Scottish Parliament, 9 November 2006

374 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Official Report 9 November 2006

Housing Stock Transfer

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5104, in the name of Colin Fox, on housing stock transfer.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

As a policy to invest in council housing, housing stock transfer is in utter crisis. Further rejection of the policy by tenants in Inverclyde and the Highlands will kill the policy stone dead. Ministers have bullied tenants, employed bribery and threatened catastrophe unless tenants accept the handing over of their homes. They are expected to hand over their homes to faceless men and women on unelected, unaccountable housing boards.

The biggest myth of the whole sorry story of this debacle is the idea that stock transfer is tenant led. The City of Edinburgh Council paid £0.25 million to a public relations company to peddle that myth, but in the end that was a bit of a waste of council tax payers' money.

Let us consider whether stock transfer is really tenant led by examining the board in the Inverclyde stock transfer, on which tenants are voting as we speak. River Clyde Homes sounds a lovely organisation. It is good that the board has five tenants on it, but they make up only a third; the other two thirds of the board are made up of appointed members—who knows who appointed them—who are not tenants. I bet that all those members live in and own light, spacious homes in desirable areas. They are asking tenants to give them their homes on the grounds that they know what is best for council housing and will look after them.

Would any members of the Parliament be happy to hand over their homes to unelected, unaccountable faceless bureaucrats to manage for them? That is what the Executive is asking tenants throughout the country to do. I would not hand over my flat to any of those people, no matter how much money I was offered. In Glasgow, tenants handed over their homes to the Glasgow Housing Association and now the GHA will not give them back. Housing stock transfer is privatisation of publicly owned, publicly financed housing by the back door.

Councils' propaganda is costing a fortune—£0.25 million in Edinburgh and £70,000 in Inverclyde. The situation is both desperate and comic. The leaflet on the transfer in Inverclyde has two columns. One column explains that voting no will mean that rents will be raised by 9 per cent every year for eight years, by the end of which time tenants' rents will be £125 a week. The other column says that voting yes will result in no rent rises for five years; rents will be affordable.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Hear, hear. Good stuff.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Does Duncan McNeil live in a council house?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I take it that the member has invited me to intervene. The answer is no, but I want the very best for people who live in council houses. I want their houses to be improved and I want the money that will improve the lives of my constituents to be obtained.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

In that case, they should not vote for stock transfer, because it does not work.

If tenants vote no, they will get only the minimum standards of maintenance and their rents will be put up, but if they vote yes, they will get new bathrooms, new kitchens and new heating. As a means of investing in and repairing council homes, stock transfer is more expensive than traditional methods, according to the report by the United Kingdom National Audit Office.

We know that £1 billion of debt needs to be written off to improve housing in Scotland. We also know that Gordon Brown has that money lying in a bank account in Westminster. I have a question for ministers. If the chancellor does not hand it over because tenants do not vote in the way in which he wants them to vote, what will he do with that money? Will he spend it on the war or on other things? What will he spend it on? The money is lying in a bank account in Westminster when it should be available to local authorities and tenants.

Why does the Executive want to hand over control of council housing to the banks? The GHA has run up debt, but now it is in hock to the banks at higher rates of interest. The GHA's management costs amount to more than all the money that it spends on repairs and investment. There is an alternative, and it is about time that members—including Duncan McNeil—and the Executive listened. The alternative model for investment in council housing is supported by the trade unions in the sector—Unison and the building trade union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—and by the 275 MPs, many of whom were Labour MPs, who signed an early-day motion at Westminster that argued that we should have investment and borrowing in the public sector.

Such a change in Government policy would write off the debt and allow local authorities to borrow at cheaper rates and to use all the rent money to invest. All that is necessary is a change in Government policy so that instead of borrowing under the public sector borrowing requirement, councils could borrow from a new Government deficit account. The responses to that suggestion have been pig-headed, especially given that tenants group after tenants group reject the Government's model. I wonder how long it will take the Executive to accept that the policy of housing stock transfer is in meltdown. The longer that it takes to accept that that is the case, the higher the price will be for the tenants who are waiting for repairs.

Support for the alternative is building among Unison, UCATT and MPs at Westminster. For four years in a row, the Labour Party conference has voted for the fourth option, which is cheaper and more efficient than stock transfer. If the Government introduced the new deficit model of borrowing, it would be cheaper to borrow to do up houses, at an average cost of £1,300 per house.

Tenants in Tony Blair's Sedgefield constituency have rejected housing stock transfer.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Provided that Jackie Baillie is really quick, because I have only a few seconds left.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will be really quick. Does the member agree that the partial transfers that go on throughout Scotland every day are about community ownership? I deeply regret the fact that in ward areas in which it has representatives, the Scottish Socialist Party says one thing, but says something completely different here in the Parliament. I do not think that that is entirely honest.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Our policy is clear—we are opposed to stock transfer both at local level and across the board. At some point, the Executive will have to accept the views of tenants. It calls itself the listening Government, so it should listen to tenants in Scotland and change its policy now.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Executive to embark on a programme of council house building; believes that the chronic shortage of affordable new homes has led to a huge increase in house prices in Scotland; notes that the average cost of a new home is now £130,000 and thus excludes more than one third of Scots from owning their own homes; demands that the UK Treasury releases the funds already identified to provide the necessary social housing that local circumstances demand; believes that tenants across Scotland have repeatedly rejected housing stock transfer, seeing it as plain and simple privatisation; believes in the fullest democratic control and management of council homes by tenants; welcomes the decision of Midlothian Council to build 1,000 new houses; calls on the tenants of both Highland and Inverclyde councils to follow the example of council tenants in Edinburgh, Stirling and Renfrewshire and reject privatisation of their housing stock; believes that the promises made to Glasgow tenants by Glasgow Housing Association have not been kept, and believes that stock transfer, the Executive's flagship housing policy, is now in tatters.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. We all know about the importance of housing and the challenges that the issue presents. We need to help young people to meet their aspirations to own their homes—such aspirations are especially challenging for first-time buyers in areas of economic prosperity—but it is crucial that we offer people a range of housing options at different times in their lives. We recognise that being able to rent one's home is a legitimate option and that it is important that we provide good housing and sustain high-quality homes in strong communities.

The SSP motion suggests that we have been labouring under a number of illusions. It is clear that we are all in need of re-education. I invite Frances Curran to come with me to explain to local people in Darnley that, far from having their area transformed—from a place that no one wanted to live in and that people wanted to get away from—into a highly desirable area, they have been the victims of Rachman landlords. Perhaps she could tell the tenants of Dormanside in my constituency that, rather than taking control of their housing, they have been duped and conned.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

rose—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Perhaps the member would like to visit housing associations throughout Scotland to explain to them that they are really organisations that pursue profit and only imagine that they are supporting citizens advice bureaux in their work and creating apprenticeships for young people in their areas. Are housing associations deluding themselves in believing that houses are about more than bricks and mortar, which they have demonstrated by supporting local employment and training initiatives? Is it a figment of their imagination that they have been involved in business start-ups in their communities?

I say to the SSP that we know that people in local communities are transforming things. The SSP would have us believe that, far from being agents of change, housing associations are agents of misery and despair. Perhaps SSP members might like to drop in at Robert Owen House to explain that the Co-operative movement, with its democratic accountability and membership strength, is a figment of our collective imagination. They could call in at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the councils for voluntary service and tell social eoncomy organisations throughout Scotland that they are living in a world in which the dollar is king, that we are all capitalists now and that there are no such things as the social economy and social enterprise.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

rose—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Frances Curran might like to come with me to a housing association in Lochaber and explain to a mother there with a severely disabled daughter that it is a figment of her imagination that she and her daughter live in a house that they designed to meet her daughter's needs.

The fact is that if the SSP took that journey with open eyes and an open mind, it would establish something simple: the charge that housing stock transfer is privatisation is arrant nonsense. However, that charge is also a pernicious and calculated tactic. I was brought up in a private rented home, and my parents' generation understood the challenges of that kind of housing, which was a million miles away from the social rented sector in my community that is being invested in now. Anti-stock transfer campaigners deliberately invoke the folk memory of the hatred of poor private housing and the importance of what council housing represented when they spread fears that the community ownership programme is somehow privatisation.

I regard it as unforgivable to create the fear that leads people in Inverclyde or Highland to feel uncertain about a yes vote that will give them certainty for the future, regardless of what is going on elsewhere. I regret that, to judge by the Scottish National Party amendment, those within the SNP who understand the role of housing associations and the strength that they bring to communities seem to have lost out. The amendment calls for an end to wholesale stock transfer, but the reality is that that is a distinction without a difference. If the issue is size, I point out that the transfers in Argyll and Bute and the Western Isles, which were whole stock transfers, were equivalent to partial stock transfers that happened in other parts of the country. Local authorities are able to decide, as some have done, to go for the option of partial stock transfer as their approach to the community ownership programme.

It is necessary to lift the burden of debt to secure investment. People are entitled to certainty, which is what a yes vote allows. The SNP knows the powerful difference that housing associations can make in communities. It knows that tenant-led housing organisations' focus on the needs of tenants, housing and local communities can make a difference, but we are led to believe that staff and tenants in Inverclyde and elsewhere are being duped. Perhaps members would like to go down to Inverclyde and tell them that. The staff to whom I spoke there are up for the opportunity that huge investment will provide and the difference that it will make to their work with tenants. Tenants understand that. They cannot wait for their central heating and windows until Frances Curran manages to get herself into an influential position and persuades Gordon Brown to write off the debt.

In government, sometimes we have to make compromises. Sometimes, there is a trade-off between cost and benefit. I have supported policies that were not my perfect position, but the community ownership programme poses no such dilemma. It is not a compromise but a package that builds on the proven strength of the housing movement—tenants, staff and communities—and reinforces that good work with real investment, which will liberate communities' capacity to flourish. Tenants and staff have nothing to lose and everything to gain from stock transfer. The SNP can have a theoretical debate about debt write-off, but we are making a huge financial commitment to some of our poorest communities and if we direct the finances with staff and tenants in the lead, we will have nothing to fear.

I understand the anxieties of staff at a time of change, but what a poverty of ambition Unison displays in saying, "If you don't know, vote no." I say to tenants that, if they do not know, they should go and ask those who have the information, listen to tenants who lead the campaigns and recognise what a yes vote will mean for their communities. No one has anything to fear from stock transfer as part of a huge programme of investment in local communities, and people deserve to understand the opportunities that exist for them in voting on plans that have been created within local communities and which will be delivered in those communities by those who will benefit from them most.

I move amendment S2M-5104.4, to leave out from the first "calls on" to end and insert:

"commends the initiatives by the Scottish Executive to increase the quantity of affordable housing in Scotland through its increased investment programme, which will deliver over 16,500 new affordable homes for rent and nearly 5,000 for low-cost home ownership by 2008, and through its Homestake low-cost home ownership scheme and its use of the planning system to increase supply; supports the principle of housing transfer to community ownership to improve the quality of existing housing where this has the support of the tenants; agrees that transfer has the potential to deliver a substantial package of benefits for tenants, including increased investment in their homes, rent guarantees and a much greater say in how their homes are managed, and recognises that transfer is indeed now delivering substantial new investment for tenants, as confirmed by Audit Scotland."

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In 2000, a minority report from the SNP members of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee had this to say about the Government's proposals on stock transfer:

"The minority felt that the Government's stock transfer proposals were clearly driven by Treasury policy, and that tenant involvement and participation is a secondary concern due to the repeated failure of the Minister to disclose other plans were there to be a 'No' vote by tenants."

Let us move on six years. The Executive still has no plan B in place now that Edinburgh, Stirling and Renfrewshire have rejected wholesale stock transfer. As the Minister for Communities told me two weeks ago at the Communities Committee,

"Where community ownership takes place, new borrowing is not public expenditure, so it makes perfect sense from the Treasury's point of view to write off debt for community ownership but not for councils that retain their own stock ... The debt is there and will remain there until people vote for community ownership. That is just a fact of life".—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 24 October 2006; c 4127.]

Johann Lamont gave powerful support to housing associations in her speech, and I acknowledge fully that transfer to housing associations is not privatisation, that housing associations contribute a great deal to their communities and that, in many places, people believe in them passionately. However, the point is that the Government's flagship policy of whole stock transfer was never driven by the tenants' aspirations; it was driven by no more than Treasury policy.

At the Communities Committee, the minister rejected my suggestion that he get in touch with the Treasury and ask it to write off the capital debt on Scottish housing stock. If he genuinely cared about the conditions in which people live, he would recognise that it is unfair to expect current local authority housing tenants to pay out of their rent for the historical capital debt on houses that have been sold or demolished and to take responsibility for bringing housing stock up to the quality standard that the Government has set. Rents cannot keep going up. That would be neither fair nor sustainable.

Malcolm Chisholm said last week at question time that the debacle over Glasgow's second-stage stock transfer had no bearing on the no votes in Edinburgh and Stirling. In fact, it was central to those votes. To put it simply, the people of Glasgow were promised the second-stage transfer of their housing to the housing associations about which Johann Lamont spoke so passionately, but it has not been delivered. Even now, the minister is unable and unwilling to say when or if any of those transfers will take place. That is a debacle in anyone's language. It is a matter of trust, and tenants in communities that are now faced with a ballot simply do not believe the minister when he promises them anything because he has let down the Glasgow tenants. That is well known throughout Scotland and explains why he gets the results that he is getting.

Since the Government came to power, the communities budget, which includes housing, has risen in real terms by 5.9 per cent while the whole Scottish budget has increased by 17.1 per cent. The minister must explain to members why the housing budget has risen much more slowly than any other Scottish Executive budget. The impact of that underfunding is clear: in every year from 1999 to 2004, the Government built fewer houses in the social rented sector than the Tories built in 1995.

We have a crisis in housing. The Government has had nine years to do something about it and it has failed.

