Scottish Parliament, 2 October 2008

405 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Official Report 2 October 2008

Local Government Finance

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2631, in the name of Derek Brownlee, on local government finance.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The intention behind the debate is for us to reach a consensus. I have deleted all references to the local income tax being discredited and unworkable, and we have even ensured that the students who are demonstrating outside the Parliament are complaining about the Scottish National Party Government's plans on alcohol rather than its plans to increase the tax bills of students who have to work to fund their studies.

Our motion is simple: we ask for clarity from the Scottish Government on the detail of the local income tax plans. We do not ask Parliament to come to a view on local income tax—our opinion on that subject is well known—nor do we seek to prescribe which method is used to allocate tax revenues or Government grant. We seek only to ensure that Parliament is not asked to take a decision on local income tax before it has had the opportunity to consider the policy's implications for local authorities' finances.

It appears that the Government accepts that proposition and will concede. I welcome that concession because, so far, there has been no indication of the Government's preferred allocation methodology. The consultation paper on local income tax discussed methods for allocating LIT revenues and set out three options: distribution via a needs assessment; distribution based on population; and distribution based on how much local income tax is paid in an area. All have their merits and problems. There are also other options, such as the one that we suggested in our consultation response: distribution based on current council tax receipts.

However, the consultation was entirely silent on the arguably more fundamental issue of how Government grant—which would make up an even higher share of council revenues under LIT than under the council tax—would be allocated. I remind colleagues that that fundamental issue is about how £11.5 billion is allocated among councils. The deal at which the SNP and Liberal Democrats will arrive after long and tortuous—literally so for some—negotiations will involve each of Scotland's local authorities setting its own local income tax rate. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, being a wily fellow, might decide to stitch up the Lib Dems—

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Members might think that that is unlikely, but it might happen. The cabinet secretary might decide to stitch up the Lib Dems by ensuring that tax receipts were allocated not on the basis of what is paid in each local authority area but on the basis of some other method. He could also slash funding to local authorities that are likely to have higher tax yields, such as Aberdeenshire.

By getting the Government to set out in advance how it will allocate tax receipts and Government grant, my motion will help to prevent the Liberal Democrats from being stitched up by the SNP, at least on local income tax.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Is this the same Derek Brownlee who, on his conservativehome.com blog, said of the Conservatives' proposals for reform:

"There are obvious implications around the proportion of their funding that Councils raise, but it could be done"?

If it could be done for his scheme, why can it not be done for another?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The point is that people in every local authority area in Scotland have a right to know whether they will pay more under local income tax. If the motion is agreed to, taxpayers throughout Scotland would be enabled to take a view not only on how local income tax would affect them as individuals and families but on how it would affect their local areas. For example, people in Edinburgh would know whether the benefits of any capital city supplement given by one hand would be taken away by another, and people in the north-east would find out whether the promises that the SNP and Lib Dems made to them on higher funding would be kept. Given that a by-election is pending, I will be the first to mention the good people of Fife. If the motion is agreed to, they would be able to determine for themselves whether the prediction made by Fife Council's director of finance that local income tax

"could lead to reductions in some services, e.g. road maintenance, to fund pressures elsewhere"

would come to pass.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As Derek Brownlee is so concerned about rising tax levels throughout Scotland, will he join the Liberal Democrats—[ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will he join us in proposing a 2p cut in income tax? Would the Tories consider cutting income tax?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am coming to tax cuts—Mike Rumbles need not worry about that.

I mentioned consensus. If our motion is agreed to, that means that the Government will address one of the high-level flaws that we identified in our submission on local income tax, leaving only 40 major issues to be resolved before we could look more favourably on the policy.

The Labour amendment makes a fair point about setting out, council by council, what the allocation methodology would mean, allowing a sensible comparison to be made with the current system.

Council tax benefit—£400 million out of the £11.5 billion—is raised in the Government amendment. I am sure that this is not the last time that we will see an amendment or motion on local government finance lodged by John Swinney and supported by Jeremy Purvis.

The SNP's submission to the Burt review in 2005 said:

"Before any reform of local authority taxation can be considered, it is vital that an assurance is given that this sum will continue to be allocated to Scottish local authorities in the event of the abolition of the council tax".

I stress that it says:

"Before any reform is contemplated".

It is fair to say that the Government has somewhat passed that stage. I encourage it to publish all its communications with the United Kingdom Government on the matter so that we can see just how strongly the case has been argued. So far, the most detail that the SNP Government has set out is a mere five paragraphs in its consultation paper. That paper argues that council tax benefit moneys should be transferred because they are part of the Scottish block, but that is not the case and never has been.

It is true that the current statement of funding policy, which the Treasury published last year, reproduces a written answer from December 1997 that states that council tax benefit will

"come within the Scottish Block for the first time after devolution".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 Dec 1997; Vol 302, c 511W.]

However, the Government knows that that did not happen—Mr Swinney conceded as much in oral evidence to the Burt review in 2006. The Scottish Government argues that the statement of funding policy is another reason why the money should be paid over, but that statement explicitly starts with the view:

"This Statement is drafted on the assumption that current forms of local taxation continue."

The Conservatives have made it clear that a UK Conservative Government would be prepared to enter into a dialogue with the Scottish Government on council tax benefit moneys. We do not know whether the Scottish Government wants to allocate them on the basis of the current level of council tax benefit or on some other basis but, even if it got those moneys, there would still be a gap in the funding arrangements for local income tax of about £400 million: the £281 million that the Government concedes plus at least £117 million because of lower tax revenues.

The Lib Dems might believe that it is possible to magic £400 million—or £800 million—out of nowhere, but no one else does. I am prepared to be helpful to them today. I know that they are looking for savings. There is £20 million for the local income tax in next year's budget, which leaves only £1.58 billion for them to find for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

Local income tax is a lost cause, regardless of what happens on council tax benefit. Members who support LIT may care to reflect in due course on why I am so keen that the detail that we have requested in our motion be published before the bill to introduce local income tax is introduced.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to publish in detail, prior to the introduction of a council tax abolition Bill, how it proposes to allocate to each local authority local income tax revenues and all other sources of funding, including revenue support grant and non-domestic rates income, in the event of the Bill being enacted.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I welcome the debate and the indication in the Conservative motion and the Labour Party amendment that those parties are at last coming to terms with the fact that change to local taxation is coming. Since the Government was elected in May last year, both parties have initiated debates in which they have tried to oppose in principle our plans to introduce a local income tax by abolishing the council tax. Both attempts failed, and I welcome the parties' engagement on points of detail that require to be considered in taking forward the Government's proposals.

Mr Brownlee asked for clarity on the Government's approach. I am happy to undertake to Parliament to publish, prior to the introduction of a council tax abolition bill, details of how funding is to be allocated to individual councils. On 11 March this year, we published a consultation paper on our proposals to abolish the council tax and replace it with a fairer local income tax based on ability to pay. Under our proposals, four out of five households would be better off or no worse off, 85,000 people—including 15,000 children—would be lifted out of poverty and many pensioners would be better off.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the Government have, at this stage, a preference for one of the three ways in which the local income tax revenues could be allocated? Does it prefer relative need, population, or where the tax is raised?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

If Mr Brown will forgive me, I will come to that point.

The consultation on the Government's proposal ended on 18 July. We received more than 500 responses, many of which were detailed, and we arranged to have them analysed by an independent research organisation. We will consider the findings of the report and reflect on all the points made in it before we publish our response to the consultation. At that time, we will also release the independent report and all the responses that we are entitled to release.

Before publishing that material, I will make two brief comments, both of which I am sure will hearten Mr Brownlee and his colleagues. First, the Government has an open mind when considering some of the detailed changes to our proposals that others have submitted. For example, we are actively considering representations that full-time students should be exempt from paying local income tax in the same way as they are exempt from paying council tax. We will make clear our responses to all the other issues in due course.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Oh!

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I would have thought that, rather than grunting from a sedentary position, Mr Fraser would have applauded what I have just said, if he had any generosity at all.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I take it that Mr Swinney has factored into his local income tax calculations the revenue lost to the Government through not making students pay.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Oh my goodness—Mr Fraser wants to have it both ways. Punitive taxation is his watchword. Of course the Government will consider those factors.

Secondly, many consultation responses offered balanced and considered comments about the implementation of such a major policy change. Some organisations raised legitimate points about how the tax will work. We can and will answer those points. I also welcome the offers that many people made to work with us on making the taxation system fairer.

When we publish our response to the consultation, we will set out how we plan to go into the next stages of the work. The consultation paper shows that we recognise that the amount raised through the local income tax will not be identical to the amount raised through the council tax, and that there will be a need to adjust local authority funding after the change to take account of that difference in order to ensure that public services in each area continue to be properly funded. That remains our position.

However, in response to the Conservative motion, I will say now that, although the detail will need to be developed, discussed and agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, our intention is that the local income tax that is collected from residents in each local authority area will be retained within that local authority area. The current local government finance system ensures that councils receive funding in line with a needs-based formula that we agree with local government in Scotland. From a derived total funding package, we take off allocations for council tax and business rates and any remaining specific grants, such as the police grant. The balance is, as Mr Brownlee correctly said, made up through revenue support grant.

Following the introduction of the local income tax, we will simply replace council tax income with local income tax in the formula. The resulting revenue support grant totals by council might change, but we will ensure that after the change councils will continue to receive the same overall level of funding that they received before it.

We have made it clear that the amounts that local authorities receive in council tax benefit are crucial to our plans. Following the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, a mechanism was agreed to reimburse the Scottish Government for any reductions in council tax benefit where council tax in Scotland rose by less than it did south of the border. That mechanism was suspended by the previous Administration. As a result of that short-sighted agreement, Scotland has lost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Council tax benefit forms—and has formed for many years—an integral part of the local government finance system in Scotland. By 2011-12, it will be worth, in round terms, £400 million a year. The Scottish Government has consistently maintained that, if the Parliament decides to exercise its power to reform local taxation, under whatever form of local taxation it envisages, it must have access to that council tax benefit, because it is integral to the funding settlement for local government. Council tax benefit is integral to the Government's proposals on local income tax, and it would be integral to any other reform proposed by any other party—if they had a clue about what to offer as an alternative.

I am delighted that the amendment in my name has attracted the support of the Liberal Democrats. I look forward to responding to the debate.

I move amendment S3M-2631.2, to insert at end:

"and believes the UK Government should agree that Council Tax Benefit money forms an integral part of local government finance and should be available to local government as part of decisions by the Scottish Parliament to reform local taxation in Scotland."

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I speak in support of the Labour amendment in the name of my colleague, Andy Kerr. I indicate that we will support the Conservative's motion.

Being a front-bench spokesperson clearly has perks. Only last week I received an email inviting me to dinner with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. It seems that he is entertaining business owners in Bearsden in the relaxed atmosphere of the Douglas Park Golf Club. I have to pay £30 for the privilege and there is no discount for block booking. The accompanying letter brags about SNP achievements, and then says:

"The man who makes these decisions, the man who balance Scotland's books, is Scotland's chancellor, Mr John Swinney. What else has he in mind for the future?"

What else indeed? The purpose of today's debate is to see whether we can get some answers. Indeed, we have just had some, I think, from the man who claims that he balances the books—before he goes to Bearsden.

As I am sure the cabinet secretary knows, the people of East Dunbartonshire pay their way, with a council tax collection rate of more than 98 per cent. They want to know whether any replacement tax will raise similar amounts of money to pay for local services. The Conservative motion and Mr Brownlee's contribution ask very pertinent questions, but I doubt we will get all the answers that we are seeking, because I do not think that Mr Swinney knows all the answers.

I asked Councillor Rhondda Geekie, the leader of East Dunbartonshire Council's Labour-Conservative coalition administration, whether she could shed any light on the potential impact of the local income tax on our area. She told me that the council is currently looking for £7 million of savings, and that is before the impact of this year's pay settlement. She has no flexibility to bring in extra money because of the zero council tax increase imposed by Mr Swinney. Investment in five primary schools that are classed as category C—those in need of major repair and upgrade—is on hold as the council does not yet have details about the Scottish Futures Trust.

However, today, we are concentrating on the local income tax. Mr Brown has already asked whether the local income tax will be based on where someone is employed or where they live, and I, too, have questions to ask Mr Swinney on behalf of my council and constituents. I hope that he will be able to answer them.

How will the money that is raised from local income tax be distributed to individual local authorities? The cabinet secretary has already touched on that. Will the SNP incorporate fail-safe mechanisms to maintain income predictability for local authorities? I am not sure whether we have had an answer to that. Can he guarantee that no local services will be cut as a result of any shortfall in funding under local income tax?

It is interesting to note that the SNP chose to call the proposed bill the abolition of council tax bill, rather than just the local income tax bill, but that is the way that it uses language—to emphasise the negative. That explains why the council tax is always referred to as either unfair or hated. Well, two can play at that game.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

No, I am sorry but I have only four minutes.

The proposals for the introduction of local income tax have been roundly criticised right across Scotland, with civic Scotland, business leaders and trade unions united in opposition to them. So why do we not call it the abolition of local government accountability bill, the savage cuts to council services bill, or the loss of local authority jobs bill?

It is about time that the people of Scotland had some detailed answers to their questions, rather than the bland promises that we have heard again today that almost everyone will pay less. That is not true, and Mr Swinney knows it. He also probably knows that the true figure for local income tax should be nearer 6 pence in the pound than 3 pence.

The SNP never mentions that, in addition to paying a local income tax, the people of Scotland will still have to pay water and sewerage charges. Yet again, there is no information about how those charges will be set and collected under any new system. When the cabinet secretary comes to Bearsden next month to tell his golf club audience what the future holds, I trust that he will give them the facts about local income tax, and not the fiction. If he does not give them the facts, I guarantee that Labour members certainly will.

I move amendment S3M-2631.1, to insert after second "income":

", together with indicative figures for each local authority for the first year of operation of local income tax, and how stability of funding is delivered to ensure that no local authority loses revenues directly because of the introduction of the new tax system".

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am happy to support Mr Brownlee's motion. I hope that he will reciprocate and support our amendment.

