Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear the point that the cabinet secretary is making, but it is important to say that, if points of principle are not set out and the Government does not clearly set out its intentions—bearing in mind that it has taken nearly two decades for the Scottish Government to get to a point at which it is conducting another consultation on council tax—we could end up in a situation in which a consultation is had but members in the next session of Parliament do not agree and the conversation stops again. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is a risk of that, given—

I am sorry, but I had—

Finally, you have used the term “significant increase”? Could you give us an indication of what “significant” means in that context? “Significant” could mean different things to different people, so it would be helpful to get clarity on that.

Finally, on statutory services, there is a growing concern that funding for areas that are not directly protected in one way or another will go back to statutory services in local authority areas. You have seen that. You have seen tensions between communities and local government councillors who are trying to balance the needs of their communities with the budgets that they have been given. You will of course be aware that roughly 80 to 85 per cent of funding is given to councils directly by the Scottish Government as opposed to being what they can generate from council tax increases. Are you concerned about that? Do you understand that it could generate an increase in complaints to councils in future years if local government is not given a fair funding settlement?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. I am very interested to hear the witnesses’ views on the ability of local authorities to increase council tax next year as they see fit. Certainly, in the 2025-26 budget for local government, we saw some stark increases; one example is Falkirk Council, which increased its council tax by 15.6 per cent. I am interested to hear views on council tax increases but also on the impact that such increases will have on hard-working taxpayers—both individuals and families. What could be the consequences of increasing council tax, and what impact could that have on individuals in the community?

I have been listening with interest to the answers that have been given thus far, but I do not believe that it is fair to ask council tax payers to plug gaps in local authority budgets, especially at a time when the level of public services is decreasing. Council tax payers are experiencing a lot of cuts in their communities, which is causing a lot of unrest. I will come on to a question about that in a second.

We have also heard a lot about the discussions between COSLA and the Scottish Government. I am pleased to hear that those discussions are progressing. However, councils will have to grapple with two issues over the next few months as they prepare their budgets—how they can meet workers’ pay demands and how they can address the dissatisfaction that exists with council services. At a previous committee meeting, Unison said that the growing dissatisfaction was “dangerous”.

I would be interested to hear the witnesses’ views on the situation in the round, given that there is a reduced level of trust in local government and that the number of complaints about council services has increased by more than 21 per cent in the past year.

That is helpful.

The BS 8414 testing system has been seen as a route to compliance when it comes to cladding. What is the Government’s position on that particular testing model, given that the stark evidence from the Grenfell tower inquiry was that it should not be used as a testing system?

On that point, Homes for Scotland, the Scottish Property Federation and Scottish Land & Estates say that they do not agree with the building safety levy, so how will you, as cabinet secretary, discuss that and engage with people who are concerned about it, to ensure that those concerns are voiced? In the grand scale of what you are trying to achieve to make buildings safe, £30 million per annum seems quite small.

Cabinet secretary, I am going to probe you further on the timings for the bill. The consultation began on 28 November 2023, but I believe that the Scottish Government started talking about the issue in 2021. That is a substantial amount of time. This morning, we are hearing that there is the warmer homes plan and that nothing will be brought forward until the climate action plan has been completed, but you have had all that time to bring something forward. We have five and a bit months of this parliamentary session left. Is there sufficient time for a committee to scrutinise the bill, for amendments to be considered and for the bill to be brought to the chamber for stage 3 proceedings before the Parliament is dissolved for the election?

Okay. We have heard that the warmer homes scheme has been delayed for several reasons. It was introduced in 2024—I have just looked it up. I understand that you are still relatively new in post, but your predecessors had a sufficient amount of time to bring something concrete to the table. I know that there have been issues, given that you were in coalition but now are not, but there is uncertainty for the sector, which I do not think is fair. Is that a fair assessment—that you must ensure that the sector is coming along with you on that journey and that the uncertainty as to whether a bill will be introduced is not very helpful for it?