I move amendment S2M-5104.2, to leave out from the first "calls on" to end and insert:

"recognises the failure of the Scottish Executive to adequately fund Scottish housing and its refusal to consider any other funding options than large-scale voluntary transfer; deplores the lack of real choice offered to Scottish tenants; condemns the Executive's failure to deliver the promise of second-stage transfer to the tenants of Glasgow Housing Association, and calls on the Minister for Communities to make immediate representations to the UK Treasury for the write-off of local authorities' capital housing debt without preconditions."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As I look around the chamber, I see that many of the members who were involved in the discussion and formulation of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 are present today. I cannot be persuaded that the arguments in favour of the 2001 act that were canvassed five or six years ago are any less valid today than they were then. I remember that one of the pieces of research that came before the Social Justice Committee, which dealt with the Housing (Scotland) Bill, demonstrated that about 92 per cent of the Scottish population aspired to own their own home. The Minister for Social Justice of the time trumpeted that statistic. I recall pointing out, somewhat cynically:

"100 per cent of the population of Scotland probably aspire to win the lottery; unfortunately, not all of us are likely to achieve that."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 9 May 2001; c 2243.]

For a substantial percentage of the population, home ownership is not an economically viable option. It follows that we require public sector housing, and it is essential that housing of a reasonable quality and standard be provided for economical rents. All of us would agree with that.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Could Bill Aitken give us the source of his information that repairs and maintenance expenditure is higher under the GHA than under Glasgow City Council?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Arguably, part of the issue is that so much more is being done now. When the dead hand of municipal housing was controlling people's housing ambitions in Glasgow, very little happened. Mr Sheridan and I were both councillors in the city for some years. He must have been aware of the frustration that arose from attempting to get any reaction from those responsible for council housing with regard to repairs and other matters. They were completely unresponsive to the ambitions of tenants.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

No, I must move on.

Having accepted that we must provide reasonable-quality housing at a reasonable level of rent, we should establish what has worked in housing and what has failed. Undoubtedly, the real success story in post-war Scottish public sector housing has been the housing association movement. It is clear that, when people are given responsibility over their own problems and housing conditions, they respond very positively. I acknowledge that one or two associations have gone belly up, but the vast majority have been real success stories.

There is much to be said for Johann Lamont's amendment. I part company with her, however, with regard to the fact that the job of stock transfer is half done and has been a bit of a PR disaster. The people of Glasgow voted overwhelmingly for stock transfer, but it has happened only in part. The ideal model is of locally accountable housing associations with a critical mass of, say, 4,000 houses and a maximum of 8,000 houses under their control. That has not transpired despite the fact that, over the years, I have repeatedly written to successive ministers, asking for action in that respect. Until transfers are completed successfully, it will be extremely difficult to persuade tenants in other parts of Scotland that that model should be followed.

We can, of course, read Audit Scotland's report with a degree of satisfaction. It has been demonstrated that things are happening in stock transfer. However, until we are prepared to hand over the stock to locally accountable housing associations, we will not make the progress that we wish to make. Stock transfer has been a tremendous success. In many instances, and particularly in Glasgow, we have seen how it can work. The Executive must complete the job and effect the secondary transfer as quickly as possible.

I move amendment S2M-5104.1, to leave out from first "calls on" to end and insert:

"supports the transfer of local government housing to communities run by locally accountable housing associations, co-operatives and companies and notes the recent Audit Scotland report which concluded that the handover of more than 100,000 council homes to new landlords since 1998 has brought more investment in properties and promoted tenant control as well as facilitating increased repairs and maintenance and the building of new homes and keeping rent increases down; therefore urges all tenants to seriously consider voting for the stock transfer of their homes, but notes, however, that the Scottish Executive now needs to address urgently the issues preventing the second stage transfer in Glasgow and to publish what it and the City of Edinburgh Council now plan to do for the future of Edinburgh's housing stock, with a view to assisting in future investment for vital affordable housing."

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is helpful to have this short debate on housing stock transfer. The Liberal Democrats have always supported the concept of stock transfer and, in particular, the prospect of the change from monolithic municipal providers to community management and ownership. Housing associations should be tenant led and should adopt policies that the tenants require. If that is not happening in certain locations, ministers will need to review the particular circumstances—but not the overall policy.

Stock transfer has the added practical advantage of the write-off of council housing debt, which should pave the way for investment. Councils spend 43 per cent of their rental income on repaying housing debt, which must surely restrict the capacity to invest. Should debt be written off without transfer? The practical position is that the United Kingdom Government has made its stance clear: debt write-off without transfer is not on the cards, so that debate is largely academic. Those who suggest that tenants should vote no to stock transfer must describe the alternative. As the minister said, why should tenants wait until an undisclosed future date simply because they are not prepared to accept the current realities?

Setting aside the financial arguments, council ownership and community ownership are clearly not the same. The model of greater tenant involvement and control of decision making—the housing association model—is not one that councils can replicate. It is no use replacing one monolith with another. The situation in Glasgow gives rise to concern. Implementation of the second-stage transfer is imperative. The Liberal Democrats are not entirely convinced that 64 is the right number of local housing associations—perhaps a smaller number would be more realistic. However, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the second-stage transfer must take place. Although they are unique, the problems in Glasgow cast a shadow over the whole process of housing stock transfer and over housing associations themselves.

The first housing stock transfer in Scotland occurred in Berwickshire, in my constituency, even before there was any legislation on the matter. Berwickshire Housing Association is a good landlord with a fantastic record in innovative design and in the development of sustainable, energy-efficient housing. It is almost a leader in the field. There is no council housing left in my area. Investment is taking place and tenants now have a direct say in the policies of their associations. Of course there are still problems, including overcrowding and lettings policies under which, sadly, unsuitable tenants are sometimes put among people who they should not be among, but such problems can be overcome with effort and assistance from central Government.

The fact is that housing associations are here to stay. We should encourage them. We should say yes to stock transfers for all the benefits that they bring.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The majority of members will very much agree with Johann Lamont's comments this morning about the range of tenures that should be available, giving people a genuine choice in making the legitimate decision to rent if that is what they want to do. The majority of members support the idea of mixed communities and want there to be different options, including community ownership through genuinely local and accountable housing associations; owner-occupation; other, less explored, tenures that can fill certain niches, such as co-operatives and co-housing; private rented sector housing; and council housing. I think that the majority of members would be comfortable with that mix, and genuinely local decisions are the best way of achieving it.

The SNP is right to say that if we want local decisions to be free and genuine, central Government must take responsibility for all the debt. That would allow those choices to be made. The problem is that we know without a shadow of doubt the answer to that suggestion. The UK Government might take the view—the Executive may or may not support this—that community ownership is the right choice in all circumstances. It might even hold that view with as much ideological fervour as the Scottish Socialist Party has in opposing it. However, the Government is clearly wrong if it imagines that tenants will vote for community ownership only under the threat that they must take it or get nothing. If there are genuine benefits to be had from community ownership aside from the debt write-off, as I believe there can be, ministers should advocate those benefits and allow a free choice to be made. The conditionality of debt write-off gives rise to the whiff of blackmail. It should be clear by now that that benefits only those who are implacably opposed to community ownership and who are willing to misrepresent it as privatisation.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Does Patrick Harvie agree that, among the range of choices, it is surely right that there should also be a place for council ownership? Is not that the consequence of the votes in Edinburgh, Stirling and Renfrewshire, where the tenants wish to remain council tenants? Where is that option among the range of choices?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I support the principle of giving tenants a choice and a vote. That is an important principle, so it is regrettable when they are given a misleading idea of the choices that they have. It is a shame that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations should have to send us a briefing that bluntly disagrees with the terms of a debate in the Parliament. Stock transfer is not privatisation and it is wrong for the SSP motion to suggest that it is. It is also wrong for the SSP to put that idea about in communities that are about to make the decision.

The Tory amendment ends by posing a challenge to the Executive: how will we provide decent housing in areas where tenants vote against stock transfer? However, why does that challenge focus only on Edinburgh? The problem is widespread and will continue to spread unless the Executive acknowledges that it needs a new strategy for making the case for community ownership to tenants.

I regret the lack of recognition in the Executive's amendment that it has some responsibility for the deep trouble that its policy is getting us into—for example, events in the wake of the no votes, or the mire in which the GHA seems to be stuck because second-stage transfer has hit the rocks. The Labour-led Executive is facing a crisis in a Labour-led council area over a Labour policy and the financing of an organisation that is the creature of Labour policy. That demands a response from the Labour Party, including a clear commitment on when second-stage transfer will take place and a new strategy on how to advocate community ownership that is not based on the conditionality of debt write-off. The challenge for the Executive is to address those issues. I regret that its amendment fails to do that.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Patrick Harvie talked about choice, and added a description when he talked about "genuine" choice. If this debate was taking place 10 years ago, the Deputy Minister for Communities and other Labour members would be arguing forcefully that genuine choice should include people's right to live in a council home, the right of local authorities to own and manage housing stock on behalf of their tenants, and the right of local authorities to invest in improving that stock and its management to encourage as much tenant control as possible.

Sadly, debates on housing today lack a principle that the Labour Party used to stick by and promote—that is, that local authority housing is social housing and represents democratic control. If, through lack of funds, failure to invest or failure to address local management problems, tenants are not satisfied or sufficiently involved in the management of their homes, the answer is not to throw the baby out with the bath water and abolish council housing, which is what the Labour Party wants to do. The answer is to improve the funding that is available to local authorities and to improve local management.

My experience is different from the experience that Bill Aitken described in his speech. My 11 years as a local authority councillor in Glasgow taught me a lot about Glasgow City Council's housing department. I learned that it was underfunded and that it had an albatross around its neck, with 65p in every £1 of rent going to pay off historic debt, but I also learned that it was staffed by thousands of committed workers who were determined to try to get a good deal for the tenants they served.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Surely when Tommy Sheridan was a councillor in Glasgow he supported a stock transfer in his ward to the Glen Oaks Housing Association. Is there a whiff of hypocrisy here?

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

That is factually incorrect. I supported the ballot. When I was asked how the tenants should vote in the ballot, I advised them to stay with the council. The tenants decided to transfer because what was on offer from the local housing association was better than what the council could offer at that stage. It is regrettable that Charlie Gordon tells lies in the chamber.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order. Mr Sheridan, not lies, please.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Sorry. It is regrettable that Charlie Gordon peddles an untruth in relation to that particular vote.

Mr Aitken talked about repairs and maintenance. He should check the answer to written question S2W-24061, on repair and maintenance costs under the GHA compared with those under Glasgow City Council. If he did so, he would find that Glasgow City Council spent more per unit on repairs and maintenance in 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 than the GHA spent in its first two years of existence. Glasgow City Council could do everything that the GHA is doing but more quickly and cheaply if it had the same debt write-off facility that was on offer to the GHA.

What we have is not genuine choice but blackmail by a Labour Party, both here and at Westminster, that is determined to abolish local authority housing. That is the social policy engineering that is under way in the housing sector today. The tenants of Scotland should reject that blackmail and fight to retain local authority housing. They should tell Mr Brown that, instead of investing £6 billion in Iraq or spending £76 billion on a replacement for Trident, he should write off the debt so that local authorities can properly invest in improving housing for ordinary tenants.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am sure that my experience is similar to that of other MSPs. We have lost count of the number of constituents who come to see us because they cannot get the right type of house. Often, they cannot get a family home or there are problems with the quality or cost of homes. We meet elderly people who cannot get the modifications done that would allow them to stay in homes that they want to stay in long into their retirement.

In those circumstances, it is surprising that there is still confusion when ballots come around, but I suppose that that is understandable given the rhetoric that we heard this morning and the scaremongering and propaganda about what is going on. Earlier speakers said that stock transfer is privatisation, but housing associations are not private companies; they are non-profit-making organisations and every penny that they make is ploughed back into serving tenants. Most housing associations are managed by tenants.

I hope that the tenants who are receiving their ballot papers in Inverclyde today will join the 50,000 tenants in Scotland who have voted for housing stock transfer. If so, they will join tenants in the majority of council areas in which there have been votes on housing stock transfer—transfer has been supported by a majority of eight council areas to five, and one of those five was Renfrewshire, where transfer was rejected by 36 votes.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No, thank you.

When the tenants in Inverclyde vote to join those 50,000 tenants, they will be voting to clear away unpopular, run-down houses and build 1,000 much-needed new homes in the area. They will be saying yes to home improvements, modernisation and upgrades. However, if they vote against the great deal that is on offer in Inverclyde, they will lose out on that investment and rents will double in the next eight years. More pensioners will be forced into residential care unnecessarily because the council will not be able to afford to make the adaptations that would allow them to remain in their homes. We cannot ignore that fact. We want action now, not jam tomorrow.

If tenants in Inverclyde want a stark illustration of what would happen without stock transfer, they should consider their neighbours in Renfrewshire, who voted against it. Their rents will need to increase by 275 per cent just to get their homes up to scratch.

I ask the SSP, the SNP and other opponents of stock transfer where the downside is. Where is the catch? As they know perfectly well, the answer is that there is not one.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No. Mr Fox limited the time this morning, not me.

The only reason why those parties are against stock transfer is pure, naked, cynical political opportunism. What sort of political party runs a campaign to condemn the least well-off tenants to damp, expensive, unfit housing for the rest of their lives? Who would campaign to ensure that rents go up next year just so that they can get a couple of good press releases out of the resulting misery?

They can try to deny it, but the proof comes out of their own mouths. The Paisley Daily Express on 7 November reports a Renfrewshire SNP councillor having the cheek to say:

"One in five families are living with damp in their home and 50 per cent of the housing stock needs repairs right now".

He is one of the people who campaigned only last week for a no vote, which will ensure that tenants stay in those damp, unfit homes for ever and a day. Now they cannot wait to use that misery for political ends.

I urge tenants in Inverclyde not to give in to the scaremongers but to tell the SNP and the SSP that their lives and homes are not something for them to play politics with. I tell them in no uncertain terms: Inverclyde Council knows that it cannot match the good deal from River Clyde Homes, which is why the council has unanimously backed transfer. Trish Godman MSP, David Cairns MP and I would not be recommending the package if we did not believe that it was in the best interests of our constituents. If the residents think that they deserve the same housing investment as Glasgow and elsewhere and if they want new homes, they must vote for it—vote for the guarantee of improvement in their homes, not jam tomorrow.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We think that Duncan McNeil and those on the Labour benches protest too much. The proof is in the pudding: they should go and ask the tenants how they are suffering.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Go and ask the tenants in Glasgow.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

You have had your say, Duncan.

I want to comment on the Executive's amendment, which in particular proposes that the Parliament

"supports the principle of housing transfer to community ownership to improve the quality of existing housing where this has the support of the tenants".

I cannot disagree with that. However, it later proposes that the Parliament

"recognises that transfer is indeed now delivering substantial new investment for tenants".