It seems that no one in the Labour Party wants to keep the council tax, and everyone in the Conservative party does. Last week, Iain Gray used economic analysis to say that the world's financial crisis had been caused by the prospect of a local income tax in Scotland. Not only were HBOS, Lehman Brothers and Bradford and Bingley potentially laid low by local income tax but, because we are introducing a progressive and fair system of local taxation in Scotland—

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I will in a moment, if I have time.

Labour and, with the inevitability of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, the Conservatives are moving to acknowledge that supporting the council tax is the policy that dare not speak its name. The Conservative policy is to try to use a defibrillator to wake a corpse by offering some payers half a discount and all other payers a discount of £150, but the poorest inhabitants of bigger houses will benefit least.

That takes us to the core of the argument—the Conservatives believe in the council tax. On the conservativehome.com website that I mentioned earlier, if one scrolls past the encouraging headline "David Mundell doesn't expect Scottish breakthrough", one finds Derek Brownlee's blog on local taxation, which clearly states:

"We believe the major problem with Council Tax is its level, rather than its underlying principles."

The council tax is not based on ability to pay, it is hugely expensive and bureaucratic to administer and it is based on arbitrary, 17-year-old property valuations. It seems that its core unfairness is the underlying principle that is admired by the Conservatives.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I am sure that my party and I would be keen to assess Mr Purvis's amendment, but it would appear that the Presiding Officer did not choose it for debate.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

If Mr Brown wishes to look at the Business Bulletin , he will see that my name is attached to the amendment that is presented there.

Whereas the Conservatives believe in the council tax, Labour seems to have the jitters. On 5 August, The Herald reported Iain Gray as saying:

"I believe the council tax must be replaced or reformed to make it fairer, and if elected as leader I would bring forward proposals to do so."

We await those proposals with great anticipation. The Herald went on to say:

"Mr Gray's comments come two days after former Labour finance minister Tom McCabe said the party could give itself a 'massive boost' throughout the UK if it faced up to the 'discredited nature' of the council tax. Mr McCabe also said that the new leader should consider a 'timetable for abolition' for the council tax."

On 11 August, Mr Kerr was quoted as saying that if he were elected leader, he would

"immediately signal a long-term desire to replace the council tax".

The Labour Party has an immediate desire to replace or reform the council tax, wants to send a strong signal on the issue and proposals will be brought forward.

Cathy Jamieson was very definite when, on 19 September, she said:

"Any solution must guarantee that we protect and retain the £400 million Council Tax rebate. I don't want Scotland to lose this money and I won't gamble it just to have a pop at Westminster."

Liberal Democrats agree with Cathy Jamieson, even if members of her own party do not. There is precedent: the housing grant was devolved from the UK Government to the Scottish Parliament, regardless of policy changes that we make in Scotland.

What are the Tory policies for reform? Derek Brownlee said in his blog:

"There are obvious implications around the proportion of their funding that Councils raise, but it could be done."

We will debate the issue properly in the Parliament and full details of any proposals will be made available. I hope that a non-centralised approach will be adopted. We want a fairer, more progressive and less bureaucratic system than we have at present, and I hope that, as we pursue that goal, we will gain the support of members of all parties.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Speeches should be of a tight four minutes in the open debate.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Today's motion is about bringing transparency to a subject on which the issues are often as clear as mud. No shortage of missiles of a statistical nature have been hurled in the debate about whether individuals and households would be better or worse off under a local income tax than they are under the council tax. Today's debate is not intended to be a rerun of those arguments; instead, it is designed to approach the subject from the standpoint of our councils.

Our motion is based on a recognition that whatever system of local taxation we adopt in Scotland, and regardless of whether the money that is presently spent on council tax benefit is added to the Scottish block grant, the proceeds of a local tax will still provide only 11 per cent of the total revenue of our councils. The major sources of funding are the moneys derived from Government grants—specific grants and revenue support grant—and from business rates.

Under the council tax, we know how those sources of finance are distributed among councils. Funding from business rates is distributed on a population basis, and funding from Government grants is allocated according to a long-standing formula of Byzantine complexity that has been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It appears that the Government is reviewing that formula. The review is taking place against the backcloth of the Government's intention to introduce a local income tax. However, although we know that every penny that a council levies in council tax finds its way into that council's coffers, we do not know whether the same would be true of a local income tax.

The Government's consultation document puts forward a number of distribution options. I was extremely interested to hear Mr Swinney indicate that the Government now favours a distribution mechanism whereby each local authority would retain the local tax proceeds from that area. That is most interesting, because it means that the Government is intent on creating 32 local tax domiciles in Scotland. It will be astonishingly difficult for the Government to resolve the complex problem of how to retain control of the system and follow, for the purposes of assessing local income tax, every citizen in Scotland as they move home from one area to the next.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

David McLetchie has missed the point—we already have such a system. We have 32 different local authorities, which all have different levels of council tax. When people move homes, they move their council taxes with them.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Mr Rumbles has not noticed that houses do not move, but never mind.

If we are to be able to compare the merits of local income tax with those of the council tax, we need to know not only the Government's preferred distribution method for the proceeds of local income tax, but whether it proposes to change the formulas for distribution of Government grants and business rates. It is only when we have information on all those elements that we will be able to judge the financial package as a whole from the standpoint of councils and to determine whether a change to a local income tax would be prejudicial or beneficial to any particular local authority. That is of crucial importance, because the total package determines the quality of the public services on which we all depend.

As members will be aware, the Government has accepted in principle the case for a capital city supplement for Edinburgh, and the City of Edinburgh Council has just completed a report in which it seeks an additional £10.7 million of revenue spending and a supported borrowing requirement of £22.2 million. However, as we all know, what can be given with one hand can be taken away with another. A supplement is only a supplement if there is stability in the baseline funding, and that remains the great unknown.

On the face of it, our motion is of a technical nature; some might say that it is arcane—indeed, I almost put on my anorak this morning. However, no one should underestimate the importance of the information in question being put in the public domain before the Parliament comes to a decision on local government taxation.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I am sure that the whole Parliament will agree that Derek Brownlee's motion is sound and sensible. I hope that the cabinet secretary's reassurances will go some way to winning over those members who are still opposed to the abolition of the unfair council tax and the introduction of a fair system that is based on ability to pay.

"I believe the council tax must be replaced or reformed to make it fairer".

Those are not my words—they are the words that Iain Gray used in a press release on 5 August. A phone call from London prompted a U-turn. Unlike the Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, the people of Scotland are in no doubt about the fact that the council tax has had its day. They are sick of the burden that that unfair tax places on them and are calling for it to be scrapped. Despite a campaign of misinformation by Labour politicians, the most favoured replacement remains a local income tax.

The council tax has been unjust since its inception and it needs to be replaced, not merely tinkered with. The local income tax bill will be an important step towards a progressive tax regime that is based on ability to pay. A pensioner who earns £9,000 a year must go through a complicated process to claim council tax benefit, and they are still liable to pay the balance. Many pensioners do not claim that benefit, with the result that they pay up to about £1,200 a year in council tax for an average-sized home. Under a local income tax, such a pensioner would not pay a penny and would have no forms to fill in.

We are all aware that some high earners, such as MSPs, will probably have to pay a bit more, but that is what one would expect of a fair system that is based on ability to pay. Those who can afford to pay a little more should pay a little more to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay pay less.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the member believe that all taxation should be based on the ability to pay?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The council tax is not a tax that people can choose to opt out of paying, whereas with many other taxes, such as those that relate to having a car, people have a choice. That is a big difference. I do not say that all taxes should be based on the ability to pay. However, taxes to pay for basic utility services should be based on the ability to pay, which is why I support the Government's move towards a local income tax.

We have heard calculations from Labour suggesting that many people will pay more. After a recent STV debate, the Labour candidate in the Glenrothes by-election, Lindsay Roy, claimed that under a local income tax couples who earn £16,000 each and who live in properties of band A to C in Fife would pay more under the local income tax than they pay under the council tax. Let me be clear: under the local income tax, the vast majority of households would be better off, and the situation is no different in Fife.

I am sure that, if Lindsay Roy had not forgotten to exclude the personal tax allowance, which is of course not taxable under the local income tax, he would not have made that calculation. He is way off the mark. In Fife, a couple earning £32,000 would save £150 a year if they lived in a band A property; £270 a year if they lived in a band B property; and nearly £400 a year if they lived in a band C property. The misinformation from the Labour Party does not help the debate. If the Labour Party has an alternative to a local income tax, let us hear it and put it before the people. The fact is that couples in average properties in Fife and throughout Scotland will have to earn much more than £32,000 before they pay a single penny more under the local income tax. That is the reality of a fair local income tax.

The SNP amendment calls for Scotland's council tax benefit to be retained. I was delighted that, during the Labour leadership election, Cathy Jamieson pledged that securing Scotland's £400 million in annual council tax benefit was a priority for her. That was when she was acting leader of the party, so I hope that the current leader will comply with what she said.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I support the Labour amendment and the Conservative motion. The debate is an excellent opportunity to ask questions about the local income tax, and it gives the Scottish Government a platform from which to provide information and clarification.

There is no doubt that serious questions arise about the local income tax. It has been criticised for its potential to make Scotland the highest-taxed part of the UK and to drain talent from the country. However, that is not the major issue that is before us. The local income tax will require a major bill to be brought before the Parliament. If we are serious about our role as policy makers and legislators, we must have detailed information to allow us to scrutinise the impact of the proposed legislative changes. We must know how the local income tax will impact on councils, businesses and Scotland's citizens.

The key issues on which we require more information and clarification are the administration of the tax, the costs and the stability of future revenues. On the administration of the local income tax, it is important to know whether HM Revenue and Customs will administer it. We also need to know whether a property register and a register of individual citizens will be required. The cabinet secretary's announcement today on allocations to local authorities will be studied in detail, not only by MSPs but by people from throughout the business and financial community. Inevitably, there will be implications for new tax rules—questions will arise about second homes and residency rules. There will also have to be an appeals process, so we need to know about how it will be put in place and its transparency. Questions remain about legal competence. The European Charter of Local Self-Government deems that taxes should be set locally. That must be considered carefully. Another issue is how water and sewerage rates will be levied under the new system.

There is no doubt that a new system such as the local income tax would involve a lot of set-up costs. I imagine that the system costs alone would be dramatic. I worked in the electricity industry when VAT on electricity was introduced. The system changes were complex and the electricity companies required significant resources to put the changes into effect. The local income tax would have an impact on employers. The Burt review in 2006 indicated that the costs would be in the region of £55 million to £60 million.

Issues arise about how the stability of future income would be guaranteed through local income tax revenues and about the impact on economic growth. Research shows that stable inflows of finance result in greater economic stability and certainty, whereas variability can result in fluctuations, which are not good for our communities.

The debate is important. We must assemble all the information so that we can decide whether the local income tax policy would benefit families, protect and enhance council services and contribute to economic growth.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The weight of the Conservative motion is about ensuring that clear detail is available on the Government's intentions for its proposed local income tax. It is difficult to argue with that principle. With such a major change, political parties and the people of Scotland should have as much detail as possible as soon as possible. However, we also have the right to expect that the principle of clear and early public information should apply to the council tax benefit issue. The parties that have clung to the hugely discredited and dysfunctional council tax system have shamelessly tried to bolster the threat from Westminster that any kind of deviation from their preferred policy would draw retribution in the form of a £400 million-plus penalty through the withholding of council tax benefits.

Derek Brownlee makes the case that we should have clear and early public information so that we can get an idea of the implications for people but, at the same time, he says that there will be no Tory decision on council tax benefit until 2010 at the very earliest. We cannot have the early certainty that he seeks if a big chunk of the money will not be agreed beforehand.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the member aware of the representations that the Scottish Government has made to the UK Government? Given his reasonable point about information being publicly available, does he agree that we should have the right to see the case that the Scottish Government has set out and to know when and how vigorously it was set out?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

That is a complete red herring, because it is perfectly clear where people stand on council tax benefit.

To give an idea of the level of Tory thinking, in response to a perfectly reasonable and valid point from Mike Rumbles, we had the stunning revelation from David McLetchie that houses do not move. If we come down to that level of debate, it is also true that houses do not pay income tax, nor do they pay council tax. People move and the current system is perfectly able to track those changes, even when people are being paid—or not—from Lithuania.

The tactic of the threat to withhold moneys is of a piece with the general themes of keeping us in our place and, by intimidation, discouraging any deviation from Westminster-approved changes. For me, the most disappointing aspect of that approach is that the Scottish branches of the UK parties have used the tactic with such gusto, with some honourable exceptions. Of course, with Labour, the London Labour line was always going to be preferred to independent thought or any notion of the Scottish interest. However, it is beyond doubt that the £400 million belongs to Scotland. Alistair Darling, whose view one would think would count for something, said in 1997 that, under devolution, council tax benefit and housing benefit

"will come within the Block for the first time."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 December 1997; Vol 302, c 511W.]

At this point of the argument, those who are too afraid to let go of the council tax—maybe we can call them the council tax cling-ons—adapt their argument from saying that it is not our money but is graciously dispensed to us by Westminster as part of the union dividend, to saying that it might be our money but it comes with strings attached. Because it is called council tax benefit, they say, we must use it for that purpose. One can understand why those in the Tory and Labour parties who never wanted devolution use that argument, but, more is the pity, it seems to have become a mainstream argument rather than one that is confined to the extreme unionist fringes of those parties.

One clear contradiction in the arguments on a local income tax is that some of those who oppose it say that they are in favour of local decision making, of councils taking responsibility for their decisions and of local democracy. However, they make those arguments while defending the hugely centralising effects and intent of the council tax regime. Since the 1970s, successive Labour and Tory Governments have sought to constrain and limit the financial freedom of local government—a fact rather than a matter of party contention for any student of local government. Whether it was the poll tax, rates or council tax, the aim was to control councils by cutbacks, capping or ring fencing.

The Scottish Government has made a good start in three of its actions—getting rid of ring fencing, increasing the share of the Scottish budget that goes to local government and providing extra resources to allow councils to choose to freeze the council tax. From the comments of Labour, Tory and even Lib Dem councillors, I know that their Holyrood counterparts have failed to appreciate how well those actions have been received in local government. Perhaps it is time that they woke up to that fact.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is more than 20 years since a Tory Government in Scotland, dreading a looming revaluation of the domestic rates system of local government finance, abolished domestic rates and pioneered the community charge, known to all as the poll tax. The rest is history—the history of chaos.

