Scottish Parliament, 21 June 2007

489 contributions from 88 members. The official report.

Official Report 21 June 2007

Olympic Games

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-204, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the Olympic games.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I start on a note of consensus: I hope that all members can unite round a message of support for Glasgow's bid to host the Commonwealth games in 2014. I congratulate everyone who is involved in the bid on the work that has been done to date. It is a testimony to their work that, only last week, John Tierney, who is the chairman of the Commonwealth Games Federation evaluation commission, highly praised Glasgow's bid for the 2014 games. When the evaluation commission visited Glasgow, John Tierney stated that all aspects of the city's bid, from infrastructure to political support, had been "truly impressive". That is a credit to the organisers. I am sure that all members wish them every success in their bid to bring the Commonwealth games to Glasgow in 2014.

That is enough consensus from me this morning. The second part of our motion states that Scottish athletes, in the interests of sport in Scotland and in their own interests, must compete as part of a British team in the 2008 Olympic games and at subsequent Olympic games. I accept that that argument applies equally to the Paralympics, as set out in Johann Lamont's amendment, which we are happy to accept.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member also think that Scottish footballers should be part of a United Kingdom football team, as they might well do better as part of such a team?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Nobody is suggesting that we should be part of a British football team. We have separate football and rugby teams and nobody is suggesting that that should change; we are suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the current set-up. We compete as Scotland in the Commonwealth games and as Britain in the Olympic games. As I will point out in a second, that is exactly the way that our athletes want it. It is time that the Scottish National Party started listening to them.

Let me put the debate in context. At the SNP annual conference in Perth in October 2006, Alex Salmond pledged to pull Scottish athletes out of their British Olympic teams, which he wants to happen in time for the London Olympics in 2012. On top of that, various SNP members have voiced their desire for a Scottish Olympic team. Linda Fabiani, who is on the front bench today for the Executive, held a members' business debate on that very subject in 2005. Let us be absolutely clear what is behind that call: it is nothing whatever to do with promoting Scottish sport or Scottish athletes; it is all about the SNP's pursuit of a narrow separatist agenda and about playing politics with the future of Scotland's athletes.

Members do not have to take my word for it—we should listen to the athletes. After hearing of the SNP's proposal for a Scottish Olympic team, Chris Hoy, the cycling gold medallist, said:

"I think if we do that it would dilute the resources and the expertise we've got in the British team."

I echo Chris Hoy's view when he went on to say:

"I'm a very proud Scot, but I'm also proud to be British and I think they don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can be part of a Scottish team and part of a British team."

Legendary Scottish sprinter and Olympic gold medal winner Allan Wells was even more scathing. He said of the First Minister's proposal:

"I am disgusted. What ... Salmond is proposing is stupid and irresponsible ... The SNP has to grow up and realise it is a great honour for a Scots athlete to wear a British vest."

George (Labour, Lothians)

Does Murdo Fraser agree that it is possible not only for a Scot to be a member of a Scottish team and a British team but, in golf, for a Scot to be a member of a European team?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Lord Foulkes was doing so well, but he nearly lost me on that point. However, I am happy to concede it to him.

I thought that, in its amendment, the SNP would leap to the defence of the First Minister's call. However, to my astonishment, the SNP amendment contains not one mention of its policy of having a separate Scottish Olympic team. Why ever not? Is that yet another U-turn from the new Administration? Has the policy been abandoned so early in the new session of Parliament, or is it simply that the SNP lacks the courage to put its idea to a vote in the Parliament—and lose?

The Conservatives realise that the SNP's call for a Scottish Olympic team is politically motivated and would do nothing to bring about a renaissance in Scottish sport. We need to encourage participation in sport at all levels and to provide support for elite athletes to fulfil their potential. Experience has shown that pooling resources and being able to tap into a broad network of facilities and expertise is the best way in which to do that.

Like all political parties, we support the London 2012 Olympics—we are a bit uncertain about the logo, but we will live with that. The Olympics promise much for Scotland, including a morale boost for Scottish athletes in the British team and a network of training facilities for them to access afterwards. We can expect a flow of tourists coming to Scotland as part of their trip to London for the games. Scotland can share in the excitement of the Olympics, which are games not just for London, but for Britain. I accept that Labour should perhaps have managed the finances better and I believe that we should not risk such a large bill for the public purse or allow other lottery-funded projects to be threatened. However, in my eyes, if thousands of Scottish children take up sport after the games, we can say that the money was worth it. I am sure that our athletes will inspire our youngsters.

The Parliament has the opportunity to send a clear message to the First Minister that, on this issue, he does not speak for Scotland; the Parliament speaks for Scotland, and the Parliament supports Scottish participation in a UK Olympic team, as that is good for our athletes, for Scottish sport and for our nation. If the First Minister goes to the International Olympic Committee seeking support for a separate Scottish Olympic team, he will do so in the teeth of the Parliament's clear and stated view.

A wider issue is at stake. In democracies such as ours, the Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive, which merely borrows power from the Parliament. In the end, we represent the people and we, as their Parliament, have the final say. Mr Salmond would do well to remember that when he tries to play politics with our national interest. I have pleasure in moving the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament fully supports Glasgow's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games; wishes our competitors every success in the 2010 Commonwealth Games and looks forward to them building on the 29 medals brought back from the 2006 games, which is the largest number of medals ever won by a Scottish team at overseas games; also wishes the British team every success in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and believes that the interests of sport in Scotland and our athletes are best served if they compete as part of the British team in the 2008 Olympic Games and at subsequent Olympic Games.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Like Murdo Fraser, I begin on a consensual note. Like many other members, I look forward with confidence to November when, I hope, the Commonwealth Games Federation will announce that Glasgow is to host the 2014 games. The 2006 Commonwealth games in Melbourne were an outstanding success for Scottish sport. The performance of our athletes exceeded all expectations and they were the most successful Scottish team ever in terms of gold medals.

We want to ensure that our athletes receive the best support possible to enable them to excel in the Olympics and Paralympics in Beijing next year and in London in 2012. We want Scotland's sportsmen and sportswomen to succeed on the international stage, but that success must not come at any cost. Many concerns have been raised in the past months about the amount of lottery money that is going toward the costs of staging the 2012 games. The impact of reduced lottery funding for grass-roots sport will be considerable. Millions of pounds will be lost to such sport because of the raids on lottery funding to pay for the spiralling costs of the 2012 games.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Would the member care to address the point of the motion and the debate, which is about a separate Scottish team for the Olympics, instead of giving us this nonsense?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That is not actually what the motion says—perhaps the member should read it.

The UK Government simply must find other funding streams to meet the rising costs of hosting the London Olympics. Since lottery funding began, about £275 million has been invested in sports projects in Scotland alone, which is a significant investment that we cannot allow to be hijacked. We want as many of our athletes as possible to take part in the 2012 games. It is interesting that other small independent countries send many more competitors to the Olympic games than Scotland sends. [Interruption.] The groans from the Labour members show the height of their ambition for our Scottish athletes. At the 2004 summer Olympics only one in every 211,000 Scots got the opportunity to represent their country. In comparison, the figure in Finland was one in 98,000, and in New Zealand it was one in 27,000.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

rose—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No, not at the moment.

Scotland sent 24 athletes as part of the UK team to the previous summer games, but Ireland sent 48 athletes. The clear lesson is that being an independent member of the IOC allows countries to give their athletes the chance to compete.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I turn to the second half of my amendment. The Scottish Football Association has made perfectly clear its position on a GB football team. It does not support the idea because it regards it as a possible threat to its independent status within FIFA. This Government and many people throughout Scotland, including the tartan army, support the SFA's position.

Not long ago, we all celebrated the fantastic victory of the Scotland team over France. Do members of Opposition parties really want to put all that at risk, which would mean no more incidents like the one in 1967 at Wembley and no more memorable nights at Hampden?

Although for many years the Tory party has been viewed by many as the anti-Scottish party, I will be consensual and say that recently there have been positive signs that it is beginning to distance itself from that stance. Unfortunately, its support for a British football team at the Olympics betrays the fact that it will always choose Britain over Scotland. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Despite the warnings from the SFA and the opposition of football fans in all the countries that make up the UK, the Tory party is still willing to risk the future of the Scotland team.

The Proclaimers put the Tory position so well when they sang:

"Bathgate no more Linwood no more Methil no more Irvine no more."

Today, we can add to that list, as the Tory party chants happily, "World cup no more; European championships no more; Hampden roar no more; Scotland football team no more."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Finally, the member gives way.

I have no particular view on whether Scotland should be part of a Great Britain football team at the Olympics. Does Mr Maxwell accept the advice of FIFA president Sepp Blatter who, when asked about that scenario, said:

"The four British associations will not lose the rights and privileges acquired back in 1947."

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The so-called guarantee from Sepp Blatter is not worth the paper that it is not written on. The fact is that he cannot bind FIFA or its future presidents.

Why do our opponents in the chamber want continually to give succour to those who want to see an end to the Scottish team? If they assist in making that happen, they will not be forgiven.

Sporting events make a significant contribution to the life of this nation. We are all excited and enthused when a Scottish team competes on the international stage. Our athletes are ambassadors for our nation on that stage and a source of pride for us all. They are also a source of inspiration for those who dream of following in their footsteps.

We must support our elite athletes and our sporting grassroots and defend our international football team. This Government will always put Scotland's interests first.

We all have dreams, and all dreams are possible for those who believe in what they do and who are not afraid to give it all that they have.

Our duty is to ensure that the children of today have the opportunity to develop their talent to become our champions of tomorrow, whatever the arena—Olympic, Commonwealth, European, national, regional, local, school or club. We must not allow a runaway London Olympics to prejudice the chances of our champions of tomorrow.

I move amendment S3M-204.3, to leave out from "and believes that" to end and insert:

"notes with considerable concern the negative impact that the spiralling costs of the subsequent Olympic Games is projected to have on lottery support for grassroots sport throughout the United Kingdom; supports the Scottish Football Association and the Tartan Army in their opposition to the proposal for a British football team to take part in the 2008 and 2012 games, and agrees that such a proposal could damage the continuation of a separate Scottish international football team."

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am tempted to say to Stewart Maxwell, in the memorable words spoken by Gerry McNee after he listened to someone on the phone rambling about a sports issue, "What's your point, caller?" I am confused and bemused by the minister's speech. Perhaps he needs some performance training before he comes back to the chamber.

I am grateful for the support for my amendment, which highlights the critical importance of the Paralympics and the issue of access. We acknowledge the record of the previous Executive in being ambitious for Scotland and supporting Glasgow in its bid for the Commonwealth games.

It is a matter of regret that the first debate on sport this session has to be on the issue of a Scottish Olympic team. Although the debate is on a Tory motion, it is of the SNP's making, given that Mr Salmond claims to want a Scottish Olympic team, although he is remarkably invisible today—he was not present during the minister's confused speech.

We need to be clear about why what we decide today is important. We must challenge the SNP's wish to continue to pursue the notion of a Scottish OIympic team. It is not supported by sportspeople and commentators throughout the country and it would waste time and money. As our amendment highlights, we should focus on promoting sport at all levels and producing top-rate athletes.

We know that there is real joy in sport. My 12-year-old daughter is a swimmer who loves her Glasgow swim team. She and her pals at the pool were hugely affected when they heard about Caitlin McClatchey's success in the Commonwealth games. My daughter was also inspired by Kelly Holmes winning gold for the GB team, and at the weekend she was blown away by the unbelievable quality of the Chinese badminton players who were performing in Glasgow. Sport can be about our being proud of athletes who represent us, but it transcends that and speaks to our awe at the immense capacity of sportspeople to stretch beyond the limits of their ability, physical strength and endurance and achieve great things. We should consider sport in that context, rather than in the context set by the SNP Administration.

It is disappointing that the Administration cannot meet the reasonable expectation that sportspeople and their needs should be considered in their own right, rather than being used as a proxy for a debate about independence.

We know the figures for the funding of the Olympics and Paralympics. We know that Scottish athletes would achieve fewer medals on their own and that the costs of a separate Scottish team would be significant. At the heart of the debate is the evidence that shows that no Scottish athlete, having met the qualifying standard, has not competed at the Olympics because their place has been taken by an athlete from another home country.

Logical debate tells us that we should support the motion. The charge laid at the door of the SNP Administration is that the debate about the Olympics and Paralympics is not about sport at all. Stewart Maxwell rambled on about the Scottish football team. He said something different last week when I challenged him to resist the temptation to use sport as a proxy for a debate on independence. His response confirmed the fears of many that the issue of a Scottish Olympic team is about, as he said, showing that the First Minister

"has great ambitions not only for our country but for our sporting bodies and sporting stars."

Therefore, the debate is really about the SNP knowing best and being ambitious for our country, whereas

"The lack of ambition from the Labour Party is really quite astonishing." —[Official Report, 14 June 2007; c757.]

To suggest that I lack ambition is one thing, but is our freshly painted young minister for sport really saying that Doug Gillon, the respected sports commentator, Chris Hoy, Lee McConnell and every Scottish sportsperson who is committed to the GB team and is striving to go beyond their own limits of endurance and capacity are all unambitious for Scotland, but that the SNP can speak for them? That is a monumental insult.

The same thread runs right through the SNP's position. The SNP says that we cannot be patriotic and remain part of the United Kingdom. The SNP is making a transitional demand—it knows that there cannot be a Scottish Olympic team unless we have independence, so it is asking a question while being sure of the answer. The SNP position is a disgrace and an irrelevance and is illogical and irrational. At decision time, all members should take seriously their responsibilities to support sport and sportspeople and should refuse to allow the SNP to use them to serve an entirely different agenda. I urge members to support our amendment and the motion in the name of Murdo Fraser.

I move amendment S3M-204.1, to leave out from ", and believes" to end and insert:

"and Paralympics; believes that the interests of sport in Scotland and our athletes are best served if they compete as part of the British team in the 2008 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and at subsequent Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and further urges the Scottish Executive to work with all the relevant sporting agencies and organisations to maximise the opportunities for young Scots to benefit from UK Sport World Class Performance programmes."

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am pleased to speak to the amendment in my name. I offer the support of my party for Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games.

I believe firmly that sport is vital to Scotland's future, particularly for our young people. There is an opportunity today to send a powerful message to the UK Government about its role in preparing for the 2012 Olympics.

