the question is what we do about it. The issue then becomes difficult and very politicised.

It is better to do something than to do nothing, even if that is starting at the quite low level of making some reforms to a system that may not be perfect in any way. However, the idea that we will be able to completely change the system of council tax any time soon, when we do not have a majority for that, could prevent us from making tangible improvements.

Some improvements have already been made, such as empowering local authorities to incentivise and disincentivise second homes and helping them to manage that. In that spirit, are there other areas on which we could reach agreement to hit the ground running from 2026 and to help make some significant improvements to a system that we all agree is far from perfect but could be made better than it is? That is the exam question, and the answer will become clear only once that engagement is under way.

To be blunt and honest, that is probably because there would be winners and losers in that situation. Any change will have to take account of the fact that we cannot have a cliff edge for people. If we did, we would not get off first base. If we are going to try to do something that will have a cliff edge, it will become politicised and there will be leaflets going through folk’s doors about how their council tax will increase. We have all been there. Let us just get that on the table—no one will want to do that.

Progress could perhaps be made around points of sale, for example. That would be a slower rate of progress, but it would be better to have some progress than to have no progress. If we keep debating a cliff-edge revaluation, we—or somebody else—will probably be sitting in this committee in 10 years’ time, having the same discussion.

Let us wind back and ask, “What progress could we make that is really hard to disagree with?” That might be the lowest common denominator, but I would quite like to get on with something rather than wait for a consensus that is not going to appear.

Potentially, yes. I am not going to prejudge, but I am genuinely keen to scope out where we can agree. If we could make progress on those areas of agreement in the next session of Parliament, that would be good for local taxation and for the funding of local government. Suggesting that we do nothing is not a responsible position for any party, so we should be open to seeing what we can agree on.

We will get those discussions under way as soon as we can. Once stage 3 of the budget is out of the way, I will turn my sights to getting some dates in the diary.

Before I bring in the civil servants, I will say that we are talking about two different things here. One issue is about options around how the policy is delivered. Social Security Scotland is looking at different options around that, in collaboration with the DWP in relation to data. Various options are being explored around whether it is a top-up to benefit, for example.

We are talking about two different things: the first is how we arrived at the policy decision; the second is how Social Security Scotland is implementing it, and there are options there. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has said that she will come back to Parliament when that work is brought to a conclusion and set out what they are, but that work is not concluded yet.