Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the convener about the quality of your written submission. It mentions increased revenue-raising powers for local government, which have been a long-running and obvious point of concern for COSLA. The workplace parking levy was introduced through legislation a few years ago. A fortnight ago, the programme for government confirmed that the transient visitor levy will be introduced during the current parliamentary year. The visitor levy has been a particular priority for COSLA.

What comes next? Now that you have succeeded on the visitor levy, which will be passed into law with the power going to local government, what is the next revenue-raising lever that COSLA would like to see being given to local government?

Thank you. Another interesting point in the CIOT’s submission concerns the Government’s review of the additional dwelling supplement. You essentially urge that progress should be made on that. My line of questioning is similar to my previous one. Do you have a view on what would be a desirable outcome? Do you want a lower or higher rate of additional dwelling tax, or something else entirely?

If we look back a couple of weeks, COSLA’s position in the recent local government pay dispute was that the Scottish Government needed to contribute more money to resolve the matter. Eventually, that happened. Two weeks ago, the Deputy First Minister published the budget revision explaining where that money had come from. Was money taken from the right places to settle the pay dispute?

I am sure that many MSPs would empathise with that, in light of their experience of trying to attract staff to work in this building.

I have a final question on which I would like to hear everyone’s views. There has been a lot of discussion, which is playing out on Twitter and in newspaper columns today, about what more action the Scottish Government could take right now to help people through the cost of living crisis. There seems to be a tension, or perhaps a misunderstanding, around what can be done in future financial years, particularly around tax. Today, another newspaper column says that the Scottish Government should immediately increase income tax on higher earners to pay for something such as free school meals.

Obviously, the Scotland Act says that we cannot do that. If that decision were to be made, it could only apply from 1 April onwards. Is the discussion that is taking place around in-year revisions to the Scottish budget sufficiently well informed? Is a substantive debate taking place in our public sphere, or are people still coming at the issue with completely different levels of understanding of what the current fiscal arrangements allow and what they do not allow?

Please do.

No, not at all. Stephen Boyle wants to come in.

I will look that up.

I will move on to a different area, on which I may sound more confrontational than I mean to. I accept that the position varies significantly from authority to authority, but the 32 councils across Scotland collectively have far more money in their reserves than the Scottish Government is legally allowed to keep in reserve at any time, never mind what it has at the moment.

Councils are facing acute costs at the moment. Paul Manning mentioned the energy costs for council facilities in the coming months. If a council has reserves, can it use them to meet its increased energy costs? I accept that that is a short-term solution and not a long-term one, but I am interested to know how councils are planning to use their reserves, where they have them.

I will stick with tax and go back to John Mason’s line of questioning on council tax. As he said, Charlotte Barbour’s submission mentions the process that is in the Bute house agreement between my party and the Government on reform of council tax. The objective of that process is to replace council tax, but the committee is looking at the coming financial year, and we will not replace council tax in time for 2023-24.

Interim changes could be made to the current system—for example, the factor for calculating the rates could be changed, or reliefs could be altered or removed entirely or new reliefs brought in. Does the institute have any views on what changes could be made to council tax as it currently exists?

Susan Murray, your submission mentions housing as a key priority, and it specifically mentions targeted action on second homes. Does the additional dwelling supplement factor into that? Does the David Hume Institute think that more can be done there?