We support strongly the Olympics coming to London in 2012 and acknowledge the benefits of being part of the host country. We believe that, as our leading sportsmen and sportswomen have made clear, Scotland's athletes should be part of the British team. However, we are also prepared to raise concerns when Government action threatens sport in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a statement to the House of Commons on 15 March in which she outlined big problems in the funding of the Olympics and announced that costs has risen by more than £5 billion. Part of her remedy was to announce that the national lottery would be expected to contribute a further £675 million to the Olympic cause in addition to the £400 million that has already been taken from the lottery for the Olympics.

Subsequent parliamentary questions have uncovered the seriously bad news for Scotland as a result of that announcement. First, there has been a £1 million cut per constituency in funding from the Big Lottery Fund—funding that has been used in Scotland to encourage sport and community activities, such as rowing, skiing, cycling and dance. On top of that, there have been specific cuts in Scottish sporting activity. Sportscotland will lose more than £13 million in lottery support.

If members agree to my amendment, we will not be the first to complain. Earlier this year, the secretary of state was warned by the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which said that diverting lottery funds to the Olympics could cause programmes outside London to suffer, particularly sports that are not part of the Olympics, and that the ability to promote grass-roots sport throughout the UK would be reduced.

There have been developments since then. Figures that were released last week showed that lottery receipts, including receipts from new lottery initiatives that are specifically targeted on Olympic fund raising, rocketed up in March. That was good news. Ticket sales were booming even while the secretary of state was on her feet—in fact, sales were £70 million higher in March than they were in February. That raises a question about whether the full hit on the Big Lottery Fund will now be needed. The secretary of state now has more resources available than she initially thought. At the end of last week, I wrote to her to ask that she reconsider the resources that she proposes to take from grass-roots sports and community activities in Scotland and to reduce the imposed contribution from the remaining lottery projects. Indeed, it seems possible that that contribution will no longer be necessary. In short, I asked her to make certain that the Olympics are not funded at the cost of Scottish sport and other community projects.

In the autumn, members of Parliament at Westminster will have an opportunity to vote against the unnecessary Olympic raid on the lottery. If we agree to my amendment, we will send a message that we want grass-roots sport to develop in Scotland as a result of the Olympics; that we want investment in community activities and participation to grow; and that we want more investment throughout the UK, including in Scotland, in sport and our young people. That should be the legacy of the Olympics in the UK—not cuts in sport in Scotland.

I move amendment S3M-204.2, to insert at end:

"including the 2012 London Olympics, but regrets that the UK Government's insistence on using lottery funds to finance the Games will deprive grassroots sport development in Scotland of essential funding and urges the UK Government to make a commitment that no further raids will be made on lottery funds to make up any additional Olympic budget shortfall."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We now move to the open debate. Speeches should be kept to a tight four minutes, please.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am delighted to speak in a debate on a subject in which I have long had an interest. On 28 September 2000, I asked an oral question on whether the then Scottish Executive would support a Scottish Olympic team; I followed that up by lodging motions on 6 October 2000, 16 October 2000 and 25 February 2002. At the time, the unionist forelock tuggers were in government; now they whine from the Opposition benches. Today, we have heard from them just another version of the north British cringe.

It would be preposterous for a party such as the SNP, which supports the re-emergence of Scotland as an independent sovereign state, not to support having an independent Olympic team. At least our position is consistent. The unionist parties say that we are too wee, too lacking in talent and too inept to inspire, encourage and nurture our own champions and compete on an equal basis with the best in the world. The Tories and their north British allies show a total lack of faith in the Scottish people. They have lodged a motion and amendments that are designed to dull Scottish sporting ambitions and national self-belief. It is lucky that our forebears had a little more gumption; if they had not, there would be no national football or rugby teams. If Scotland had not been instrumental in spreading world football and had not joined bodies such as FIFA decades ago, the parties that oppose having a Scottish national team competing in the Olympics would no doubt now oppose our national football team. Scotland has not won a world cup yet, but Uruguay—the population of which is half the size of ours—has won two world cups and 14 South American championships, which inspires hope. If things were up to the Opposition parties and they could turn back the clock, we would not even be competing, albeit that we would, of course, have the opportunity to show our excitement at getting a Scot on the bench for some big game at Wembley once in a blue moon.

Non-independent nations, protectorates and semi-autonomous island groups ranging from Palestine to the Netherlands Antilles and Puerto Rico have Olympic teams, so why should Scotland not have one? Perhaps some members believe that Palestine could best be represented as part of the Israeli national team.

What about the Great British Olympic team? Historically, the group of nations that comprises the UK has collectively performed remarkably poorly over 111 years. Great Britain ranks 30th, which is well below Australia, for example, the population of which is a third of the population of the UK—Australia's population was proportionately even smaller in the past. Finland, Norway and the Netherlands have done much better than larger countries, not only on a per capita basis, but on an absolute basis because health, sport and fitness are given a much higher priority in those countries than they are in the UK. Australia has 1,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools; the UK has eight. It is therefore all the more remarkable that Scottish swimmers won six gold medals as part of a Scottish Commonwealth games team. However, that five of them had to train in England is shocking.

Of course, when Scots succeed at the Olympic level, others take the credit. Who can forget that when the all-Scottish female curling team who went on to win gold in the 2002 winter Olympics was struggling, the commentator said:

"It looks like a British success is becoming a Scottish failure"?

An independent Scotland will not neglect sport—nor will the Scottish Government, which is committed to securing the 2014 Commonwealth games and the 2016 European football championships.

The pressure on Scotland and Wales to join a British team for the Beijing and London Olympics can only threaten the ability of Scotland's football team to compete independently on the world stage. The wolves at FIFA are circling. It is to the credit of the Scottish Football Association and the Football Association of Wales that they have rejected overtures to contribute to British teams in 2008 and 2012. They're no so daft.

We need a Scottish Olympic team for Scottish sport truly to flower. I urge members to support the amendment that was lodged by the Minister for Communities and Sport.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Kenny Gibson has once again fallen at the final hurdle. He mentioned the new Olympic sport of forelock tugging. SNP members obviously look forward to that sport being part of its bid for a new Scottish Olympic team.

I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the chance to speak and I welcome this debate, which the Conservative group secured. However, I again despair at the desperate negativity of the SNP's amendment. SNP members are in their element today, blustering and showing all their negativity.

The debate is about our ambitions for sport in Scotland. We have heard about what our sportspeople have said—Murdo Fraser said that most our major sportsmen and sportswomen are in favour of being members of a British team where that is appropriate. Scottish footballers think that having a Scottish football team is appropriate. Things depend on how the sport is best organised—I am thinking about world and European organisation and the Ryder cup, for example. We should try to maximise opportunities for our sportsmen and sportswomen. That strikes me as being good sense, as opposed to the nonsense that we have heard from the SNP.

Rather than debating the central point of the discussion, the SNP threw in a straw man—it asked what will happen to the Scottish football team. Labour members and other members have ambitions for the Scottish football team, and it should not be said that we have less ambition than Stewart Maxwell, who, as an SNP member, has a political position to uphold and claims that he has the interests of Scottish football more at heart than other members.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No. The member did not take interventions, and I have only four minutes.

The fundamental point is that our sportspeople should take part at the appropriate level. The IOC and other governing bodies—not nation states—set standards for sportspeople. The bar against which sportspeople will be measured is not set in this debate by politicians in the Scottish Parliament or by the First Minister in his response to a question a few weeks ago.

We have other ambitions. For example, how can we use sport to ensure that opportunities are given to communities throughout the UK? We should consider the big events that have taken place or that will take place—in Manchester in 2002, in London in 2012 and, if the bid is successful, in Glasgow in 2014. Those cities have considered how such events could make a real difference to them and their communities.

It is obvious that the east end areas in those cities have been particular beneficiaries. Already development work is taking place in London in preparation for 2012. We have retained the ambition of the previous Labour-led Executive to use the 2014 bid and the development of our national facilities imaginatively to do what we can through sport. As the elected member for the east end of Glasgow, I note the commitment to a national arena. I hope, too, that we will have a national velodrome and new swimming facilities as well as the games village at Dalmarnock. The other key element that the current Executive has dithered about is whether the headquarters of our national sports agency should be part of that fuller development. There is uncertainty for staff, the council and the community.

There has been a signal for change. What I want from the Executive, rather than indecisiveness and bluster, is a commitment to ensure that we maximise the opportunity offered by the 2014 bid to benefit the most disadvantaged communities in Scotland. It is time—a great phrase that I heard recently—for action, not animosity; it is time for leadership, not indecisiveness; and it is time for the Executive to raise its game.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This is my first rotten-fruit-and-vegetables debate. The Tory motion is not difficult to support—as was the intention—and it would not benefit from the opportunist and somewhat spurious SNP amendment. That any controversy is attached to the motion is due entirely to the laboured and fevered machinations of the Executive, led lamentably on this occasion by the First Minister, who has been cheered on with some bluster from the sidelines by Kenny Gibson—at least one member of the First Minister's team is prepared to support him.

It might come as a big surprise to the SNP that we have all got its central message: we know that it seeks to bring about an independent Scotland. However, it is pretty depressing to see the First Minister make a torturous intervention to propose that the view that Scotland should be excluded from the United Kingdom Olympic team in 2012—a team in which it has competed happily and successfully in the modern era—is unanimously held.

Whom has he consulted? On his flying visit to Northern Ireland or in planning his trip to Wales, did he discuss the implications of the move for those countries? Were Scotland to withdraw, the other teams would have to represent the United Kingdom (excluding Scotland), the partially United Kingdom or the untied Kingdom. Or would the Wales and Northern Ireland teams be obliged to stand alone and compete by themselves as separate nations even though they have expressed no desire or ambition to so do? Was the matter discussed in Ulster and has the phone yet rung in Wales, or has the First Minister, without thought for Scotland's reputation, just shot from the hip with no regard for the practical consequences for anyone else?

It is clear that the reservations that Scottish athletes—whose views ought to figure prominently in the debate—have expressed about their access to sound finance, training with peers and the competitive buzz of being in the UK team would be as nothing compared to those of Welsh and Irish athletes, whose athletic futures are equally prejudiced by this discordant wheeze of the First Minister.

Let us hear no more of it. Were Scotland ever to become independent, issues inevitably would follow that constitutional change. However, let us not forget that, even now, 75 per cent of Scots have no such shared interest with the First Minister.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I apologise for being late—I had to go back home this morning.

The member referred to the athletes. Although he is a lot younger than I am, does he recall that most Scots who have won Olympic medals have sought to distinguish themselves in some way as Scots? For example, Bobby McGregor wore a tartan towel, and Ian Black and Elenor Gordon also distinguished themselves as Scottish. Does that not indicate something?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I happily wear a saltire T-shirt when I am on holiday abroad, but it does not mean that I am any less proud to be British. That was a ridiculous point to make.

The Olympics should not be manipulated cynically to bring about a constitutional change. People in Scotland and, I suspect, even many of the SNP's supporters have no desire to see a great and hugely anticipated forthcoming national event hijacked by student union politics. The SNP now holds high office and should act accordingly. Or is it, as Murdo Fraser suggested, that today's SNP amendment disguises the front bench's abandonment of its policy, notwithstanding that the First Minister thought the Olympic team the most urgent matter to pronounce upon on television during his first weekend on the job?

Whatever ministers' posturing on the Olympics, surely we are all united in our desire to see Glasgow secure the 2014 Commonwealth games, with a bid that has been lauded as "truly impressive". I hope that we build on the momentum of a successful Olympic games to inspire, now and in the two years leading up to 2014—indeed as a lasting legacy in the years thereafter—a generation of children to abandon their PlayStation 2 or 3, their addiction to RuneScape, YouTube and "Big Brother" and get outside and be active.

I refer members to the lottery issue that the SNP raised—let us not give the impression, as the SNP amendment and comments do, that more active participation in sport is wholly conditional on lottery funding. I hope that the games encourage youngsters into public parks, local tennis courts, football pitches and local sports facilities. In addition, a Commonwealth games in Glasgow will act as a catalyst for much else that can only benefit the city and address in part the social and lifestyle difficulties. A modern games will bring tremendous investment, regeneration and employment.

Athletes in Scotland are supported by parties on all sides as unionists. When it comes to the 2012 games, it is as United Kingdom athletes that Scots will compete and win.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This is a landmark debate—we have seen the end of the cuddly nationalism that we saw throughout the election and have seen so far this session. We are back to the true face of nationalism today, as demonstrated in the rather disappointing speeches by Stewart Maxwell and Kenny Gibson. I am particularly disappointed in the minister's contribution. One would have expected in such a debate that he would take the opportunity to tell us what the new SNP Administration will do to develop Scottish sport. Perhaps he could have told us something about how we will invest in grass-roots sport or what we will do for sports in school—but no, we just got a disappointing and rather ill-informed rant about the possibility of having a UK football team in the Olympics.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

How does Iain Smith feel about having such a football team?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will come to that in a moment. The minister's speech showed a paucity of ambition for Scottish athletes. The SNP seems to think that Scottish athletes cannot compete on a UK stage and that somehow we need to be in a bubble on our own in order to qualify to compete in the Olympics. That SNP position is rather poor and disappointing.

I do not want a UK select football team to compete in the Olympics; there might be another way forward that nobody has considered yet. Why do we not have a home nations tournament, the winner of which goes on to represent the United Kingdom in the Olympics? That is another option that could be considered. I see no reason to have a UK select team in the Olympics. I do not support the idea and I never have.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

In that case, does the member suggest that a Scottish national football team should compete in a qualifying tournament for the Olympics?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

If Scotland were to beat the other home nation teams in that tournament, the Scottish team would represent the United Kingdom at the Olympics. My suggestion is worth examining, although I am not saying that it would work.

I am happy to support a British team in the Olympic and Paralympic games. I am equally happy to support Scotland—the Scottish football and rugby teams, for example—in the Commonwealth games. I also support Europe, as others have mentioned, in competitions such as the Ryder cup. I have to confess that I even support England in cricket, unless Scotland is playing against the English team.

It is important to recognise that there are different levels of support. I always support my local teams and competitors first. I will be cheering on and hoping that people from North East Fife, such as Nony Mordi and Andrew Lemoncello, qualify for the Olympic games in Beijing, the Commonwealth games in New Delhi, the Olympics in London and the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I hope that Nony Mordi and Andrew Lemoncello will represent the United Kingdom in those games.

It is fantastic that the greatest sporting event in the world is coming to Britain in 2012. It gives us a great opportunity in Scotland to develop our sport and our interest in it, as Jackson Carlaw rightly said. I remember when I was a kid that more people played tennis in Wimbledon fortnight than at any other time in the year. Sporting events such as that encourage people to get involved and active, and the Olympics offers that opportunity. I support the Glasgow bid to hold the 2014 Commonwealth games for similar reasons.