The poll tax was regressive: the prince paid less, the pauper paid more. Domestic rates were redistributive and ownership of property is a type of wealth. The council tax that replaced the poll tax is slightly inferior to domestic rates from an administrative point of view and is partially obscured by the enforced co-collection of water and sewerage charges. As a mainly property-based local tax, it can be argued that the council tax is redistributive if one accepts that property ownership is a form of wealth.

Given how good UK homeowners feel when house prices rise and how bad they feel when house prices fall, and given the great store that all Governments, including the Scottish Government, set by house prices, it is disingenuous to pretend that the council tax is wholly regressive. That is not to say—

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Does the member appreciate that his argument holds only if regular revaluations reflect the changes in local property markets, but that there has not been a revaluation? I understand that it is Labour Party policy not to have another revaluation.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I was just about to acknowledge that so, not for the first time, Mr Purvis states the obvious.

What I have said does not mean that council tax should not be reformed and, indeed, revaluation looms again. However, must we wait for a revaluation crisis to loom before we reorder our local government finance system?

The Scottish Government's so-called local income tax is really a new national tax. It is a cure that is worse than any disease from which council tax might suffer. As David Whitton highlighted, a bill to abolish the council tax is still a bill for a new national income tax, and the Scottish people will not be fooled by cynical nomenclature, just as they were not fooled by the Tories when they called their poll tax bill the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Bill.

The devil is in the detail of local income tax, and that will prove to be its undoing. Other speakers have highlighted many unanswered questions of detail. The major constitutional objection to the new income tax is that we will become one of a handful of European countries where local government cannot raise its own local taxation. From a purely constitutional perspective, the balance sheet of relations between this Parliament and local government since 1999 is not good. Now it seems that centralisation is paramount. Is that really what COSLA wants? Will turkeys really vote for Christmas? If they do, it will be the first time that turkeys have voted for Christmas since SNP members of Parliament helped to bring down the Labour Government in 1979 and usher in the long dark night of Thatcherism. Thatcherism: have we seen or heard the last of it?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Just before I call Bob Doris, I ask that all members who wish to speak in the debate make sure that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Today's debate is a positive step forward by the Conservative party in Scotland. The motion that is before us makes reasonable requests and gives the chamber another opportunity to debate the implementation of the local income tax, which members have already voted for in principle. I welcome the Conservatives' introduction of the debate.

The Conservatives' step forward is, of course, a baby step. Until they support a form of local taxation that is based on the ability to pay and stop trying to make do and mend with the unfixable, unfair and unwanted council tax, they will not be able to walk tall with the people of Scotland. They will be deserting our pensioners in particular and the modest-income, hard-working families of Scotland.

The Conservative proposals for the reform of local taxation are the equivalent of placing a scabby Band-Aid on the gaping wound that is the council tax. People will not refuse the Band-Aid if it is offered to them, but they know that it ain't going to solve the problem. However, today's motion from the Conservatives is progress. It looks at the mechanics of delivering the local income tax, which is welcome.

The SNP amendment is also important, and MSPs should support it, irrespective of their views on local taxation. I will make my position clear on council tax benefit: it is Scotland's money, it belongs to us and anyone who calls for it to be given back to the UK Exchequer rather than used to support local services throughout Scotland should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who does not support Scotland's Parliament keeping the money to which it is entitled is a stranger to defending Scotland's interests and should be ashamed of themselves.

During the Labour leadership contest, both Andy Kerr and Iain Gray said that Westminster should keep council tax benefit. That is to their shame, and I hope that they will reflect on it. Perhaps they will listen to Cathy Jamieson, who said that had she won Labour's leadership election, she would have raised the matter with Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, with a view to retaining the £400 million. I very much hope that Cathy Jamieson will be given a free vote this afternoon, so that she can vote with the SNP and the Liberals to defend Scottish money rather than with her party and the Conservatives.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

It is my preference that the council tax be scrapped and replaced with a local income tax based on the ability to pay. However, even if the Labour Party or the Conservatives came up with an alternative that I might agree with, I would still support the £400 million of council tax benefit being retained in Scotland. It is fundamental.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I say to Mr Brownlee that my speaking time has not changed.

Derek Brownlee said that the Conservatives will discuss retaining council tax benefit in Scotland, and I welcome that progress—perhaps that was to be the subject of his intervention. Labour is now in danger of being the only party in Scotland's Parliament that is actively looking to rob Scotland of its own money and give it to Westminster. Shame on the Labour Party. I ask it to reflect on that and to start to stand up for the people of Scotland.

Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council ran an online local income tax calculator and worked out that 72 per cent of Glaswegians would be better off. I will spread that word in Glasgow, and other SNP members will spread the word throughout Scotland. It is time that we scrapped the council tax and delivered a fair, just, local income tax.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Those who venture fundamentally to change local taxation should bear in mind Hilaire Belloc's epigram for young children:

And always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse.

The Conservatives learned a painful lesson from the introduction of the poll tax: the winners show little gratitude and the losers have long memories. That will be the reality if the local income tax is introduced.

When Tommy Sheridan proposed his Scottish service tax—a much better developed proposal than that put forward by the SNP or the Liberal Democrats—the work that was done on that fundamentally similar approach showed that the actual tax rate would be of the order of 5.5 per cent, compared with the 3 per cent that John Swinney claims. That is not a small matter. It is a huge gap in the calculations.

People have to be aware that about 80 per cent of local government expenditure is on statutory obligations, such as schools, social work and police. We cannot take seriously a proposal that jeopardises the capacity of local government to deliver statutory services, never mind non-statutory services, which are also much valued by local residents. We cannot take seriously a proposal that has such a huge hole in it. Mr Swinney really has to address the huge hole that is at the centre of his calculations. That must be the first, fundamental test of what is proposed.

The second point that Mr Swinney needs to address, which is made in Mr Brownlee's motion and the Labour amendment, is that he must come clean on the methodology by which the resources are to be distributed. The SNP seems to be making a variety of proposals. We have no real clarity about whether the proposed system is needs based or population based or about how it relates to revenues.

If we are to have a nationally funded local government spending scheme, it has to be needs based and the methodology around it has to be transparent, objective and open to independent scrutiny. The mechanisms that we have at present vary in terms of grant-aided expenditure or service level adjustments in the 2007-08 baseline, which clearly is inconsistent. Mr Swinney needs to state clearly how he is going to distribute the resources. He should use client groups as primary indicators and socioeconomic and geographic factors as secondary indicators, which should be selected and weighted on the basis of statistical evidence. That methodology would be the most transparent and consistent.

Before Mr Swinney introduces his radically different approach, he has to let local government know not just that it will get the money but how the money will go to Aberdeen City Council, West Dunbartonshire Council, East Dunbartonshire Council, Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and every other local authority in Scotland. There has to be certainty that each authority can deliver its statutory obligations and the services that its citizens require it to deliver. Unless we get certainty around the methodology and the volume, the proposal will be a complete non-starter. Mr Brownlee's motion is worth while, because it will provide clarity on Mr Swinney's proposal. After that, we can decide whether the proposal is a little mistake or a huge mistake. I think that it is the latter, but we will wait and see.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

This has been an interesting debate on the Tory motion. Derek Brownlee seems to be leading the Conservatives into an early surrender over local income tax—the white flag is being raised already. The Conservatives seem to accept that this welcome reform is inevitable, so they are concentrating on the detail, which is fair enough. However, they are all over the place on not just local income tax but income tax in general. I noticed that the Conservatives were totally unwilling to advocate cutting income tax. Derek Brownlee refused to answer me when I intervened to ask him whether they would support Liberal Democrat proposals to reduce income tax.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I hear Alex Johnstone shouting "no". I will ensure that the people of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine know that. That would cost less than 3 per cent of the Scottish budget, yet the Tories are unwilling to join us in advocating it.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have a simple question for Mr Rumbles. Only a few weeks ago, he asked us to consider the case for an extra £66 million each year for Aberdeenshire Council. If that does not come under current plans, will he vote for local income tax?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is a cheek. Aberdeenshire Council receives £60 million less than it should every year. We have been arguing for a fairer cut of the cake.

John Swinney considered exempting full-time students from local income tax, which is welcome. We have pursued that measure—Jeremy Purvis in particular has pursued it—and we want it to be implemented.

Jeremy Purvis pointed out that both Labour and the Tories support the discredited council tax. I find it astonishing that Labour will not fight our corner here in Scotland. London Labour is insistent that it will filch the £400 million from Scottish taxpayers when we abolish the council tax and replace it with a fair form of local income tax.

David McLetchie did not seem to understand that it is people, not homes, who pay taxes. That is absolutely bizarre. He said that local income tax would be complicated, with 32 variations. We already have 32 different valuation officers, 32 different appeals mechanisms, 32 different collection regimes and 32 different council tax rates. We could not invent a more complex system than we have already. A system of a varied local income tax will be much simpler.

The Liberal Democrats want to replace the council tax with a local income tax of around 3p in the pound, varied locally.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Around 3p?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Of course it will be around 3p. It will be varied locally. Had the Conservatives not noticed?

I say to the cabinet secretary that we will support the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a local income tax, but such a tax must really be local. Coupled with a cut of 2p in the pound nationally—[Laughter.]—it would put money back into taxpayers' pockets from next year, which would be welcome across Scotland, especially in these difficult economic times, which I see that the Tories are laughing about. The Liberal Democrats are prepared to work—if the Tories are prepared to contain their laughter at people's economic circumstances—with every party in the Parliament not only to deliver the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a fair local income tax, but to persuade others in the Parliament to support a 2p cut in income tax in the Government's forthcoming budget as we examine it over the next few months.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Mike Rumbles used the words "early surrender". The fact that he then said that he supports a local income tax of—coincidentally—around 3p in the pound is a clear indication of his early surrender to the Government's centralising policy. He almost went on to justify that policy by saying, "Look at all that trouble we have out there in local government with 32 different systems. Let's centralise it." That is what the Liberal Democrats want to do and that is what they are going to do.

However, I want to achieve consensus throughout the chamber.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have only four minutes.

We welcome the Conservative move—we support the motion and we hope that colleagues will support our amendment, too—to ensure that we flush out some of the key issues surrounding the Government's policy. As everyone knows, the initial consultation document was a shambles. Many people said that it was one of the worst consultations every undertaken by a Government. Individual householders, taxpayers and communities need to know the detail of the proposals, hence the reference in our motion to "stability of funding" and how the local income tax proposals will affect individual local authorities. It is good that the cabinet secretary has welcomed that and that he is responding positively to requests for detail. There will be more to follow.

Members have raised many issues, including water and sewerage charge collection; second homes; yield prediction and management, which is a dull but incredibly important part of the debate; and evasion and the avoidance of payment. Now that the cabinet secretary has set the tone for the debate running up to the introduction of his proposals, I look forward to seeing the further information for which many members have called. For example, David Whitton asked about yield, shortfall and collection, and James Kelly asked about the issues that Burt raised about local income tax proposals. We recognise that a lot more has to be done.

David McLetchie asked how we work out who would be better off and who would be worse off under the proposals. We will be able to do that only if the cabinet secretary continues his openness and meets his commitment to ensure that we have the maximum information on which to judge his proposals. At the end of the day, the local income tax is, as Charlie Gordon made clear, a new national income tax. However, the devil will be in the detail, and the Parliament will want to ensure that that detail becomes known to the Scottish public.

That is not to say that we have somehow surrendered to the idea of the local income tax. Indeed, the cabinet secretary and certain other members have made a bit of mischief on this point. The concept is flawed, and has been damned in consultation responses not only from the business community but from Carers Scotland, Unison and many other organisations. There are great concerns about the local income tax, and no one should be under any illusions about our continued opposition to it.

Much has been said about council tax benefit. You were warned—I apologise, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary was warned—as the SNP was warned before, during and after the previous Scottish Parliament elections—that the council tax benefit that is provided by Westminster will cease on the introduction of a local income tax system. It is not a matter of Westminster being a bully; it is simply the consensus view of many commentators and academics. In fact, Sir Peter Burt himself said very clearly that

"Council Tax Benefit would cease"

if local income tax were introduced in Scotland. It is simply wrong to say that council tax benefit is part of the Scottish block; it is paid out by the Department for Work and Pensions and will be paid out for as long as the council tax remains.

There has also been a lot of misinformation this morning about what was said in the statement of funding policy. The fact is that in 1997 there was a draft annex to the statement of funding policy, but what was contained in that annex was never adopted, even though the SNP continues to peddle the myth that it was.

I will finish on that point of clarification about council tax benefit. I welcome the Government's openness on this matter and I look forward to more information emerging about this dreaded policy.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will try to found my closing remarks on Mr Kerr's note of consensus.

Two staggering revelations have emerged in the debate. First, I realise that I am going to have give Jeremy Purvis some advice on how he spends his time, because I have to tell him that there are many fruitier pieces of light reading than Derek Brownlee's blog he can look at.

Secondly, some tremendous disaster must have happened if Mr Whitton has received an invitation to a certain dinner in East Dunbartonshire. I hope that, in the spirit of consensus, he is not planning to attend the event. [Laughter.]

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

He has given the invitation to me.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Well, that will make for a delightful evening. Mr Kerr and I will be able to take forward the many issues that we enjoy discussing together.

David McLetchie's speech was of course crafted with the usual elegance of an Edinburgh solicitor. However, he seemed to miss the fact that I dealt with the entire issue that he was raising in my opening speech. It was as if, in Scotland, one could still shoot a fox in debates. As I said earlier, our intention is that the local income tax collected from residents in each local authority area will be retained within that area. Given that that one point dealt clearly with the entire contents of his speech, Mr McLetchie might have changed his script accordingly. I note, though, that Mr Kerr was kind enough to accept the same comment as a clear statement of the Government's position.

That all fits into my response to the points raised by Des McNulty, which is that the local government finance system must be anchored to a needs-based formula that we will agree with local government. Indeed, as I made clear it would be when I announced the spending review settlement last year, that very formula is being examined at the moment. In our view, the local income tax element of local government funding would replace the council tax element, but under the umbrella of the overall funding package for local government. As we have made clear, local authorities will be able to rely on the same level of resources as before.

