Seòmar agus comataidhean

We can have a debate about how successful the process has been. One of the things that we were attempting to do through our pay policy was to really push multiyear pay settlements, and we have been quite successful in that respect, as we have significantly moved away from single-year pay deals. For example, ScotRail’s pay deal is 6.6 per cent over two years, and I am not sure that we would have got there if we had not set the expectation that, if you want more than 3 per cent, it will have to be a multiyear settlement. In that respect, we have managed to really push multiyear pay deals.

NHS pay under the agenda for change should, in my view, be seen as a ceiling, not a floor. In previous years, that has meant that nobody has had a bigger increase in pay than nurses. We have on-going dialogue with local government on expectations to ensure that we reach settlements that are fair but affordable. There are discussions with local government about a multiyear deal, which is helpful, because, if we can get to a position in which there is an outbreak of peace for a couple of years for everybody—including those on the union side—who is consumed with the enormous task of annual pay negotiations, we can buy a bit of time to be spent on other areas, such as reform and terms and conditions, which unions and particular workforces are keen to focus on. We could use those two years to make progress in those areas.

I will certainly look at that programme in more detail. I am always keen to look at new ideas and initiatives. If something is working elsewhere, I would be keen to look at it, so I will follow that up.

That decision sits with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, and it will then have to go to the Parliamentary Bureau. I cannot give a specific date until that is agreed, but it will be important to set that out in detail, with a clear link to elements of the MTFS and to the sustainability plan, of which reform will be a key pillar.

—but I would expect line managers to enact the proper disciplinary procedures, as they are set out, if someone was viewing material that they should not be viewing during work time or on work devices. That would be the case in any workplace.

On productivity, I do not hold the assumption that you can be productive only if you are in the office. Staff can be productive wherever they work, as long as they are managed in an appropriate way and are meeting the goals that are set by their line managers. We have to be careful not to see some of the progress that has been made in relation to more flexible working patterns, particularly for those who have caring responsibilities, as a negative—I do not see it as a negative. However, elements such as being part of a team and getting to know colleagues are important, too. There needs to be a balance, with people being in the office at an appropriate level to be able to do those things while making sure that productivity levels are upheld. The permanent secretary is seeking to achieve that balance through the guidance that was sent out to staff a couple of weeks ago. He will expect staff to adhere to that position, which I think strikes the right balance.

No, I am not saying any of those things. I am just setting out the reasons why there is sometimes a delicate balance of policy and spend for the number of police officers or teachers. The delivery sits in a different place to the spend, and it is about making sure that there is still policy coherence if we make changes to the delivery. The point that the convener made earlier was that there are some areas of spend that are quite stable and remain the same. There may be a distinction to be made between those areas and some of the more fluctuating policy and delivery areas, where keeping the spend the same would be trickier. I am not against looking at that, and I do not want you to get the impression that I am. I am just setting out that there are sometimes good reasons why those in-year transfers happen in the way that they do. However, I am very happy to look at that.

First, I think that a lot of good work was carried out through the 2015 commission. Although the commission did not recommend any specific form of taxation to replace the council tax, it unpacked a lot of issues. The commission expressed a predominant view that local tax should continue to include some sort of domestic property tax, with a new system that was more progressive than the council tax.

The issue then is probably still the issue now—it is about getting consensus. That is why I have been pretty up front and honest in saying that I do not think that we will be able to move forward unless we can build enough consensus, not just in relation to identifying the problem but about what to do next. Everybody will agree that 1991 property values are out of date and that something needs to be done about that and everybody will agree that the current council tax system is not as progressive as it should be and that it needs to be improved, but the difficulty will be to agree on what should come next to make improvements.

I am quite optimistic that we can genuinely build some consensus around the principles that we agree on. There will be a lot that we disagree on, but there are areas that we can agree on where we could begin to make some changes. It might not be about having a massive big-bang replacement for the council tax, but I hope that we can find areas of agreement so that we can take incremental steps to address some of the issues, such as progressivity. It remains to be seen where we get but in essence, that is what Katie Hagmann and I are keen to do.

That is a fair challenge. My party has looked at various options for replacing council tax. For a time, we were focused on looking at whether there could be a local income tax alternative, but the problem was that that would not have raised enough money. Essentially, as the commission noted in 2015, we concluded that there needs to be a property element to local taxation.

We now have a Parliament of minorities, so the only way to move forward is to try to build consensus. However, with something as fundamental as council tax reform, even if we did not have to build consensus, I think that doing so would be the right thing to do. At the end of the day, we do not want to be seen to have developed something behind closed doors and to say, “Here it is—take it or leave it.” Even if we were able to do that, I do not think that that would land in the right way. The reform must stand the test of time, so we need to make sensible incremental changes that create a fairer system. That system might not be perfect, but people should feel that it is much better than the one that we have at the moment. I am keen to continue those discussions.

That is a very fair question. The joint working group is working through the detail of what we will ask and how we will consult. The important point is that the process will not be optimal if we just send something out and see who responds to it. We could use networks of support. Local authorities have a lot of such networks, which will be in contact with the very people you are talking about—those who might be struggling with council tax arrears and debt. Through third-party organisations, there might be ways to elicit views that might not otherwise be given. We will take that point away and think about it further.

That is a really important question, and it is why talking to and engaging with the public at an early stage of the process is important. The last thing that we want is to end up with something that is viewed as doing something to the public, with us saying, “We have done this thing behind closed doors, and there it is—take it or leave it”. That is not what we want to do at all.

We want to have dialogue and, as Katie Hagmann said earlier, we want to have as long a reach as possible, so that it is not just about those self-selecting folk who regularly respond to consultations such as this. We want to have a greater reach than that and to spark genuine conversations.

There is a balance to be struck, because we do not want to go out and say, “Council tax: discuss.” We will have to frame the discussion around the type of things that are possible. We do not want to lead people up the garden path and into thinking that this will make changes that it cannot. We have to be clear and honest about the parameters, but we need to look for feedback and take that on board. That has to be the way that this lands. It is not about doing to people; it is about genuinely trying to make a system fairer and being really clear and up front about that.

Measures that could help to address policy areas that are very difficult for local government, such as the loss of homes in some areas of remote and rural Scotland to the holiday sector, have been prioritised. In some areas of remote and rural Scotland, nearly all of the homes are now second or holiday homes. The motivation behind the measures was to empower local government to do something about that; they are tools that local government can use. They can also raise revenue, which has been important. That dual policy objective has been quite successful, and there has been a large degree of consensus around it.

Any changes to some of the elements within council tax—for example, changes to the reduction scheme—need to be seen in the context of what we are doing more widely with council tax. We should look at reductions, but we need to maintain consensus. For example, I would be concerned about the removal of anyone’s discounts, because that would get us off on an entirely wrong and negative premise when consulting with the public. You do not want to consult on taking something away from somebody—that gets us in the wrong place straight away.

I am not saying that there is not a debate to be had on reductions, but, if we are to take people with us on that journey, we need to centre the policy in the right place.