However, it is important that we ensure that the games—the Olympic games in particular—do not take money away from our grass-roots sports. If there is no investment in or development of grass-roots sport, from where will the elite athletes who will compete in future games come? We have to develop the grass roots in order to find the elite athletes. It is important that we ensure that the UK Government starts to manage the Olympic games properly in a way that does not require lottery funding to be withdrawn from important sports facilities here and in the rest of the United Kingdom. Lottery money should be used to develop facilities that can benefit sport in the long term and not—as appears to be happening—to subsidise regeneration and infrastructure projects in London.

I am happy to support the amendment in Nicol Stephen's name.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I congratulate Murdo Fraser on lodging an interesting motion that is positive and negative at the same time. Up to the reference to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the motion is positive and I cannot fault it. I also realise that holding the Commonwealth games in Glasgow would be good for Glasgow and Scotland. It is unfortunate that the same tired old attitude that has held Scotland back for generations comes to the fore in the remainder of the motion. I respect the fact that every party in the Parliament has its own agenda. The Conservatives are not afraid to show their unionist credentials in their official title.

It is fortunate that I see Scotland as having more confidence in itself and as able to represent itself as a normal independent nation that participates in world events. Even though I am yet another Scottish nationalist who is England born, I consider myself to be Scottish and I cannot for the life of me see why stifling Scots' ambition is a core belief of the unionist parties.

Anyway, I return to the motion, which is just an appetiser to sweeten Scotland to back the 2012 London Olympics. Its purpose is to get Scots to back losing millions of pounds of lottery money that would have been spent on projects in every constituency and region. Probably more sinister, its purpose is also to get rid of the world-famous, peaceful and party-loving tartan army by jeopardising the Scottish national football team's future. Members should make no mistake: if a football team GB is at the London Olympics, the Scottish Football Association can pack its bags and enjoy retirement. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I realise that Scottish football is too bureaucratic, but abolishing the SFA is not the way forward. I do not know whether the Tories want to rid us of the SFA or whether they just do not realise the by-product of their wishes, but that is where we will head if a football team GB takes to the park.

The London Olympics are spiralling out of control. In March, Tessa Jowell announced the financial estimates for the Olympics of £5.3 billion to cover building venues and infrastructure, £1.7 billion to cover the wider regeneration of the Lea valley area, £2.7 billion for the additional contingency fund, £600 million for security and policing, £800 million for VAT and £400 million for elite sport and Paralympic funding. The total is a massive £9.345 billion. Added to those costs is the cost of staging the Olympic games, which is estimated at £2 billion. Thankfully, that is to be met by the private sector.

It is distasteful in the extreme that lottery funding is to be used to subsidise a project that clearly will never break even, never mind make a profit. Given the funnelling of lottery money from Scotland to an event in London that will have few tangible benefits for Scotland, I must ask why we Scots must help to subsidise the event. When voluntary groups and charities come knocking on the door of and lobby every MSP for more resources because their lottery funding has been slashed, what will members say?

I was delighted that England hosted Euro 96 successfully, although the competition was frustrating yet again for Scotland. I sincerely wish the London Olympics every success, and I will cheer on individuals to win, as I have done for many years, not because of their nationality but because of their talent and personality. I will obviously make an exception for Scottish team members, who will be resplendent with the saltire on their competing attire. However, the London Olympics cannot be supported at all costs.

I mentioned the SFA and the tartan army. As a foot-soldier myself, I will never support a football team GB. I am Scottish and I want Scotland to compete on the world stage. Even if a team GB were for under-23s only, it would not stop the Union of European Football Associations and FIFA arguing for one British team at every future tournament. Who could blame them? The precedent would have seen set. Members should make no mistake: a football team GB would be the first step to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland losing their football independence and being subsumed by the English Football Association. It would also be the first step to Scottish football becoming a backwater, as the money would dry up and even fewer kids would have the chance of making the grade at the highest level.

In 1908, when the Olympics were first held in London, Scotland competed in its own right. Why cannot that happen again in 2012? I urge the Parliament to back Stewart Maxwell's amendment.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The debate has been interesting, if not entirely unpredictable from the moment it started. However, I was grateful that Murdo Fraser sought to achieve consensus in the chamber and that he set a different tone from that which Stewart Maxwell set.

Liberal Democrats are absolutely behind a British Olympic team. It is interesting that SNP politicians claim that, without an independent team, competitors cannot be Scottish. I reject that allegation. Margo MacDonald made the point that many Scots athletes make it clear that, although they are part of a British team, they are Scottish. To suggest that Allan Wells, Lee McConnell, Shirley Robertson and Chris Hoy are somehow not Scottish because they have participated in a British team is absolute nonsense.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We did not say that.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I say to Stewart Maxwell that I held the Tory motion up to the light and I know that it says nothing about not having a Scottish football team, so I am prepared to dismiss such sedentary interventions.

In the limited time that is available to me, I make the point that Liberal Democrats do not, as Jackson Carlaw suggested, wish to exaggerate the lottery funding issue or to say that it is the only issue, but it is interesting. If we are concerned to celebrate the Olympic games in this country, part of that celebration must be the fact that the Olympics will inspire many of our youngsters, as Johann Lamont said. We want that because, for the nation's health, we wish to promote far more participation in sport. It would be a tragedy if those who were inspired by having the Olympic games in this country in 2012 were somewhat limited in their ambition because the necessary infrastructure was inhibited by the diversion of lottery funds.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Within the past three years, I staged a members' business debate on the Olympics, at which I remember no Liberal Democrat being present. What did Liberal Democrat ministers do about the issue when they were in government and had the chance to do something?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

There is no doubt that one of the few people who are on the record as complaining about lottery funding is my friend Nicol Stephen. I am sorry that Alex Neil's memory has failed him in that regard. That is not typical of him, but he occasionally gets things wrong.

Liberal Democrats had a quick look at the spread of lottery funding. We managed to find statistics only for the most recent round of awards north of the central belt, in which grants were made to Buckie, Forres, Thurso, Kyleakin, Oban and St Andrews. Those grants are important. No doubt it is the same down south. In fact, 6.3 million participants across 49 sports have benefited from lottery funding.

If we are genuinely to enjoy participating in and success at the Olympics in 2012, I repeat that it is critical that the people to whom Johann Lamont referred are inspired and able to participate in sport. That would not only make the Olympics a greater success but go a long way to improving the nation's health. I hope that members will support Nicol Stephen's amendment.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I shall attempt to be more temperate than I was in my opening speech, although the debate has been less temperate than I had expected.

I will flag up several issues. I acknowledge the concerns about national lottery funding, but those concerns are shared across parties—the same parties that supported at Westminster the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and supported using national lottery funding for the Olympics. The test is not only whether Scottish young people will benefit. Throughout the UK, youngsters are determined to benefit from the Olympics.

I acknowledge the funding issue, but it should not be the decisive factor in how members vote at 5 o'clock. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats and others who have raised the issue want to associate themselves with some of the more intemperate views of Alex Neil, for example, who showed hostility to his neighbours when he said that if London wants the Olympic games, it can pay for them. That reflects a different attitude from one of concern about national lottery funding.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

No, thank you.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is only fair, as she mentioned me.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Well, fair enough.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the member for taking my intervention after some persuasion. How much is she prepared to forgo in lottery funding for good causes in Scotland in order to subsidise the London Olympics?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Alex Neil knows that that is a false division. He knows that, on that question, a commitment has been given to the voluntary sector at a UK level, which it has welcomed.

The core of this debate was exposed in Kenny Gibson's stunning speech, when he talked about the north-British cringe. He says that Scottish sportspeople are deluded and only think that the current approach is the best approach. He says that they are experiencing a north British cringe and only think that it would be better to go and work with their peers down in England. However, he knows better. The truth is that they are being driven down to England against their will. We should have more respect for the sportspeople of Scotland and acknowledge the fact that they and their groups and bodies have thought about the issue. I am proud of Caitlin McClatchey, and I was proud of Allan Wells when he ran in a British vest. That is not the north British cringe; it is recognising how we reveal our sporting talent.

I was disturbed to hear somebody boo when Iain Smith said that he might support the English cricket team. That kind of knee-jerk hostility is the antithesis of what we teach our young people on sports fields throughout Scotland. It is to be deprecated, not celebrated, and it is disturbing that the party of government in the Parliament would collude with that kind of attitude.

The issue relating to Scottish football is interesting and significant. Labour members have said that we will support the SFA in the position that it takes. However, we do not need to have a Scottish Olympic team just because of a perceived threat to the Scottish football team—that argument is illogical and irrelevant, and it is not worthy of the minister.

A Scottish Olympic team should be established as a consequence of a decision to go independent; it should not be used as a midwife to create the conditions for an independent Scotland, which is obviously the SNP's view.

At 5 o'clock, members must decide whether they wish to associate themselves with that kind of hostility towards our sportspeople or whether they want to put them at the centre of sporting achievement. We must reassert the importance to our Scottish sporting tradition of our sportspeople wanting to be part of a British team because of the personal achievement that that confers and because of what it does for young Scots and others throughout the UK.

I urge members to support our amendment, which, critically, recognises an event—the Paralympics—that the motion and other amendments do not mention and which is about providing access to and supporting a British Olympic team of which we can all be proud.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is always a pleasure to follow a temperate Johann Lamont. She is one of the few members who makes Kenny Gibson look temperate at times.

We welcomed this debate and decided to address the terms of the Conservative motion, which is what we have done. We have looked at the overall position of Scotland in the sporting field and at how Scotland could be the best. We support the first part of the motion, which wishes the British team every success in the Beijing Olympics, but we do not believe that it is in the best interests of Scotland or Scottish sport for our sportspeople to be part of a GB team beyond then. There is a strong case for revitalising, inspiring and invigorating Scottish sport from the grass roots up by giving a sense—which we had in the Commonwealth games—that the participants are competing for Scotland. That is not, however, to put down Scots athletes who take part in the British team.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that the notion of national teams competing at the Olympic games is somewhat old fashioned, given the number of international athletes who pick and choose which nationality they are going to adopt in order to get to the Olympic games?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

There is an element of that, but the fact is that it is national teams that enter the Olympic games. If we want to do the best for our sporting stars, that is what we must address.

Criticisms of the SNP's position have been more about diverting attention away from a worrying issue that the Liberal Democrats as well as the SNP have addressed—the loss of lottery funding. Stewart Maxwell addressed the matter directly. There are huge concerns about the amount of lottery money that is being used to support the staging of the 2012 games. Nicol Stephen outlined some of the figures. There has been a rise in projected costs of more than £5 billion, and £675 million is to be contributed from the national lottery, in addition to the £400 million that has already been taken from the Big Lottery Fund. There is no doubt that the few sports facilities that we have, along with some of our lottery projects, will be hammered by that. Labour members should wake up and smell the coffee—that is happening; it is not in doubt. That is what has been said at Westminster and here.

Frank McAveety spoke about desperate negativism. What we are hearing from the Labour benches is desperate denial of what is going on. However, the Scottish people are not in denial. They recognise the achievements that could be made by fully supporting our athletes. I think that Jackson Carlaw said that the Scottish people do not support the idea of a Scottish team, although I might have picked him up wrongly, because I have a vision of him on holiday wearing a saltire T-shirt, sandals and socks.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, thank you.

A survey by the campaign for a Scottish Olympic team showed that 78 per cent of Scots support the creation of a Scottish Olympic team.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

One minute.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, thank you.

I suggest that that percentage would have been a lot higher if the poll had asked whether people supported maintaining the integrity of a Scottish football team rather than allowing it to play as part of a British football team.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Will the minister give way?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am in my last minute, sorry.

I reckon that the support for that would be nearly 100 per cent and that the SFA and the tartan army would be backed all the way.

I ask members to consider the benefits that would be gained by supporting Stewart Maxwell's amendment to the Tory motion. They should sit down, think about it carefully and vote for what is best for Scotland.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It gives me great pleasure to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives and to support our motion. It has been an interesting and lively debate, and I will touch on a number of issues that have been raised.

Murdo Fraser made the point—let us be clear about this—that the SNP's desire to have a Scottish Olympic team is nothing to do with sport but is all about politics. At the SNP's annual conference in Perth on 11 October 2006, Alex Salmond repeated the SNP pledge to pull Scottish athletes out of their British Olympic teams. I wonder whether he asked any of those athletes first. Sadly, that shows the SNP at its worst: inward looking, narrow minded and petty—despite the fact that Stewart Maxwell knows the words of a Proclaimers song. I wonder whether the SNP has surveyed the opinions of Scotland's athletes and of sports' governing bodies, especially the Scottish Institute of Sport, which has done so much to secure medals for us, particularly in swimming. None of those experts wants to dilute the potential of team GB, which, through its collective strength, may even be able to challenge the might of teams such as the United States of America.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment.

We are inclined to agree with the cycling gold medal winner Chris Hoy, who said that a Scottish Olympic team would dilute the resources and expertise of the British team. We also agree with Simon Clegg, the chief executive of the British Olympic Association, who said:

"The British Olympic Association ... strongly believes that we are stronger collectively than as individual countries."

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment.

In Athens, teams of mixed British nationalities worked together, as in the case of Shirley Robertson, the Scot who achieved the ultimate glory of an Olympic gold in sailing with her two English crew members Sarah Ayton and Sarah Webb. Incidentally, as with many Scots athletes, most of her training was carried out south of the border.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Could it be that the people whom Jamie McGrigor quotes might be in the same position as the Tory party, which utterly opposed devolution, but whose members were crawling over each other to get into Parliament once it was created? Could it be that once Scotland has an Olympic team, they will want to join it?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot envisage any member of this Parliament joining any Olympic team—especially not Alex Neil.

Different loyalties do not have to be divided loyalties, as Chris Hoy made clear when he said that

"You can be part of a Scottish team and part of a British team."

He is dead right. What is wrong with that? I acknowledge Kenny Gibson's commendable patriotism, but neither he nor the SNP has the monopoly on patriotism, even if they would like it. The saltire happens to be a symbol for every party in the Parliament and—if I may say so—it is the smartest and best part of the union flag.

The Conservatives have whole-heartedly supported Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen. We are thrilled by the recent successes of Scottish athletes and realise that success has been brought about by clever planning so, unlike the SNP, we do not want to change a winning formula. It has taken Scotland a long time to achieve such success and political distractions could easily upset an extremely delicate balance.