Although that may be in an Audit Scotland report, I can disagree with it. If the amendment had referred to "some tenants" rather than all of them, it would have been fine and dandy.

Let us look at the reality in Glasgow with the GHA—not propaganda or scaremongering like Duncan McNeil, but the reality that people are living with.

Let us take tenants first. Tenants have been put into groups. Some tenants are getting improvements, but others are getting none. Some tenants are on lists and do not know whether they will have a house next month or next year, and some tenants have been moved three or four times within the Glasgow area. When a house is demolished, they are moved again, and there have been wholesale clearances of communities. It is not a happy life to live if, coming into winter, older people do not know whether they will be in their house. That is the reality for some tenants in the Glasgow area; it is not scaremongering or propaganda.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Sorry, Colin. I have got only a short time.

Let us consider the owner-occupiers, who have been mentioned not so much by Labour but certainly by people on the ground. Because of the GHA—a huge monolithic supposed transfer vehicle, set by Labour—old-age pensioners are being forced to go into debt to pay for housing repairs that they say they do not need. People enter their homes and tear up their gardens. They then give them a bill for £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 to be paid within a year and tell them to go to a bank to get a loan. What kind of fairness is that to anyone, let alone an old-age pensioner?

That is the reality in Glasgow right now, and the Executive seriously wonders why other areas do not want to go down the road of transfer. It has made a mess of the situation in Glasgow through the GHA—a Labour policy—but it will not admit it.

Let us look at second-stage transfer, which has been mentioned by many today. Second-stage transfer is supposed to be completed in 2007, but we are not even near it yet. I will ask the minister a couple of questions, and perhaps whoever sums up will be able to answer them. Has the minister sought independent, external advice on the financial shortfall for second-stage transfer, which the GHA's own financial report said was £500 million? If it has not, the second-stage transfer will not go ahead. The minister said that 2006 would be a pivotal year for second-stage transfer. Does she still believe that? We are nearing the end of 2006, and nothing has happened. When will we see second-stage transfer in Glasgow?

The minister cannot hide from the issue—neither can anyone in the Labour Party. For years, they have been talking about second-stage transfer. The process started in 2003, and we are nearly in 2007. It has been an unholy mess in Glasgow and no one will trust the Executive simply because of the situation. It should be apologising to the tenants and owner-occupiers who put their trust in it for both stock transfer and second-stage transfer. They have been sold a pup and sold down the river. Ministers should hang their heads in shame.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

We have heard a lot today about housing investment in Scotland. There are understandable differences of opinion, on both ideological and practical grounds. As someone who has experience of representing some of the neediest communities in Scotland, I want to put on record the reason why people such as me, who argued for debt to be written off for what was then Glasgow District Council, when the Grieve report was produced in 1988, have changed our perspectives because of the reality for some of those neighbourhoods.

I am not here to pontificate or to lecture to other members who have arrived at different conclusions, but I want to make a few points.

The fundamental lesson in my area is that where housing has been transferred effectively to local tenants, mainly through housing co-ops and housing associations, they have done markedly better pound for pound than any municipal authority charged with provision in either Glasgow or any other part of the UK. That is based on evidence from significant research. The conclusion for me is that, where we can, we should endeavour to achieve that transfer.

The difficulty is the illusion that that is easy. There are people who will oppose transfer for ideological reasons, even in the light of the evidence. If they want to do that, that is fine, but in the real world we have to make difficult choices about what is on offer. We could argue that the chancellor should make more resources available. That is a legitimate political position to take, but it is not one that I want to waste too much time on. I want to address the immediate needs in communities.

Another argument was that stock transfer would lead to privatisation, people selling off council houses, and home owners existing across Glasgow and Scotland. In fact, some associates of Sandra White popped up in my area persistently to claim that the agenda was to ensure that home owners in Glasgow were looked after. They are now popping up in my area to say that they are concerned that home owners are the victims of high charges for repair and renovation. There is a legitimate issue that the GHA needs to deal with, but it is separate from the broad debate on investment in Scotland's housing.

Ultimately, tenants make the decision, and I recommend the experience that Mr Sheridan went through. The tenants and workers in his area decided that they would much prefer to have Glen Oaks Housing Association than the local authority running their housing. That is good, and I hope that such an approach can be accelerated across Scotland. In my area, particularly in the Gorbals, it has made a real difference when tenants have run housing, even with major transition issues.

There will always be a transition stage when people feel that they need to be moved from house to house, and Sandra White needs to understand that. If the long-term agenda is about improvement and tenants running the housing, ordinary people will support the strategy, but the transition requires a lot of sensitivity.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

: Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No, I genuinely think that there is an important conclusion, which I need to outline. Colin Fox has already taken up 25 seconds of my time trying to intervene. If he wanted more time, he should have extended the time to allow a broader debate.

My final point is that 17 out of 18 commitments that were made during the stock transfer in Glasgow are being met. I would like to move quicker to second-stage transfer because of the arguments that I deployed earlier. However, we need to address the issue of how we invest in housing. We have a strategy of dealing with debt through transfer, but we must ensure that tenants are central to the debate.

Some of today's debate has been regrettable, because many people in the housing association movement who are also long-term socialists have been saddened, feeling that some of the language both in the debate and in the motion has been hijacked. On balance, the Executive's strategy is right, but we need to ensure that the agencies that we ask to carry it out listen to the concerns that tenants still have.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We now move to winding-up speeches. Mr Stone, you have four minutes.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I suppose that one should acknowledge the fact that the SSP initiated today's debate. I do not agree with its position, but it is good that we have had an open debate on the issue. However, it is a pity that we did not have a little longer, so I suggest that it was a mistake for the SSP to divide this morning's debating time between two debates.

Frances Curran made a robust speech in which she accused ministers of bullying and described stock transfer as a handover to faceless men and privatisation by the back door. Other members have dealt with her point about privatisation by the back door, but I will return to her claim about faceless men and women.

Johann Lamont made a robust speech defending the policy and important speeches were also made by Tricia Marwick and Bill Aitken. In particular, Bill Aitken highlighted the issue of economic rents and flagged up the fact that Audit Scotland has given good marks to what has happened so far. Euan Robson outlined nicely what has always been my party's position—this is a fact—which is that we support the notion of stock transfer. We are very much wedded to the thought that such transfers should be tenant led.

Stock transfer is about the write-off of housing debt, as Mr Sheridan acknowledged in his speech. I can remember how crippling that debt was when I was a councillor, but I will return to that in a minute or two. Mr Robson pointed out that 43 per cent of housing income is spent on debt. He said that second-stage transfer is vital, but he slightly questioned the number of housing associations that are to be involved. However, that issue is a debate for another occasion.

Patrick Harvie talked about the need for choice. Tommy Sheridan's speech made some points that I have already mentioned. Duncan McNeil made an impassioned speech defending the policy.

As a councillor in the Highlands—which is different from the central belt—I was a member of a housing authority for 13 years and I recall how crippling the housing debt was. I remember how we could do less and less each year. It was difficult to get kitchens done up and windows replaced and so on.

We also need to be wary of talking about democracy in housing. In the Highlands, at any rate, the very nature of our councils was such that a powerful member could corner a budget to ensure that the housing estates in his or her ward were done up. Very often, the investment was not spread in the best possible way. I do not know whether that is a facet only of Highland politics, but it was not always for the best. I can remember having to fight to get anything done to the housing estates in my ward.

By comparison, in my constituency, we have two good examples of housing associations—Albyn Housing Society and Pentland Housing Association—that have been with us for some time. The tenants of Albyn—which is very close to my home—will confirm that the estate has improved a lot over the years and will be the first to say how delighted they were to get their new kitchens. Frances Curran accuses housing associations of being full of faceless people, but I think that the people and tenants who work in either of those housing associations would not be at all pleased by her description of them. They are not faceless. They have put themselves forward for the good of both the community and their neighbouring tenants. We should pay tribute to them for all that they are doing.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

One minute.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

Albyn Housing Society and Pentland Housing Association are examples of what a good housing association with tenant participation can be all about. I see the evidence of that with my own eyes. The idea that people should say no to getting rid of the crippling housing debt is ludicrous in the extreme. As Duncan McNeil said, we must think carefully before we condemn people to live in rotting houses on which there is little prospect of any work being done. Getting rid of the debt is crucial, as it unblocks desperately needed funds. At the end of the day, do we want decent housing for our people or dogma? Let us have decent housing first, please.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

A much forgotten point, to which Bill Aitken did not refer but would have had every right to do so, is that the previous Conservative Government presided over the greatest redistribution of wealth in modern history—[ Interruption. ] Excuse me, I have only four minutes.

That redistribution, towards the poorest in our society, was due to our extremely popular right-to-buy policy.

Our further reforms to allow for stock transfer extended that much-needed movement away from the big, all-controlling state towards individuals in local communities. I am pleased that our policy has done so much to help to ease a great deal of the social decay and exclusion that many of the poorest in our society experience.

I agree with Johann Lamont that the attack in the motion, which claims that stock transfer is privatisation through the back door, simply does not stand up to the test. The new housing associations are not-for-profit, community-based, charitable organisations. Stock transfer is not about big business or global capitalism. If anything, it is about power to the people.

All members will agree that the issue comes down to how social housing is best provided. The Conservatives are not in the pockets of big business or uncaring towards the poorest in our society, as some SSP members might have people believe. Scotland's homelessness figures are a disgrace. I am committed to ensuring that Scotland has a social housing system that works best for those who need it and that the most vulnerable are given the protection of which the state assures them.

The simple fact is that the current council housing system is not well run. Councils do not provide good value for money. Many councils have been forced to push up rents to pay for their inefficiencies. Accountability is lost because of falling turnouts at local elections. The current housing debt even in small authorities such as the Western Isles is £20,000 per unit. The total for Scotland as a whole rises to £3.5 billion. That cannot be sustained. The transfer of administration of such housing to a body that is locally accountable to the immediate tenants and is part-run by tenants who are actively involved in the decision-making process must be a step towards a better system for all.

In certain individual cases, matters may not have gone as smoothly as we would have hoped for, but we need to strengthen the procedures rather than scrap stock transfer altogether. The principle of stock transfer is right and we must not lose sight of that. For example, thanks to the stock transfer to Glasgow Housing Association—which was the most controversial application of the policy—some 700,000 repairs have been carried out that would otherwise have been suspended; rent increases have been pegged to inflation; and an extra £4 million of welfare payments are now being claimed.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Sorry, I do not have much time.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The member has plenty of time.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Fox, sit down.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Regrettably, the Executive has not managed the transfer adequately. By providing insufficient money for the new GHA, the Executive has created suspicion and doubt about the whole process. That is unfortunate, but I point out that vast improvements have been made for those who need them most, which would not otherwise have taken place.

I also point out that the scaremongering and negative campaigning of the SSP on the Glasgow stock transfer are holding back hundreds of thousands of the poorest in our society from getting the home improvements and rent security that they deserve.

On tenant support for the policy, although it is regrettable that the proposals of City of Edinburgh Council and Stirling Council were defeated, stock transfer was supported by 90 per cent of tenants of Argyll and Bute Council and by the tenants of Western Isles Council and Glasgow City Council. In Renfrewshire, tenants were split down the middle. Such levels of support hardly confirm the resounding opposition to the policy that some would have us believe they do. A more accurate interpretation is that the irresponsible, negative scaremongering campaign that was carried out by certain figures on the left managed to strike enough fear into tenants' minds to create a victory for the no camp.

A final, important point to make to those who advocate that Scotland should separate from the rest of the UK is that, for many authorities in Scotland, stock transfer is an accepted fact that is here to stay and for which the Treasury has earmarked many millions of pounds over a set period of time. If Scotland were to divorce itself from union to the Treasury, where would it find those extra millions of pounds that are already committed and planned for? That is just another demonstration of how the separatist argument falls down.

I support the amendment in the name of Bill Aitken.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I declare my interest as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing.

The SSP motion—members will not be surprised to know—contains a few statements that I fundamentally disagree with. I found it amusing that the motion asks us to confirm our belief

"in the fullest democratic control and management of council homes by tenants".

I have never seen that in my life, despite having worked in housing for many years. A big issue is that tenants have never had democratic control of council housing because the monolith has been too big. We have had the odd play at democratic control through attempts at tenant management co-operatives and so on, but we have never had full democratic control of council housing. Let us not pretend that we have had.

Before Frances Curran accuses me of lacking credibility, let me say that, yes, I have lived in council houses and, yes, I have had to deal with tenants. In fact, my family has been evicted from a few council houses, although I do not say that with great pride.

The motion also talks about the privatisation of housing through housing associations. Housing associations are not, and never have been, private landlords. Yes, they use private money, but where do people think that the money that funds the public sector borrowing requirement comes from if not from the private market? The use of private money does not automatically mean privatisation.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No.

Some people say that housing associations are not profit making; the claim was repeated in the SFHA briefing. In fact, that is a bit of a myth—they are. They are not profit distributing, which is very different. Housing associations make a profit, which is why those that are not charities pay corporation tax. What is great about them is that the money is ploughed back in for the benefit of the communities that they serve.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No.

The money is put into sinking funds and so on to ensure the on-going maintenance of houses.

I believe in housing associations and both the SNP and I believe in stock transfer. However, we heard from the minister Labour's view of stock transfer. She cited some good examples of it, which can be found all over the place. Why did we not use them? Why did the Executive not listen to the SNP and others who said that stock transfer is good when it is tenant led but that large-scale stock transfer is bad, because it involves replacing one monolith with another? People do not have real choice or real community ownership. That is clear from the lack of secondary stock transfer in Glasgow. As Tricia Marwick indicated, that was pointed out a long time ago, in the minority report of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee on housing stock transfer. I remember Wendy Alexander saying when she was the Minister for Communities that there was no plan B. That is the problem—there has never been a plan B.

In 2001, I tried to have the right to community ownership enshrined in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. That proposal was knocked back by the Executive. If such a right had been included in the legislation, perhaps there would not be the current fuss in Glasgow about the failure to have secondary stock transfer.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, I am in the last minute of my speech.