The Government's amendment, which focuses on council tax benefit and has attracted Liberal Democrat support, highlights one of the fundamental issues in the debate. My colleague Keith Brown was right to highlight the total contradiction in Derek Brownlee's argument, a contradiction that I have to say is most uncharacteristic of the member. Mr Brownlee argued for the need for clarity and certainty on all these questions—apart from, it seems, council tax benefit, which represents a significant part of the local government funding settlement.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Has the cabinet secretary changed the position that he outlined to the Burt review on this matter? At the time, he said that he would want the same assurance before any reform of local taxation could be considered. Now he seems to be saying, "Here are the proposals; I'll give you the assurance you want afterwards."

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

There is no change in my position. As Mr Brownlee would expect, I am taking forward this discussion on behalf of the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland retains council tax benefit money. If he wants me to make clear how the issue has been raised, I can tell him that I have done so directly and personally with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and on other occasions. What would help me—[ Interruption. ] What would help me, as I think Mr Rumbles has suggested from a sedentary position, is having Parliament's mandate to support my position in those negotiations.

I hope that between 10.30 am and the vote at 5 o'clock tonight the Conservatives will reflect on the fact that, no matter who reforms local taxation and no matter whether they seek to introduce a local income tax, a different form of property tax, the roof tax that Labour considered or the land value tax that Patrick Harvie might be interested in, council tax benefit still forms part of the resources of local government finance in Scotland and must be protected and delivered.

Finally, I say to Mr Kerr that council tax benefit goes nowhere near individuals. It is based on an assessment of an individual's income and is paid directly to local government as part of the local government settlement.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am afraid that I am coming to a close.

As a result, the case that council tax benefit should form part of the local government finance arrangements in Scotland is unanswerable. It should be protected, and I hope that such a view will receive Parliament's mandate this afternoon.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

We have heard some of the usual buzzwords and phrases that come up in local government finance debates. For example, members have talked about the "ability to pay", used the word "discredited" and referred to "the percentage that would be better off", which I have to say seems to decrease with every passing month and with each new piece of analysis that appears.

One thing that I must make clear is that the Scottish Conservatives remain absolutely and firmly opposed to the local income tax; it was disingenuous of one or two members to suggest otherwise. Indeed, our consultation response makes our position abundantly clear.

However, as the motion makes clear, we want clarity on the critical issue of the method of allocation. We have already been able to work out which individuals and groups would lose out under the local income tax, but now we need to know which local authorities would lose out. That information is particularly important if there is also a review of allocations from the revenue support grant and other central Government money.

The consultation on the local income tax suggested that the tax revenue could be distributed according to relative need, according to population or according to where the money was raised. There was a fourth, "Don't know" option, just in case the Liberal Democrats wanted to submit a response.

I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary gave us an answer to our question this morning. However, he paraded it as if he had reached his view after reviewing all the evidence and analysing all the consultation responses. On 17 April, a month into the consultation and at a time when he could not possibly have analysed all the evidence, Mr Swinney stated in response to a question whether the tax was local and legal:

"The money that every individual pays in local income tax will go directly to the local authority area in which they live to pay for services for people living in that area."—[Official Report, 17 April; c 7625.]

I suspect that Mr Swinney did not mean to say that and that it simply slipped out. However, the same point was paraded this morning as if it were a Government announcement of a position that had been based on all the facts and evidence.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

If that is the case—and I accept that it is, given that Mr Brown has just quoted from the Official Report —what on earth was Mr McLetchie banging on about for four minutes in his pointless speech? Indeed, if I answered the question in April, what are we having this pointless debate for?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

As the cabinet secretary said, Mr McLetchie made a considered and well-delivered speech, as ever. That was a simple bit of backtracking.

The point is that if the Government has already decided how it wants to allocate the money, surely we do not need to wait until a bill is published to get the information that we have requested. Why not listen to Keith Brown? He said that we need information as soon as possible. Will the cabinet secretary agree to publish information on the allocation of money to local authorities so that we can clearly see now how each local authority will do without having to wait until a bill is published? How will the north-east do, for example? Will Mr Rumbles be so keen on a local income tax when he finds that out? How will the Borders do?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am astonished that Conservative members will not confirm whether they are in favour of cutting income tax. Will they support us during the budget process to achieve that?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Mr Rumbles is one of the few Liberal Democrats who are not in the Borders at the moment fighting for what is meant to be a tough seat. Today, he charged round the lobby telling everyone that he would intervene during every speech by a Conservative member to ask about tax cuts—it would have been a good idea not to talk about such plans to Conservative researchers.

I want to pick up on two other points that Mr Rumbles made. First, he showed that he misunderstands what happens with the collection of council tax. People pay taxes and move, but houses do not move. The council tax is property based. People do not simply move house and leave that house empty; they sell it on. It is much simpler to keep track of what is happening using the council tax, because it is property based.

Mr Rumbles also mentioned the complex collection system for the council tax. Perhaps the system is complex, but if he cares to look at his next council tax bill, he will see two other items on it: water and sewerage. Even if the council tax were scrapped, water and sewerage rates would have to be collected. There would be exactly the same system and exactly the same issues that we currently face.

If the Government has made up its mind about how local income tax revenues would be allocated if a council tax abolition bill were enacted, let us see information on that now. That information should be published as soon as possible for all the 32 local authority areas. People could then make more informed choices about what to do.

Alcohol Sales (Age Limits)

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2629, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on age limits on purchases of alcohol.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Scotland needs a mature and reasoned debate on our relationship with alcohol. The statistics are frightening. The United Kingdom is in the world's top 10 for alcohol consumption per head of population and, as we heard last week, Scotland's record is worse than that of the rest of the UK. One in three men and one in four women in Scotland exceed the recommended daily limits for alcohol intake, and alcohol misuse costs Scotland around £2.25 billion every year.

Against that backdrop, the Scottish National Party Government was right to bring forward an alcohol strategy, and the Scottish Conservatives are happy to engage in discussions with it on many of the sensible proposals in that strategy. I am sure that the same goes for the other parties that are represented in the Parliament. However, it is a pity that our shared ambition to tackle Scotland's problems with alcohol has been overshadowed by one Government proposal in particular—the ludicrous plan to raise the age at which alcohol can be purchased from off-licences from 18 to 21. What a pity that that proposal has stolen the headlines and dominated the debate when we should be addressing issues on which there can be some degree of consensus.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

On the issue of consensus, the other main plank of the proposals is minimum pricing. Do the Conservatives support that? Did they submit alternatives in the consultation process?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary—the minister, I should say; I am terribly sorry about the promotion—should listen carefully to my speech. I will talk about some of our alternative proposals which, I am sure, will satisfy her concerns.

Since the Government published its proposals in June to increase the minimum age at which alcohol can be purchased from off-licences, there has been a huge backlash against them. In particular, I pay tribute to the coalition against raising the drinking age in Scotland campaign group for its sterling work in marshalling public opinion against the proposals, with its petition with 10,000 signatures. There has also been opposition from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the National Union of Students Scotland and a whole host of other bodies.

We believe that it is wrong in principle to raise the age at which alcohol can be bought from 18 to 21. There are problem drinkers of every age in society. Targeting 18 to 21-year-olds suggests that that group alone has a specific problem that other sectors of society do not have. The proposal is discriminatory, and there is simply no evidence to back it up.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member has lodged an all-or-nothing motion. Does he accept that, if we voted for it, we would prejudice—in fact, we might criminalise—supermarkets and local authorities that already exercise voluntary policies in which 21 is the age at which alcohol can be purchased? The motion would rule out local variation.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would have thought that a qualified lawyer such as Christine Grahame would understand the difference between the law and voluntary schemes. I am disappointed that she does not understand that difference.

The SNP wants to create a ludicrous situation. Students would not be able to buy a bottle of wine or a few cans of beer to enjoy in their hall of residence or flat. It wants to create the even more ludicrous situation in which a 20-year-old soldier who has returned from a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan would be unable to buy a bottle of champagne from an off-licence to celebrate his safe return with his wife. Someone who bought a bottle of champagne for him would be guilty of a criminal offence. In either case, the people involved would still be able to purchase alcohol in a pub. The proposal is inconsistent and unfair.

In defending its proposals, the SNP has put great emphasis on the pilot schemes that were carried out in Larbert, Stenhousemuir, Armadale and Cupar. It has claimed that the temporary restrictions on alcohol sales to those under the age of 21 substantially reduced crime in those areas, but we cannot extrapolate lessons about creating a national, permanent ban from those short, time-limited experiments in small geographic areas, where there was undoubtedly heightened awareness of the rules relating to alcohol off-sales. I can do no better than refer to what was said by the vice-president of the Royal Statistical Society, Professor Sheila Bird. She said that the Scottish Government was either spinning the figures or simply being naive. She said that a proper study was required and that the pilots did not constitute such a study. If the only argument that the SNP can marshal in support of its proposals is the evidence of the pilot schemes, it is on incredibly weak ground.

I say to Shona Robison that, instead of the SNP's proposals, we need a targeted approach that addresses problem drinkers, who belong to all age groups in society. I have no problem with talking about the pricing of alcohol, although I suspect that it would make sense to deal with that through the tax system rather than through some system of minimum unit pricing.

Above all, before we consider further legislation, we must ensure above all that the current laws are being properly enforced. The statistics show that, in 2005-06, only seven people under 18 were proceeded against in Scottish courts for buying alcohol or consuming alcohol in a bar, but we all know that under-18s seem to have no difficulty in purchasing alcohol. There should be a proper clampdown on those who break the current law before we consider changing it.

The SNP must be congratulated on its remarkable success in building a broad-ranging coalition against its proposals. It has succeeded in developing a true consensus in Scottish politics. The Conservative party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Margo MacDonald are all agreed. Of course, the consensus does not stop there. We know that SNP back benchers, councillors and grass-roots activists disagree with the proposals. We know that even the SNP's usually ultra-loyalist youth wing, the Federation of Student Nationalists, has come out against the plans. If the SNP cannot even persuade its party activists that the idea is good, why on earth should we support it?

The SNP Government believes that young people are responsible enough at the age of 16 to have the vote. In The Herald earlier this week, Bruce Crawford, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, said:

"The Scottish Government agrees that the lack of consistency with other legal rights on entering adulthood such as paying taxes, getting married or serving in the armed forces, leads young people to believe that their views are not valid or important".

I could not agree more. The SNP says that young people are responsible enough at 16 to vote but, in the next breath, it says that those self-same young people should not be able to buy a drink in a supermarket or an off-licence for another five years. I am delighted to welcome Bruce Crawford as the latest convert to our consensus. I hope that Parliament will join us in voting down these ludicrous plans.

I move,

That the Parliament rejects the Scottish Government's proposals to raise the age limit for purchasing alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets from 18 to 21.

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

It is ironic that on the day when the SNP Government rolls out free school meals to five to seven-year-olds, some members obsess about providing alcohol to 18 to 21-year-olds. That speaks volumes about the Government's values and the minority interests of others.

The problem with the Conservatives' position on alcohol—as with so much—is that they carp and complain from the sidelines but have no ideas and make no input into the consultation. They have instigated today's debate on an issue that has been cherry picked from a comprehensive package of measures. They arrogantly dismiss the proposal out of hand on the basis of nothing more than dogma and a desire to play to the gallery.

Murdo Fraser, who comes across increasingly as a spokesman for Wal-Mart, either has his head in the sand or walks around with his eyes shut. He pursues the outdated line that alcohol misuse is a minority issue. It is not. It has an impact on everyone in Scotland in some shape or form in relation to health, the economy and justice. We cannot go on as we are.

We should not be surprised by the Conservatives' lack of understanding, given their past convictions and previous sins on passive smoking. We remember that Margaret Thatcher was the milk snatcher. Now Annabel Goldie appears to be the cairrie-oot provider. The party that sought to be tough on law and order now seems to accept the disorder that flows from a free-for-all in alcohol retailing.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Not at the moment.

The Conservatives have moved on from David Cameron's hug-a-hoodie plan to Murdo Fraser's free bottle of Buckie or David McLetchie's gie-them-aw-a-cairrie-oot idea. I was interested to read that the London mayor, Boris Johnson—good old Boris—backs a proposal for an age 21 initiative in Croydon. Why are the Tories so dismissive of proposals in Scotland but so protective of their home counties heartland?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Who would have thought that we would see the day when the SNP said that a solution that was proposed for London should automatically be imported to Scotland?

Does the cabinet secretary apply all the criticisms that he has just made of me to the Federation of Student Nationalists?

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

Mr Fraser well knows his past predilections in the Federation of Conservative Students. I leave him to account for those.

We are not adopting Boris Johnson's suggestion; he is accepting as appropriate for the home counties what we have suggested. The Conservatives do not care about housing schemes in small-town Scotland. Of course, the Conservatives are happy to accept the council-tax freeze—we are delighted that Mr Cameron has come on board. Perhaps the Conservatives should take a few more of our policies.

I am thankful that people in Scotland recognise that the problem exists and that we cannot go on as we are. Scotland has one of the fastest-growing rates of alcohol-related liver disease and cirrhosis in the world. Each year, 40,000 people are hospitalised with an alcohol-related illness. As Mr Fraser admitted, the estimated cost of alcohol misuse is £2.25 billion per year. That is why we need a serious debate, with serious suggestions from serious people. The difference between us and the other parties is that we recognise the scale of the problem and are willing to try new approaches to tackle it.

We will not sit back and watch problems arise. The Tories must account for the fact that, when they were in office, the number of off-sales premises in Scotland increased by 31 per cent—from 4,900 in 1980 to 6,400 in 1997. That happened on the Tories' watch. They built not one new prison, but they increased the number of off-sales outlets by 31 per cent. It is no wonder that our communities pay a price in antisocial behaviour these days.

Our work to deal with alcohol started in opposition.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The cabinet secretary's amendment refers to consultation and listening, of which we have not heard much in his speech. Will the Government definitely make legislative proposals to implement the ban?

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

We are consulting. The consultation period has finished and we are considering the issue. It is a pity that neither Mr Purvis nor anybody else in the Liberal Democrats took it on themselves to contribute to the consultation, but it is for them to answer for that.