We recognise the value of sport—at both grass-roots and elite levels—in promoting good health, improving self-esteem and fostering a sense of community and teamwork. Successful Scottish athletes have enjoyed the best training facilities and coaching that the UK has to offer.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the member agree that the issue is facilities rather than nationality? The best Scottish sprinters go where the best international sprinting coaches are, which is likely to be America. That is why Liz McColgan went to America. I am rather shocked by how narrow the debate is and by its failure to take account of the athletes and the facilities. The issue has nothing to do with nationality.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

That is not an intervention.

Mr McGrigor, you are in your final minute.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As I have already pointed out, the athletes and the governing bodies all seem to want a British team, not a Scottish one.

I have an important question for the minister. If we had a separate team, would Scottish athletes continue to receive the investment that they receive at the moment, which we are led to believe is at least £100 million a year?

I turn to football. Of course the Scottish Conservatives believe in the integrity of the Scottish team—there is no doubt about that. I hope that the minister and other members will join me in congratulating the Scotland under-20 football squad, which will go to Canada for the under-20 world cup with the excellent coaches Tommy Wilson and Archie Gemmill a week on Sunday. In qualifying for the event, the Scotland under-20 team has done what many top European teams have not.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be winding up.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I liked Iain Smith's idea of having a youth football tournament, with the best home nations team representing the UK in the Olympics. I do not see anything wrong with that.

The SNP needs to raise its game a bit. It needs to get over its dogmatic and backward-looking view of the world, and to realise that Scottish sportspeople do not want a separate Scottish Olympic team.

Council Tax

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-201, in the name of Derek Brownlee, on council tax.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Our motion is straightforward. It does not say that the council tax is perfect, that it cannot be reformed or, indeed, that it cannot be replaced if a better alternative can be found. It says that the council tax should not be replaced by a local income tax.

I do not believe that there is in Parliament a majority who are in favour of a local income tax, although I guess we will find out soon enough. We know that the Scottish National Party supports a local income tax, at least in name, and that the Liberal Democrats have supported one for some time, but it is a proposal that has not been supported by the Conservatives, the Labour Party or the Green party in the past. By voting for the motion in my name, members have the opportunity to move the debate on. By rejecting a local income tax, we can focus on reform of the council tax—or on its replacement, if a better alternative can be found.

There are many proposals on how the council tax could be reformed or replaced. The Conservatives, for example, have proposed a discount for pensioners. Like other members such as John Swinney, we recognise that too few pensioners take up the council tax benefit to which they are entitled. We can and should do everything we can to increase take-up, but our suggestion of a pensioner discount, which would not involve means testing but would, like the single person discount, be given automatically, would make a major difference to the lives of many pensioners in Scotland. It would be easy to understand, simple to implement and universal in application.

I was rather surprised to find that there was no SNP amendment to my motion. After reading today's Scotsman, I thought that Alex Neil might have lodged an amendment to promote a pensioner discount of his own.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If the member has read the article in question, he will have noticed that my proposal is not a substitute for a local income tax, but an interim measure. I suggested a cash—rather than a percentage—discount, which would fair and progressive, unlike the Tory proposal, which would be unfair and regressive.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I read today's Scotsman article, just as I watched with interest the member's performance on STV some weeks ago, during which he said that such a proposal would get the Government into the good books of pensioners. How right he was. We would be happy to explore any meaningful discount for pensioners, either with Mr Neil or with the ministerial team. After all, we have heard a great deal in Parliament's new session about the need for new politics, for party differences to be put on one side and for us to act together in the best interests of the country. In that spirit, I urge all SNP members not to reject out of hand the principle of a pensioner discount merely because it is supported by Alex Neil.

As well as contributing to the political life of the nation through articles in The Scotsman and appearances on television, Mr Neil has lodged a number of parliamentary questions. We await the answer to the one that he lodged today about the cost of his proposal. I note that he has asked a parliamentary question about ministers' pensions, but the one that really interests me is about the cost of a percentage discount for pensioners. The answer shows that it seems to be getting cheaper.

In a debate last year, when Mr Swinney was in opposition, he costed our proposal for a 50 per cent discount at £364 million a year. We disagreed with that costing. This year, in his response to Mr Neil—we disagree with some of the assumptions that he has used—he costed it at £286 million a year. We think that the real cost is about £200 million; I rather suspect that the cabinet secretary wishes that all the proposals that are being made to him were falling rather than rising in cost. It was interesting to note that in today's Scotsman article that Mr Neil is worried about whether the money would be available to fund a pensioner discount. It is nice to find that there is an SNP member who is concerned about having sound public finances. We believe that a pensioner discount is affordable and that all that is required is the political will.

I move on to the case for rejecting a local income tax. We know that the new Government wants to introduce a local income tax, but the SNP's proposal, although it is a tax, is neither genuinely local nor fully related to income. Serious problems are associated with a local income tax that could be varied by each local authority, because there would be 32 different rates and logistical difficulties in tracking people as they move across local authority boundaries. That may be one reason why the SNP has suggested a flat rate for all Scotland's local authorities. The proposal does not seem to have found favour with the Liberal Democrats: in a recent press release, Robert Brown called for a "genuinely local" local income tax. When the Liberal Democrats move their amendment, it will be interesting to hear whether they would support a local income tax that involved the uniform application of one rate across Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member has highlighted the difficulties of having 32 different local income tax rates, but do we not already have 32 different council tax levels?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The critical point is that the unit that is taxed under the council tax is property, which does not move, as opposed to people, who do.

The SNP's proposals do not represent a tax on income—they represent a tax on earnings, but not on interest income or dividend income. I do not believe that we should penalise those who have put money aside or who have invested in shares, and who live off the income that their savings generate. Equally, I do not understand why the SNP believes that it is fair to tax the majority of people who have not been able to save and must work to provide for their families, but not to tax people with exactly the same income who happen to receive that income from a different source.

A local income tax would not apply merely to earnings from employment because self-employed people would also pay it. There is some confusion about whether the new Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism really said during the election campaign that it would be naive to increase income tax in Scotland. If he did, it was naive of him to say that in the middle of an election campaign, but he was right. Scotland will not prosper if we tax our small and growing businesses more than their competitors in England are taxed. Parliament should not give businesses in Cumbria a competitive advantage over those in Dumfries and Galloway, any more than it should give businesses in Berwick an advantage over those in the Borders.

Today, Parliament can give Mr Mather and his colleagues the opportunity to drop plans to impose a local income tax on businesses large and small and can send a clear signal that whatever different views we may have on local taxation, we do not support a local income tax. We have the opportunity to move the debate forward.

I move,

That the Parliament does not support the introduction of a local income tax as a replacement for the council tax.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Labour is in agreement with the central thrust of the motion that is before us today. Maintenance of a property-based local tax system strikes a balance between different sources of revenue. Approximately 80 per cent of the money that is spent by councils comes in the form of grant from central Government and from general taxation, principally from income tax. The fact that councils are required to raise the remaining 20 per cent themselves ensures that they are not simply agents of central Government but are accountable to the electorate for their decisions. Raising that revenue through a property-based tax system based on relativity among the values of domestic property ensures stability for local government services and the employees who deliver them. That is because council tax raises predictable revenues, is efficient to collect and is hard to evade. However it is also fairer, because the burden of paying for local services is shared among all those who use the services, with both assets and income being taken into account.

To move to a system based wholly on earnings would narrow the base of those who contribute in a way that would inevitably increase the burden on working families, in particular. The extent of that additional burden has been estimated at between 6.5 and 7.9 per cent, depending on how the tax burden is distributed between different tax bands. The nationalists' proposals are entirely dishonest, because they claim that a local income tax set at 3p in the pound would meet the needs of local government: that that is evidently not the case is the most fundamental criticism of the SNP's proposal, which promises pensioners that they can be taken out of paying for local services, while promising families that their share of the cost will increase only if their income exceeds £60,000 and promising council workers that their jobs will not be jeopardised by the change. All three of those statements will turn out to be untrue.

Other criticisms can be made. It turns out that the SNP's local income tax would be nothing of the sort. The SNP is proposing a nationally set and collected system of taxation that would obliterate local democracy and leave every council entirely dependent on allocations from Mr Swinney. That is not a prospect that many of them or their electors will relish. Mr Swinney has made much of his desire to reduce the number of quangos and to give some of their responsibilities to local government, but if local government is emasculated and all its revenue and expenditure determined by Mr Swinney, the result will be increased central control, rather than more local autonomy.

Our amendment is aimed at securing greater honesty and transparency from the Government—a big task, I realise, but one must try. In its manifesto, the SNP said that it would introduce a freeze on council tax as part of its preparations to replace the tax with a new system. I hope that that means that significant additional resources will be handed over to local government, to ensure that local services are protected and that my constituents and those of other members are not adversely affected. I want to know from ministers how much that will cost. Ministers can expect rigorous questioning, because the budgets of portfolios other than Mr Swinney's will have to stump up the money to meet this key manifesto commitment.

Even more important is that we must, before we embark on this journey, be clear about the destination. It is essential for the SNP to set out its intentions for the key policy commitment in its manifesto—one that featured on page 1 of every leaflet, immediately after the picture of Alex Salmond, the poster boy for man at C&A. It is not good enough for the SNP to put its flagship policy in the "too difficult" box, as has been acknowledged by Mr Neil, with his interim proposal. The SNP's full proposal for how it intends to replace the council tax with a "local" income tax must be brought before Parliament in the autumn, so that the scrutiny process can begin before local government finance is thrown into turmoil.

I am not saying that the present system is perfect. We, along with the Conservatives and other parties, recognise that there are problems with it, because of its impact on certain pensioner groups.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member acknowledge that the vast majority of people who pay their council tax do so out of their monthly income? The tax is not related to an asset that they cannot realise. A local income tax, which people could pay monthly, is the right solution.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

That was not a particularly profound or significant contribution. People pay their council tax, as they pay their income tax, out of their income. Pensioner contributions and the way in which the burden of council tax falls on particular groups of pensioners are an issue. There is a significant debate that Parliament needs to have about whether that would best be dealt with by the Conservatives' proposal for the introduction of a pensioner rebate that would apply to all pensioners, by Labour's suggestion that the burden of water charges be relieved, or by altering the arrangements for rebates and tapering. However, the Government has brought forward no proposals for us to examine. We need to have those before we opt for a system that will significantly disadvantage local government and, through that, the people whom all of us represent. It is time for the Government to put up or shut up. If it has proposals, it should let us see them by the autumn.

I move amendment S3M-201.4, to insert at end:

"and further requires that any proposals for a new system should be published by Scottish Executive ministers before the Parliament considers Stage 2 of the 2008-09 budget process."

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important area of Liberal Democrat policy. I know that it comes as a surprise, given my disagreement with Mr Swinney on a number of transport projects, but I agree with him on this policy. I give clear notice that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will work with the SNP Government on the issue. Before the election we said that we would, and we will do so when proposals are brought forward. I agree with Mr McNulty on one point, however; it is incumbent on the Government to introduce proposals that should rightly be scrutinised. We look forward to playing a constructive role in that process.

Council tax is a burden on the most vulnerable people—pensioners, the average hard-working family and young people who are starting out on their careers. It is unfair and unfixable.

While the Conservatives and Labour are content to tinker at the edges—and remain so this morning—we seek a fair replacement that is based on the ability to pay. Under a local income tax, 70 per cent of households would be better off. The move would benefit the average family and take half a million pensioners out of paying local tax altogether.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In a minute.

These are important areas on which to move forward. As Mr Brownlee fairly pointed out, today's debate is about the principle of progressive taxation. I acknowledge the Conservatives' opposition to that principle, but I must say that I have always been a little surprised that my former colleagues in the Labour Party have never supported the contention that an important element of our tax system should be progressive local taxation. I and the rest of the Liberal Democrats are very keen for Parliament to endorse the principle today.

Mr Brownlee and Mr McNulty have already given a lot of attention to our position, but they did not pay as much attention to the reality of their own alternatives. As they were put to the independent review of local government finance, Labour's rebanding proposal would result in half of households paying more and no one paying less. If Scotland keeps the council tax, it must be revalued at some point; after all, it cannot be forever based on 1991 house prices. When the council tax was revalued in Wales, there was an average additional 10 per cent hike in tax. Indeed, during the election campaign, the Labour Party admitted that revaluation would have to happen. It is certainly implicit in its own policy; if it splits the top and bottom bands, it must revalue them. If it revalues those two bands, the logical conclusion is that it must revalue all of them. How could it make its proposals work otherwise?

The one argument that was advanced by Mr Brownlee that I might agree with is that, whatever system is introduced, it will have difficulties. Many of us who went through the Burt inquiry know all about that. In any case, it is very honest and brave of the Conservatives to make arguments for reform. After all, we remember their main reform in this area: Mrs Thatcher's Government introduced the poll tax some years ago, and it has not been that long since Michael Howard called it the fairest form of local taxation. Nothing in the proposals that have been outlined by the Conservatives would change that position. Even their proposed 50 per cent council tax rebate for pensioners fails to be fair. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has shown that, under such a measure, the poorest 10 per cent of pensioners would receive on average £185, while the richest 10 per cent would receive on average £470. Is that really fair? I suggest to Parliament that it is not.

We hope that that a majority in Parliament will vote to allow the Government to introduce proposals on a vital issue that affects every household in the country, and we look forward to a constructive debate on what should be an essential principle of any basic tax system.

I move amendment S3M-201.2, to leave out from "does not support" to end and insert:

"believes that local income tax, which is based on ability to pay, is a fairer system of local taxation than the discredited and unfair council tax and notes the position of the Green Party in regard to land value taxation."

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Still in hope—and almost certainly not for the last time—I bring to the chamber the subject of land value taxation. On 30 January 2003, Parliament passed a motion to give further consideration to LVT. Only the Conservatives voted against it—although I should note that Labour, in a somewhat curmudgeonly mood, simply abstained. Although the Parliament and the Executive have not taken forward the spirit of the motion, Mark Ballard took LVT into his portfolio and, over the past four years, was able to present evidence to the Burt committee and to prepare a proposal for a bill.

The Burt committee came out comprehensively against both a local income tax and the council tax. Instead, it proposed a local property tax, but it also spent a considerable amount of time on LVT. Its response was pretty ambivalent; to be honest, I suppose that one could say that it was gently negative about the proposal, without undermining the case completely. However, on each of the seven criteria on which the inquiry decided to judge LVT—effect on behaviour, fairness, public understanding, financial effects on households, valuation issues, taxing the owner instead of the occupier and transitional issues—we can certainly argue fiercely for the tax and against the report's conclusions.