Earlier this year the minister told Tricia Marwick that in Glasgow secondary stock transfer is not being prevented by a financial black hole. If that is the case, why is secondary stock transfer not happening? Why are the promises that were made to tenants in Glasgow not being kept? The situation is making people lose trust in the Executive every time another ballot is held. Why are the tenants who are being balloted in other areas not being given the option of secondary stock transfer in the papers that are sent out? Is that not happening because the Executive does not really want to have secondary stock transfer? I hope that the minister will tell me otherwise and will be able to say that second-stage transfers in Glasgow will go ahead, so that we can have full community ownership.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Both a theoretical debate and a real debate are taking place. I know which side I am on; I want to focus on the needs of tenants. At the time of stock transfer in Glasgow, Kenny Gibson—who used to be an MSP for the Glasgow region and was previously a councillor there—said that, despite people's reservations about stock transfer, he did not have it in his heart to tell his constituents to vote against their own interests. Tommy Sheridan had it in his heart to urge people to do that, but they disregarded him. We must think about the choices that people in communities now face.

I say to people in Inverclyde and Highland that there may be an opportunity for some to give a theoretical bloody nose to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a theoretical debate, but that after that theoretical bloody nose has been given the caravan will move on and people will remain with the challenge of houses with very high rent and poor levels of investment. That is unacceptable.

We are giving people a choice, with no downside. Sometimes there is a downside, but in this circumstance there is not. As Tommy Sheridan said, in my constituency of Glasgow Pollok people got a better offer and voted for it. They are now living in communities that have been transformed by that better offer. They are living in mixed communities because, as Linda Fabiani said, housing associations generate surpluses, ideas, imagination and creativity in local communities and are able to make a difference.

Debt write-off is significant expenditure. I know that as a general rule Thursday mornings tend to be quite expensive for the SNP, but is it committed to the write-off of £2 billion of debt? Where would the money to fund that come from? The chancellor has said that he will write off the debt, but that it is in the interests of the public purse to ensure that that debt does not regenerate. We know that we have residually high rents in the social rented sector not because rents are attached to the value of the property but because there are other pressures on budgets. I remember the debate in the 1980s about jobs versus rent levels and the consequence of that. It is important for housing to be able to focus on housing decisions. That is on offer to people in local communities.

Much has been said about the GHA. First, there will not be 63 organisations. There are already substantial housing associations in Glasgow, so the figure of 63 is a myth. Secondly, the issue is not money alone. There is £1.6 billion-worth of investment that is going into Glasgow, including support for owner-occupiers. When Frank McAveety was a councillor in Glasgow, we could only dream about such sums; the idea that people would invest in housing in that way was a fantasy. I say to the SNP that Alex Neil's notion that the answer to the problems in Glasgow is £700 million suggests to me that he is asking the wrong question. I do not accept that the SNP believes that there is a £700 million funding gap. All that that claim does is undermine commitment to second-stage transfer.

I have to laugh at Sandra White. She is not in favour of stock transfer, but she argues that when it has happened we must have second-stage transfer. Given that she opposed the initial proposal as privatisation, it is bizarre and illogical for her to say that she is now disappointed because stock transfer is not local enough. That is irrational in the extreme.

I will finish by making an important point to people in Inverclyde and Highland. There is a stock transfer proposal and policy, but the strength of it is that it is locally expressed. That is exactly the point that Patrick Harvie made. The Inverclyde plan is designed to meet the needs of people in Inverclyde. It provides for 1,000 new homes and a doubling of the budget for adaptations to allow older people to stay in their homes, and takes account of the need of older people, in particular, for security. In Highland, where the challenges are different, the emphasis is on energy efficiency. The plan is very much in tune with the Highlands' commitment to community liberation and community buyout; it is exactly in line with the culture of people in the Highlands.

Plans should be developed and created locally, with tenants not as dupes but as people who understand the hard choices that need to be made and who take the lead in saying that this is the opportunity for them to make a difference in their communities. I ask people in Inverclyde and Highland not to listen to the pernicious lies that they are told about privatisation. They should look at the investment that is promised, make a judgment on the basis of need in Highland and Inverclyde, and disregard the theoretical opportunity for some to make a headline in the short term. Those people will not live with the consequences, but tenants certainly will.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I have thoroughly enjoyed this morning's debate. I agree with those members who said that it has been all too short and look forward to the Executive making available some of the copious amounts of time that it has. The Scottish Socialist Party has only one chance each year to debate the issue.

The Scottish Socialist Party is proud to have initiated this morning's debate to hold the Scottish Executive to account. Housing stock transfer is one of the most important issues facing the people who sent us here to represent them. As other members have said, it is the Executive's flagship housing policy. Frances Curran was right to say that it is a flagship that is holed below the waterline. It is Labour's poll tax, in as much as Labour is wedded to the policy and is losing huge respect for not recognising that the policy is failing and needs to be abandoned.

I say for the record that the Scottish Socialist Party is utterly opposed to stock transfer. We believe in a programme of publicly owned social housing to ensure that everyone gets the right to live in a house fit for the 21st century. When we consider that the average cost of a new home in Scotland today is £130,000, it is clear that a huge part of our population has been left behind and is unable to buy a house. There is a chronic shortage in Scotland of quality, affordable homes for rent that are publicly owned and democratically controlled.

The Executive's stock transfer policy has rightly come in for some ridicule this morning. Patrick Harvie quite rightly highlighted and ridiculed the briefing that MSPs received from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

If Mr Harvie is quick.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will be very quick at expressing my anger at being misrepresented. I did not ridicule the briefing; I said that it was outrageous that any organisation should have to disagree so fundamentally with a motion because that motion misrepresents the situation.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am happy to hear Patrick Harvie clarify his position. The briefing needs to be ridiculed because it is ridiculous for it to say that opposition to stock transfer is ideologically driven. That is an astonishing point to make, blind as the SFHA is to the Treasury's ideological reasons for stock transfer. It is clear that the SFHA cannot see the wood for the trees.

Malcolm Chisholm was quoted as saying,

"It is a fantasy to think the Treasury will step in and write off Council housing debt without new landlords taking over the stock."

I wonder who he had in mind when he was talking about that fantasy. Could it have been this year's Labour Party conference, which voted by more than two to one for such a fantasy? I and Malcolm Chisholm are old enough to remember when decisions made at the Labour Party conferences meant something. It is sad to see a once great democratic organisation reduced to a state where such decisions are completely ignored by ministers and leaders. That remarkable quote divulges an ideological pig-headedness. The Executive is not saying this morning that there is no money to write off the debts in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Inverclyde and Highland; it is saying, "We've got the money to write off the debt, but we are only going to give it to you if you vote for privatisation. We'll give you the money as long as you do what we say." That is ridiculous.

It is also remarkable that tenants in Edinburgh, Stirling and Renfrewshire, not to mention Tower Hamlets, Cannock Chase, Mid Devon, Birmingham, Sedgefield and countless other places throughout Britain, have rejected the blackmail and told the minister and others, "You're not on." What notice do the minister and his equivalents down south take of those decisions? Not a bit. They have come along, as Johann Lamont has this morning, and insulted our intelligence by dressing up stock transfer and community ownership as a step up from public ownership rather than the quite transparent abandonment of public ownership by a party that does not support it anyway.

The Scottish Socialist Party is not opposed to community ownership, but when it is a clear reduction in what we have just now, it is a backwards step.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I do not have time. I allowed one intervention, which is more than the member or anyone else did.

Linda Fabiani talked about full democratic control and management of council houses. The motion says that the SSP believes in that. We never claimed that we had the fullest democratic control and management in Glasgow or anywhere else; it is an aspiration and it is quite right that it should be in the motion.

The Glasgow experience is important because that is where it all began to go badly wrong for ministers. In 2002, 80,600 homes were transferred from Glasgow City Council to the GHA for £1, and £1 billion of debt was written off amid promises that repairs would be made here, there and everywhere and that 3,000 new homes would be built. What is the reality? Where is the famous Blairtummock semi-detached house that everyone was promised? Here we are in November 2006; how many houses have been built? Three thousand? One thousand? Two thousand?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Alex Neil will get there when I tell him. Not one house has been built by the GHA— that is the reality. Not a brick has been laid. However, it has already demolished 10,000 homes and plans to demolish another 40,000. That is the record of the GHA, which received £1 billion in debt write-off, got 80,000 houses for £1 and still could not make a go of it. It came back for another £300 million when its business plan fell apart. It asked for another £400 million for its demolition plans, and now it wants another £500 million for second-stage transfer. That is the reality in Glasgow.

Bill Aitken, Frank McAveety, Duncan McNeil and the minister are all wrong when they say that the GHA experience has turned out to be better for tenants. Glasgow City Council's director of housing and finance compared the GHA's investment in stock in Glasgow—£160 million per year—with the £236 million that Glasgow City Council would have been able to invest had its debt been written off. In other words, if Glasgow City Council had had its debt written off, there would have been a 50 per cent greater investment in housing in Glasgow.

The Executive lost the debate in the Edinburgh, Stirling and Renfrewshire ballots. Will the minister bet her house on a yes vote in Highland and Inverclyde? Perhaps she will tell us later. I ask her to answer a straight question. If, at the end of this month, she is 5 and 0—if five stock transfer ballots have gone against her after Inverclyde and Highland reject it—will she resign, or will she accept the inevitable, that the policy is dead in the water? The SSP believes that top-quality housing is a right for everyone and we are opposed to stock transfer because it takes us backwards.

Equal Pay

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5105, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, on funding equal pay.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Socialist Party is proud to give its very limited time to debating this issue. I invite other parties in the chamber to set aside more time for it in the future because, unfortunately, it will be necessary given the state of emergency that is now approaching in local authorities.

First, I have an interest to declare. I am a member of Unison, and I make absolutely no apology for standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with Unison members and the other trade unionists who are involved in the disputes that are brewing. I have another interest to declare. I am holding in my hand my sister's personal statement from Glasgow City Council about changes to her salary and terms and conditions. She is set to lose £2,863.45—we must not forget the 45p—despite being a woman, when the changes were supposed to be about addressing unequal pay for women, and despite working with adults who have complex learning disabilities.

When the single status agreement was reached, equal pay had been a matter of law for almost three decades, but for all that time, women have had their labour stolen, and over their lifetimes, they have been short-changed by hundreds of thousands of pounds. That inequality persists, but the legislation allows only five years backdating if the woman is successful at an employment tribunal. Even that is a fraction of what women are actually due.

Local authorities across the country, including Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, Falkirk, Perth and Kinross and others have offered compensation for retrospective inequality that is also a fraction of that which women are due. It is despicable that low-paid women were effectively blackmailed by the threat of cuts in jobs and services into signing away their right to pursue employment tribunal claims by councils that took advantage of the fact that those women had never before seen lump sums of just a few hundred pounds. Those agreements and waivers are legally dubious and might well be challenged.

I do not know whether any of the political parties in the chamber would be brave enough to argue that equal pay should be achieved by levelling down the pay of men and other low-paid women workers, but failing to make funds available to bridge the gender pay gap is tantamount to arguing that. It might be appropriate to level pay down in some cases, for men in boardrooms and other positions of power such as chief executives, the odd Prime Minister and the odd First Minister perhaps, but women have not struggled for decades for men to be paid as little as they are. Women have struggled for decades to be paid at least as much as men; they deserve at least as much as men, and even that is modest given the lower average wage rates in Scotland across the genders.

Equal pay should be achieved by levelling up. That can be supported, as the Equal Opportunities Commission has advised, by job evaluation schemes that are genuinely free from gender bias, but local authorities are not using such job evaluation schemes, and there are inherent problems in the processes that some local authorities still use. The issue should have been sorted many years ago, but we now see the spectre of ballots for industrial action over pay cuts, reduced terms and conditions, and draconian 90-day notices being issued—in Falkirk, for example. Some councils have at least put their cards on the table, but many other councils have done absolutely nothing.

Many people and organisations are culpable. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was keen, in its briefing, to ensure that MSPs who were previously councillors and council officials accept their responsibility. I wonder who COSLA was talking about. It definitely meant Charlie Gordon, I would think. Will other members who are willing to take responsibility put their hands up? Many people are to blame, but nobody is prepared to accept that blame.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I am pleased that Bruce Crawford seems prepared to accept some responsibility.

More important, those who are definitely not to blame—4,500 employees, or one in six of the workforce, of Glasgow City Council, for example—are being made to pay. Willie and Kate, who are visitor assistants in Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum are set to lose between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. Politicians, particularly in the Government, like to cash in on the kudos of the revamped Kelvingrove, but when it comes to taking action to avoid the hardship of the gallery's staff it is a different story. Those hardest hit in the culture and leisure services department are 90 per cent female. How can it be anything to do with equal pay if low-paid women are being robbed to offer meagre gains to other low-paid women?

It is not the fault of the home carers who are losing essential income from unsocial hours and weekend enhancements. It is not the fault of Karen, who works in social work, has a teenage son and is losing more than £3,000 from her salary, or of Jeanette, a senior library assistant, and her husband, who are losing £4,000 between them. Nor is it the fault of voluntary organisations such as the community health projects, which have had 60 per cent of their funding cut by Glasgow City Council, or of the many other services that face cuts in contracting out.

It is local and national Government that is culpable, yet Government and local government expect the workforce to pay again for their inaction, incompetence and failure to fund, and for the discrimination that those workers have suffered for decades.

My motion is simple. The Executive must back up the law and its stated policy, confirmed again in its amendment today, with resources. We need deeds, not words. Equal pay is supposed to be an Executive priority, but mainstreaming equality is not even referred to in the draft budget under the local government finance heading. My motion is not prescriptive about how much the figure should be or about what agreements will be acceptable to the unions, but I know that the Executive cannot wash its hands of the matter.

Workers and the public who rely on the services that are under attack will not be interested in the intricacies or nuances of the legal debate or in the history of the debacle, but they will hold elected representatives, local and national, to account. They are sick to death of arrogant politicians riding roughshod over their livelihoods, communities, services and concerns. The United States mid-term elections should be a warning to arrogant politicians everywhere. The cuts and ballots are happening now. COSLA says that it wants to talk to the Executive at the right time. If that is not now, when will the right time be? How much disruption will the Executive stand on the sidelines watching?

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Executive has a responsibility, which includes the allocation of appropriate funding to assist local authorities, in agreement with the trade unions, to achieve equal pay and maintain public services.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Carolyn Leckie is correct to say that the debate and the subject are important, and I am pleased to speak in the morning's debate to make clear the Executive's position on equal pay. We know that equal pay is a key issue on the road to achieving gender equality, and Scotland is making real progress in closing the gender pay gap. Using the international definition, Scotland has consistently performed better than the rest of the United Kingdom, and over the past eight years male and female earnings increased by more in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. The pay gap between men and women has narrowed by 7.2 per cent since 1998, compared with a 4 per cent reduction in the UK as a whole, and wages in Scotland are now the fourth highest in the UK.