It is easy to dismiss the age 21 discussion out of hand but, where the system has been tried, the results have been positive. Other factors have been at play in Armadale, Stenhousemuir and Cupar, and restricting the sale of alcohol to those aged 21 and over was only one element. However, the police and communities were grateful for the successful outcomes. The statistics speak for themselves.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

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

Not at the moment.

We need to consider the complete picture. Debating the purchase age is only one part of that. We acknowledge that the Government does not have all the answers and that we need to work in partnership. We also recognise that we require not simply legislation but a culture change and enforcement of current laws. However, we need legislative change, because the status quo is unacceptable. As I said, we cannot go on as we are.

We welcome the input from a variety of organisations, including CARDAS, which accepts minimum pricing. We welcome the fact that Nick Clegg has come round to the concept of minimum pricing. Yet again, a UK political party is taking on board the Scottish Government's proposals.

We are delighted that Scotland is seen as leading the way by Boris Johnson and Nick Clegg. We have an opportunity to rebalance Scotland's relationship with alcohol, which is out of kilter. I appreciate that the prospect of reducing alcohol consumption is anathema to some, but that is the ball game that we need to win to end the damage that alcohol misuse has done to our economy and our country. As a Parliament, we owe that to future generations.

I move amendment S3M-2629.1, to leave out from "rejects" to end and insert:

"welcomes the period of consultation, listening and debate that is happening in Scotland on how to rebalance the country's relationship with alcohol; welcomes the initiatives being taken at local level, including voluntary agreements not to sell alcohol to persons under 21; notes the ongoing work done by licensing boards and other partners to implement the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005; recognises the need to build on that legislation with further measures including the ending of irresponsible alcohol promotions, and acknowledges that given the major public health implications failure to take further action to tackle alcohol misuse is not an option."

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We need a serious debate on the issue, but the cabinet secretary frustrates that ambition. It is accepted that underage drinking is a problem in communities throughout Scotland. To address that, we need policies that will make a difference. Instead, the cabinet secretary has again placed a political gimmick before real solutions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

On policies that will make a difference, what policies has Richard Baker proposed in response to the consultation?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We are a Parliament. We are giving our view now. This is a debate, in which we are clearly presenting our views. If the SNP is serious about listening to other views, I hope that it will listen to what the Parliament says tonight and ditch the policy.

We all accept that Scotland has a cultural problem with alcohol consumption. We know the toll that that takes on our health, through crime and on our communities. That is why the Scottish Government is culpable for placing a flawed policy at the heart of the debate. Our approach needs to be consistent, but the Government is not. The Government does not dispute that 18-year-olds can join the police, buy alcohol in a pub and run a pub, but it says that they should not purchase alcohol in an off-licence until they are 21, although the SNP wants to lower the voting age to 16. That simply does not make sense.

The proposal is not just deeply flawed in itself. It is part of an artifice to allow political posturing from the Government on tackling underage drinking to hide the Government's failure to invest in measures that would make a difference to the problem. The cabinet secretary has also failed to win broad support for his proposal. Some members might know that, over the years, the Federation of Student Nationalists and I have not seen eye to eye. However, I am today pleased and proud to stand four-square with my friends in the FSN in opposition to the Scottish Government, so that we can debate the issues properly.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the pilot in Armadale. The pilot's success is disputed. Although Chief Inspector Jim Baird welcomed it, he said that because initiatives

"all ran in parallel it is not practicable, particularly with the low numbers of calls and reported crimes, to identify what operation had what effect."

I do not doubt that the increased police presence and resources made a difference in tackling underage drinking. The increased police presence and not the ban on purchases in off-licences resulted in progress.

There are much more practical alternatives to the proposal. Consideration could be given to challenge 21 schemes, which do not require unfair and discriminatory legislation, and to proof-of-age cards. Most of all, we must ensure that the existing licensing legislation is rigorously applied. As members said, that is not happening. We should expand the use of test purchasing, which has been successful, and we should ensure that premises that have been found to be selling alcohol to underage purchasers face immediate suspension of their licences—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We have done that.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

There is barracking from the SNP benches, but the evidence does not back up what members are saying. During the previous session of the Parliament, we established strong licensing laws. Proper enforcement of those laws will have the most impact, particularly on underage drinking.

The purchase of alcohol from off-licences is only part of the problem. Too many young people have access to alcohol in other places, including the family home. That is why local policing and resources offer the best way of dealing with underage drinking. Instead of the 1,000 more police officers that were promised, only 74 have been provided. Instead of more investment in community wardens, in Aberdeen, in my area, we have witnessed wardens being removed from communities in which underage drinking is a particular problem and their duties being combined with those of traffic wardens. Instead of investing properly in community safety, the Government is cutting the budget in real terms.

Instead of bringing incoherent and inconsistent policies to the Parliament, the Government should put its money where its mouth is on underage drinking. I welcome the debate that the Conservatives have brought, which has given all parties the chance to put the proposal in the bin, where it should be. The Parliament will do the debate a service at decision time when it ditches the proposal, so that we can consider the alternative measures that I described, which will make a real difference in tackling alcohol misuse in Scotland.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Liberal Democrats welcome the debate, particularly because it focuses exclusively on the proposal on 18 to 21-year-olds.

I do not think that the cabinet secretary quite understands the point that the Liberal Democrats are making: there is no disagreement about the need to change the culture, however the questions for us all are why, and on what evidence. The cabinet secretary and his Government have decided that 18 to 21-year-olds are part of the problem and not part of the solution. We fundamentally disagree with that.

The issues that are raised by that element of the Government's proposals to tackle alcohol misuse are wholly different from the issues that are raised by the other proposals and revolve around the lack of evidence to support the Government's proposition that 18 to 21-year-olds are responsible for a substantial proportion of alcohol-related crime.

I share Murdo Fraser's view that the Government's misguided proposal has diverted attention from the serious debate on which it has rightly embarked about how best to respond to the substantial body of evidence that the British Medical Association gathered, which links the price of alcohol with consumption; how best to enforce existing licensing law and extend bottle labelling and separate bottle marking; and how best to increase levels of education. Indeed, consideration of how best to engage with younger people to tackle the cultural inheritance has been singularly absent.

The Government's response to the lack of evidence has been to pray in aid the Armadale in West Lothian experiment. There has also been an increase in the use of test purchasing by the authorities and an increase in prosecutions for selling to underage persons. That approach is right, but we are concerned about the lack of evidence.

The results from West Lothian should not be ignored, but if the cabinet secretary is drawing conclusions from what happened, he could conclude that the introduction of safer neighbourhood teams and deployment of additional resources by way of police officers or community wardens have led to a reduction in alcohol-related crime. He could conclude that the procurement of the agreement of off-sales proprietors to enforce rigorously the law on sales to underage persons has also had an impact. Those conclusions are borne out by the experiments. One could also conclude that the use of test purchasing and active enforcement of the law by the authorities has had an impact. That conclusion, too, is borne out by the Armadale experiment and by the extraordinary surprise of the chief constable of Strathclyde Police at the substantial number of licence-holders who failed the test-purchase test.

Alternatively, one could conclude, as the Government has done, that it all appears to be the fault of 18 to 21-year-olds. However, we must search hard to find evidence of a reduction in the number of alcohol-related crimes that are perpetrated by 18 to 21-year-olds.

The proposal is fatally flawed, not just for the reason that I gave but because it will fail fundamentally to contribute to bringing about the essential cultural change in attitudes to irresponsible drinking. If we are to get the next generation actively to play its part in such essential cultural change, that generation must be regarded as part of the solution and not as part of the problem. By stigmatising a generation, we run the risk of alienating that generation instead of harnessing its energies and idealism in order to effect change.

The Government's proposal is not evidence-based and does not acknowledge the role of the next generation. On the question of 18 to 21-year-olds, the cabinet secretary has—to borrow a phrase—misdirected himself. Accordingly, the motion must be passed.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to the open debate. We are up against the clock, so members must stick to their time limit of four minutes.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Although there appears to be no consensus on raising the age for the purchase of alcohol in off-licences, I think that there is a consensus on the scale of the problem that we face in Scotland in dealing with the nation's unhealthy relationship with alcohol, which costs the nation £2.25 billion—not to mention the individual, family and community misery that it brings.

On 25 June, Parliament had an opportunity to debate the proposals in the Government's consultation document. During the past three months, communities and groups throughout Scotland and every member and party in Parliament have had an opportunity to feed in their views on what would and would not work and on what should be included in the strategy. It is becoming apparent that members have not even bothered to make the effort to do that, because they cannot engage effectively in the debate—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Sit down.

Members have been happy to feed their views into the consultation on local income tax but have not fed their views into a consultation on one of the biggest public health problems that our society faces.

Murdo Fraser had the cheek to start his speech by saying that we need a mature debate, when his motion sets out no alternatives and says nothing about the scale of the problem but simply opposes one element of a wider strategy.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I see that Mr Matheson is in no better humour than he was when he was on the radio with me at a quarter past seven this morning. First, why did he not listen to my speech, in which I made positive proposals? Secondly, to how many Government consultations did the SNP respond when it was the Opposition? The answer is not many.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I made representations on a number of occasions. Murdo Fraser introduced the debate, so it is a cheek that he did not feed his views into the consultation.

During the past 30 years we have heard much about the cultural shift that Ross Finnie mentioned, but we have not heard hard detail about how we can create such a shift. A targeted approach has been tried but has not made the significant impact that is needed if we are to change the culture. Our generation must be prepared to make the tough decisions that will start to change the culture. No single element of the Government's proposals will change the unhealthy relationship that we have with alcohol, but collectively the proposals can do so. The Opposition could have fed in its ideas at the start of the process, but it did not bother.

It is important that the Government acknowledges that the evidence from the pilots raises interesting issues. During the six-month pilot in Stenhousemuir in my constituency there was a 40 per cent reduction in breaches of the peace, a 20 per cent reduction in minor assaults and a 60 per cent reduction in serious assaults. The police will tell members that no additional resources were provided, so the approach was cost neutral. The increase in the age limit was an essential part of the local strategy.

I hope that the Government will assure us today that it will listen not just to the vested interests of certain groups that have run high-profile campaigns, but to constituents such as mine, more than 600 of whom have responded to my local consultation, with 78 per cent in favour of increasing the age limit. We need to ensure that the communities who suffer the misery that is caused by our unhealthy relationship with alcohol have their views taken into consideration. I hope that, in publishing the outcome of the consultation, we can ensure that it is not just the vested interests of organisations that the Tories might be happy to argue for, but the views of communities that are listened to.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like many other members and the crowd who were outside Parliament this morning, I believe that increasing the age limit for alcohol to 21 is misguided.

There will be future opportunities to debate whether the other measures in the Government's alcohol proposals will bring about the cultural change that we all know is needed, but there can be little debate left about a simple increase in the age limit to 21. It is an inconsistent policy that will not bring about the significant changes in Scotland's relationship with alcohol that we need.

If the reason for raising the age limit to 21 is to tackle underage drinking, the SNP's policy looks even weaker, because the main reason for increasing to 21 seems to be to enforce the age limit of 18. If we want to enforce that age limit, we must invest the resources to do so. We should not unfairly target 18 to 21-year-olds in order to tackle a problem with 15 to 16-year-olds. Instead, the Government must do more to enforce the current age restriction and prevent children from getting a supply of alcohol from adult friends or relatives.

We must do more to prevent retailers from selling to our children. That involves tougher enforcement of current laws, enhancing the test purchasing scheme and enforcing a change in the culture of retailers and pubs so that proof of age is always asked for. It is about coming down hard on retailers and pubs that break the law; it is not about increasing the age limit to 21.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

There seems to me to be a serious case to show that younger adults—the 18 to 21-year-olds and perhaps those a little older—are likely to be pressured by youngsters in their community to buy alcohol for them. They are committing an offence, but are likely to get away with it.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate the intervention, but the evidence that I have suggests not that it is solely 18 to 21-year-olds who supply alcohol, but that it tends to be older relatives who do it—the conviction in Fife was of a 26-year-old. It is not only people in the 18-to-21 age category who are involved in proxy purchasing. We must crack down on adults who buy alcohol for children. It is often far too easy to overlook the fact that proxy purchase—not direct purchase—is the greatest source of alcohol for children. As we crack down harder to enforce the age limit of 18, there is the potential that we will see an increase in the problem of proxy purchasing.

Statistics show that 22 per cent of 13-year-olds and 29 per cent of 15-year-olds get alcohol from friends or relatives. Even more concerning is the fact that those figures rise to 26 per cent and 35 per cent when we consider girls alone. However, on the most recent figures, we have had only one conviction for proxy purchasing in Fife—as I said earlier, that person was over 21—and we have had only 83 across the country. Something is clearly wrong, and increasing the age limit to 21 will do little to tackle that aspect of underage drinking.

Rather than increase the age limit, the Government should consider radical ways to encourage retailers to demand proof of age before selling alcohol. Challenge 21 is a useful scheme for retailers across Scotland, and radical solutions to encourage uptake and use of proof-of-age cards, such as the Young Scot card, could be far better routes to tackling underage drinking.

Scotland faces a real challenge in its relationship with alcohol, and I agree with the Scottish Government that we must be prepared to consider radical solutions to the serious problems that we face. However, the emphasis should be on the word "solution" and not the word "radical". There is no point in doing something for the sake of being seen to do it.

Raising the age limit to 21 is not a solution to the problems that we face in Scotland. The SNP should drop the plans and instead focus on more effective measures to tackle proxy purchasing, underage drinking and our cultural attitude to alcohol in Scotland.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I welcome the cross-party support that the motion has attracted from members, with the notable exception of members on the SNP benches.

Two things are clear from today's debate. First is the need to tackle the problems that are associated with alcohol abuse in Scottish society, and second is that the SNP's ridiculous proposal will do little, if anything, in tackling the problems that society faces. There is some political consensus on the matter among members, and there also appears to be general agreement around Scotland that the proposal is a complete waste of time.

I will make several points on the Government's plan to increase the minimum age at which it is legal to purchase off-sales alcohol from 18 to 21. Most important, I will consider the evidence from the pilot schemes that the Government is putting forward in support of the proposals. I will focus in particular on the conclusions in the Lothian and Borders Police report into the Armadale pilot. I suggest that the evidence shows that the trial was actually far from successful and certainly not something on which to base any new legislation.