For example, the Burt report says:

"We understand that more than 700 cities worldwide apply a land value tax in some form, including cities in Australia, eastern Europe and the US State of Pennsylvania. However, it appears that the proportion of revenue coming from land taxes in Denmark"

and other countries seems to have dropped. Well, so what? The report goes on to say:

"Despite considerable evidence, there is no 'ideal' model in operation that we could identify."

So the committee rejected LVT because it could not pick an ideal model out of 700 examples. Perhaps we should reverse that position and instead highlight the fact that 700 cities have managed to construct a form of LVT that suits their own circumstances. The committees and the chamber should at least be able to have a full discussion about the possibility of constructing for Scotland, or—as in the United States—for our individual cities, our own Scottish version of LVT.

The Burt committee cast aspersions on the fairness of the tax. However, evidence based on comparisons with the council tax showed that, under our LVT model, people in the lowest bands would pay less and those in the highest would pay considerably more. One of the criticisms of council tax is that it is not fair; our version of LVT would be absolutely fair.

We believe that LVT promotes fairness, productivity, equity, convenience, democracy, enterprise, efficiency, precision, environmental sustainability and the avoidance of disputes. [Interruption.] An ex-minister is interrupting me from a sedentary position. Surely a tax that offers all those advantages should at least be considered by the Parliament.

I move amendment S3M-201.3, to insert at end:

"notes the decision, made by the Parliament on 30 January 2003 but never fulfilled, to consider and investigate land value taxation, and calls on the Scottish Government to fulfil this commitment before the introduction of legislation on the future of local government finance."

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government has said consistently that it is committed to abolishing the unfair council tax as part of its agenda to create a wealthier and fairer Scotland. The council tax is undeniably unfair and regressive and hits people on low incomes, particularly pensioners and others on fixed incomes.

I note from the motion—and from Mr Brownlee's clear remarks—that its proponents have not said that council tax should be retained; they have simply said that it should not be replaced by a local income tax. I welcome the tacit acknowledgement both in the motion and in Mr Brownlee's speech that the council tax has had its day.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Do I take it, then, that the SNP will support our motion at decision time?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am delighted to say that—not for the first time and, I hope, not for the last—I will vote enthusiastically for Mr Scott's amendment.

There are many arguments against the council tax. As I have said, it is regressive and attacks people on low incomes. Indeed, those who are on the lowest incomes pay about 5 per cent of their net income in council tax, while the richest pay about 2.5 per cent. The tax also severely penalises pensioners. Since 1996-97, there has been a 62 per cent increase in council tax, but pensions have increased only by 43 per cent. As a result, pensioners' incomes have been hugely hit.

During the election campaign, this Government proposed its alternative of a local income tax in response to our assessment of the council tax. I will say a little more about how we intend to take the matter forward, but I want to spend a moment on the Conservative and Labour proposals. The Conservatives would reduce council tax for all pensioners, including those who are well able to pay. Such a measure takes no account of ability to pay and therefore retains the council tax's inherent flaws. Indeed, I find it interesting that the Conservative motion does not advance the proposal for a pensioner discount.

As for the Labour Party's position, it would be generous to call it a total shambles. Before 2003, Labour told us that the council tax was unfair, and then it spent four years doing absolutely nothing about it. It told us to wait for the 2007 election campaign, when all would become clear. It proposed two new council tax bands, which would mean that 11,000 tax payers in band H would somehow pay for council tax reductions for 530,000 households in band A.

Providing a £100 reduction for half of those in band A would cost around £26.5 million, which is more than is raised from all band H tax payers. The Labour Party told us to wait for the answers and we waited for months, but its scheme hardly lasted the day on which it was announced during the election campaign.

The Government has exciting proposals to present on local taxation.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

When?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We will consult on detailed proposals later this year and I hope that Mr McNulty will support us when we present our proposals to Parliament. We will listen to the views of other parties, key stakeholders and the people of Scotland, who foot the bill.

Introducing a local income tax will take time, so we will take early steps to offer support to those who have suffered as they faced larger council tax bills each year. That is why we will do all we can to avoid council tax increases. Our aim is to deliver a freeze on council tax rates until that tax can be replaced by a fairer system.

To achieve that, we need a positive and productive relationship with local authorities in which we respect their primary role at local level, support their essential role in local governance, free them to exercise their responsibilities and establish the financial framework in which the tax freeze can take place. My energies are focused on that to relieve individuals in Scotland from the burden of council tax in the short term.

We stood for election on a platform of abolishing the unfair council tax. We are determined to deliver that in the lifetime of this parliamentary session and to honour our commitment to the people of Scotland. It is a sign of the times that I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the open debate. There will be four-minute speeches, which will be tight. I have already had to tell a member that he will not be called and I may have to tell another member the same thing. I call Margo MacDonald, to be followed by Bill Wilson. You have four minutes, Ms MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I shall endeavour to be brief, Presiding Officer.

I have to tell members that Robin Harper's land value tax proposal is winning me over. However, I accept what he said, which is that this will not be the last time that we hear of his proposal in the chamber; I imagine that debate on it will be a long haul. The choice that I face today is whether to vote for a local income tax that is not local, or for a reformed council tax that is not a reform.

I have not come to this question late in the day. I wrote to Alex Salmond during the election campaign and asked him about the Scottish National Party's policy on the replacement of the council tax, but he has not phoned and he has not written. I will, therefore, put my questions to John Swinney.

The SNP's proposed 3p tax rate would be set nationally and, according to the SNP's March statement, it would be collected through HM Revenue and Customs at Westminster. Does Mr Swinney have Westminster agreement on that? That is a straightforward question.

If money is to be allocated to a council according to the income that is raised from income tax payers in the council's area, what would be the financial position of those Scottish councils that have a low income-tax base because of the level of poverty in their areas? How would that problem be tackled? Can John Swinney provide examples of the expected tax yield from Edinburgh, for example, compared with the Western Isles or the Vale of Leven? That would give us a parameter for comparing benefits for different taxpayers.

How would a dispute be resolved between a council and HM Revenue and Customs about the accuracy of the figure for the amount of local income tax to be raised in a local authority area, given that employers hold the information on the place of abode of the LIT payers?

I foresee a great number of practical problems in what John Swinney is attempting to do, because he is attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Without having at his disposal the full panoply of fiscal measures that could be applied by any Government in Scotland, he cannot successfully bolt on this brave attempt to bring in a fairer system of paying for council services.

It is important that we have straight answers to straight questions. Will Mr Swinney expect employers, particularly small business employers, to carry the additional administration costs for the proposed local income tax? Employers, not HM Revenue and Customs, are the actual gatherers of PAYE tax. That is another of the questions that I asked of Alex Salmond and which I now put to John Swinney and his team.

I regret that I cannot enthusiastically support the introduction of a local income tax, because, as I said, I do not believe that the proposed scheme is a local income tax. My vote will depend on whether I believe the putative payer of the local income tax will benefit. Has an estimate been made of the expected revenue? How would that revenue be redistributed? I think that that is the clincher.

The promise is that the council tax will be frozen for two years. What would happen if HM Revenue and Customs took longer than two years to work out a system for the proposed local income tax? The period of two years seems rather prescriptive given the history of HM Revenue and Customs, for example its handling of the tax credit system.

I apologise, Presiding Officer, for only asking questions, but time is short.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In developed countries, there is strong evidence that health differences reflect differences in wealth—that is, in the degree of income inequality. Bluntly, the relatively poor die younger. Like smoking, regressive taxation kills. However, it is not just health that is affected by income inequality. The report by Jackson and Segal highlighted the range of ills that a society such as the United Kingdom, with an unequal division of wealth, can expect.

Today, we have the opportunity to build a new consensus on taxation. We have had the poll tax, which was the Tory solution for local taxation. Quite rightly, it sparked massive protest and, quite rightly, the Tory party likes to forget that deviation into unjust and unpopular taxation.

We followed that with the council tax. What can we say about that tax? Is it less unfair than the poll tax? Perhaps that is so, but it is hardly the crowning achievement of a taxation system. It is time for change—real change. The Tory party, having dabbled in reform and played with the poll tax, and having burned not only its fingers but its hands, arms and most of the rest of it, has now decided that it is better to tinker than to play. Thus, there is the cry from the Conservatives to reduce the tax bill of pensioners, which is a worthy aim. However, the Tory proposal would mean that the largest gainers would be the top 10 per cent of pensioners, who are also in the top 20 per cent of high-income households. The Tory proposal would hardly be a progressive tax.

Certainly, many poorer pensioners would receive help, but what about the poor in employment? What about those on the minimum wage? Around 25 per cent of Scotland's children live in poverty and the Conservative proposals would leave them in poverty. The Tory proposals are superficially attractive, but they would leave many of the poorest in our society out in the cold.

These are the days of consensus politics—so Alex Salmond told me—so I will finish my comments on Tory policy on a consensual, positive note. I warmly congratulate the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, not on its name but on not attempting to reintroduce the poll tax.

Let me point to Sweden. That country has a local income tax and its gross domestic product figure is higher than that of Scotland. It also has lower crime rates than Scotland's and has a fairer distribution of income than we do. Have I mentioned that Sweden is independent?

A local income tax is based on the ability to pay and it is a fair and just tax. It would reduce the taxation burden on families living in poverty and help the 25 per cent of Scottish children who are raised in poverty. A local income tax would not end all society's ills or even improve the weather, but it would be a step in the correct direction. I am sure that some in the Labour Party still hold to its once-traditional values and believe in taxing people according to their means. I am sure that a few in the Labour Party still believe in progressive taxation.

How does one judge a civilised society? Are the criteria its education and health systems, and its humanity? I would add to that list its distribution of wealth. That is why I support a local income tax—progressive taxation for a progressive people.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I will take a leaf out of the SNP's book and say that this debate is about constitutional issues, above all. Local government has no constitutional status whatever in our country, which is wrong and must change. The role of locally elected councillors in determining levels of local taxation for local services is a fundamental aspect of a properly acknowledged constitutional role for local government in Scotland—it is what differentiates local government from local administration. Centrally determined local taxation is a contradiction in terms and is wrong in principle. The same argument applies to individual instances of hypothecation or so-called ring fencing.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member draw into his argument the fact that 80 per cent of current support for local government also comes from central Government taxation?

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Yes. That is a pity. The proportion was not always 80 per cent and need not remain so. Why not have stronger local government?

It is unfortunate that centralisers are well represented in the Parliament. I fear that John Swinney might be among them. In January last year, he advocated giving a £93 million windfall to councils, but only if they used the money to maintain council tax stability. I am not against council tax stability; there have been no above-inflation increases in council tax under Labour in Glasgow City Council for nine years, and I was council leader for six of those years. Council tax stability was a key part of Scottish Labour's recent election manifesto. We were committed to ensuring council tax stability in Scotland for the next four years.

We acknowledged that many perceptions about excessive council tax rises are attributable to recent significant rises in water charges, which are perforce collected alongside the council tax by councils. That is why Labour's manifesto proposed to phase out water charges for pensioners.

We should not give John Swinney the power to set a new national tax at 3p in the pound for council services—the real cost would be 5p in the pound. John Swinney is already famously burdened with 38 ministerial responsibilities. I was relieved to learn that he had recently given up his paper round and I know that he is assisted by Stewart Stevenson's encyclopaedic knowledge and Jim Mather's fiscal fairy dust, but no one politician should be given so much power.

The Liberal Democrats' proposed local income tax would at least be local, but the administration of 32 different rates would be an unaffordable nightmare for employers.

Let us get council tax reform in perspective. According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, the average band D council tax rise during the past 11 years has been 15.5 per cent cumulatively, in real terms, whereas house prices doubled in real terms between 2000 and 2005. I accept that the increased equity is a form of wealth that is not readily accessible by homeowners who are on fixed incomes.

Two major parties—and Alex Neil of the SNP, who has left the chamber; that is the first time that I have seen him run away from a fight—support putting in place measures that will address concerns quickly, but if members support independence for local government they should not support calls for a new income tax.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

My experience of local taxation, rather like that of Charlie Gordon, has been formed by my working in local government for nearly 20 years, by my being a councillor for 11 years and, before that, by my studies of local government finance. Whether I was a student of local government finance, a local government employee or a councillor—and, like Charlie Gordon, a council leader who had to propose council tax increases—it was always clear to me that a property-based tax such as the council tax is inefficient and unfair.

Council tax is now defended by new Labour—although perhaps not much by Charlie Gordon. Labour clings to the council tax with a tenacity that it did not have even in relation to clause IV, which surprises me. If any member thinks that the reform that was proposed by the Labour Party during the election campaign was logical or coherent, they should use a spare night to watch the YouTube recording of Jack McConnell being interviewed by Bernard Ponsonby and try to find a rational and logical coherence to what Jack McConnell said.

The Tories, too, defend the council tax, but in speaking to a motion that is against local income tax they have acknowledged the failures and limits of the entirely discredited council tax. The fact that during the election campaign they described their proposed reforms to the council tax as radical shows how poor the tax is.

The fundamental limitation of council tax as opposed to local income tax is that it is not a buoyant tax. Do the two parties that still support the council tax also support a revaluation? They must do so, because that is the corollary of their position. Labour and the Tories should be up front and admit that we cannot have the council tax without a revaluation, which is long overdue, for political reasons.

Charlie Gordon knows as well as I do that local taxes have been used for far too long by the Conservatives and Labour to push through tax increases that the parties did not want to push through the income tax system. Local government and local government tax payers have paid for national policies that have been implemented by local government without being properly funded.

The real problem is that after the poll tax, which was a disgrace, there was no proper scrutiny of the council tax. People were so eager to get rid of the poll tax that they embraced the council tax too quickly.

The defining feature of a local income tax system is that it is fairer. People pay according to their ability to pay, as Bill Wilson said. The old nostrum, "from each according to their ability to pay" is useful in this context. A local income tax would also be cheaper to collect. It costs £65 million to collect the council tax, but it would cost around £25 million to collect a local income tax, according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Would that figure apply to what is proposed for Scotland, which would not be a local income tax and would miss out much of the local administration?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The CIPFA figures do not go into that detail, but the system that we propose would be even cheaper to administer.

About half of pensioners fail to take up council tax benefit, which exacerbates the unfairness of the current system. Local income tax collection rates are about 96 per cent on average, compared with around 93 per cent for the council tax.