There have been many advances for women in the workplace since the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Despite those advances, however, we know that a pay gap still exists, and in the 21st century it is not acceptable that women are paid less, on average, than men for doing the same work or work of equal value. I am sure that that view is shared across the chamber.

Women are entitled to a fair deal and that is why we continue to invest in the close the gap campaign and to work in partnership with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Equal Opportunities Commission and Scottish Enterprise to realise the aims of that campaign. Together, we are raising awareness of the gender pay gap and the reasons for it, and we are encouraging employers and employees to take action to close it. In doing so, we will see benefits to all Scots, to Scotland's workplaces and to Scotland's economy.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I have a straightforward question. Will the minister explain why there is no reference to the equal pay situation in the draft budget for 2007-08?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Executive publishes many documents on that subject, and the Minister for Communities champions those issues across the Executive, so our record on championing equal pay and addressing women's issues is second to none.

Our role in raising awareness and encouraging employers applies equally to local government. There are challenges that local authorities must overcome to fulfil their obligations under both the equal pay legislation and their own single status agreements. As the Executive has made clear a number of times, that is a matter for which local authorities are responsible. The Executive was, quite properly, not involved in the negotiations that led to the single status pay agreements in 1999. Those negotiations took place between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the trade unions. As councils often remind us, they are independent corporate bodies and are responsible for the conduct of their own affairs.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way on that point?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I would like to make a little more progress, if Mr Davidson does not mind.

It would be wrong for ministers to interfere in discussions between local authorities, their staff and the unions. Our approach to public sector reform is about devolution of responsibility and taking decision making closer to the people affected by those decisions. We do not have a centralising agenda and we have no desire to dictate to councils how they should run their affairs. They are responsible and accountable first and foremost to their electorate, but also to their own employees.

The Executive's position is quite clear. It is a matter for local authorities to resolve. Councillor Pat Watters, president of COSLA, agreed with our position in his recent letter to the Finance Committee.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister has talked exclusively about local government, but what are the Executive's plans for funding single status in the health service?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The national health service is clearly dealing with that, and the matter will be resolved.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

How?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Those issues are being addressed through agreements in agenda for change. Agreement was reached a number of years ago and is now being implemented.

As I was saying, Councillor Pat Watters confirmed that it is the responsibility of local government to sort the matter out. He further noted that, as the national employers' organisation, COSLA is active in discussions with groups of councils to move them through the process, and is engaged in intensive discussions with the unions nationally. That position could not be clearer, and that approach is absolutely right. It is in everyone's interests to allow it to continue and I encourage councils and unions to do everything possible to resolve the issue without further delay.

Implementing agreements will, of course, have financial implications. We consider it essential that local authorities strike a balance between what is fair and equitable, not just for the staff concerned but also for council tax payers. The Executive provides significant levels of funding to local councils, as a result of which COSLA estimated, in its evidence to the Finance Committee in February this year, that of the £1 billion that local authorities held in their reserves, around 25 per cent, or £250 million, was not allocated for a particular purpose. In his evidence to the Finance Committee in February, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform suggested that local authorities look to their reserves to help meet the costs of their equal pay responsibilities. I believe that local authorities now accept that that is an appropriate course of action and are saying so. It is clearly in everyone's interest that the employers and the unions seek to resolve those matters, and I urge them to do so as quickly as possible. However, they must do so with no pressure, interference or intrusion from the Executive.

Although we cannot and will not get involved in specific negotiations between employers and employees, we will continue to support measures to close the equal pay gap and lead by example. We will continue to challenge the persistent inequalities between women and men's pay and will continue to support progress to narrow the pay gap—to benefit women and to benefit Scotland's economy.

I move amendment S2M-5105.4, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"recognises that closing the equal pay gap will benefit all Scots, Scotland's workplaces and Scotland's economy; agrees that it is the responsibility of local authorities as independent bodies to implement the single status pay agreement which they themselves negotiated, and encourages employers and unions to make every effort to reach an agreement that is fair and equitable and protects the staff concerned, council taxpayers and the services that local authorities deliver."

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

There was in the minister's comments an inherent contradiction in respect of the Government's attitude to local authorities. On the one hand the minister says that the Government is not to be involved at all in resolving the outstanding and long-running issue of how to handle the single status agreement and equal pay—which has gone on unresolved for far too long—because those are inherently local matters that are to be resolved by local authorities. However, time after time we come to the chamber to be told by ministers about direction of local authorities that is being set by the Executive, and about parcels of funding that are devolved to local authorities in a strictly ring-fenced fashion. The level of direction that ministers exert on local authorities contradicts the minister's comments about the wider issue of equal pay and single status.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Does not Mr Swinney agree that there has been a reduction in the use of ring fencing since this Executive came to power? Eighty-five per cent of moneys that are supplied to local government are unhypothecated; it is for local authorities to prioritise and decide how to spend that money.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We hear constantly about money being allocated to local authorities—outside the grant-aided expenditure formula and with strings attached—to be spent on particular purposes. The Government exerts influence in a variety of ways.

It is a waste of time to play the blame game on equal pay and single status. I see that Mr Brownlee is shaking his head—I am disappointed by his amendment, which plays the blame game. The blame game does not take us further forward. The process has gone on for far too long. Equal pay must be addressed, but it must be addressed hand in hand with the debate on single status. The issues must be resolved together, otherwise we will get into a vicious circle in which the problem will repeat itself.

I believe that local authorities, individuals and trade unions must co-operate in the process, but there is little evidence that that is happening. I am advised by local authorities that are at an advanced stage in the process that they get so far, but the trade unions—which have up to that point been perfectly co-operative—then refuse to sign off a deal because they are afraid, as the local authorities may be, that the deals will be turned over in legal actions.

The process must be fair, it must have consent and it must have the confidence of the individuals who are involved. Once the single status judgments are arrived at, every effort must be made to support those who lose out in acquiring new skills and new abilities to ensure that in due course their salaries can be enhanced and that in the long term there is no loss of income, because for at least three, or perhaps four, years individuals will have their financial settlement protected.

That brings me to the role of the Scottish Executive. Given that the process has gone on for far too long, The Executive must get into the mix to try to accelerate the process of change. The financial envelope that the Executive makes available to local authorities has an essential part to play in resolving the issue. I agree with the minister that, on the issue of equal pay, local authorities are probably in a financial position to use reserves and other assets that they no longer require to settle equal pay claims. Single status, however, has a revenue implication. I disagree with Carolyn Leckie in that respect. It is not all about levelling down because, as far as I can see, in some of the deals that have been advanced the total salary bill is increasing. The Executive must address the revenue issue. I appeal to the minister to do so in the forthcoming financial settlement for 2007-08.

I will make a couple of remarks about the briefing that has been made available to members today from the president of COSLA. I do not think that I have seen a more pathetic document—and I have seen many pathetic documents in my time. It is laughable for the president of COSLA to come along to us and say that the issue is as relevant in 2006 as it has been since 1996, but then say that

"there is no quick fix".

That is an abdication of responsibility by COSLA. Many local authorities are working hard to try to resolve the problem, but they are not being well supported by COSLA. I encourage ministers to bang some heads together to make progress.

I move amendment S2M-5105.1, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"calls on the Scottish Executive to facilitate discussions between COSLA, local authorities and trade unions to deliver a fair and speedy resolution to the equal pay and single status issue and to ensure that the implications of such agreement are reflected in the 2007-08 local authority financial settlement."

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I must apologise for disappointing Mr Swinney, although perhaps he had better get used to disappointment.

As Carolyn Leckie said, this important issue affects everyone in Scotland. The employees are directly affected, but it also affects council tax payers, who will worry that they will have to foot the bill for any tax rises, or suffer service cuts that may be required because of the failure to balance the books. The same applies to taxpayers and service users at national level, who would suffer the same effects if the bill were to be passed on to national Government.

COSLA has told us that the cost of implementing single status might exceed £560 million. I am told that a supermodel will not get out of bed for less than £10,000, which makes me wonder how large a sum would bring the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform from his office to the chamber today: £560 million seems to me to be a sum that he might properly be concerned about. What we know is that, as far as finance ministers go, Mr McCabe is certainly no supermodel.

The real issue, which Mr Swinney alluded to, is that unions and councils must share the blame.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On sharing the blame, can Derek Brownlee cast his mind back to local government reorganisation, which ushered in the period of the single status requirement. The Tories ushered in local government reform, but did not acknowledge in any financial settlements that it might have consequences. Do not the Tories share some responsibility for the mess that we are now in?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Local government reorganisation took place 11 years ago. There have not been many Conservative-led councils during that period and there has not been a Conservative Government since 1997. Councils must take some responsibility. Unions talk damningly about the record of Scotland's councils. They talk about a "£600 million travesty" and say that this is not a victimless crime. However, imagine what the unions would be saying if a private company had done this, rather than councils. They would have been screaming blue murder. Why have they not done so? Is it because they want to protect Labour councillors or is it because their own lawyers were not effective enough in representing their members, the result of which is that their members are having to go—horror of horrors—to employment lawyers outwith the union?

The unions also make the argument, which Bruce Crawford is perhaps suggesting he has sympathy with, that it is all the fault of the last Conservative Government. Unison's evidence to the Finance Committee inquiry seemed to suggest that the Conservatives should, back in 1993, have had the foresight to deal with the issue. However, Unison went on to say that employers and trade unions could not have foreseen the scale of the pay liability in 1999 and it blames the increase in the scale of the liability on actions of the United Kingdom Government in 2003.

If we believe Unison, Labour could not have known in 1999, but the Conservatives ought to have known in 1993. If that lazy-thinking drivel is the best that trade unions can come up with, who can blame their members for looking to others to represent them and defend them?

Mr Swinney referred to the briefing note that we received from Councillor Pat Watters yesterday. COSLA is right to say that it is for local government to deal with single status. Unlike the Burt commission, I believe in local accountability. However, COSLA asks us to believe that

"we have an end point in mind for the delivery of Single Status across the country"

but refuses to tell us what that end point might be. COSLA was, to put it mildly, not best pleased when the Finance Committee suggested in March that the matter should be resolved within 12 months.

Mr Watters is right to say that

"Single Status has not just suddenly emerged",

but I detect a bit of a veiled threat when he says that many MSPs were

"leading Councillors during the period of time that single status has been around".

He states:

"you failed to spot it or deal with it as well. Many of you are equally culpable".

At least COSLA is finally accepting culpability in the matter.

Our amendment asks the Government to put on trade unions and councils whatever pressure it can to reach an agreement. However, the Government also has a broader responsibility to taxpayers: it is not here to bail out councils and unions that are unable to make hard choices or to agree a cost-neutral way of implementing single status while expecting others to pick up the tab.

I move amendment S2M-5105.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"supports the principles of the Equal Pay Act 1970; condemns the failure of local authorities and trades unions to reach agreement on the implementation of single status; recognises the importance of protecting taxpayers at all levels from the consequences of this failure, and calls on the Scottish Executive to exert pressure on local authorities and trades unions to reach an agreement fair to employees and taxpayers."

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I doubt that anyone in the Scottish Parliament would not subscribe to the principle of equal pay, and I am sure that many of us fervently wish for public services to be maintained. However, the situation is far more complex than the motion or Carolyn Leckie's speech suggest. As others have said, the Finance Committee came up against some of the complications during its inquiry into the financial implications of the local authority single status agreement, the report of which was published in March this year.

The Finance Committee did not conclude that the Scottish Executive should commit either to funding the single status agreement or to funding backdated equal pay claims. The two issues are not the same but they are strongly interconnected: until single status is resolved between local authorities and trade unions, the possibility of additional equal pay claims will remain. It worries me that some local authorities have made their equal pay offers without having solved the single status problem, because a further round of equal pay claims could be coming up.

The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970 and the single status agreement was signed in 1999, when it was intended that it should be implemented in 2002. It is no consolation to say that we should not be where we are. As others have said, the payment of bonuses to some employees—usually men—but not to others—usually women—was acknowledged as an equalities issue about 10 years ago.

Some of us in the chamber today, me included, were councillors at that time. Casting our minds back, we can remember that not only did we have local government reorganisation, we had exceedingly difficult local government settlements under Mr Michael Forsyth. I am sure that Des McNulty can recall that those of us who were in Strathclyde Regional Council had to set a council tax increase of somewhere between 20 per cent and 25 per cent in 1995, so that we could deal with problems. I suspect that such things were behind the fact that some councils did not solve other problems even though those problems had been acknowledged.

I was a little surprised by some of Mr Brownlee's comments about independent solicitors. The intervention of independent solicitors who imply to employees on low pay that they will somehow be able to obtain a wonderful and enormous settlement by going down the independent route has done a great deal of damage. Councils are threatened with being taken to tribunals, and trade unions might be sued. That is making it extremely difficult for both partners to come together to work out appropriate settlements.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry; I have only just over a minute left.

It is easy to say that the Scottish Executive should simply reach into its magic wallet and pull out the cash to settle the problem. We do not know how much money would be involved in meeting the costs of equal pay and single status. COSLA estimates that the cost of equal pay compensation could range from £310 million to £560 million, and Unison thinks that the figure might be even higher.

The equal pay issue cannot be compared directly with the agenda for change, which is an Executive-driven policy that has been carried out by health boards that are appointed. The equal pay issue predates even the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, and local authorities are democratically elected bodies with revenue-raising powers. The two issues are therefore not identical.

However, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has told the Finance Committee that he will be drawing down something like £750 million from central unallocated provision. If COSLA presents a good case regarding the pressures that local authorities face, I am sure that it will be considered in next year's round of settlements.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I support John Swinney's amendment. In this debate, there is a general lesson for legislators. It is 36 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 and, as Bruce Crawford pointed out, it is 13 or 14 years since the act that led to local government reorganisation. Those two acts provide the legislative framework for single status and equal pay.

