Chamber and committees

Yes. The national care service is a good example. I would maybe not share Unison’s view on that, but it is a tangible example. However, there is a lot of other stuff in the submission that ticks the boxes that Stephen Smellie outlined as priorities, such as free school meals. I presume that Unison has a main focus on increasing funding for further and higher education not just in the interest of equity for students, but because there are substantial numbers of low-paid workers in those sectors.

How can we prioritise between different areas of spending that would all raise the wages of low-paid workers, lift children out of poverty and so on? We cannot do all the things at once. That is the issue that we have. Should free school meals, public sector pay, more funding for colleges or more funding for universities be prioritised? I realise that, in principle, in a utopian world, it should not be a matter of choosing between those things, but it will certainly be a matter of choices in the next few years. We will have to make the choices, but I am keen to know what the trade union movement’s priorities would be.

At its core, it is the same question about prioritisation. Some of the tax proposals in Unison’s submission would require primary legislation, as they involve new tax powers. Given that the legislative timetable for the next couple of years is pretty tight, which of the brand-new proposals—the local inheritance tax or the replacement of council tax—would you prioritise for parliamentary and Government time?

Thank you. I would be happy to come back in later, convener.

Yes, we can put that away until later—that is fine.

Thanks.

I have one very brief follow-up question for David Lonsdale. David, you made an interesting remark about your opposition to income tax rises for those of modest income. Can I push you a little bit and ask you to define “modest income”? Are we talking about the cleaners on 18 grand whom Stephen Smellie mentioned, somebody on an average salary in the mid-20s or folk on 40 grand who, with fiscal drag, are heading towards being hit with the high income tax rate?

I want to jump back to something that Clare Reid said a couple of moments ago. She listed areas, particularly in enterprise and skills, where public spending will be reduced over the next couple of years. I do not think that anybody will pretend that that is a good thing, but the SCDI is also against any new business taxes and opposed not only to increasing income tax but to having fiscal drag through keeping income tax rates as they are. If there are areas where you are looking to increase spending and there is new revenue, the conclusion must be that there are areas of public spending elsewhere that you would deprioritise. Could you expand on that a little bit? Otherwise, I am not sure how to resolve your tax position and the spending priorities that you have outlined.

That was very efficient.

I have a final brief question. Hugh Hall said that there had been a number of lessons-learned reports, the latest of which is still due a response from the Scottish Government. Are there particular points that you would like to see in that response? For example, would you like to see proposals for reforming the NJNC or for wider change in the sector?

It is harder to disentangle that issue, but the same debate keeps coming up about whether it is an appropriate model of governance.

Before I ask a couple of general questions about wider industrial relations issues, I want to ask specifically about local dispute resolution processes. A couple of years ago, there was a national joint negotiating committee agreement for each institution to agree a local dispute resolution procedure. At this point, I think that most, but not all, colleges have one. Before we go any further, therefore, I just want to ensure that my questions are being properly directed. Can each of you confirm whether your college has an agreed local dispute resolution process with your union?

Is there anything—