Local government leaders are fed up to the back teeth with the prevarication in the Parliament, which reached its highest level of absurdity when the former First Minister rubbished a study that he had commissioned before it was even published. Local government finance is creaking at the seams, and people who are on limited incomes are struggling to pay their council tax, sometimes having to choose between paying the council tax and paying a heating bill. Many pensioners have an old-fashioned attitude and would far rather pay the bill that they have been sent than incur new expenditure, even when such expenditure might save their lives.

It is regrettable that at a time when change to local government taxation is desperately needed, the Tory motion does not advocate change. The Tories criticise the Government for not coming forward with proposals but have failed to include proposals of their own in the motion. I support the amendment in Tavish Scott's name.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The financing of local government has been one of the most contentious areas of political debate in this country during the past 30 years. During that time, we have moved from rates to the council tax, via the community charge. Alternative taxes have been proposed, such as the local income tax that is beloved of the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats, and the land value tax that is passionately advocated by the Greens—in particular, by Robin Harper in his speech.

The former Scottish Executive instituted an inquiry into local government finance under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Burt. No doubt the partners in the now-dissolved partnership had different expectations about the outcome. Labour probably expected a series of recommendations for reform of the council tax, perhaps by the addition of bands or adjustment of the ratios between bands. The Liberal Democrats might have expected the Burt committee to endorse the concept of a local income tax, in a partial echo of the Layfield committee's recommendations in 1973, although it should be noted that Layfield favoured local income tax not as a substitute for rates but as a supplement to rates, with a view to increasing the proportion of local government expenditure that was met from locally raised taxes.

In the event, and no doubt much to the chagrin of both parties, the Burt committee refused to play ball and came up with an option of its own: a local property tax, levied as a percentage of the market value of homes. As Keith Brown noted, the proposal drowned in a torrent of criticism and was comprehensively rubbished by the former First Minister's spin doctors before the ink on the report was dry. However, although the Burt committee found its proposal being quickly discarded by the then Executive, the committee's report performed a signal service in its measured demolition of the case for a local income tax. Many of the criticisms in the report were echoed in the perceptive questions that were posed by Margo MacDonald.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Has Mr McLetchie reflected on the fact that the Burt report also contained a measured rejection of the council tax?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

There were many criticisms of the council tax, but the council tax is the status quo and those who want to change it will have to advocate the case for change. The case for change was quite clearly demolished by Burt, and that is the essence of this morning's debate.

It is interesting to reflect on how quickly the debate has moved on. Burt has mortally wounded the whole concept of a local income tax and, even from people who support the idea, he has extracted an acknowledgement that any such system would take years to introduce and would require the whole-hearted co-operation of HM Revenue and Customs—co-operation that I feel would be very unlikely to be forthcoming.

In the meantime, we need to address deficiencies and weaknesses in the current system. It was the Conservatives who first proposed the introduction of a council tax discount back in 2005; we proposed it again at the recent Scottish Parliament election. The policy is attracting growing interest. Back in the summer of last year, it had the support of Bristow Muldoon, formerly the Labour MSP for Livingston. Furthermore, Alex Neil of the SNP—never a man to let a good idea pass him by without trying to claim it as his own—has this week echoed the Conservative view that a council tax discount for pensioners should be introduced by the Executive.

The form of the discount—whether a percentage or a flat rate—and its level are matters for debate. The question of affordability will also have to be considered in the context of the overall budget. However, members should be in no doubt that we on this side of the chamber welcome Alex Neil and others as recruits to our campaign on behalf of Scotland's pensioners. We look forward to Alex Neil being joined by more of his colleagues in the SNP and to the introduction of a discount scheme by the Government. We welcome their support and the support of other parties.

Modestly, we Conservatives do not claim a monopoly of good ideas in this Parliament. In the spirit of consensus, we share ours with others so that all may be part of the new enlightenment.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I start by turning my thoughts to another system of taxation that we have already heard a little about this morning. It was brought in by the Conservatives—first in Scotland in 1989, and a year later in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was, of course, the loathed poll tax. I was at secondary school at the time, and my personal protest against the poll tax was the wearing of a T-shirt to school with a large, tabloid-style message on the front. The message would have left any reader in no doubt about how strongly I, as a teenager, felt about the poll tax.

Strong feelings against the poll tax were the order of the day. Direct action, non-payment and even riots signalled people's anger.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, thank you. We have limited time.

I remember the pressure that the poll tax put on the relationship between my father—the head of the household—and me, over whether the poll tax should be paid and over whether we could even afford to pay it. The poll tax led to pressure and conflict in homes, and to anger, direct action and riots in society.

I think that it was Tavish Scott who said earlier that Michael Howard had described the poll tax as the fairest form of taxation. However, in 2003 as Conservative leader, Michael Howard said:

"Obviously the poll tax was a mistake and I have apologised for it."

The only real surprise was not the apology itself but the fact that it took so long.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, thank you—unless Mr Brown wants to defend the poll tax.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Which Prime Minister abolished the poll tax?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If, after this debate, Mr Brown would like a little synopsis of who was to blame for the poll tax, I will give him such a synopsis in the members' lounge. He really needs his memory jogged.

A clear majority in our nation was against the poll tax. Ultimately, it was abolished. It is gone, but not forgotten—or forgiven. It was replaced by another form of taxation that, on one level, bore an important similarity: when the council tax was introduced, it also took no account of people's ability to pay. That structural flaw in the poll tax was doppelgangered in the creation of the council tax. The detestation that society felt for the poll tax in the late 1980s and early 1990s still exists for the council tax.

In my maiden speech in the chamber, during the wealthier and fairer debate, I said that I believed that there was a clear majority in Scotland in favour of scrapping the council tax. We must strive to find such a majority in this chamber too—a majority that cuts across traditional party lines to serve our people.

Earlier this year in Aviemore, the UK Lib Dem leader, Ming Campbell, said:

"Our principle is simple. People should pay taxes in accordance with their ability to do so. Those who earn less should pay less."

On the SNP benches and in the Government, we agree with those sentiments. I am sure that others will agree too. There will also be others who believe in taking 500,000 pensioners out of the local taxation system and stopping them living in fear of the annual council tax bills that they cannot pay coming through their doors.

Tackling poverty is high on the political agenda, and rightly so. A number of points have been made recently about how best to define poverty. Definitions have included when a parent cannot afford a bike for a child, or a school trip, or when parents cannot take their children on a family holiday. Different people will put the poverty bar at different levels, but no matter where it is placed, a tax on earned income will ensure that people who earn less will pay less—not more as happens at the moment. In a fair and just society, that is surely right. That basic principle, put into the form of a local income tax, will benefit not only our pensioners, but nine out of the 10 income decile groups in society—and the 10th group will pay only moderately more.

Members will remember Michael Howard's belated apology in 2003. I would not like members on the Labour or Conservative benches to have to make a similar apology for the council tax in five or 10 years' time. This Parliament has the power to abolish the council tax. Members who fail to abolish it will not be forgiven by the people of Scotland.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

In his statement to Parliament on 23 May, the First Minister confirmed that:

"It is still the Government's objective to abolish the hated and oppressive council tax."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 68.]

As we have since heard, it is the intention of the new Executive to replace it with that incredibly popular tax—income tax. As we know, income tax is so popular that wealthy individuals employ accountants just to ensure that they are not deprived of the pleasure of paying everything that they should be paying. All taxes are disliked. Benjamin Franklin said that the only certainties were death and taxes; very few people welcome either.

We have heard arguments about ability to pay. I would say first that 80 per cent of Government finance comes from general taxation and income tax.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry; I have only four minutes.

When we consider a policy for local income tax, we have to ask who will be liable to pay it. In working families, couples are already burdened with mortgage repayments, the expenses of bringing up a family, and possibly a student loan. Those families will be expected to stump up, as will young people who are starting their employment and who are living at home with their parents, saving for a place of their own. We must also consider pensioners who pay income tax because they have savings, or because they have invested in contributing to their pensions. After listening to Mr Swinney, I am not quite sure of the SNP's position, but I think that the tax man will be coming for pensioners too.

The arguments against replacing the council tax with a local income tax were well rehearsed during the election campaign. The Executive will find it difficult to get its proposed legislation through this Parliament. A lot will depend on the position of the Greens, who will demonstrate whether or not they have been bought and sold for the price of the convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

I want to examine the Executive's interim position. As Margo MacDonald said, the Executive has pledged in the short term to freeze council tax. In reply to my written parliamentary question S3W-507—and I apologise if reading that number out makes me sound a bit like Stewart Stevenson in a previous life—Mr Swinney said that the Executive intended to freeze council tax at this year's level. However, in reply to S3W-508, he was unable to say how much additional resource would be made available to Dumfries and Galloway Council to enable it to freeze council tax.

I should perhaps warn Mr Swinney that Dumfries and Galloway Council is already arguing that, to meet financial pressures, it needs an additional £3.8 million next year and a further £3.5 million in the year after that. As did the Conservatives, I ask whether it is better to use resources to freeze council tax and make everyone a wee bit happier, or whether it would be better to use funds to target council tax relief at those who have the most difficulty in paying the tax.

In 2003, a report from Age Concern estimated that there were 565,000 pensioner households throughout Scotland, of which almost 60 per cent were single-pensioner households. I cannot go through all the arguments in one minute, but I estimate that, if we were to freeze council tax, it would cost something like £45 million in the first year, rising to something like £91 million in 2009-10. However, £91 million would more than cover the cost of halving water rates for pensioner households in that year. So, simply by redirecting the resource that would be used to freeze council tax, we would be able to offer pensioners a reduction by half in their water rates in two years' time.

I have also done the calculation on the Tories' proposals and I came out with £230 million, so I agree with them on that.

It would be cheaper to consider our proposals in the short term and I urge the Executive to do so.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We now move to the closing speeches. I apologise to those members whom I was not able to call.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am delighted to close on the Green amendment.

I reassure Elaine Murray that I remain entirely my own man. Most members are wrong pretty much all the time, and I will be entirely even handed with my constructive criticism.

It might have been convenient and happy for the Parliament and all political parties if the electorate, in their wisdom, had given us a Parliament that had a clear view on the council tax. However, the arithmetic is on a knife edge: half the Parliament wants a local income tax, but half believes that some form of property tax is an important principle and must remain.

Let us consider the arguments that we have heard on local income tax. First, I will examine its relationship to the ability to pay. The idea of a progressive taxation system in which what one pays relates to what one has is clearly an important principle. However, it is not limited to salaries and can relate to any form of taxation. It is an important principle across the taxation system as a whole, not in relation to one, specific tax.

It seemed to me that Tavish Scott's arguments on the ability to pay could almost be used against resource taxes, which the Liberal Democrats describe as green taxes. Considered individually, resource taxes can appear regressive but, if they are used carefully within an overall progressive system, they can be fair. Similar arguments apply to value added tax.

The other argument for a local income tax is the perception of unfairness that surrounds the council tax—Bob Doris referred to detestation and anger. The sense of unfairness has increased in proportion to the steady increase in council tax levels. We need to take account of that. We need to respond to that sense and recognise that, just as there is no majority in the Parliament for a local income tax, there is no majority for the status quo either.

However, those arguments can be made for other forms of tax, not only council tax or income tax. Let us examine the arguments for some form of property tax. One of the Burt review's conclusions was:

"Property taxes are better suited for use as a local tax than income tax. They are difficult to avoid and suitable for collection locally. They are certain ... they are not susceptible to sudden reductions."

Des McNulty argued that a genuinely fair system takes account of assets and income. People should remember that both are forms of wealth. Reducing the scope of the taxation system as a whole by taking asset wealth out of the equation altogether would only make it easier for people who so desire to avoid paying tax. Even without that deliberate avoidance, under a salary tax—that is what we are talking about with a local income tax—many of the very wealthiest would pay nothing at all.

Robin Harper has talked at length about the benefits of land value tax as not only a fairer but an environmentally and economically better form of local taxation. It would not only help to bring disused land back into economic use and stimulate the economy, but would also help to dampen down some of the problems with the housing market. By contrast, removing any form of property tax would be an inflationary measure.

I recall to members' minds the motion for which the Parliament voted in 2003, agreeing to further investigation into

"the contribution that land value taxation could make to the cultural, economic, environmental and democratic renaissance of Scotland."

The Parliament voted for that. The Scottish National Party voted for it and, if I am to be open to the arguments that it is making today, I need to hear some willingness from the SNP Government to act on that commitment and undertake that investigation.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This debate on local income tax is the preliminary joust in one of the defining debates of the Parliament. Derek Brownlee was right to say that it is about the direction of travel. It is a decision between the two alternatives: tinkering with the council tax and a fundamental reform that brings about a local income tax. Whatever the merits of the Greens' proposal, it does not have the broad support of the Parliament and is not the central point of the debate.

Some good speeches have been made. Charlie Gordon made an extremely good point about the constitutional status of local government, with which I have much sympathy. Keith Brown made a good, forensic analysis of some of the issues that lie behind the debate. Patrick Harvie also made a number of good points that must be brought on board, answered and dealt with as the argument is developed.

However, at the heart of the debate is a substantial issue of principle that should prevail in this Parliament: the idea that the citizen in modern Scotland should be taxed for the necessary and beneficial purposes of government according to his or her ability to pay. It is a simple principle, a moral imperative and a powerful driver of reform, which I urge the Parliament to back. That is not to say that there should be no other forms of tax, but the principle holds true for the principal form of local government taxation.

Any taxation system or reform of it has winners and losers. No one likes paying tax—Elaine Murray almost made an argument for nobody paying any tax at all—and no one likes to pay more tax than they have before but, if the Government gets it right, 60 to 70 per cent of local tax payers in our country will be better off. They are the people who pay the highest proportion of their incomes in tax—people further down the income ladder. Many of them are pensioners or young families that are setting out and many of them are caught by the poverty trap in a country where the gap between rich and poor has widened since Tony Blair and new Labour came to power.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will Robert Brown give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No. I will make a little progress, if I may.

Local income tax also satisfies another criterion of a good tax: it will be a buoyant source of funding for local government. Keith Brown also made that extremely important point. A local income tax will avoid the horrors of revaluation, which is a necessary aspect of the council tax and has been avoided in Scotland only by the previous Executive's wise decision to postpone it.

Nevertheless, it will have to happen at some point under the current system.

The debate also shows the true nature of the philosophy and political beliefs of Labour and the Conservative party. I challenge the Labour Party to demonstrate whether there is the thickness of a sheet of paper between its position and Tory attitudes to the council tax.