There is an onus on legislators—at Westminster or Holyrood—not only to consider the implications of legislation before they pass it but, once it is passed, to ensure that it is implemented fairly and justly. To implement legislation fairly and justly, proper resources must be made available. However, in recent years local government has been squeezed on a number of issues—not because it is not receiving more money but because the number of statutory duties that are placed on local authorities has grown exponentially while their budgets have grown arithmetically.

As John Swinney pointed out, we in Parliament have a role to play in banging heads together to find a solution to this problem, not only in one or two local authorities but the length and breadth of Scotland.

I wish the Finance Committee well in the awards ceremony next week, but in its "Report on the Financial Implications of the Local Authority Single Status Agreement", the committee recommended

"that councils examine ways in which reserves can be topped up"

and that

"there should be clear rules and guidance given to councils to prevent—a short term fix—the sale of assets simply being used to fund back-pay—leading to longer term problems."

The committee also recommended that

"the Executive enter into discussions with COSLA or with individual councils to identify whether funding can be made available and whether efficiencies and modernisation can be achieved to provide value for that money, taking into account the requirement to ensure that staff are paid on an equitable basis."

John Swinney's amendment basically reflects the recommendations that were made by the Finance Committee, so I hope that we will have the full support of every member of the Finance Committee when we come to the vote at 5 o'clock.

I want to make two further points. The first concerns the briefing that was provided by Unison Scotland, which says:

"Falkirk Council has issued notices of dismissal and re-engagement to staff."

Falkirk Council has done its utmost to ensure that a fair and just settlement is achieved, so to summarise the council's actions in that miserly wording is absolutely appalling and it severely damages the credibility of Unison's leadership in Scotland.

Secondly, we cannot ignore the fact that, as well as facing a substantial bill for single status and equal pay in the local government sector, we are also facing a substantial bill in relation to the health service. I hope that ministers will accept that fact, and that they will provide us with estimates of the costs and tell us how they will fund the implementation of the Executive's policy for the NHS.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

During my time on the Finance Committee, I have at times found the way in which public finances are managed quite extraordinary. Single status has been one of the most extraordinary examples, and Pat Watters's briefing for MSPs on single status is perhaps the most extraordinary briefing that I have seen in my limited career as a parliamentarian. Derek Brownlee quoted from it, but it is worth quoting some more.

"We all know that Single Status has not just suddenly emerged. Many of you were leading Councillors during the period of time that Single Status has been around and you failed to spot it or deal with it as well. Many of you are equally culpable in this.

That is not to absolve ourselves of responsibilities or to say that you were bad politicians it is simply to highlight the complexities of the situation and that it is the easy option to snipe from the sidelines that local government at the moment has failed to deal with this for ten years."

Extraordinary. I do not want to get into playing the blame game of going back to the 1970s and saying whose fault it was, who was around at the time, and who did or did not do what. However, what I find extraordinary in the briefing from Pat Watters is that this debate and the Finance Committee's inquiry are described as sniping "from the sidelines".

This is a huge problem for local government. When we began our work on the Finance Committee inquiry, I was amazed to learn how big a crisis local government across Scotland faces. Also in the COSLA briefing we hear that

"Parliament can be assured that we have an end point in mind for the delivery of Single Status across the country and we are actively managing the process of moving all councils towards an end point."

As a member of the Finance Committee, and having listened to the evidence from COSLA, I am not assured that it has any "end point in mind" because the COSLA witnesses did not tell us what it was. I cannot be assured that COSLA is "actively managing the process" because, as the Unison briefing lays out, only three local authorities in Scotland have reached any kind of conclusion.

Meanwhile, at the City of Edinburgh Council, which is the largest council in my region, it is rumoured that the council is facing a £30 million hole in dealing with is retrospective single status claims, let alone the on-going revenue costs of implementation. Like other councils, although the City of Edinburgh Council has known about the issue for years, its response has been to hope that it will go away or that a big boy will come along with a big pile of money and sort it all out. The council's current response is to talk about cutting overtime and unsocial hours rates and about converting public holidays to annual leave for low-paid residential care staff. Again, low-paid workers are being clobbered for something that is not of their making.

If we look at the unions, we see the way in which they signed up to the bonus schemes in the 1980s and 1990s—schemes that gave more money to workers in predominantly male areas of employment, such as gardening and cleansing, but not to workers in the predominantly female areas, such as residential care and clerical work.

We can look to the unions, authorities or central Government, but the most important thing for the Parliament to do is not to do as COSLA asks. Parliament cannot take no responsibility for the issue—it has to act as if it wants to protect low-paid workers and because it is the entity that supplies 75 per cent to 80 per cent of local authority revenue. Parliament cannot let COSLA just get on with this; we cannot trust it to do that. Parliament must act.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I agree with Mark Ballard that the single status agreement is among the most important issues that the Finance Committee has considered in the number of years that I have served on it. In many ways, the committee report is a model of clarity: it sums up what happened and points us in the direction that we have to go in to resolve the matter.

The sums of public money that are tied up in resolving the issue are substantial. It is likely that a series of consequences for the management of council services will ensue from the way the matter is settled. The consequences are profoundly important to parliamentarians because of their profound importance to the people whom we represent throughout Scotland.

I will add some historical perspective to the debate. Both Alex Neil and Bruce Crawford were perhaps a wee bit wrong to say that the germ of the single status agreement was in part in local government reorganisation. I can see no legislative reason why the way in which that was done could have led to single status. In my view, the issue arose as result of the fashionable idea of different employer flexibility and the move away from national agreements, both of which arose in the mid to late 1990s.

One of the problems with the single status agreement is that it was based on the idea that different local authorities would deliver, within the context of a framework agreement, detailed local agreements that would allow for job flexibility. That was a significant departure for local government—the matter has to be seen in that context. As it turns out, local government did not think it through then and has not managed properly to implement it since.

If members read the Finance Committee report, they will see that Alex McLuckie from the GMB said that

"the single status agreement was borne out of councils' desire to do their own thing, to move away from national agreements and to have local flexibility to deal with what they described as a local marketplace. There was a feeling that the Ayrshire councils, for example, might have a different marketplace from Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 31 January 2006; c 3364.]

There may be different kinds of local marketplace, but the reality is that, in the main, people in different local authorities do the same kind of jobs. It was difficult for councils, as it was for the trade unions, to progress 32 job-evaluation schemes across Scotland. The complexity in working towards settlement was not properly thought through or anticipated.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

One minute.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Essentially, between 1999 and 2004 we had gridlock: nothing much went on negotiating terms. Councils had not properly thought through the scheme and so found it difficult to move in the direction they wanted to go. The trade unions found it difficult to enter job-evaluation schemes: basically, they had not explained properly to their members that, in reaching a single status agreement and implementing equal pay, some people would lose while others would gain, which is the reality of the single status agreement. That should have been acknowledged in 1999, but everybody ran away from it.

Six years on, the situation is that local government workers who were underpaid are making substantial financial claims for unpaid wages. Councils that are faced with legal threats are trying to resolve the claims, but too many councils have either not begun or have not adequately progressed the kind of job evaluations that are needed to properly implement single status.

We are in an emergency situation; one that councils and trade unions have to resolve—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member must close.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

As other members have said, the Executive and Parliament must watch carefully what is happening and ensure that the matter is properly resolved.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The gender equality duty comes into force in April next year—it requires public authorities to promote gender equality and to eliminate sex discrimination. As we have heard in the debate, despite the fact that local authorities have since 1999 also had to implement the single status agreement, many issues are outstanding. Given that the local government finance settlement includes provision for salaries that are paid by local authorities, it must be up to our local councillors to determine how to spend their council's funds in line with local needs and priorities.

I do not need to remind colleagues that, since the first local government settlement back in 1999, Parliament has been responsible for cumulative increases of some 56 per cent in funding for local authorities—[Interruption.] I said that I do not need to remind colleagues of that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will come to John Swinney in a minute.

As I said, the figure for the past seven years is 56 per cent. By any measure, the sum is substantial. Given, as we heard from the minister, that more than 85 per cent of that money is not ring-fenced, the settlement should have allowed our local authorities to determine for themselves how best to spend their money in order that they could comply—like any other employer—with all aspects of employment legislation.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will let John Swinney in—give me 30 seconds.

Many of our councils are seeking agreement with their staff on compensation payments for past discrimination and are seeking to do so before the agreement of new pay and grading systems. The thrust of the Government's policy is to devolve greater power and responsibility to our local authorities, which brings me to the amendment in Mr Swinney's name.

From the Executive parties' point of view, it is interesting to see the SNP arguing yet again in its amendment for more money. It says that

"a fair and speedy resolution to the equal pay and single status issue"

should be

"reflected in the 2007-08 local authority financial settlement."

Is that the same John Swinney who, we are told, is holding his SNP colleagues on a tight financial rein? I ask John Swinney to be clear: Is he or is he not asking for more money from the Scottish Executive? I am happy to give way.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am glad that, after that long preamble, Mr Rumbles managed eventually to get around to giving way.

I support what the members of the Finance Committee—of which Mr Andrew Arbuckle is a member—supported unanimously, which is that the 2007-08 financial settlement must reflect the needs of the local authorities. While I am on my feet—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Quickly.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does Mr Rumbles disagree with his Liberal Democrat colleagues in Aberdeenshire Council who are demanding—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Oh, come on.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mike Rumbles's colleagues are demanding more money for the local authority financial settlement 2007-08. Is that just a one-off—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, Mr Rumbles, but I cannot compensate for the time that Mr Swinney took up.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mr Swinney took up a great deal of time in that intervention. He is the finance spokesman for the Scottish National Party and I asked him a specific question: is he or is he not asking for more money from the Scottish Executive? He did not really answer the question, so I take it that he is asking for more money—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Are you against more money for—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

John Swinney knows that all public representatives, whether in the Scottish Executive or in local government, must operate within the budgets that they are allocated. As Mark Ballard said, no one will come along with a big pot of money to bail anyone out. COSLA says that councils' unallocated reserves contain about £250 million. I urge our local authorities to continue to take charge of their affairs—as they want to do—and to continue to make every effort to reach agreements that are fair to their employees and local council tax payers.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We go to closing speeches.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I have had the pleasure of serving on the parliamentary committee that has responsibility for local government on and off for seven years. At the start of the first session of the Parliament, I was involved in the discussions between the Local Government Committee and COSLA that established the good relationship that still exists. COSLA was keen to ensure that the Parliament respected local government in Scotland and that there would be no undue intervention by the Scottish Executive, the Parliament or its committees in the operation of the democratic mandate that the electorate gives to local authorities.

In his briefing to members, Pat Watters reiterated the position. He said:

"the responsibility for delivering on the vitally important issue that is Single Status stops with local government and it is something that can only be negotiated at the local level."

He is entitled to ensure that the Parliament, although it takes an interest in the matter, does nothing to impose its will on issues that are for local authorities to address. That is why it is right that the Parliament stays out of the negotiating process, which involves local government and its employees, despite the posturing of the Scottish Socialist Party on issues such as the nursery nurses' dispute and the fire services dispute. The Parliament must know and understand its place in relation to local government. Mark Ballard was wrong: we must not interfere with the action that democratically elected local representatives take in carrying out their duties.

Delivery on equal pay legislation is vital. The legislation is based on the fundamental principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. MSPs have a responsibility to ensure that we meet our obligations under the legislation, but we should stay out of local government pay matters and local government's negotiations with its workforce.

Why is the SSP yet again asking us to undermine the role of local authorities? The SSP talks a good game about local decision making, but makes contradictory arguments in the debate.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

The member should read the motion. It calls on the Parliament "to assist local authorities" to reach agreement with the trade unions and to indicate a willingness to provide funding.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

That is what the motion says, but in her speech Carolyn Leckie asked the Executive to intervene and pay the bill. She is taking up contradictory positions. She suggests that local government and its staff representatives should sit down, think of a number, double it and then ask the Scottish Executive to pay the bill. She suggests that local authorities run up a bill without being responsible for paying it. That is a bit like going to Disneyland on holiday and expecting to pay for it with the neighbour's Visa card.

Members of the SSP have the luxury of never having to tell us how they would pay for things—[Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The SSP exhibits nothing more than self-indulgence and recklessness with the principles of local democracy and sound economic sense. It is nothing short of deceitful of the SSP to use the debate to try to draw the Scottish Executive into a problem over which it has no authority. I assure SSP members that local government and sensible trade unions are not buying into their posturing. Those people know that the debate will solve nothing—frankly, they do not want it to solve anything.

Progress on the implementation of the single status agreement has been slow. We can note that and we can encourage further progress, but ultimately we must ask whether we believe in the right of local authorities to determine their own affairs or whether we want the Executive to ride in like the cavalry in the movies. As I recall, in the movies no one emerged victorious, but plenty of blood was spilled. Perhaps that is what SSP members want. We should not be foolish enough to let them have it.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We stand four-square with our colleague down south, David Cameron, who called equal pay

"a principle of fundamental importance"

and said that it is

"a scandal that ... women are still paid less than men."

That is what the law says, too. We must acknowledge that.

The debate has been interesting. Carolyn Leckie opened it by saying that the Executive must back the law. Like Michael McMahon, I took that to mean that she wants the taxpayer to bail out local government for its poor management and preparation.

George Lyon talked sensibly—for once. The Executive is right not to get involved and we support ministers in that regard. As Michael McMahon, Mike Rumbles and the minister said, local government should run itself in a responsible and accountable way and should not be micromanaged from the centre. However, the Executive tinkers with local government a wee bit too much.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I am too short of time.

John Swinney asked the Executive to get involved. In his response to Mike Rumbles, he said that he was not asking for more money. However, if he wants the issue to be resolved in the 2007-08 local authority financial settlement, he is asking for more money.

Single status is a revenue issue, and is a matter for the future, but we are worried about the current problem. We are talking about £500 million or £600 million. Over 11 years and across 32 councils, that averages out at not much more than £1 million a year per council. Councils in Scotland, most of which are run by the Labour Party, which was keen on equal pay legislation, have been poorly prepared. Councillors have a responsibility, but when they are no longer in the council chamber—Charlie Gordon and I are in that position—the new management must deal with the issues, as happens when someone retires from a company and someone else takes their job.

Alex Neil was right to mention the additional duties and pressures that have been placed on local government. However, it is a primary responsibility of all councils to manage their watch properly before handing over the books to the new authority after an election. That is an issue in this debate.

