Seòmar agus comataidhean

We agree that there needs to be an alternative. We need to think about what that looks like in the longer term, but are there also steps that should be taken in the shorter term? In the longer term, what should we be using as the basis for taxation? Should there be some sort of generalised sales tax? Should rent be taxed directly? Should it be landlords who are taxed rather than tenants? I know that your response to that question will be no, but I thought that I would put it out there nonetheless.

Finally, is there something that we can do in the short term to address the issues around online retailers? For instance, could we create a new category of retail or warehouse premises that would enable us to use the existing, albeit imperfect, regime to tax the massive increase in sales that the non-store retailers have experienced over the past 18 months?

I will resist the temptation to have a rant about the revaluation process—I will leave that for another day.

Finally, I ask Joanne Walker whether she has any thoughts or observations on the need for reform of non-domestic rates or any views about what should replace them.

I will take a step back. Covid has been, to use an overused word, unprecedented. We have seen all sorts of situations that we have never seen before. We have also seen a creative use of resource, and indeed policy. For example, we saw the eradication of rough sleeping through the direct action of using hotel rooms. I spoke to the chief executive of a charity that works in that field, and their key observation was that direct action had taken place that was not hidebound by rules and regulations and which considered individual need. We have seen positive outcomes in many cases because of that approach.

Building on such a lesson, how do we need to do policy differently? Can we learn other lessons from what has happened over the past 18 months now that we are, hopefully, on the other side of the pandemic?

I intend to focus mainly on high streets and the comments that have been made about retail but, before I do so, I will get my declaration of interests out of the way. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a director of a company with retail interests and a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Before I ask about high streets and retail, I want to pitch in a different way a question that I asked the previous panel. Last week, the committee looked at the impact of taxation decisions that had been taken in Scotland. An additional £500 million should have been provided as a result of the changes that were made by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, but we have seen an uplift of only £150 million. The reason for that is the fiscal framework and the way that it works. Fundamentally, income tax receipts per capita have increased more slowly in Scotland than they have in the rest of the UK. What does that say about the way in which we have been applying taxation policy?

That elicits a fundamental question, which I put to the previous panel. Has the Scottish Government focused sufficiently on increasing the number of taxpayers in Scotland by getting people into work and ensuring that, when they are in work, they are sufficiently well paid? That is surely the best way of ensuring that we have money for public services in Scotland.

That question is probably more for Joanne Walker in the first instance, but I would be interested to hear Kevin Robertson’s response, as well.

I will pitch the same question to Laura Mahon, mainly because, when you were talking about tax, Laura, you were considering the wider external benefits of levies in some ways. Are we examining our tax powers sufficiently in the round and sufficiently in relation to the outcomes that they produce?

Does Joanne Walker have anything to add?

I want to return to some of the points that were made at the beginning of this session. The discussion regarding preventative spend was of particular importance, especially given the real challenges that we have ahead of us. Of course, we are 10 years on from the Christie commission. Although such measures are difficult to implement from year to year, will the panel reflect on whether we have done enough to embed Christie in the way that we devise policy and structure the budget? I think that the key word is “cross-portfolio”, which has been mentioned. Do we devise and implement policy in a sufficiently cross-portfolio way? Should the budget, rather than being structured around silos, be structured around outcomes? I will go to John Dickie first, as he got the grilling on preventative spend at the beginning of the session—at least, I think that it was a grilling, convener.

Does either of the other witnesses want to comment? It might be your last opportunity.

Moving on, but related to the previous question, there have been a number of suggestions, both at this morning’s meeting and in written submissions, that we need to have a look at the fiscal framework. Thinking about Christie, I wonder whether, as well as looking at the fiscal framework, we need to consider how we can use and benefit from it.

The fundamental outcome of the fiscal framework is that, if there are increases in tax revenues, we have that money to spend here, in Scotland. I am at risk of making a gross oversimplification, but one way of thinking about it is that the best way of tackling poverty and inequality is to ensure that more people are in well-paid employment. Are we sufficiently focused on ensuring that policies remove barriers to employment and that such employment is sufficiently well paid? Let us use the living wage as the minimum benchmark.

Does anyone fancy having a go at answering that question? Polly Tolley is smiling most broadly, so we will go to her.

Does Joanne Walker have any observations about the way in which taxation operates in Scotland?