First, during the pilot, there was an insignificant change in alcohol-related behaviour and a rise in minor assaults.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I want to develop the point.

Assaults actually increased. The average before the ban was 0.4 per week, the average during the ban was 0.5 per week, and the average since the ban ended has continued at 0.5 per week. Youth disorder was recorded in four calls per week during the ban and has remained the same, at four calls, since the ban.

Secondly, the trial was too short—it lasted only six weeks. A pilot should be much longer before the Government can use it as the basis for legislative changes. Thirdly, the trial took place on only two days per week, between 5 pm and 10 pm on Friday and Saturday nights. That is not comparable with raising the drinking age nationally, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Fourthly—and lastly—small pilot areas such as Armadale cannot be compared with the whole of Scotland. Results in one specific area are unlikely to be representative of how the scheme might work if it were to be rolled out throughout Scotland, and the Government is wrong to try to suggest that.

Not only does the evidence fail to stack up, but the plans will create unnecessary inconsistencies in the legislation. Young people and parents rightly look to Government for leadership, but the proposals send out mixed messages to young people on where and when it is acceptable to drink alcohol. The rationale behind the plans is confusing and illogical, and they would penalise the vast majority of 18 to 21-year-olds who drink alcohol responsibly. Perhaps the Government does not understand that alcohol misuse is not a young persons' disease: adults of all ages misuse alcohol. In any case, all the plans would achieve is a messy and complicated set of rules for the purchase of alcohol.

The proposals unnecessarily discriminate against certain members of our society. As a society, we recognise that young people gain additional responsibilities when they reach a certain age. By 18, they can vote, get married, drive, pay tax and even serve in the Army, but the SNP still does not trust them to buy a couple of cans of lager to take home. Those who are under 21 and live in rural areas will also be discriminated against if they want to enjoy a drink because they will no longer be able to do so in their own homes and are increasingly unlikely to have a local pub.

The proposals are not necessary. Proper enforcement of the existing legislation would go a long way towards reducing the problems of underage drinking. In 2005-06, only seven people under 18 were prosecuted for buying alcohol or consuming alcohol in a bar. Either underage drinking is not a problem in Scotland or the current legislation is not properly enforced. I challenge even Kenny MacAskill to say that anything other than the latter is true.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must conclude there, I am afraid.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

We see a total lack of alternatives in the woeful attempt at a motion from the Tories. They say that we need a reasoned debate, but where are their alternatives?

We have Murdo Fraser, now champion of the students in Scotland. Perhaps he feels a bit guilty because the Tories reneged on their eight-year policy of abolishing the graduate endowment tax. He also talked about the Federation of Student Nationalists: he might be thinking about his own radical student days, when he was a member of the smash the national health service wing of the Thatcherite Federation of Conservative Students.

What has been disappointing about the Tory contributions so far is a total absence of any discussion about the impact on health of excessive drinking. Only recently, we saw the report that said that 2 litres more per head of pure alcohol is drunk in Scotland than in England, and for every extra litre there is a 30 per cent increase in the probability of liver disease. That is a major health problem that we have to deal with.

I was surprised by Mr Lamont's speech. He spoke about the six-week Armadale trial but—funnily enough—did not mention the six-month Stenhousemuir trial, which produced much more detailed evidence, including evidence of a significant reduction in antisocial behaviour.

One organisation that has not been quoted—I thank Gail Grant of the British Medical Association for providing this information, which I understand was sent to all MSPs—is the BMA. BMA Scotland's briefing states:

"In the BMA's survey of members, 97% of doctors said that stricter enforcement of age restrictions, particularly for off sales, was an important factor in reducing drinking amongst young Scots."

The briefing also points out:

"A 2003 survey published by the Scottish Executive found that 49% of 15 year olds reported buying alcohol for their own consumption. Indeed, most purchases made by people over 18 for underage drinkers are reported to be made by those aged 18-21."

On many occasions, the 18 to 21-year-olds are fuelling the underage drinking culture that besets our nation.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does Kenneth Gibson accept that such purchases are an offence? All members agree that the offences that are currently on the statute book should be enforced. A person between 18 and 21 who buys alcohol for someone who is under age should feel the full force of the law.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I do not accept that that will make a significant culture change, but I believe that the current law should be enforced. We should consider how likely it is that people will pretend that they are a given age. It is much easier for 17-year-olds to pretend that they are 18 or 19 than it is for 20-year-olds to pretend that they are 22 or 23. I believe that a three-year shift in the age limit will make a significant difference to the amount of alcohol that is sold to young people.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

One minute.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

If people do not believe me, they should look at what happened in the United States of America. During the Vietnam war, the fact that young men going off to fight could not buy a drink was used—as the Tories have used it today—as an argument to reduce the age for drinking in several US states. Within a decade, many states had to raise the age to 21 again because the change had resulted in more antisocial behaviour on the streets of US cities and a significant increase in the number of people who were killed in car accidents. Since America raised the drinking age to 21 again, there has been a significant reduction in alcohol abuse.

People should understand that drinking patterns for life are set very young. If people cannot get alcohol at a young age, they are less likely to develop alcoholism. We need to consider that 6,500 young Scots under the age of 18 are hospitalised each year because of drinking. Indeed, in the previous debate, Jamie Stone mentioned that his son had been a victim of that.

We are trying to do something positive. We are not doing this for populism—like the Tories, who are languishing at the bottom of the polls—but to try to improve the health of the people of Scotland.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must wind up.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

We want to reduce antisocial behaviour in our communities. We want to allow 18 to 21-year-olds, who are often the victims of—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must conclude.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am pleased to take part in this morning's debate.

Clearly, the effects of alcohol on individuals' health and behaviour are not always good, so I agree with the amendment that doing nothing is not an option. However, let us remember that the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive acted by legislating to ban irresponsible drinks promotions, to reform the licensing system and—significantly—to introduce the test-purchasing scheme. There is more to do, but a ban on off-sales to 18 to 21-year-olds is not the answer. Targeting young people in such an unsophisticated way is not the answer.

On health, I agree with Kenneth Gibson that people are generally drinking more than was the case in the past. Alcohol is cheaper and more readily available. Understanding of units and alcohol strength is limited—as NHS Scotland's helpful briefing points out—so we need better education for everyone. We need better labelling so that people can be better informed.

However, the Armadale pilot in my constituency was introduced—as I have said on previous occasions—to deal with antisocial behaviour. To that extent, the ban on off-sales to under-21s contributed to a drop in reported antisocial behaviour. Although the statistics from Lothian and Borders Police show a welcome decrease in antisocial behaviour, they leave many unanswered questions. Was that decrease due to the introduction of safer neighbourhood teams and youth workers? From speaking to local people, I think so. The alcohol ban happened only while the SNTs and youth workers were deployed, so it is not possible to say what effect the ban had. The increase in antisocial behaviour after the ban was lifted was minimal—one rise is not a trend. The minister must acknowledge that the figures are so small that the phrase "not statistically significant" correctly applies to them.

More important for me is the experience and reaction of local people. They are asking for police on the streets and for youth workers and youth facilities so that young people have something to do. Local people want licences to be removed from anyone who is found selling alcohol to, or for, under-18s; they are not asking for such an arbitrary ban to return, which is why the ban has not returned. I have not had people from other towns and villages in my constituency banging on my door asking for such a ban, either.

There is cross-party support for tackling the problems that are caused by alcohol misuse so—lest the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or Minister for Public Health accuse me of having no ideas—let me make a few suggestions on how to do that. We should make use of test purchasing and remove licences where the law is breached. The judiciary must be part of that, so that licensing boards do not feel that their decisions will be overturned.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

One minute.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

In areas such as Armadale that have problems with street drinking, existing laws should be enforced. West Lothian has byelaws to prevent street drinking, but I am not aware of their being used. Alcohol should not be sold to people who are already drunk, whether they are in an off-licence or a pub. I realise that that would put shops and bar staff on the front line, so proper training should be given.

Also, we should look at prices. I cannot be the only person who feels that selling bottles of vodka at £2.99 in supermarkets must have an impact. We need to look at prices seriously. On that issue, I disagree with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. However, I appreciate the association's point about internet sales, which is an issue that the minister should consider.

Finally, the minister should look at issuing proof-of-age cards for 18 to 25-year-olds.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must wind up.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

In particular, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—USDAW—has supported that suggestion. Alcohol—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry—the member's time is up.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I quote a recent headline in the Inverness weekly newspaper, the Highland News : "Price war fuels ned scourge?" Sadly, the story is an all-too-familiar tale of modern Scottish life, in which "two local shops" are

"selling cut-price deals on Buckfast Tonic Wine - knocking £2 off the price if they buy two bottles instead of one."

As a result, an area that already had a problem with underage drinkers suffered an increase in antisocial behaviour, with people being harassed by drunken yobs and the local play park strewn with smashed bottles.

A month after that story appeared, it was reported—in July this year—that people in the Inverness area are more likely to end up in hospital because of alcohol than the average Scot: the figure for Inverness is 114 per 100,000 of population as compared with a Scottish average of 83.7 per 100,000. However, the alcohol problem is not confined to the ned scourge that was highlighted by the Highland News. A local alcohol worker who commented on the figures highlighted the change in the kind of people that services are working with. In particular, services are seeing increasing numbers of professionals, young people and women who have alcohol problems.

The conclusion that has been drawn by Highland NHS Board's director of public health, Dr Eric Baijal, was clear and unequivocal. He said:

"The figures underscore the need for Scotland to change its relationship with alcohol ... Despite ample evidence of the negative impact of drink on our health, our families and our society, we have begun to accept high levels of alcohol consumption as normal and I believe it will take bold steps to change this pattern."

His view is backed up by BMA Scotland, which states:

"Alcohol kills six people every day in Scotland".

"Whilst drinking in moderation can be a source of pleasure, the effect of excessive alcohol consumption on our health and the related social and economic impact is significant."

The BMA Scotland briefing also states that

"There is a clear health and social impact of alcohol misuse in Scotland. It is evident that no single approach can tackle Scotland's drink problem. A comprehensive strategy that encompasses pricing, availability and access to alcohol will be the most effective approach by Government."

I strongly believe that raising the age at which people can buy alcohol from shops will play a significant part in such a comprehensive strategy, but it will be just one part. Never before has alcohol been promoted more relentlessly and ruthlessly to our young people. Corner-shop store wars, supermarket loss leaders and commercially backed pub crawls are just some of the methods. Excess has become the norm in our young people's relationship with alcohol, and getting tanked up on cheap booze at home before heading out for the evening has become a routine part of a night out. Is that what the Tories want to encourage by what they see as a cheap political hit? Where is their sense of responsibility?

I believe that a ban on the sale of alcohol in off-sales to under-21s would have a positive impact in tackling the kind of underage drinking problems to which I referred earlier. There is no doubt that people in the 18 to 20 age group often help younger people by buying drink for them. The proposed ban would serve to cut off that supply. It would not limit the freedom of people aged between 18 and 20 to enjoy a drink in a pub or restaurant, but would have a significant impact on the hugely damaging excesses of our burgeoning drinking culture.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate and the way in which the Government has approached it are not good because they distract us from the central problem. I believe firmly that, if we are to move ahead with tackling what is undoubtedly our most serious health problem next to tobacco use, we should do so on the basis of consensus. However, the proposal to raise the age for buying alcohol from off-sales from 18 to 21 gets in the way of consensus and of tackling a serious problem.

Dave Thompson's speech had only one phrase in four minutes with which I disagreed—he said that the Government's proposal would make a significant contribution—and I agreed with what he said in the rest of his speech. Indeed, many of the speeches from the SNP, which have not focused on the issue—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am sorry. The time is so short that I cannot give way. The cabinet secretary can deal with my speech in his summing-up speech.

Nobody will disagree when SNP members say that alcohol misuse is a big problem, so let us move on from that.

Parliament has just achieved clarity and parity over the age restriction of 18 for alcohol and tobacco purchase, but the Government's policy proposal confuses that. The Government is not clear whether the proposal is a public health measure or a public safety measure. If it is both, it fails on the public health test and on the public safety test the jury is still out, as Sheila Bird has said. However, if the law currently allows local communities to undertake the sort of experiments that have been undertaken in the name of public safety, I for one am not concerned if they continue, with the agreement of all the stakeholders. However, a blanket policy that attacks everyone between 18 and 21 would be counterproductive.

On the experiments, I was involved in alcohol work in the late 1970s, and my group undertook a study of 14-year-olds and drinking in Stenhousemuir. I must report to members that 14 per cent of those 14-year-olds were drinking regularly. We must tackle the underage drinking, not the 18-to-21 group. If the Government needs further evidence on that, there is clear evidence from the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey—SALSUS—that the number of underage drinkers is huge.

The other point is where they drink. The figure for those who drink outside has risen from 39 per cent to 45 per cent, so let us use the public-place ban more. I welcome the fact that Fife has just introduced such a ban for another nine communities, starting in October. However, the ban on drinking outside should be universal.

Test purchasing is important in addressing underage drinking. Evidence gleaned from a parliamentary question in April 2008 showed that we have made only 632 test purchases—there are 17,000 off-sales—and 14 per cent of the premises that were tested failed. If we implement the current law, we will achieve a much greater response.

If the Government needs further evidence, it can consider the fact that 60 per cent of 18,000 young offenders who were discharged from prison admitted that their offence was related to drink, and 45 per cent said that they would have a problem with drink when they went back into the community. It is that hard-core group of under-18s whom we need to address and not the 18 to 21 group.

I plead with the Government to drop its policy and to co-operate with opposition parties. I am sure that we will all co-operate with the Government in trying to achieve change in the drinking culture. I ask the Government to note that the community—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but the member's time is up. I can give Patrick Harvie a minute and a half.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful, Presiding Officer.

I hope that this debate ends our bad habit of too often adding a dash of puritanism to our debates on alcohol. The stage 3 debate on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill in the previous session was the worst example of that. Speech after speech talked about the need to save our communities from the demon drink, then MSPs sauntered downstairs where huge trays of free booze awaited us all.