Des McNulty was right to say that local agreements are not national agreements and that local authorities want local flexibility. There was gridlock between 1999 and 2004, when no action was taken. The unions are equally culpable, because they have not managed their members' affairs well. I even agreed with Mike Rumbles up to a point, which is unusual. Poor management over the past 11 years has resulted in a huge and expensive logjam. We cannot ask taxpayers again to bail out local authorities as a result of poor management at local government level. There needs to be more responsibility and accountability in local government, but the single transferable vote will dilute that. The public need to know what individual councillors have done on their behalf.

If the equal pay issue is not resolved soon, local services will suffer, and the most vulnerable people in society will suffer most. If the unions considered the matter from that perspective and the councils were better at working together, I am sure that a solution could be found. However, there will be no quick fix and instant payment; the issue will have to be settled over time.

The Conservatives think that it is for local government to act responsibly to sort out the matter with the unions. The Government should not interfere.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I support the amendment in John Swinney's name.

I am disappointed that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Tom McCabe, is not in the chamber. A number of back benchers from his party described the situation as an emergency, and in such circumstances we would expect the minister to address the issue.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We are here.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Liberals are here, as they were when we discussed the Howat report last week. Once again, they have been prepared to be the fall guys in a difficult situation.

David Davidson's performance was remarkable. Of the 36 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, 22 were Tory years, but the Tories did nothing about the situation. He talked about the need for a local authority to hand over proper management to the incoming authority, but the Tories did not manage to do that when they handed over power to the incoming Labour Government. The Tories can take no credit—in any shape or form—from the current situation.

What an impossible situation to be in—trying to negotiate a settlement 36 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and after the single status situation arose. Councils and unions are desperate for a settlement, but both are unable to close deals. Councils are unable to close deals because they are cash limited, and unions are concerned about the legal implications and are being instructed by the national bodies not to come to firm conclusions on a local basis. What a cul-de-sac to be stuck in.

Mark Ballard said that there was no point in looking at the history and blaming people. It is time to take responsibility and sort the mess out now, for the long-term.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It will have to be quick, because I have a lot to say.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I ask Bruce Crawford the same question that I asked John Swinney: is the SNP asking the Scottish Executive for more money for local authorities to deal with the issue?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

John Swinney's answer dealt with that question adequately. The Finance Committee drew up a report. John Swinney is in exactly the same situation as Andrew Arbuckle.

George Lyon's amendment made me despondent and I found Derek Brownlee's amendment to be full of despair. No one is taking responsibility in this situation. What would be wrong with the Scottish Executive not interfering in local government and not instructing or directing councils but setting up a task force involving legal experts in the employment field and former chief officers to discuss good practice, which others have failed to do? That would not be interfering; it would be helping to facilitate. I do not dispute that we should let local authorities get on with their job, but the Scottish Executive has a job to do in helping to improve the situation. Nothing has been done in that regard.

I have every sympathy, not with the Scottish Executive, COSLA or the council chief officers, but with the staff. We have a duty to sort out the situation for them. I say to Carolyn Leckie that it is not about shouting from the rooftops and trying to lay the blame on everybody else, but about finding a pragmatic and sensible way forward through which we can find a long-term, sustainable solution. That should be the job of the Parliament. Everyone who has been involved in the process has to take responsibility, so that we can move on from this situation. Otherwise, we will be left with years and years of dispute in local government, which will not be resolved, we will continue to blame each other and the trenches will get deeper. The only people who will suffer are local government staff. It is time to find a pragmatic way forward and to use common sense, but it is also time for the Scottish Executive to facilitate a lot more discussion at the front end.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

There is consensus throughout the chamber about the utter frustration that we all feel that it has taken local authorities so long to try to agree settlements and to meet their obligations to their employees. Initially, it was promised that there would be a settlement by 1 April 2004, but that date has long passed. One council settled long before the deadline, so it cannot be argued that it was not possible to settle before the deadline. We are now in 2006 and other councils have still to finally sign off agreements.

John Swinney was correct to say that we all want to see a fair settlement for the individuals concerned and for council tax payers. There is agreement throughout the chamber on that.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the Howat report include any provision for single status and equal pay in either local government or the health service beyond the next financial year?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As Alex Neil well knows, the Howat report looked to the 2007 spending review, not detailed stuff such as this.

Mr Swinney's other important point was that engaging in the blame game is totally frustrating. We do not want to hear about blame; we want to see a fair deal that settles the matter and provides clarity for individuals who are employed by the councils, for council tax payers and for those who use council services.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I want to make some progress, because I do not have a lot of time.

On Mr Brownlee's speech, to be fair, the blame game did not command much support throughout the chamber, because the answer to the problem is not to get involved in the blame game but for settlements to be reached and progress to be made.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

When Mr McCabe gave evidence to the Finance Committee, he referred to the advice that councils had received and suggested that the Executive was going to introduce legislation to enhance the accountability of local government officials. Where has that legislation got to?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Clearly, that was said in the context of public sector reform, the discussion on which is on-going. Mr Brownlee is quite entitled to contribute to it any time he wishes.

Alex Neil talked about additional duties, but he has to recognise that substantial additional resources have been made available since 1999. There has been a record increase in funding to local government. Everyone agrees that it was the duty of local government to make provision over that period to meet its obligations. The settlements should have been an item on authorities' budgets, to which money was allocated to meet their obligations. The Finance Committee acknowledged that in its report.

Mark Ballard was clearly concerned about the COSLA briefing, as were members throughout the chamber, which leaves us wondering exactly what COSLA means by some of its comments. That is not helpful to our finding a solution and moving the agenda on.

Michael McMahon recognised that responsibility lies clearly with local government.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Executive has provided significant levels of funding for local government. The local government settlement this year will be £8.3 billion, and by the end of the spending review period that will have increased by more than £3 billion compared with 1999-2000. Local government should have made provision within that to address single status agreements.

In its evidence to the Finance Committee, COSLA estimated that, of the £1 billion that it held in reserve, around 25 per cent—or £250 million—was not allocated for a particular purpose. Local authorities need to look to their reserves to help meet the costs of equal pay responsibilities, especially the back-pay element, although I recognise that there are on-going commitments. I understand that many councils are making financial provision for that in their budgets and I welcome Mr Swinney's comment that that is an appropriate way forward in relation to councils meeting their back-pay obligations.

I urge councils and the unions to seek to resolve these matters as soon as possible. Closing the equal pay gap will benefit not only women but all Scots, Scotland's workforce and Scotland's economy. I am sure that everyone will support me in urging local government and the employees to get round the table and settle the matter as soon as possible.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I will start by responding to the minister. It is a shame that, given Tom McCabe's past involvement in this issue in local government and his current involvement as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, he did not see fit to attend the debate. If I had managed to intervene on Mr Lyon, I would have asked him to clarify the Executive's position.

I was a wee bit disturbed by Michael McMahon's contribution, because it did not reflect the written answers to questions that I have asked on the matter, in which the Executive has indicated a willingness to meet COSLA to discuss equal pay and indicated that it has had such meetings in the past. COSLA indicates in its intemperate briefing that, as far as it is concerned, the Executive has agreed to meet it at some time and to consider some sort of financial settlement. What is the situation? Is the Executive prepared to help, including by dipping into the purse?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thought that I made the situation clear in my opening speech. There are discussions with COSLA—there are always discussions with COSLA—in which these matters come up.

I made clear that it is not our role to interfere and engage in the negotiation process. That is a matter for COSLA and the relevant unions and representatives of the employees.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Quickly, please.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

That is their role. It is our role to engage with COSLA on a wide range of issues, which we do daily. Of course, in those discussions, the equal pay issue is—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Lyon, you are making a speech now.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

The point is that solving the problem will take money. The word "pragmatism" has been used in the chamber today. The bulk of local authority money comes from the Executive, which gets its money from a block grant from the Treasury. There will need to be a willingness on the part of the Executive to release some of that money if we are to solve this problem. That will have to happen, or there will not be a solution. It is quite simple.

George Lyon talked about local authority reserves. It is right to say that the local authorities should have to dip into their purse without detriment to staff or services. What about the Executive's reserves and Westminster's reserves? Are people prepared to dip into them? If they are not, all of the platitudes about bridging the gender pay gap will mean nothing. People are using words such as "challenge" but are refusing to put up the money. That is the nub of our motion.

I agree with much of what John Swinney said, but I want to add something to what he said about the levelling down of the overall salary packages. It is true that there will be an increase in the overall salary packages, but it will not match the retrospective amount of money that women, in particular, are due because they have been underpaid for 10, 20 or 30 years. Even the legislation does not allow backdating to apply that far. Further, the increase will not equal what women would get if an employment tribunal said that the award should be backdated five years. Having said that, the pay of a lot of employees is being levelled down, as I said when I opened the debate, which is unacceptable. Those workers should not be made to pay for the inaction of local government and Governments during the 36 years of the Equal Pay Act 1970. That would not be fair or acceptable.

Derek Brownlee's speech was highly amusing. He had a go at the unions for not adequately representing their members and asked who could blame trade union members for going down the no-win, no-fee route of the lawyers. Has Derek Brownlee thought that through? If the unions successfully represented all of the women at employment tribunals—and it is likely that they would succeed—the women would be entitled to five years' backdated pay, and so would get more money than is on offer from any of the local authorities at the moment, the bill for which would be something like £600 million to £700 million. Those women deserve that, but would the Tories be prepared to put up the money? On the one hand, they support the likes of Stefan Cross and join him in condemning the unions but, on the other hand, they say that taxpayers should not have to fund the settlement. What is the Tories' position? I confess that I am completely confused.

Elaine Murray said that this is not a simple issue. When we consider the complexities of job evaluation schemes and the issues of legality and so on, it is not simple, but if we consider what it will take to solve the problem, it is simple. It will take a willingness on the part of the Executive to assist and to adjust its budgets to take account of the settlements that local government will have to make. If that does not happen, the Executive will have to take responsibility for the industrial action, strikes and the cuts in pay and services that have already started. When is it going to be appropriate for the Executive to intervene to stop that happening? The way to intervene is to help and put up the money. It is quite simple.

Alex Neil made a lot of comments that I agree with, but he condemned some of the attacks on Falkirk Council. On that point, I disagree with him. It is a fact that Falkirk Council has issued 90-day notices to make workers redundant and then re-engage them, in many circumstances, with inferior terms and conditions. That is unacceptable. I have to say that Alex Neil is not slow to condemn North Lanarkshire Council in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser when he gets a chance.

Des McNulty made the most reasoned speech from the Labour benches on this issue. He is correct to say that it is the single most important issue facing Scotland. If this Parliament cannot grapple with the most important issue that faces us and indicate a willingness to help, what is this Parliament for?

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 1 has been withdrawn due to illness.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will reconsider its decision not to hold an inquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint case. (S2O-11038)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I made a full statement to Parliament on 22 February and there was a debate on 2 March. Subsequently, Parliament concluded that a public inquiry was not appropriate. There is no reason to alter that view. Of course, the Justice 1 Committee has undertaken an inquiry and the Executive will reflect on its forthcoming report.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

During the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry, it became evident that, due to time and other constraints, that parliamentary inquiry could not call a number of key players, such as Harry Bell, who presided over the Scottish Criminal Record Office fiasco—

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

That is not true.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I did not know that someone else was answering questions on behalf of the minister.

Further, the committee could not talk to Sir John Orr. In the light of the committee's inability to talk to all the witnesses and investigate the matter in the required depth, will the minister now reconsider the matter and have a public inquiry?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I do not think that anyone else was attempting to answer that question. A member of the Justice 1 Committee made a point, as she obviously feels strongly that the committee is the appropriate place for these discussions and that it is for the committee convener to decide what to do in relation to taking the report forward.

As I said, I have made a full statement to Parliament on this matter and Parliament has had an opportunity to debate it. The Executive has co-operated fully with the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry. I am well aware of the amount of work the committee has put into its inquiry and I have assured the convener that, when the report is published, I will read it carefully and consider any recommendations it makes about the way we deal with the fingerprint service. The committee was specifically invited to recommend ways in which the service can be improved, to ensure that it is a world-class service. I see no reason to do anything further until I receive the committee's report.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in reducing the waiting times in NHS Lothian for a first eye appointment after referral. (S2O-10983)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

NHS Lothian is making excellent progress reducing waiting times for a first outpatient appointment in all acute specialties, including ophthalmology. The board is consistently meeting the national maximum waiting time target of six months and, in the past year, it has reduced the number of patients waiting more than 18 weeks by almost 65 per cent.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Does the minister agree that the five-month wait that was suffered by the 91-year-old mother of one of my constituents is simply not acceptable? This is an important quality-of-life issue for many older people. Will the minister ensure that the need to improve the system, especially at the eye pavilion in Edinburgh, is accorded more urgency?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I agree that eye treatment is life enhancing and allows people to live their lives in a much better way. That is why "Delivering for Health" includes a target that states that people should wait no longer than 18 weeks for the procedure that we are discussing. We are resourcing the health service to deliver that.

NHS Lothian's improvement and support team is working with local teams to deliver a better service. That will be done through the progress that they are making around the managed clinical care network in Lothian. I reassure the member and his constituent that we are working hard to reduce bottlenecks and improve the performance of the service. That is evidenced by the fact that 65 per cent of patients are waiting no more than 18 weeks. Nevertheless, more needs to be done and more will be done.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in developing electronic health records for national health service patients in Scotland. (S2O-11018)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We are making significant progress towards the electronic health record that is envisaged in "Delivering for Health". Some elements of the record are in place or are being created, such as the key medication and allergy information that is already stored in 4.4 million patient emergency care summary records and the digital X-ray images that are stored in the picture archiving and communications system that is starting to roll out in Glasgow. Preparation for the procurement of the additional systems we need is under way. We remain on target to meet the commitments that are set out in "Delivering for Health".

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am sure that the minister is aware of the necessity of effective information technology in ensuring patient safety and improving patient care, especially when care is provided at various sites. Can he assure me that the appropriate technology to ensure that will be in place when the new ambulatory care facilities open at the Victoria infirmary and Stobhill hospital?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

This is not just about appropriate technology; it is also about the way in which we work in our health service. It is about, for instance, the community health index number, which is a unique patient identifier that is now being used in excess of 95 per cent of cases throughout Scotland; the emergency care summaries to which I have referred, which cover 4.4 million patients; and the PAC system that I have described. We are building the elements of an integrated system in line with our targets.

