Seòmar agus comataidhean

I could not agree more. I have worked in the third sector and the private sector; when I was in the private sector, there was a staff suggestion scheme—and it had almost no impact. It asked things like, “How can the company save money and do things better and better?” I suggested that the company should incentivise people so that they got a share of the savings. The company then introduced a scheme where employees could get up to 10 per cent of what they saved by doing things more efficiently; it was then absolutely inundated by suggestions, because there was a reward for the people making them. Obviously, they were not all implemented, but that incentive stuck with me.

Only two other folk have said that they want to comment on tax—David Lonsdale, again, and Clare Reid—but if anyone else wants to speak about tax, please do.

Incidentally, David, I found it curious that in your submission you said that you want to reduce

“the number of local authorities, rates assessors, quangos, and planning authorities.”

I do not want to go into all of that, but I found it bizarre that you want to reduce the number of rates assessors because there is already a chronic shortage of them. How does not having people to assess properties help?

Your submission says:

“savings might accrue from reducing the number of local authorities, rates assessors, quangos, and planning authorities.”

Are you not worried that some local authorities, such as Argyll and Bute, Highland or Edinburgh, would benefit disproportionately from such a tax, as opposed to authorities such as North Lanarkshire or Clackmannanshire?

I was planning a holiday in Coatbridge.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Nobody has indicated that they want to come in, so I turn to Stephen Smellie. In contrast to that, Unison Scotland states in its submission:

“An IPPR Scotland report last year indicated that reducing the threshold for higher income tax to £40k (from the current £43k) would raise £690m.”

In fact, Unison has made a number of suggestions about how tax should be raised. What is your view on how we move forward from the point that we are at following Friday’s statement?

I am sorry, but so many people now want to speak and I am trying to get in as many folk as possible. My next question is for Aaron Hill. The SFHA written submission states:

“we believe that funding for affordable housing should be prioritised alongside health and social care and social security spending in the coming budget.”

I think that there is a lot of sympathy for that. The submission goes on to say:

“Investing in high quality, affordable housing should be understood as preventative spending which saves money in health and social care, social security and other systems”.

It also calls for

“increased investment in advice services”,

which no doubt was music to Polly Tolley’s ears. However, how do we do that? How much additional investment are we talking about? Are we increasing investment by 1 per cent, 5 per cent or 10 per cent? What do we deprioritise to be able to afford that, given the financial straitjacket that the Scottish Parliament faces?