The reality is that drinking—moderate drinking—involves society's recreational drug of choice, and people do it because it is fun. It is fun now, it was fun on that Thursday evening of the stage 3 debate and it was fun when we were 20 years old. To police that in the same way as we police problem drinking, whether we define that in public health terms or crime and disorder terms, is simply absurd. That is the first objection to the Government's proposal.

The proposal discriminates between young and old people, but it does not discriminate between problem drinking and moderate drinking. It tells young couples who celebrate a civil partnership or a wedding that they cannot share a bottle of wine to commemorate that until their fifth anniversary.

The Government's proposal would create another set of criminalised young people. We would create the same failed attitude that has resulted in other—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but the member's time is over. We now move to the winding-up speeches. I call Robert Brown, who has four minutes. I will enforce the time limits.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This has been a worthwhile debate, and there will be an opportunity tonight for the Scottish Parliament to express a clear and decisive view on the SNP Government's ill-conceived plans to ban adults who are under 21 from buying alcohol in off-licences. The motion for debate is a well-chosen and focused one on a particular aspect of a broader problem. Claire Baker made the good point, with which I agree, that the emphasis ought to be on finding a solution. John Lamont, too, made a good point, which was that the policy has illogicality and messiness built into it.

No one in the chamber doubts that the excessive consumption of alcohol in Scotland is a substantial, worrying problem. Many people have made the point that it is a cultural issue, which affects all age groups, not just those aged between 18 and 21, many of whom drink responsibly. The point is easily made—and impossible to answer—that a 19-year-old soldier can be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan to risk his life for his country, make adult judgments and decisions, and meet extremely grown-up challenges, but is to be forbidden when he comes home from buying a bottle of wine or a couple of cans of lager in an off-licence when he wants to watch a game of football or a film on the television.

The peak age for alcohol consumption is, in fact, from 45 to 64, with men between the ages of 17 and 24 accounting for only 3.4 per cent of alcohol consumption. I wonder what the logic of the SNP position would be if it took some of the facts into account rather than the theories on which it seems to base its policy.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way on that point?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

Changes in cultural attitude are difficult to bring about. They require the full involvement of university and college student unions, for example, in encouraging responsible drinking—much good work has been done in that connection—and there is work to be done on prices and labelling. The SNP Government makes a severe mistake if it thinks that there is a single magic solution to this complex, historic and deep-seated challenge—there is not. I make the point seriously to the cabinet secretary that there is no equivalent of the public places smoking ban in this area of policy, and there is no totemic answer that will win the SNP plaudits for being more far-sighted than the rest of us. What is worse, the policy will alienate young people who have to be our main allies in helping to change public attitudes to alcohol.

Let me say to the cabinet secretary that he should not underestimate the potential of the new generation to develop new ideas and attitudes, and to influence their peer group by example on what is fashionable or right, as it seems to them. That is how impossible challenges are met and negative cultural attitudes changed, because a new generation decides that the old ways will no longer do.

Instead of working with the grain of all that, the First Minister, supported by people like Michael Matheson—with the face of repressive nationalism much to the fore—runs the severe risk of making the problem worse and entrenching excessive consumption of alcohol as being an anti-establishment, fashionable and trendy thing to do. In a small way, the SNP wants us to be forced to learn the lessons of the prohibition era all over again.

Let me come back to the principles of the Liberal Democrat approach to all this. I am not one of those who are obsessed by a standard age of majority, but it is a little odd—is it not?—to argue for a reduction in the voting age to 16 on the basis that young people of that age have the maturity, knowledge and judgment to exercise the franchise, while at the same time reducing the freedom of those a little older to purchase alcohol on the basis that they do not have the maturity, judgment and knowledge to exercise that choice.

Young people over 18 are, by any view, adults. They are entitled to make the same adult choices as anyone else: to marry, to vote, to smoke, to drive and, yes, to buy alcohol. The issue is not age, but responsibility. The role of the state is to help informed decision making, and to encourage wise choices and responsible drinking. I hope that the SNP Government recognises that and accepts that its proposals are a busted flush.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I agree with the point made by many members that alcohol abuse—by young or old—is unacceptable, as is the antisocial behaviour surrounding it. Mary Mulligan pointed out that Labour brought in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which contained measures to deal with the challenges that face our communities as a result of the unacceptable behaviour fuelled by alcohol.

Alcohol retailers who sell to under-18s need to get the message that their behaviour will not be tolerated. If we are to be serious about tackling alcohol abuse among those who are under age, we should take on board Claire Baker's point, and ensure that we hit the suppliers. Labour does not need to respond to consultation documents to make such points. We are parliamentarians, and we are elected to debate issues such as this in Parliament. The minister should listen to our points. It is good enough for the minister to launch consultations outside Parliament, so we can make our points and develop them in Parliament.

In his consultation, the minister should take forward the idea that if a supplier is found selling alcohol to people who are under age, on the first offence, we should ban them for three months; on the second offence, we should ban them for six months; and on the third offence, they should lose their licence.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I do not have time. I hope that the minister can deal with the point when he sums up.

More important, we want to name and shame such retailers on a central website, which is another issue that the minister could take forward in his consultation document. Why should the reputable retailers be tarred with the same brush as the unscrupulous ones? Such a website would allow residents in local communities to decide not to shop in outlets that sell alcohol to underage minors—a practice that is unacceptable.

We also want to name and shame adults who sell alcohol to young people. There can be no more grotesque a crime than an adult who purchases alcohol to sell to a minor. I was involved in introducing amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 that allow us to imprison such adults for up to 6 months. We need more detection—a point that a number of members made—and to name and shame those individuals.

As other members have said, the proposal to raise the age to 21 is inconsistent. The only thing that is consistent in the debate is the tough-guy spin from the minister. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should be serious about what he proposes. Simply seeking to make us believe that he is taking action to deal with alcohol abuse is not good enough.

Labour led on legislation to tackle antisocial behaviour and to modernise our licensing arrangements. We will take no lectures from SNP members, who grudgingly supported the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and Labour's proposals on licensing. They also opposed my polluter-pays amendment at stage 3. It is time for the Government to stop playing with the issue and to take it forward.

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

A great many members have concentrated on the pilot schemes in Armadale and Stenhousemuir. We heard an excellent contribution from my colleague Michael Matheson, the MSP for the area incorporating Stenhousemuir, who spoke from experience, having talked to communities and police officers in the area. We also heard speeches that uniformly trashed the pilots—pilots that have been welcomed by police and communities. Some of the contributions, such as those from the Baker family and John Lamont, were shameful. I signed off a letter to John Lamont yesterday, and his one contribution to the debate was to ask about extending the opening hours for a variety of premises in his community. Far from tackling drinking, his obsession is the liberalisation of access to alcohol.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Not at the moment.

I have spoken to police officers in central Scotland who say that they would like Bo'ness to have the same pilot as Stenhousemuir because it has addressed the issue. When the pilots ended, criminal offending went up. The pilots were welcomed by communities, which is why we support them.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Police officers in Stenhousemuir and Armadale have said that it was not possible to distinguish whether it was the increased resources or the under-21 ban that made the impact. There is still no evidence to support the point that the minister is arguing.

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

There were no increased resources. From the chief constable down to the beat bobby, the police welcomed the pilots, which they said made a significant difference. Rather than provide the solution, Labour wishes to spend days trying to find out what the problem is. We want to provide a solution as part of a broad package. Dealing with Scotland's alcohol problem means broadening out—not simply tackling the problem of off-sales but tackling problems elsewhere.

When I have chatted to people in Armadale and Stenhousemuir, many youngsters have welcomed the ban. They face intimidation on Friday and Saturday nights, when they want to go dancing, hang around with their pals or play football. They face the old culture of "Have a drink. You're Scottish", and victimisation and assault.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Not at the moment.

Statistical evidence shows that many youngsters welcome such bans. We cannot ignore the problem. There was a story on a BBC web page yesterday, headed, "Teenagers admit six figure damage", about two teenagers who set light to changing rooms in Edinburgh. According to the story, what did the lawyer say?

"Gordon Stewart, defending, said alcohol had been 'a major factor'"

in the behaviour of one of the defendants, and the other accused, Whyte, "had also been drunk".

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How old were they?

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

They were 16.

Where do members think that they got the drink? Kenny Gibson made a similar point. Carry-outs are bought for them, primarily by 18 to 21-year-olds. The youngsters then go drinking at the back of the changing rooms. As night follows day, mischief happens, and those two young men now face the possibility of a severe and lengthy custodial sentence for idiocy and bad behaviour fuelled by alcohol. Members of the Opposition say that nothing can be done about it.

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

Oh yes. The Opposition has made no contribution to the debate. The only contribution from Mr Martin was his suggestion that we soften the position on those who are given the right to sell alcohol and who abuse that trust. He wants to give them three months' suspension. The current law, which we want to enforce, says that if someone breaches it badly, they should be suspended forthwith, indefinitely and forever. Why should we curtail that? We will drive on with it.

The contributions from the Opposition have been sadly lacking in that they have focused on one aspect of the debate and have failed to recognise the requirement to address the alcohol problem. Members paid lip service to the extent of the problem that the Government inherited and now faces. Under the Tory Government, there was a 31 per cent increase in off-sale provision, and we are now reaping the consequences. The Government is acting on that, in support of, and in conjunction and agreement with partners such as the health service, the BMA and the police. When I went to meet the ambulance service in Lothian and Borders—I noticed that no Tories were there—what was the biggest single problem? Alcohol abuse. We recognise that as a Government we must tackle the problem we face with alcohol. It is affecting our health service and our criminal justice system, and it is undermining our economy. It has to be a whole-population approach, across the board. We cannot underestimate the problem that we face.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In the next few minutes, the First Minister will stand up from the very seat in which Mr MacAskill is now sitting and laud his Government's achievements over the past 18 months. There is now another achievement for him to laud. At a stroke, the SNP Government has managed to unite every Opposition member in the chamber and, at the same time, to alienate a wide range of groups in society, including big business, students and even the SNP's own youth movement. That is indeed an unprecedented achievement.

I have been terribly disappointed by the Government's response today. Aside from releasing the attack dogs—Messrs Gibson and Matheson—it has not made a single constructive contribution that would encourage any member in the chamber who is listening in a detached manner to vote against the motion.

Richard Baker is correct to describe the Government's proposals as illogical. He and other members mentioned the Armadale experiment, which has been comprehensively rubbished on the basis of the statistics that John Lamont provided. So much of the Government's policy in this area is predicated on evidence that is incomplete, spurious and selective, where it exists at all.

Of course we have a problem, and it is clear that we must react to it. However, any Government would surely satisfy itself that the existing law is being enforced before rushing to legislate, and that simply has not happened. The figures that Murdo Fraser provided at the start of the debate, which show that only seven people under the age of 18 have been prosecuted in Scotland, indicate that the present law is not enforced, as no-one seriously suggests that that is the extent of the problem.

Although Paul Martin slightly misdirected himself at one point with regard to law, he is correct to underline that those who are prepared to sell drink in an irresponsible manner to underage people should meet the full rigour of the law—and, indeed, the rigour of the licensing boards. The loss of a licence is a more appropriate disposal than any court fine, and certainly concentrates the mind.

Kenny MacAskill twice repeated his views on the question of off-sales provision. I draw his attention to the fact that, although the wicked Tory Government might have been responsible for many things, the granting of licences is a matter for licensing boards. There is a rule on overprovision that many of the boards do not follow, so he should argue with them rather than with Conservative members.

We need to examine the issue. I am attracted by some of the ideas that have emerged and the measures that individual local authorities have enacted. Richard Simpson said that the main problem is the 16 to 18-year-olds who are drinking outdoors. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice may well have to consider a comprehensive, Scotland-wide ban on open-air drinking in bringing forward legislation.

A case can be made on the issue of pricing but, again, the Government's response was disappointing. There is a possible legal impediment to its proposal, but when I asked an appropriate parliamentary question about whether the cabinet secretary would share with members the legal advice that he had received, he said no—he was not prepared to share that advice. [Interruption.]

Mr MacAskill says that all Governments may do that, but if we wish to extend the argument to enable us to make a reasoned contribution under that heading, we require the legal advice.

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

What about the legal advice on the Iraq war?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Frankly, Mr MacAskill is clutching at straws. It is rather pathetic that that is the only contribution that he can come up with.

The proposed legislation is discriminatory and affects a section of the population that is not really causing the problem. It is time to call time on this ill-thought-out and absolutely nonsensical proposal.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it intends to respond to its recent figures showing a decline in the number of registered teaching staff in nurseries since May 2007. (S3O-4411)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

This year's figures are not directly comparable with last year's as we have ensured that peripatetic teachers were not double-counted. Even so, the difference in the figures is barely discernible from 2,110 in 2006-07 to 2,105 in 2007-08. That compares with a decline of 239, or 10.3 per cent, in the three years between 2003-04 and 2005-06.

On the recently published figures, I point out that there has been, at last, a reversal of the persistent decline in pre-school teacher numbers that was experienced under the previous Administration as a direct consequence of its decision to repeal the schools code in 2002.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I listened as closely as I could to Mr Ingram's reply, and I am pleased that he did not entirely repeat the First Minister's mistake of last Thursday. Will he apologise to members in the chamber, whom the First Minister last week misled by claiming that there is a substantial increase in teachers in nurseries?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I ask the member to be brief.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

This is important. In a typically patronising answer to Margaret Smith—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The First Minister claimed, in a typically patronising answer to Margaret Smith—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I press the member for a question.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Very well.

