The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 4079 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
Yes, but have you looked at what the impact on behaviour would be of increasing those taxes? Obviously, if someone faces a significantly higher tax burden in Scotland than they would face elsewhere, they might decide to operate their business from somewhere else and we would then not get their income tax. That is what I was asking about. There have been studies on behavioural impacts, and I just wonder what level of taxation you think is the optimum in that regard.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
Linda Somerville, the STUC has said that it believes in progressively increasing the overall tax take of Government and local government. How far do you wish to advance that? Have you looked at what the behavioural impact would be? For example, about 30 per cent of income tax is paid by about 1 per cent of taxpayers, so what would be the behavioural impact if our higher tax levels were significantly higher than those south of the border or elsewhere, given that capital is often mobile?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
Thank you for that.
Gail Macgregor mentioned the fiscal framework. In paragraph 28 of your submission, you say:
“The devolution of tax powers to the Scottish Parliament has introduced a higher level of risk and uncertainty around the assumptions required to deliver a Budget ... Fundamentally the relative difference in earnings growth and the composition of taxpayers in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK, which is a key feature of the current block grant adjustment mechanism, suggests an inherent unfairness in Scotland’s disfavour.”
How would you rebalance that? We will be deliberating on that issue over the weeks and months ahead.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
We are indeed.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
In your submission, you said:
“The RSE believes that a spending priority will be to support the economy through investing in early-stage companies (spinouts and start-ups), which are crucial to job creation”.
I agree. What mechanism could be used through the budget settlement to enable that to happen?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
Susan, I asked you the first question, and you will get the last word. Obviously, the consequentials will be rolled out over a number of years. What is your view of how the proposal will impact on Scotland’s budget and economy?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
Ray, is there anyone who knows how all those different things fit together?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
Indeed. As I recall, productivity is a balance of skills, attitude, aptitude and capital applied. It is a question of getting that balance right, is it not?
I thank our witnesses. In particular, I thank you for coming to give evidence in person, which makes a significant difference to the quality of the session. That is very much appreciated. We hope to see you all again before too long.
We will have a two-minute break, after which we will consider a letter from the cabinet secretary.
Meeting closed at 12:55.Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
What about CIPFA, Alan?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2021
Kenneth Gibson
On the 100-day commitments, you said in your submission that, in its manifesto, the SNP has “tended to favour universalism”. You went on to criticise that and to talk about the need for more specific targeting. However, there has always been an argument about whether to use targeting or universalism. The UK Government brought in universal credit and the NHS is a universal service, as are pensions and concessionary fares. The argument against having a national care service is to do with bureaucracy, but having a more targeted approach can also increase bureaucracy, because people have to administer that. I remember that, when I was a councillor, a huge resource was spent on administering grants.
There is bureaucracy and stigma, but there is also buy-in. With universal services, there is an opportunity for people who pay taxes to gain from the contribution that they make to those services. Where should the balance be between targeting and universalism? It is a difficult balance to strike, but where does COSLA believe that it should lie?