In relation to the point about the new Stobhill and Victoria hospitals, we have committed to roll out the whole process up to 2010. I will ensure that, as we do so, those hospitals are included in the early stages of the process. That is appropriate in relation to the building of those very welcome new facilities.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the minister tell us what steps are being taken to protect patient confidentiality? What rights do individual patients have to refuse shared access to their medical records through the new electronic systems that are available?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The system that we are using meets all the security standards that have been established in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. A full audit trail of access that is made to the store is included in that. The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland, the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association and GMC Scotland were all consulted on the programme, on accessing the records and on how that will be managed. An access protocol document was approved by all those parties. Therefore, I would argue that the protocols and security measures around the system are what they should be—leading edge.

We recently issued to all households information about their records and how they are stored. Under data protection legislation, patients have the right to choose whether information about their care is disclosed to other clinical staff.

We are ensuring that the national health service is empowered to use technology for the benefit of patients at primary and acute level. That is appropriate, as we have that information and it is used powerfully on behalf of patients. Nonetheless, patients who are concerned about such matters have been provided with adequate information and, if they wish not to allow access to their records, they can do so.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware of the significant cost increases of some of the e-health aspects of the NHS in England and Wales. He previously gave me an assurance in a written answer that the costs in Scotland are on track. Can he tell me whether that remains the case and give an undertaking that, should the costs of electronic health records escalate beyond what has been projected, he will inform members as soon as possible?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I reassure the member that we remain on track both financially and in terms of our commitment to roll out the electronic health system that is an integral part of "Delivering for Health". We are learning from other parts of the country to ensure that any lessons that can be learned about cost escalation are taken on board in Scotland. Indeed, on our advisory board, which is part of our governance procedures, we have a key member of the team from down south, who was involved in the national IT system for the health service south of the border.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease will be available to people in the early and mild stages of the disease. (S2O-10981)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I understand that NHS Quality Improvement Scotland will recommend shortly that the majority of those drugs should be used only for the treatment of moderate Alzheimer's disease and that they will no longer be recommended for people in the early and mild stages of the disease.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister will be aware that the professional bodies are strongly in favour of the drugs being provided for people in the earlier and mild stages of the disease. They argue for the quality of life of the people concerned and the long-term value for money to the national health service of providing the drugs at an early stage. Will the minister reconsider and extend the use of the drugs further down the scale, as it were?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed in the areas to which Mr Gorrie refers. Clearly, the views of the professional bodies are among the things that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will have taken into account in coming to its view. Our approach has been to follow the scientific views and conclusions of NICE, subject to the views of NHS QIS, whose job is to see whether those conclusions are appropriate and applicable in Scotland. We will continue to take that approach. There are issues beyond the determination on the drugs that will need to be looked at, and I am happy to consider how those issues can best be addressed going forward.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister clarify the reasoning behind the Executive's decision? Is it budget driven or do the minister and the Executive disagree with the policy that the expert prescriber should be the person who decides the best medication for an individual? On the back of Donald Gorrie's comments about the quality of life of the individual patient, will the minister consider the quality of life of the carers who are involved and the support that they receive?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The approach that ministers take is not to second guess the judgments of those with a professional responsibility in the area. We look to NICE, with its accumulated expertise, to consider the issues carefully. This is not about side-stepping the views of the expert prescriber; it is about providing a framework within which decisions are made, which is informed by the best available science. That is and will continue to be the approach that we take. I believe that it is the right approach.

The quality of life of the patients and the quality of life of the carers are both of significance. It is the job of NICE to establish where the benefit that is derived from any particular treatment is greatest and whether the benefit is sufficient to justify the treatment. For example, some of the drugs produce side-effects in many patients and produce benefits in only relatively few patients. These are difficult judgments, and they are judgments for the scientists rather than for ministers. It is for that reason that we follow the advice as we do.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what importance it places on ensuring that medication is appropriately administered in care homes. (S2O-11035)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

All care homes are expected to meet the national care standards and the requirements that are set out in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 and its associated regulations, which include requirements with regard to medication. The care commission inspects care homes at least twice a year to ensure that they do. Should a care home fail to meet those standards, the commission has the power to make recommendations or to impose requirements to ensure that the standards are met.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Is the minister aware that recent publicity surrounding the potentially harmful effects of pill crushing some medicines has left some patients and their relatives concerned about the safety of pill crushing? Can he give an assurance today that clear guidance on the safety and management of medication—both in nursing homes and in the community—will be made available to residents, patients and relatives? Will he also encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop other options, including patches, which would be of huge benefit, particularly to elderly people and those who have difficulty swallowing.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The existing standards are clear and I hope that all those who are involved will follow them. I take seriously the points that Irene Oldfather makes and I will be happy to draw them to the attention of the care commission, which has a responsibility both for enforcing standards and for ensuring the best possible standards of care in care homes.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action can be taken to improve employment opportunities for recently graduated physiotherapists, in light of concerns raised by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. (S2O-11023)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We are working in partnership with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, NHS Education for Scotland and a national solutions group to address the current and potential challenges that are faced by the allied health professionals workforce in NHS Scotland, with an initial focus on physiotherapists. That work will include exploring and developing potential educational solutions, including a development programme to enable newly qualified staff to work in primary care and community settings. The national solutions group will be charged with providing short, medium and long-term solutions. We are also engaging directly with higher education institutions to discuss the management of AHP undergraduate programmes.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister join me in commending the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy for its highly informative and constructive lobbying of Parliament a few weeks ago? In view of the investment that has been made in those young professionals and the value of their skills to NHS services in the future, is there not a case for offering them the same employment opportunity assistance of one year's funding for an initial position that is already offered in the public sector to newly qualified nurses, social workers and teachers?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I share the member's view that the lobbying that was organised by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, which gave me the chance to meet many physiotherapists who have concerns about their future work prospects in our health service and beyond, was extremely effective.

Although we guarantee to offer one year's support to newly qualified nurses and midwives who have been unable to find employment through their own efforts, the vast majority of newly qualified nurses and midwives find employment through their own efforts. I am not ruling out adopting the member's suggestion in the future, but the Scottish Executive Health Department has no control over the number of students who undertake physiotherapy courses. Before I offered such a guarantee, I would seek to hold more discussions with further and higher education institutions about that issue, because it would not make sense to guarantee funding to anyone who came out of our universities and colleges with a physiotherapy qualification unless we had some control and influence over the number of trainees who are needed in the service. A balance needs to be struck. I do not rule out the member's proposal, but it requires careful consideration.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Does the minister agree that as the 187 physiotherapy graduates who are not employed in a physiotherapy post are looking to other countries for such posts, we need to get the problem fixed quickly, before Scotland loses that wealth of talent? Given that 28,000 patients in Scotland are on a waiting list to see a physiotherapist, will he agree to take firm action to ensure that we keep those Scottish graduates in Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I always want to keep Scottish graduates in Scotland to work in our health service and that is what the solutions group will seek to do. It is not the case that we have been inactive. In 2005-06, we provided one-off funding of more than £500,000 to three NHS boards to fund 20 basic grade physiotherapy posts. We have taken a number of measures that I could outline, but time will not allow me to.

We are targeting patients who are waiting. We have been extremely successful in dealing with waiting lists. The member failed to highlight that 94 per cent of patients who are waiting can be offered an appointment within 18 weeks, that 75 per cent can be offered an appointment within 10 weeks and that anyone who requires urgent treatment will receive NHS care in a short space of time.

I always want to retain the skills of Scottish graduates. I refer the member to my answer to Paul Martin, in which I mentioned that we have no control over how many students take physiotherapy courses or what training they undertake. I will seek to work with higher education institutions to ensure that we can and do keep our talent here in Scotland.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Is there any evidence that reduced levels of promotion from junior to senior grades are creating a logjam that is reducing the number of opportunities for trainees in the junior grades?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

There is anecdotal evidence on that. Part of the work of the solutions group will be to examine the skill mix in existing services so that we can maximise opportunities in the system for new graduates. In addition, we have asked NHS Education for Scotland to develop a whole-system approach to dealing with the relevant part of the allied health professional workforce. Our workforce planning work is allowing us to make effective projections of how many people we require in each skill sector of Scotland's health service.

I reassure the member that we know there is an imbalance in the system in relation to the availability of promoted posts. We are on to the problem and are trying to deal with it. Much more effective workforce planning in the future should ensure that we train the necessary number of graduates and that they are able to find appropriate roles in our health service so that they can provide much-needed services to our communities.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the workforce planning work to which the minister has referred include a recommendation to health boards from the Scottish Executive on what level of coverage per capita would be sufficient?

I refer the minister to the fact that, in the Lothian region, there is only one specialist physiotherapist for people who suffer from Parkinson's disease. He will agree that, if one person in 500 in the population has Parkinson's disease, that is not sufficient coverage. How can we address that?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Margo MacDonald answers her own question: the workforce planning process will address those issues. It builds up a picture from the front line of the health service and balances it with projected demand of future need, which allows us to recruit the appropriate workforce. I remind members that the workforce in the NHS has grown dramatically—by more than 14 per cent—in the past few years. We continue to grow that workforce appropriately to meet our commitments under "Delivering for Health".

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before we move to First Minister's question time, members will wish to join me in welcoming the hon Joyce Banda, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, and the hon Anna Kachikho, the Minister of Education and Vocational Training, and a large delegation from Malawi. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2526)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect to see the Prime Minister at the service at the cenotaph on Sunday. We will be paying our respects to those who have given their lives in the service of our country. I do not expect any other issues to be discussed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Last week, the First Minister admitted breaking a key manifesto pledge on education. This week, will he tell us why he has also broken his promise to deliver a fairer council tax system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Not at all.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In that case, I have some news for the First Minister. I remind him that Labour's manifesto for the 2003 election promised to deliver

"a fairer council tax banding system".

We know that it was an important pledge because it was repeated on the same page of the manifesto, but all we have had since then is an expensive two-and-a-half-year review, which the First Minister said would produce "robust recommendations" but which he ended up rubbishing before it was even published. That means that hard-pressed council tax payers are left with the burden of a council tax system that is unchanged, unreformed and as deeply unfair as ever. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to apologise for yet another broken pledge?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon knows that, to implement manifesto pledges as a whole and in their complete meaning, one has to win a majority of seats in the election. It is far more appropriate to look at the difference between what people say today and what they said in 2003. Despite what Mr Swinney said earlier and what Ms Sturgeon just said, the Scottish National Party's 2003 manifesto said:

"we will hold an independent review of local government finance".

That is the independent review that they have been rubbishing. The important thing about the independent review that is published today is not that it forms a huge body of work that people should study and debate but that it makes clear that the SNP's plans for a local income tax that would provide only half the amount of money that is currently provided to local authorities—there are other parties in the Parliament that are far more honest about their plans for a local income tax—would leave a £1 billion black hole in local authority services for which the SNP must answer. If we are going to have a debate about local government taxation, let us look not only at the Burt committee's recommendations on property tax, on which I have made my view clear this morning, but at what it says about local income tax and the gap that would be left by the SNP's plans. Let us ask Ms Sturgeon how she plans to fill that hole.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is that not a bit rich? Yesterday, the First Minister spent all day rubbishing the Burt review—he said that he would not give it the time of day—and now he turns up here quoting it at me. Does he have any idea how pathetic that makes him sound?

Let us get back to what the First Minister's policy is. Is it not the case that, as we have seen today, Labour's manifesto pledges—it is Labour that is in government—are not worth the paper that they are written on? What is the First Minister's policy now? We know that he does not like the SNP policy and we know that he does not like the Burt review. He says that he does not agree with Labour's own plans for a property revaluation that would be disastrous for Scotland. For two years, the First Minister has refused to say what his policy is, because he was having a review. Now that he has binned that review, can he tell us what his policy is on council tax?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Labour's policy on council tax is very clear. It was clear in our submission to the Burt review and it has been clear on every occasion on which I have commented on it in the chamber. Labour's policy is to reform the council tax to make it a far fairer system. The issue with any system of local government taxation is both to secure a fairer system and to finance local public services.

There are parties represented in the chamber that support a local income tax and are honest about that and spell it out in detail. In her speech at the SNP conference two weeks ago, Ms Sturgeon referred to

"putting a ceiling on the level of local income tax"—

running scared of her own policy. Then, through her spin doctors, she was briefing that the tax would be capped at 3 per cent. The Burt review makes it clear today that, for a local income tax to raise the same amount of money that is raised by the council tax, it would need to be at a level of 6.5 per cent. A 3 per cent cap would leave a gap of £1 billion in the funding of our schools, environmental services and the many other services that are provided by local government. Ms Sturgeon must answer this question: where will that £1 billion come from? Will it come from cuts in local services, or will it come from cuts in the budget of the health service or of the other services that are provided nationally? She should answer the question honestly. She was brave enough to get her spin doctors out briefing on it. It is now time for the politicians to speak.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Next May, when the current First Minister is standing here in my place and Alex Salmond is standing there in his place, he can ask as many questions as he wants. The First Minister's lectures about how much money can be raised by council tax might be a bit more credible if he paid council tax on his residence here in Edinburgh. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay it on their residences; even two-Jags Prescott pays it on his residence. Is it not time for the First Minister to follow suit?

Next year, people will have a clear choice between Labour's unfair council tax and the SNP's fair system based on ability to pay. Is that not just one of the many reasons why more and more people in Scotland want Alex Salmond, not Jack McConnell, as First Minister?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The SNP's election policies are falling apart on every occasion on which they are scrutinised. Its plans to turn all private companies away from investing in our schools and hospitals would result in 97 school projects and all the hospital projects—in Larbert, Glasgow and elsewhere—being stopped, as Alex Salmond said this morning. The SNP's wild promises to end student debt were ill costed and untrue and are now being taken apart by those who are spelling out the truth about what the SNP really plans to do for students. Its plans for local income tax have been completely undermined by the same independent review that it called for in its manifesto in 2003.

I repeat that the independent review says that a local income tax will have to be set at a level of 6.5 per cent to raise the amount of money that is currently going into local services from the council tax. Ms Sturgeon was not brave enough to say it herself, but her spin doctors said that the SNP would cap the rate at 3 per cent, which would leave a £1 billion hole. The SNP has to say where the money would come from. It is not going to grow on trees. It has to be spelled out whether it would come from cuts or whether there would have to be extra taxation by other means. The SNP has to answer.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2527)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.