Let us remember where we came from. The council tax is the son of the poll tax, which was brought in with the aim of saving the skins of the then Conservative Government, which had suffered horrendous by-election losses to the Liberal Democrats. It had also just witnessed a tearful Margaret Thatcher's declaration, which was repeated on television recently:

"We are now leaving Downing Street for the last time."

No amount of bluster from the Conservatives and no amount of crocodile tears or cover stories about their concern for pensioners can disguise the fact that the council tax is a fundamentally unfair tax that bears heaviest on the poor. Indeed, John Major had to chuck bucketloads of VAT at it to make it even half tolerable.

The most revealing thing is Labour's backing for the council tax. If ever there was a litmus test of the true nature of new Labour, it must be its backing for the Tory council tax. It is hard to imagine the founding fathers of socialism rejecting a reform that is based on ability to pay and making a nurse, care worker, postman, train conductor or call centre worker pay more, so that Brian Soutar, Bernie Ecclestone, Paul Drayson or the Duke of Buccleuch can pay less.

This is an important debate. It is vital to scrutinise the details, the rates, the accountability to local councils and the economic effects of the proposals. Margo MacDonald made some valid points in that connection. It is also important to build a consensus for major tax reform. The vote today will cross a major rubicon. For the first time, the Parliament will support in principle a proper, appropriate and fair alternative to the council tax with some prospect of relief for many hard-pressed taxpayers on modest incomes.

I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To a degree, the debate has been predictable, as it deals with a subject that was comprehensively debated in the course of the recent election campaign. There is nothing wrong with that, as the principles that underlie the debate have not changed. What has changed is that we are now debating the subject in the context of a new Parliament and a new Administration. The stakes are raised and the urgency is heightened. That is why we have lodged an amendment that brings into sharp focus the responsibility of the Executive to be clear about exactly how it will ensure funding for local councils, in good time to allow the Parliament to subject those plans to full and proper scrutiny and to allow councils properly to make their own plans. Mr Swinney has made some kind of commitment in that regard this morning, but the way for members to hold him to that is to support our amendment.

In the absence of any greater clarity, we are entitled to assume that the Executive wishes to pursue the prospectus on which it fought the election—that is, a nationally imposed 3p local income tax rate. Of course, that is inadequate for funding local government services. Furthermore, it is not local. Charlie Gordon, in an excellent speech, made it clear just how fundamental that flaw is.

"For good local democracy it is vital that there is a strong and identifiable relationship between the local electorate, local politicians, and their ability to determine the local rate of taxation."

That was a quote not from Charlie Gordon, but from the SNP's submission to the Burt review. It was true then, and it is true today. It was convenient for the SNP then, but it is inconvenient for the SNP today.

Mr Tavish Scott gave us fair notice that the Liberal Democrats will work with the Executive on this matter. Mr Scott should tell us today if they are prepared to sell the principle of local accountability as part of the negotiations. As well as applied taxation, direct and indirect taxation, taxation on earned and unearned income and taxation on goods and services, a tax based on property should be part of the whole mix. I point out to Robert Brown that it was one of the principles of the founders of socialism that wealth and property, and indeed unearned income, should be subject to taxation.

A property tax is easy to collect and hard to avoid. It provides a stable source of revenue for local government.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Does that principle extend to the super-rich venture capitalists who were featured on "Newsnight" last night, who pay an absolute minimum of tax under a Labour regime in London?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Those are the very people who would pay nothing under the proposals on which Keith Brown's party fought the election.

A property tax is fair if it is properly mitigated through a system of discounts and benefits. Many members have repeated the mantra that a local income tax is based on the ability to pay. It is not as simple as that. It is based on the ability to earn.

It takes no account of age, as council tax does. It takes no account of caring responsibilities, as council tax does. It takes no account of disability, as council tax does. It takes no account of responsibilities for children, as council tax does.

What about student nurses? The Executive trumpeted a 2.5 per cent increase in their pay packets, but it wants to take 3 per cent out. Student nurses currently pay no council tax; under the Executive's proposals, they would pay local income tax. About 450,000 Scottish pensioners pay income tax. Under a local income tax, they will be paying more, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

We can make council tax fairer, and we should. If we really want to help pensioners, Derek Brownlee, Elaine Murray and even Alex Neil have each suggested a way. We can improve local tax. We can do so without crippling local government, without stripping accountability from councillors and without making Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call John Swinney. You have six minutes.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Presiding Officer—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Five minutes.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I agree with Iain Gray that Charlie Gordon made an excellent speech. This Administration believes much more than the previous Administration did in the significance of the role of local government in our country.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Labour members can jeer as usual, but they should talk to local authority leaders, who feel that the previous Administration ring fenced money and tied the hands of local government, using it not as part of the democratic fabric of our society but as a delivery agent that was dictated to by ministers. This Government will not follow the same route. Mr Gordon should be assured that the minister takes a supportive approach to local government. We intend to build on the powers and responsibilities of local authorities.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I accept Mr Swinney's point. I believe that he thinks that the accountability of local government is important. Will he therefore admit that the reason for suggesting a nationally imposed 3p rate is the realisation, part way through an election campaign, that the rate would in fact have to be levied at a level somewhere between 6.5p and 7p, and that the Executive's proposals are simply a matter of expediency, not principle?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is a matter of administrative efficiency to ensure that a system can be up and running to tackle some of the legitimate issues that Margo MacDonald raised in her speech. The policy was not announced during the election; it was announced well before the election campaign that that was exactly what we were going to do.

Robert Brown made an excellent speech. He rightly characterised the debate as the "preliminary joust" on a big issue for the Parliament. It is important that we do not close the door on the idea of reform. That is the choice that we all have today. It is a question of whether we leave the door open to the reform of local authority taxation or accept the position of the Conservatives and the Labour Party that we should slam that door shut. I appeal to Parliament to keep that door open, so that we can consider the issues in greater detail.

That brings me to the points that—

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am just about to address the points that Margo MacDonald made. I am terribly sorry that she did not receive a reply from Alex Salmond to her letter, but so many of the points that she raised are matters on which we published information and commentary before the election campaign. They are, however, material to the consideration of this issue, and they will be the subject of the Government's consultation later in the year, when we set out our opinions on those points.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I have another question. Keith Brown said that 60 to 70 per cent of people would benefit from the Executive's proposals. First, what if ministers are wrong? Secondly, what happens to the 30 per cent? By how much would they lose?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Liberal Democrats' estimates were that, under their proposals, 70 per cent would benefit and 30 per cent would be worse off. As was validated by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, 90 per cent of Scots would benefit from our proposals. That clearly must be examined in further detail.

Patrick Harvie raised a point about land value taxation. I return to my original point in relation to Mr Brownlee's comments. The opportunity for us to give any consideration to land value taxation depends on our ability to keep open the door of the debate on local taxation reform. The Conservatives and the Labour Party want to close the door on the debate on reform. We want to continue consideration of the issues. We will advance our arguments for local income tax. I very much welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats intend to do so, too. I welcome the fact that the Green party has proposals on land value tax.

I am happy for further consideration to be given to the motion that the Parliament agreed to in January 2003. The Government will consider all the suggestions that have been made, including what Elaine Murray said about water charges. Her proposal is not the position of the Government just now, but we will consider it in the spirit of consensus and open discussion.

The points that David McLetchie raised about the Burt review were fascinating. He has reverted to his old days as a lawyer. He now believes that a higher standard of proof should be required for a new proposal, unlike for the atrocious and unfair system that is in place now. Let us have a bit of consistency. The Burt review trashed the council tax, and it should not be used as a fig leaf to defend an indefensible position.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The bottom line is that the local income tax sums do not add up. Several months ago, on the campaign trail, I heard Liberal Democrat and SNP candidates saying that 90 per cent of people would be better off under this system.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Seventy per cent.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

A week later, in a different hustings, it was 80 per cent. Then it became 70 per cent, as Mr Rumbles is now saying. Today, we heard from Keith Brown that 60 per cent of people would probably be better off. I wonder where we will end up in a few months' time—probably much closer to the real figure.

The problem that the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have had today—as they have had in every hustings that I have ever been to—is that although they do not like the council tax, which they want to scrap, they have no clear idea of what to replace it with.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That is ridiculous.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

All the speakers from those parties have been extremely light on detail. Mr Scott may say, from a sedentary position, that my suggestion is ridiculous, but, in his speech, he spent more time talking about the poll tax than he did about the local income tax.

As Derek Brownlee said, we do not think that the council tax is perfect, but we think that it is a lot better—

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What about the poll tax?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The member did not answer my question about which Prime Minister abolished the poll tax, so he should not interject now.

Mr Brownlee also pointed out that we have a clear and costed policy to help our pensioners, who suffer most under the current council tax. We are calling for a 50 per cent discount for them, which could easily be incorporated by this Government now and would meet with broad support from members across the chamber, including Alex Neil, as we heard earlier.

Mr Swinney's arguments against our proposal do not add up. He does not like the proposal because some rich pensioners would benefit. However, in almost the same breath, he says that we are going to have a two-year council tax freeze across the board. Presumably, that will not discriminate between rich, poor and anyone else.

A local income tax would be a step backwards for this country. It is a tax on hard-working families. Most families in this country would be worse off under the new system, as would just about every household in which two or more people work. A nurse and a police officer living together would be around £500 or £600 worse off a year. That is not fair.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Do those figures refer to Mr Swinney's proposals or to a general example of a local income tax?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Those figures are based on the Burt review, which talks about a rate of 6.5p in the pound. We are being sold a pup. It is convenient for the SNP to say that the rate will be 3 per cent but, in fact, it has the ability to vary the tartan tax by 3 per cent quite easily. We do not believe the SNP's figures. If the rate is 3 per cent, there will be a shortfall of at least £1 billion a year. Where will the money come from to make up that shortfall? Does the SNP have a plan B?

It was interesting to hear Robert Brown say, "We are not saying that local income tax is the only tax that we should have for local government." Is that a tacit admission that Robert Brown knows that the sums do not stack up and that that means that something else must be done?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

That is not what I said. I said that there is a basket of other taxes and that we did not rule out other forms of taxation. VAT and so on obviously exist.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

But what the member specifically said was that he did not rule out other taxes at a local level.

The biggest weakness in the position of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP is that they completely ignore the larger picture of local government finance. They ignore what councillors are saying, which is—as Charlie Gordon pointed out in an excellent speech—that the tax system that is proposed is simply not local. If it were introduced, our local councils would lose some of their autonomy and local accountability would be eroded. If there is not enough money to enable parties to do what they said they were going to do in the manifestos on which they were elected in May, what are they going to do?

The position of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP also ignores the wishes of business. The proposal would put an additional burden of around £30 million on business every year. On the one hand, we have Jim Mather—who presumably was not allowed to speak in this debate because of his position on income tax—cutting red tape for businesses and, on the other hand, we have John Swinney tying up those businesses with yellow tape. We do not need that extra burden on business when we are trying to grow our economy.

The local income tax would also hit the self-employed, students, student nurses, pensioners who have saved hard for their retirement, hard-working families and any number of other people.

People who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. However, under the proposal, it would be not only Peter who would lose out, but students, business and hard-working families. That is why the Conservatives are saying no to the local income tax. Not here, not now, not at all.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it is having with the United Kingdom Government on proposals to permit investigations into the deaths of Scottish servicemen killed abroad to take place in Scotland. (S3O-349)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We are acutely aware of the sensitivity of this issue and share the desire to find a system that will reduce the stress, anguish and delay for bereaved families.

The Scottish Government, continuing work done by ministers in the previous Administration, has been in contact with the United Kingdom Government with a view to finding the best resolution of this issue, having regard to the legal context. That contact is on-going.

We welcome the UK Government's desire to work with us to find the best way to investigate deaths of Scotland-based service personnel who are killed abroad.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his response and for the co-operative action he is taking with the Westminster Government on this matter. Does he agree that it is possible and necessary for the Scottish Government to take that co-operative work further in the interests of service personnel who are from or based in Scotland, and their families, including those who served in the Falklands war, many of whom are still suffering and are able to access ever fewer and less appropriate facilities for their welfare?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Absolutely. I am aware of the member's service in the Falklands conflict and agree that it is the duty of this Government to co-operate with everyone who can help us to ensure that we can look after the interests of those who have served in conflicts, those who have suffered and those who have lost loved ones. We will continue to do so. The legal field is complicated, but I assure the member that we are keen to resolve the issue.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in planning for a replacement road crossing for the Forth. (S3O-305)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Forth replacement crossing study has now concluded and Transport Scotland is considering the study findings. A paper is being prepared for the Cabinet to consider options and the associated costs, to allow an early decision on this important project.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased that the minister recognises that it is vital for the economic and social future of Fife and the east of Scotland that planning for a replacement road crossing begins now, and that a situation in which travel to and from Fife is unreasonably restricted is not allowed to develop.

I would like to impress on the minister the importance of consultation with the current bridge workforce on changes and new proposals. Can the minister give me a guarantee that there will be full consultation with the people of Fife on the options for a replacement road crossing?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In relation to the changes that have been announced to the tolling regime on the existing bridge, the workforce is at the front of our minds and the Forth Estuary Transport Authority has taken appropriate steps with regard to consultation.

On the new crossing, whatever its nature might be, we have to take the people of Fife and the people on this side of the estuary along with us. The project is a strategic one that we have to get right and for which we have a tightly constrained timetable. Consultation will be an important part of taking the project forward.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I congratulate the cabinet minister for moving this issue forward quickly. I look forward to an announcement about the conclusions of the study being made in the near future.

Does the minister agree that we are so late coming to conclusions because, in November 2005, the former First Minister said that it was a particularly stupid idea to start making plans? If that had not been his position, we could have been a lot further forward than we are at the moment.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank the member for her promotion of me to the Cabinet. One never knows—some day.

At this stage, it is important to examine some of the timetable constraints that we are faced with. It is possible—although this is the earliest date—that the bridge will have to close to heavy goods vehicles in 2013. Work continues, and we hope that that will not be the case. If we can proceed at the pace that we seek, it may be possible to start construction in 2016. I am determined that we will have no further delays in addressing an issue that is important for Fife and the Lothians.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the minister give a commitment to ensure that the proposals for the new Forth crossing include options for public transport? Does he accept that the new crossing gives us the chance not just to maintain vital road access across the Forth but to increase capacity for public transport, particularly given the pressure on the Forth rail bridge and the need to reduce congestion and carbon emissions?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The importance of public transport is very much part of our consideration of the replacement crossing. The member is likely to know that there are issues with signalling on the existing railway bridge; we are addressing them, following up on the work of the previous Administration. She may be assured that, as well as provide a new road crossing, we want public transport to be improved between Fife and the Lothians.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what its transport priorities are for Ayrshire. (S3O-322)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport priorities for Ayrshire are the responsibility of the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and the relevant local authorities. The Scottish Executive will continue to work closely with those bodies, in line with the national transport strategy, to meet the transport needs of Ayrshire.

