Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a fair challenge. Part of the concern, perhaps, was about what would come out of the end of that—whether it would give us anything new without some political consensus having been built in advance.

The public element of consultation can take many forms. As long as it is there, and as long as it is local and led by local government, I am not sure that it necessarily requires to be in a particular format, whether that is a citizens assembly or anything else. It is a matter of ensuring that it is done in a way that gives us the same level of engagement with the public.

Why was that not done more quickly? It was probably because there was a bit of scepticism about whether anything arising from the event would change things and move us forward. I have therefore taken the position that we now need to get things in the right order to build political consensus and land changes in an environment that means that they will actually happen, rather than our debating the future of the council tax and replacing it with something that no one will agree on, which would be my worry.

That is my honest reflection on why we have probably not made the progress that we would have liked to make since 2021.

I want to avoid that. You make a fair challenge. If we were to go out and say, “Council tax: discuss,” that is exactly where we would probably end up.

The joint working group and COSLA leaders have still to narrow down the content of the engagement activity before going out to the public. It would be interesting to hear views from the committee on this. How, specifically, do we make the system more progressive? What do people think about additional bands? What do people think about transitional arrangements? We could begin to get into questions of what the system might be, rather than just saying, “Council tax: discuss.” That does not mean that the process is so narrow that it becomes one of saying, “This is your choice. Take it or leave it.” There is a balance to be struck. People need to get the sense that something could emerge at the end that will help with manifesto setting and a landing space that could be progressed in the next session of Parliament, from which people would see a tangible outcome.

I share your worry about where we could end up if the process is too broad. We do not want that, and I think that the public expects to know where the political consensus might be. Without that, legislation will go nowhere. There has to be a reality check, which should inform our thinking about what goes out to the public.

Katie Hagmann may want to add more.

Realistically speaking, I think that any actual practical changes would be made in the next session of Parliament, but we could lay the groundwork in this session for a willingness to create some consensus on which to move forward. Without that, we could have yet another parliamentary session with property values another five years out of date, no change to the bands and no movement on the issue.

I am keen to explore the art of the possible here. I think that you are right: everybody accepts that there is a problem and that changes are required. However, there are ways of giving such changes a very soft landing that would bring the public with us. Therefore, this is not just about building political consensus in order to do something to the public; that is why the consultation and the public events that we are holding are very much about engaging the public themselves on the options, on what would be acceptable, on what could make the system fairer and on how we ensure that any change lands in a way that deals with some of the obvious problems that might arise.

It would be quite an achievement to create a better landing space for any actual proposals, which could then go forward into the next parliamentary session. It will require a lot of detailed work, including technical work, and it will then require legislation, which, by its nature, will require consensus to some degree.

We would have to look at that as part of the modelling, to ensure that we were cognisant of that. Katie Hagmann referred to some of the very small local authorities and the relative value of council tax as part of their financial base. That brings us into other spaces, such as reform, and I am aware of really good discussions between Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling councils about shared services and how we can work more closely together. We recognise that that is just one part of the jigsaw; there are plenty of other things that we need to look at, and that work needs to be led by local authorities. For example, we recognise the on-going demand for services, which will continue to increase, not least in areas such as social care, so how do we manage that in the future? What we are discussing today is just one part of that picture.

As always, Ellen.

Inevitably there will be lessons, and we will seek to draw on what has worked well in terms of communication and where communication could have been better. The main point is that, given the complexity of the system, we need to be clear from the outset what it is that we are trying to achieve and what the options are to meet that objective. We can certainly draw not just on what the Scottish Government has done but on what has worked elsewhere in this area, such as the work that has been done in Wales, as I mentioned earlier, and the work in other jurisdictions.

At the end of the day, we need to get it right for Scotland, and it is our responsibility to land any reform in the right place so that it has the best chance of producing something that is useful for us all.

That is one of the issues at the heart of this discussion, and we have to address people’s concerns in that regard. That is where strong transitional arrangements are important, and those could be available to everybody. For example, there could be no cliff edges for anyone. There are lots of ways that you could do revaluation. It could be implemented over a number of years, so that changes were incremental, and there could be referral schemes.

There could also be recognition of the fact that some people are asset rich but income poor. The reduction scheme already recognises that, to some degree, through the single person discount. Although that is not income related, it is a recognition of the central premise that we are trying to manage all the household costs. There are options.

We recognise that that is an issue, and whatever changes are made will have transitional support and relief at their heart, which might help to reduce people’s concerns. That will also be important in building a consensus as well as public buy-in.

The Welsh Government is adding additional bands in its next iteration. Adding additional bands would help with the progressivity, which is a bit different from the multiplier, which was quite a different proposition. That was about the relative payment of existing bands because of the fact that those in lower bands pay a higher proportion of their income towards council tax. That was the premise. I will leave aside the fact that, as we have said, because that got significant pushback, it is history.

Creating more bands in the council tax system is inherently progressive, because it is then more directly related to the value of properties, and there are not cut-off points like the current system has, so the bands would be smoother. I would hope, as part of the discussion about how to create political consensus—it is a pretty modest change, to be honest—that we could agree that creating more bands in the system would help to make the system more progressive. It would be part of a wider set of reforms.

That principle absolutely holds, and that principle was set out in numerous iterations of how we see tax. It should be based on an ability to pay.

The property element of council tax is important, and the commission in 2015 made a recommendation in that regard, but there are subtleties. For example, a property does not always tell the full story of the income of the people who live there, but there is a correlation. Council tax reduction schemes such as the single-person discount are in place to recognise some of those issues.

I am clear that, if we are to land in a positive space, we will have to provide substantial transition schemes. The technical work will also be important. Analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that a revaluation would result in 60 per cent of households staying with the same bill, 20 per cent of households being better off and 20 per cent of households being the losers. My strong view is that, if we are to build consensus—not just politically, in the Parliament, but with the public—there will have to be strong transitional arrangements that smooth out the position over, potentially, a number of years.

Other jurisdictions around the world have done things to provide a very soft landing. For example, in British Columbia, someone can defer the impact of the changes for 10 years, by which point their property might be sold. I think that there would be political consensus on changes being made at the point of sale. There are 101 ways of ensuring a soft landing, with transitional arrangements in place for people in that category—the figure might not be as high as 20 per cent, which comes from the IFS; it could be significantly lower. I would want to be up front in providing maximum reassurance that there would be no cliff edges for people in that situation. That would require us to work with local government to establish the cost of such arrangements, which would need to be recognised.

I am trying to anticipate where the tricky, sticky bits will be, because, if we do not resolve them, we will not be able to move forward. We need to find a way of providing reassurance not only that we are aware of the issue but that we would actively create substantial transitional arrangements.

My worry is that we could spend an eternity talking about a full replacement to the council tax and, because that would create more areas of difference, we would end up debating backwards and forwards—as we have done over a number of years. I have run out of patience for that, to be honest. I am a pragmatist by nature. Rather than make no progress, why do we not just see whether we can make some progress? Even if it is quite modest, that will be better that than nothing.

In the future, there might be a different landscape and different views, and there might end up being a consensus around a complete replacement of the council tax, which would be great. However, I do not think that that is on offer in the here and now. There is too much scope for division. Instead of debating that, let us look at possible areas of agreement and move forward with those. If we could do something about 1991 property values in a way that is pragmatic and practical and has consensus, that would be better—it would be progress rather than nothing.