There is no substantial increase—the Government's statisticians say that there is a decrease in the figures. Last week, the First Minister claimed that access to a nursery teacher meant only one day a week. Will Mr Ingram apologise on behalf of the First Minister, not only to members but to the Scottish public for misleading them in the election manifesto promise?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Macintosh is talking rubbish and he knows it. As he should know, the key issue is driving up the quality of provision in the delivery of nursery education. The member and I served on the Education Committee in the previous session of Parliament during the early years inquiry. The point of that inquiry, and of the evidence that it gathered, was that children benefit from the input of a qualified teacher to their programme of activity and child development. At the moment, up to one in five children does not benefit from that input. Our job is to deliver universal access to teachers, and we are well on the way to doing so.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister share my concern that between 2004 and 2007, Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council—with Labour in control of the Scottish Parliament—cut 61 nursery teacher jobs in Glasgow? That was a reduction of more than 25 per cent, in a city that has the highest deprivation and the lowest educational attainment, and which spends a lower share of its budget on education than does any other local authority. Does that not show Labour's blatant disregard for the overwhelming educational research that shows that better outcomes are achieved by directing resources to early years education?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

According to the information that I have, Glasgow City Council removed 37 teachers from pre-school centres in February last year and redeployed them in primary schools. The council reduced overall provision, and did nothing to extend access to a greater number of children. That is the direct opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will deal with the consequences for VisitScotland and its investment partners of the change of emphasis from a commercial to an information-based approach to accommodation booking on the VisitScotland.com website. (S3O-4400)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Changes were made to the VisitScotland.com website in April 2008, in response to extensive feedback and consultation with industry and focus groups. The website now provides much more information for visitors, and allows them to choose whether to make bookings through the site or to get in touch with the providers directly. A revised business plan was approved by the partners on the eTourism Ltd or VisitScotland.com board, and progress is being monitored against that plan.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I make it clear that I support the change of emphasis that I mentioned in my question, but has the cabinet secretary prepared for any consequential negative impact on VisitScotland's finances? Also, has he prepared for the fact that, in future, inquiries might be directed to websites that do not have exclusively Scottish accommodation options, such as the websites of United Kingdom or international hotel chains?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Those are fundamentally commercial matters for VisitScotland and VisitScotland.com to consider. The Government makes appropriate funding available to VisitScotland and we recognise and value the contribution that it makes to promoting Scotland as a destination for visitors. I am glad to hear that Mr Gordon supports the change of focus whereby the website conveys more information to members of the public who are considering visiting Scotland. Questions about the commercial implications are for VisitScotland to consider.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

To ask the Scottish Executive when referrals for mental health services will be guaranteed within 18 weeks, as they are for other specialisms. (S3O-4409)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We are committed to a national health service that offers appropriate care and treatment quickly and safely. In most cases, those who require access to mental health services already receive treatment well within 18 weeks. However, as we announced during the summer, we are considering new waiting time targets for areas in which delays occur.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The minister is aware that a high percentage of referrals to mental health services are made by general practitioners. I am sure that she is also aware of the stunningly high percentage of inmates in our prisons who suffer from mental health issues, and she will know that mental health issues go to the heart of many of the fault lines in our society.

Will the minister reassure the Parliament that the Government will take every action that it can to end the discrimination that mental health professionals believe exists and to ensure that people with mental health issues receive treatment as quickly as possible?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I certainly recognise that general practitioners deal with a high percentage of cases in the area of mental health, and I acknowledge Tom McCabe's point about inmates in prisons. That is why we are taking forward a number of actions that span the psychological services and therapies to which GPs can refer people. We have set challenging national performance targets for mental health, including a target to reduce antidepressant prescribing; a target for suicide training for front-line staff; and a health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment—or HEAT—target on dementia. As I said in my initial answer, we will shortly complete our considerations on the extent to which mental health services could, for the first time, be brought into the 18-week waiting time target.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that antidepressant prescribing is increasing, and given the long wait for mental health services, would it not be beneficial to ensure that self-help groups such as Depression Alliance Scotland are fully funded to help individuals to understand and cope with their condition?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We have confirmed an additional £5 million a year to 2011 for joint spend by agencies on mental health. That is in addition to the resources that are being given to health and local government, where there is, of course, a lot of joint work on mental health services.

As I have said to Mary Scanlon before, we are developing some easily accessible psychological therapies to which GPs will be able to refer people as an alternative to antidepressant prescribing. I do not underestimate the challenge of reducing the rate of antidepressant prescribing. Such treatment is appropriate for some people, and in some cases it is a life saver, but there is no doubt in my mind that, for other people, we need to provide a range of alternatives. I am keen to do that, and we are making progress on that front.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the consultation responses on the proposed local income tax will be published. (S3O-4380)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We expect to complete analysis of the responses to the consultation paper shortly. We will then publish the responses, where the respondents agreed to that, along with an analysis of them. At that time, we will outline how we intend to take forward our plans to introduce a fairer local tax for Scotland.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am disappointed that the Government has not met its own deadline of October for publication of the responses, because I was really looking forward to reading them.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary read with interest the response of the low incomes tax reform group, which raises concerns about the impact of the plans on disabled people and retired women in the 60 to 64 age bracket. Can he guarantee that neither group will lose out as a result of the local income tax?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I gently remind Mr Brownlee that the month of October is not yet complete. It has only just begun. He should be patient.

Following the fabulous debate that the member promoted this morning, I think that we have advanced the growing consensus in the Parliament that a local income tax is the right solution, as the Conservatives and the Labour Party are now engaged in discussing the detail and not the principle of a local income tax.

Mr Brownlee will be familiar with the material that the Government put in the public domain as part of the consultation process, which highlights the fact that four out of five households in Scotland will be either better off or no worse off as a consequence of the local income tax proposal. I hope that that provides the assurance that he seeks.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the Scottish Government take into account the recent grim statistics on child poverty when it publishes its response to the consultation on a local income tax? Will it take into account the rising fuel and food prices that many low-paid working families are experiencing when it considers any benefit that might arise from scrapping the council tax and introducing a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That has a slightly tenuous link with the original question, but carry on, cabinet secretary.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The response to the consultation will cover a range of questions regarding the impact of local income tax. The fact that the proposal relates to the ability to pay will be a significant advantage for many people who wrestle with the challenge of poverty. It is estimated that 85,000 people will be lifted out of relative poverty, including 15,000 children. I am sure that the Parliament will welcome that development.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing last met representatives of the STUC. (S3O-4396)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I met an official delegation from the STUC in September last year and addressed the STUC women's conference on 13 November last year. Most recently, on 23 September this year, I met representatives of Unison, the Royal College of Nursing and Unite, all of which are constituent members of the STUC.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As I understand it, the cabinet secretary has refused a request to meet the STUC women's committee and offered them Stewart Maxwell instead. I am sure that Mr Maxwell has a lot to learn from the women of the STUC, but nonetheless I ask the cabinet secretary to reconsider. In times of pay dispute, such a meeting would afford an opportunity for her to explain to women who are among the lowest paid and who face financial pressures why the Scottish National Party, in opposition, was the first on the airwaves to demand Government intervention but, now, Nicola Sturgeon and the others cannot be seen for dust.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly, please.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the cabinet secretary tell the STUC to its face why the SNP, when dealing with low-paid workers, engages in such double standards?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

My commitment to engaging with the STUC women's committee is well evidenced by the fact that, as I said in my original answer, I addressed its conference in November last year. It is entirely appropriate for Stewart Maxwell, who is the minister with lead responsibility for equalities, to meet and engage with that committee. If Margaret Curran has a problem with that, her logic escapes me.

The issues around low-paid workers are incredibly important. John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, has been encouraging constructive dialogue between local authorities and the unions, and I hope that that dialogue will continue and will conclude positively soon. In addition, given that Margaret Curran listened to the exchange in the previous question, it ill behoves her to criticise the Government for a lack of commitment to low-paid workers, given that through, for example, our policy to abolish the unfair council tax, the Government will lift 35,000 people out of poverty. I would have hoped that the party that professes to stand up for social justice would welcome that.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the estimated cost to business is of the collection of a local income tax that is set and levied by 32 individual local authorities. (S3O-4427)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is clear that the estimated cost to business of collecting a local income tax will be greater if it is set and levied locally by individual local authorities than if it is collected, set and levied nationally. The Burt committee estimated that the difference would be around £10 million per annum. That is why we had proposed that the tax should be collected by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs using the existing income tax system.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I was encouraged that, in this morning's debate on local income tax, the cabinet secretary promised to answer detailed questions on how that tax will work in his forthcoming response to the consultation responses. At this time of unprecedented economic turmoil, will his commitment extend to providing Scottish businesses with any estimates of what his proposed new local income tax might cost them?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Hundreds of thousands of small businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are grateful for the fact that, after securing parliamentary support for its budget in February this year, the Government has significantly reduced their business rates. Perhaps Wendy Alexander and her colleagues should explain why they were pathologically opposed to giving business that competitive advantage. In the current economic climate, we see the value of the changes that the Government made. That is felt throughout the business community in Scotland.

As I pledged this morning, we are engaged in responding to detailed questions on the local income tax. I am delighted that the Labour Party and the Conservatives have stopped opposing the tax in principle and are now engaged in the detail of its introduction. I am sure that the people of Scotland welcome such a tremendous conversion to such a good idea.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when local residents directly affected by the construction of the Forth replacement crossing and related motorways will be informed about the preferred route, any impact on their homes and their rights to compensation for property blight that may result. (S3O-4469)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

An announcement on the Forth replacement crossing will be made before the end of this year. Guidance on compensation in respect of road schemes was published by Transport Scotland in 2007 and can be viewed on, or downloaded from, the agency's website. Following the announcement, officials will consult communities and affected parties further.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The minister is aware that this is a worrying time for my constituents, many of whom believe that they are already experiencing property blight as a result of the proposed bridge.

What opportunities for face-to-face discussions with Transport Scotland officials will be available to my constituents to enable them to get a clearer understanding of the compensation and assistance that will be available to those who not only have blight on their properties but will lose their homes as a result of the project?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

As proposals for the replacement crossing have been worked up, Transport Scotland officials have made considerable efforts to meet communities and individuals who have an interest in it. Following the announcement, they will, of course, make themselves available to answer Margaret Smith's constituents' specific and key questions. I am sure that they will be available to the extent that is necessary.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I understand that compensation payments for people who lose their homes as a result of major infrastructure improvements are much greater in England than they are in Scotland. Does the Government have any plans to increase the levels?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The home loss payment was reviewed relatively recently and the decision was taken to retain the £1,500 to £15,000 range, which is, indeed, substantially lower than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the majority of home loss payments are made in the context of housing regeneration projects. We estimated that raising compensation payments to the level that is given in England and Wales would take more than £30 million out of the housing budget and, on a policy basis, we have concluded that that money would be better invested in housing than in providing additional loss payments to people whose houses are worth more than £150,000.

The Public Petitions Committee considered a petition on that subject, and I am pleased to say that it agreed with our conclusion and thought that the Government's position is right.

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1057)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

A few hours ago, along with many colleagues from the chamber, I met a large delegation of young people who were here to protest about the First Minister's proposal to stop 18 to 21-year-olds from buying drink in a shop, while allowing them to drink in a pub or club. They think that the proposal is unfair, unworkable, ineffective and, frankly, daft. Will the First Minister listen to Scotland's young people and drop the idea?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The purpose of a consultation is to listen to a range of interested groups in Scottish society, and I welcome the contributions that young people have made to our consultation on proposals to tackle Scotland's relationship with alcohol—an issue that has not been faced or tackled for the past generation. However, we will have to come to our conclusions without the benefit of submissions from the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour Party, which presumably decided not to contribute because, although they seem to know what they are against, they have no idea what they are for.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We agree that Scotland has a problem with alcohol and, as parliamentarians, we want to debate in the Parliament what we should do about it. Labour wants an effective, mandatory proof-of-age scheme, tougher action on agents who buy drink for under-18s, and the removal of licences from those who are found selling to under-18s. We want strong enforcement of the existing legislation. The problem is that that debate is being drowned out by an idea that no one else wants. Will the First Minister drop an idea that no one agrees with so that we can start to explore actions that we can all get behind?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The only opinion sample that we have had on the proposal—the Young Scot poll—shows that one third of young people are in favour, one third against and one third are not sure. I suppose that those who are not sure will come to the other three parties and their non-submission to the consultation on facing the alcohol problem.

Iain Gray should at least acknowledge that there is substantial support in the community for firm action against alcohol abuse. It is all very well for him to say that he wants current legislation to be enforced; it is being enforced. What was the Labour Party doing during its 10 years in office that has allowed the problem to reach the scale that it has?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister is trying to hide the fact that he has not even convinced his youth wing, the ultra-loyal student nationalists—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. I meant to say the usually ultra-loyal student nationalists. He has not convinced his usually ultra-loyal Health and Sport Committee convener, Christine Grahame, either. She said on television that the proposal would alienate communities, traders and decent young people. He has not even convinced his cyber-nat midnight bloggers, and they would swallow anything. Will the First Minister listen to his own supporters and drop the idea?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The redoubtable Christine Grahame and the Federation of Student Nationalists have in common the fact that they bothered to submit evidence to the alcohol consultation, unlike Iain Gray.

Can we just have a look at the evidence on the ground from the six-month trial that has been running in Stenhousemuir, which finished just a couple of days ago? Iain Gray should address some of the evidence that the figures from that trial provide. The number of antisocial behaviour calls that were made in the Stenhousemuir area on Friday and Saturday evenings reduced by more than 40 per cent on the previous year, from 113 to 67. Crime is down—the number of cases of breach of the peace has gone down by 40 per cent, from 79 to 49, and the number of minor assaults has gone down from 51 to 37. That happened in an area in which there were no additional police resources for the period of the experiment.

As a Parliament, we should start to look seriously at some of the evidence that is emerging. We should do so not just because such work is in the interests of the general community. Given that, in the main, it is young people who are the victims of such crime, we should consider how we can support the whole community and generally tackle Scotland's relationship with alcohol. After a generation, proposals are finally being made to face down Scotland's relationship with the booze. Should not they be welcomed by the whole Parliament?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

No one takes antisocial behaviour more seriously than our party. We must look seriously at the pilots, but the fact is that the validity of those statistics has been questioned by Professor Bird. Indeed, Chief Inspector Bob Beaton, who led the crackdowns in Stenhousemuir and Larbert, said:

"It's difficult to separate the different strands to say which have been most successful."

This week the First Minister made his Colemanballs debut in Private Eye:

"That is not just a legacy, it is there for the future",

as he said himself. If he keeps coming up with policies that are as daft as the one that we are discussing, Private Eye will have to rename the column "Salmondballs".

If the proposal were to go through, an 18-year-old could work in, run or even own an off-licence. They could sell drink in that off-licence all day, but at the end of the day the one thing that they could not to do would be to walk round the counter and buy a drink for themselves in their own shop.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Because it would be shut.