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

The Scottish Executive has responsibility for trunk roads. Does the minister agree that road safety for vehicle passengers and pedestrians is a key element of any transport strategy? Does he consider further improvements to the A77 in my constituency, including a bypass for Maybole, to be a priority? Will he examine the accident statistics for the A70 and consider making it a trunk road in light of its strategic importance in connecting south and east Ayrshire with the M74? Finally, will he consider what improvements can be made to the A76, including bypassing the villages that suffer from heavy traffic, such as Mauchline and New Cumnock, and take early action to ensure that the footpath that runs part of the way between Cumnock and New Cumnock is completed so that those who walk the route regularly can do so in safety?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It may interest the member to know that I will shortly consider the regional transport strategies. I expect to see reflected in those that affect Ayrshire the matters that she raised. On a date yet to be agreed, I will visit Ayrshire to see some of the roads in question. I will do so at the invitation of John Scott, the Conservative MSP, but I will be happy to meet other people during that visit if it assists in ensuring that I understand the issues in sufficient detail to respond appropriately.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the lack of sufficient public transport connections between different points is a barrier to economic expansion in Ayrshire. Will he consider the possibility of setting up, on a pilot basis, a bus route development fund similar to the successful air route development fund, to try to remove those barriers to economic development in Ayrshire?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

A bus route development grant is already in existence: it provides £22.5 million over three years to support 50 new and enhanced bus services across Scotland. I note what the member says about public transport in Ayr. When I read the regional transport strategy later this month, I will certainly respond to the issue he has raised.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will investigate and report to the Parliament on evidence submitted to it suggesting that certain councils may be in breach of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2004 and its associated code of guidance by routinely housing homeless persons in bed and breakfast accommodation outside their local authority areas. (S3O-318)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am aware of the member's comments on the subject in yesterday's Herald . Officials of the local authorities named have denied breaching the order by placing homeless households in the accommodation in Glasgow that was referred to. Glasgow City Council, along with other authorities, has agreed protocols to manage out-of-area placements for homeless people and the number of placements has decreased significantly.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I have sent the minister a letter and appended the evidence that I gathered, under freedom of information, from the councils to which he referred. I look forward to his having an opportunity to study the information. Is he aware that several premises in my constituency are constantly used by homeless persons from outside Glasgow, who are sent by councils without professional support, which results in personal crises and has an impact on local residents? Will he personally scrutinise the legitimacy of those councils' actions?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have not received the member's letter yet. When it arrives, I will read carefully his comments and any evidence he has attached. The member makes an important point: if there is evidence of a breach of the code, that is unacceptable, but until we can consider the evidence, I am unable to go much further. I will be happy, if the evidence holds up, to write to the local authorities concerned, bring them in for a meeting to discuss the problems, and ensure that we overcome the problems so that there are no breaches of the code in the member's area or in others.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As the homelessness figures have increased, and following concerns that the legislation is not fit for purpose, will the minister consider an urgent review of the homelessness problems that now face us and how best to deal with them?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The member may be interested in this afternoon's debate on housing, and I am sure he is aware that the Government has committed to the 2012 target on homelessness. There is no doubt that it is a tough target and that it will be difficult to meet. This afternoon, I will lay out some of the possible ways in which we can get much closer to achieving it by 2012. I hope that the member will take part in that discussion and in the discussions in the near future.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Moray flood alleviation schemes will be implemented in full. (S3O-275)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is for Moray Council to determine whether it will implement its own proposed schemes in full. Once the council decides its plans and submits them to the Government, we can consider them for the purpose of confirmation by the Scottish ministers and, in turn, I hope, grant support.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that and a previous written reply on the subject.

Given the increasing costs of and delays to the flood alleviation schemes in Moray, and bearing in mind the Government's proposed freeze on council tax, will the minister advise members how councils such as Moray will be able to find the additional funds to pay their 20 per cent share of the increased costs of the schemes?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank Mary Scanlon for that pertinent question. I know that she, the local member for Moray, Richard Lochhead, and the previous member for Moray have been active in ensuring that the council can find those moneys.

As Mary Scanlon knows, the two schemes that are presently under consideration—the Burn of Mosset and the Rothes flood alleviation schemes—are nearly there. In terms of objections, we are almost at the stage at which we can move forward, and grant will be available. The larger schemes to which the member referred are still under discussion, and finding the balance in funding will be an issue as the question of flood prevention continues. My friend sitting in front of me, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, will say more about flood prevention this afternoon.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will bring forward proposals on sentencing. (S3O-311)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

There are a number of factors to be considered. I announced to Parliament on 6 June 2007 that we are embarking on an extensive review of community sentences. At the same time, we are looking at how to manage custodial sentences to reduce the risk posed by the more serious offenders when they are released and to help them address their offending behaviour. Our plans must also take account of judicial discretion in sentencing in individual cases. That is important work, and we want to consider options carefully and seek Parliament's views before finally deciding on the way ahead.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Scottish National Party manifesto promised to introduce a presumption against sending to prison those who are sentenced to less than six months. Does the minister appreciate that that would mean that a significant number of men who are convicted of domestic violence offences could avoid prison because of SNP policy, thereby possibly threatening the safety of many women? Will the SNP abandon that simplistic approach and ensure that those who perpetrate acts of domestic violence face the full force of the law, or does the minister regard those men as the flotsam and jetsam of society?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Those who perpetrate domestic violence deserve the punishment that the courts correctly mete out. This country of ours requires a coherent prison policy. We need to move away from serious and dangerous offenders not being incarcerated when they should be while those who have been described as the flotsam and jetsam are incarcerated at huge cost to the community, only to be released to reoffend. That does not resolve the problem. The Government's emphasis is on addressing the requirement for a coherent penal policy that will protect our communities by locking up serious and dangerous violent offenders, but which will ensure that the many people who require treatment because of mental health problems or drug addiction are dealt with sympathetically to ensure that we get the community and society that Scotland needs.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that any plans to reduce short-term prison sentences should be predicated not on the need to empty prisons and institutions, but on the recognition that public safety is a priority? Does he agree that the fact that so many short-term prison sentences are being imposed is clear and tangible evidence that the existing alternatives are simply not working?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I have a great deal of sympathy with that view: it is clear that far too many sheriffs impose short sentences that they know will be of little benefit to the individual. They do so out of frustration, not out of desire, and because they believe that there is no realistic alternative. That is why it is the Government's priority to ensure that sheriffs have options and alternatives. Indeed, options should be available not only to sheriffs; the Crown Office's view is that as well as being able to impose a fiscal fine, it should be able to use a method of ensuring that those who transgress and who should pay back our communities have the opportunity to do so by visible work and by returning to the communities and removing the harm they created.

I sympathise fully with the member's point that we must ensure that we provide appropriate alternatives. That is why, on sentencing, as well as putting measures on the statute book, we desire to ensure that measures that are already on the statute book operate in practice, which in many instances is not the case. We must ensure that the array of community sentences is expanded to provide assistance to sheriffs and the Crown Office.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to increase the number of people becoming GPs. (S3O-336)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

NHS Scotland announced in its "National Workforce Plan 2006" that the number of GP training posts would increase by 50 from August 2007, which means that 890 training places will be available from that date. The number of training places that NHS Scotland requires is determined by local and national workforce planning.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We see a changing picture of those who are becoming GPs. For example, more women are becoming GPs and male and female GPs are sharing caring responsibilities. Will the Scottish Government encourage more GPs to become salaried rather than small businesspeople? What resources are available to support that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We encourage GPs into the salaried service and will continue to do so. We acknowledge the changing face of GPs and that many now come from different backgrounds, which is to be welcomed. We must ensure that the system supports that flexibility and we intend to make progress on that.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

On the other side of the equation, what support will the Government give to encourage people to become partners in practices, with all the responsibility that that entails? What support can the Government supply to practices that get into financial difficulties—it will be aware of examples of that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We are aware of such examples. Substantial assistance is available to GPs, particularly those who are located in more rural and remote areas, of which the member will be aware. The golden hello scheme pays out to GPs who establish new practices; additional payments are also available to those in rural and remote areas. Other assistance can be given to GPs who find themselves in difficulties. If the member wants to write to me specifically about his concerns, I am more than prepared to give him more details.

First Minister's Question Time

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-74)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have a number of engagements, including a visit to the Royal Highland show at Ingliston, that great showcase for the Scottish food and farming industry.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Earlier this month, at the first First Minister's question time in the new session, the First Minister rather shamefully misquoted Donald Dewar and threatened to ignore the Parliament when it expressed its will. I remind the First Minister that never once in five and a half years as First Minister did I ignore the will of the Parliament. Has he reflected on his statement earlier this month? Will he guarantee that when the Parliament votes for legislation or budgets for a proposal, he will not to delay it or defy the will of Parliament?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I quoted exactly Donald Dewar from 4 October 1999. I remind Jack McConnell that Donald Dewar said:

"As part of"

the

"perfectly normal constitutional arrangements, except in certain circumstances, the Scottish Executive is not necessarily bound by resolutions or motions passed by the Scottish Parliament."

Does the former First Minister now agree with Donald Dewar, or has he changed his mind?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Salmond is going to have to learn that it is First Minister's questions, not leader of the Opposition's questions. That was yet another answer from the First Minister that does not really address the question, in a week when we have seen more and more broken promises from the Scottish National Party. A promise to Northern Ireland about tuition fees was broken within 24 hours; a promise on class sizes was torn apart by Fiona Hyslop; and a promise on school discipline was completely ignored. The First Minister even confirmed this morning what we have all suspected: that he is indeed the emperor without any clothes.

The First Minister said that he would listen to the Auditor General for Scotland about the Edinburgh trams. The Auditor General has said that the cost and time targets for the Edinburgh trams project have been developed using robust systems and that the highest cost risk is the general delay in the programme. Will the First Minister stop delaying and announce today that he will go ahead?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I answered Mr McConnell's point specifically. It is not my fault if he cannot think of the right questions. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

In terms of the achievements of this Administration in implementing our manifesto, I see Labour members progressively taken aback by the speed at which we have implemented our manifesto over the past five weeks.

I give Jack McConnell this assurance: I will always appear before the Parliament properly dressed. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Settle down.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will never wear a pin-striped kilt.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have no guarantee from the First Minister that he will respect the will of Parliament, even on legislation or budgets, and no answer on, or even a vague reference to, the Edinburgh trams.

I will ask the First Minister a question that he might find a little easier. What do Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria and Switzerland all have in common?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

They are all independent countries and they all come above Scotland in the index of success that was compiled by the Labour Party's former economist, or, as Jack McConnell is calling it, the index of deferred success.

I remind Jack McConnell of the importance of parliamentary votes. Members asked us to bring to the chamber information about infrastructure projects. I direct him to the substance of the Auditor General's report. On the Edinburgh airport rail link, the report states:

"The EARL project is unlikely to be delivered by the target date of the end of 2011 ... There is no clear governance framework ... There is no procurement strategy in place"

and there is a high degree of uncertainty. It states that the

"project board did not meet between April 2006 and February 2007"

and that it has yet to secure any contribution from BAA or indeed ownership from Network Rail. Under those circumstances, even Jack McConnell could not possibly vote for the EARL project.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Each of the small countries that I mentioned has a rail link from the airport to its capital city, and there should be such a link in Scotland. Indeed, Alex Salmond called for such a link in the House of Commons in 2002 and Miss Sturgeon called for it in the Scottish Parliament in 2004. Mr MacAskill said that the project

"is expensive, but what you get in return is more than just a rail link."

The Parliament resolved that the rail link would be more than just a rail link for Edinburgh—it would be a rail link to the rest of Scotland. Does the First Minister have ambition for Scotland? Will he take personal responsibility for ensuring that the rail link from Edinburgh airport to the rest of Scotland is delivered on time and within budget, in the same way that he claimed over and over that Donald Dewar should take responsibility for the Parliament building?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Holyrood project is not a particularly auspicious example from the former Minister for Finance. However, he has given me an opportunity to reflect on what the Auditor General said in his report about the trams project. He stated:

"The highest cost risks are currently utilities diversion work".

Utilities will be diverted if the tram project goes ahead and we start to dig up Edinburgh. The Auditor General said that there is

"sufficient funding in place to proceed with Phase 1a",

but there is

"a current shortfall of £48.8 million"

for the completion of phase 1. In other words, the sub-phase can be completed, but not the whole of phase 1. I remind Jack McConnell that if we start to dig up Edinburgh's roads for the project—which I will vote against—it will be a bit like "Mastermind": if we start, we have to finish.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-75)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Cabinet will, in the interests of the Scottish people, discuss a range of vital matters.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have been considering the First Minister's honeymoon period and will give praise where praise is due. Mr Salmond is mastering the arts of his office—oratory, eloquence, intellectual stimulus—but there is one first ministerial trait at which he excels: the U-turn. Student grants and loans were going, but now they will not go. School assault statistics were going to be released, but now they will not be. Class sizes were going to be cut immediately, but now they will not be. Tuition fees for Northern Irish students in Scotland were going to be scrapped, but now they will not be. There have been other U-turns. Will the First Minister clarify whether another U-turn is looming? Is he now abandoning a local income tax? Does he support a land value tax?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We support a local income tax; we will therefore introduce legislation to repeal the unfair and oppressive council tax. I am not confident of Annabel Goldie's support in these matters, but I am ever hopeful of it. We have an absolute commitment to a local income tax. To paraphrase somebody from a few years ago: you turn if you want to; this Administration is not for turning.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In this Parliament, what the First Minister wants and what he gets might be two very different matters. All the indications are that he will find it extremely difficult to win support in the Parliament for a local income tax. I ask him again whether, given that the council tax—whatever he thinks of it—is currently the burden that bears most oppressively on our older citizens, he will support some kind of council tax discount system for our pensioners.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie knows, we are working to freeze the council tax. I am sure that it will be greeted with great joy throughout Scotland that at last, someone is acting to try to limit that oppressive burden on the Scottish people. Annabel Goldie rightly declares the council tax, which was introduced by the Conservative Party and increased vastly by the Labour Party, to be oppressive. What I cannot understand about her question is why on earth, if she believes as I do that the tax is oppressive, she does not vote with us to abolish it.