Council Tax
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5258, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on council tax.
I hope that the Executive is as concerned for the plight of the council tax payer as it is for the Confederation of British Industry. Council tax in Scotland has increased by 60 per cent since Labour came to power and it is common knowledge that pensioners who are on fixed incomes are among those who have been hit hardest by the increase. As we will no doubt hear, part of the problem is that uptake of council tax benefit is too low—about 200,000 pensioners who are eligible for council tax benefit do not claim it. All parties would agree that that is a serious concern: it is why we propose a council tax discount of 50 per cent for pensioner households, which would be a simple but effective way of helping a group of people who have been affected by the rise in council tax.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make progress.
Today's debate could go one of two ways. It could either rapidly become an academic discussion on the various merits and problems of a range of different local tax systems, or it could be focused more pragmatically on the practical aspects of how we can help pensioners to deal with the burden of council tax. We should focus more on the practical aspects.
Is Mr Brownlee as surprised as the rest of us that, for the second Opposition finance debate in a row, no Labour minister has turned up to defend the Executive's position?
I am no longer surprised by the actions of Labour ministers.
There may be members who propose a local income tax to replace council tax and those who support a new local property tax. Such new taxes would take many years to implement, but our proposals would bring benefits to pensioners within a year. I suggest that all parties unite around a set of sensible proposals at least in the short and medium term because helping pensioners should surely be more important than ideological purity.
Will the member give way on that point?
No. I want to make progress.
Let us be honest: the Burt review was set up to provide cover for a division between the coalition parties. However, it is fair to say that the report is even-handed in that it was unhelpful to every party. It rejected the council tax, it rejected amendment of the council tax, it rejected a local income tax and it did not say much about the Scottish service tax. As we know, its central proposal was a new local property tax. All I will say in favour of the Executive is that at least it has published the report. The Lyons review on the same issue in England was quietly shelved today in the pre-budget report. Conveniently, it will now not emerge until after the next election, for which Mr McConnell will perhaps be grateful.
Let us look at the proposed local property tax that is outlined in the Burt report. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has refused even to say when the Executive will publish its views on the Burt recommendations, so perhaps today his deputy will bring some clarity on that. Perhaps the problem is that once again the coalition parties cannot agree—there is, after all, an election in the offing. Of course, Mr McCabe is reluctant to publish many things of consequence.
He is no publisher.
Indeed he is not. He is even reluctant to grace us with his presence, but there we go.
There was one occasion when Mr McCabe made it to Parliament and on which he told Mr McLetchie that the report "remains under active consideration". The First Minister said to Nicola Sturgeon during First Minister's question time in November that he had made his view clear, so the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform is coming from a very different point of view.
The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Mr Lyon, confirmed in his evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee that the idea of taxing every home in Scotland on its value is very much alive. It is not surprising that Labour is minded to support the idea, because it has just imposed it on Northern Ireland—yet people are surprised that Labour does not field candidates there. I am not saying that the council tax is perfect, but it is infinitely preferable to a local property tax.
There are also problems with a local income tax. Evidence from HM Revenue and Customs on the Scottish Socialist Party's Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill estimated that it would take nine years to get the service tax up and running, and that is for a tax that would have one set of rates rather than 32.
The Lib Dems and the nationalists both support a local income tax. The Scottish National Party makes that clear in its amendment. I wonder which would be the more terrifying prospect if the Lib Dems and SNP were to surge ahead in the polls: the idea that a coalition between the two would impose a local income tax in Scotland or the idea of Mr Lyon as finance minister and Mr Swinney as his deputy.
Not every Lib Dem is in favour of a local income tax, however. No less a figure than the president of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes, said on his party's plans for a local income tax that "there was a flaw". What was that flaw? It is that it means
"different things in different parts of the country".
Not like a typical Lib Dem policy, then?
Just in case Labour members are a little too comfortable now, we read during the summer that
"a source close to Labour's policy forum"
thought that the idea of a council tax discount for pensioners "had legs". However, the policy does not need legs of its own when Labour members are running away from it so quickly. I wonder whether that is because they burned their fingers badly in 2005. Members may remember that, just before the 2005 general election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £200 discount on council tax for pensioners. At that time, he said that it was
"a measure that is fairer and worth more to … pensioners than all other proposed schemes."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 Mar 2005; Vol 432, c 269.]
The press release that accompanied the announcement said:
"the Government believes it is right to help elderly households with their council tax."
The decision was right in 2005 before an election, but wrong in 2006 after one, when the payment was scrapped. That was not because the chancellor believed that the principle was wrong: if we believe The Guardian, it was scrapped "to damage Labour's chances" in the English local elections in May. We must hand it to him—it certainly worked.
The fundamental issue that we confront is a choice between the Lib Dems, who propose a local income tax and other measures that could not be implemented quickly, and people who prefer a pragmatic approach that would achieve results. The plans that we have proposed are costed, affordable and sustainable. They are simple to understand and would be easy to implement. More important, they would deliver lower tax to pensioners next year, rather than in nine years. All that is required is the political will.
I have pleasure in moving the motion in Annabel Goldie's name. I move,
That the Parliament notes the recommendations of the Independent Local Government Finance Review Committee report but opposes its central recommendation of a "local property tax"; agrees that the 60% increase in council tax levels since Labour came to power has left those on low incomes struggling to pay their council tax bills, especially our pensioner households, and therefore calls for a 50% discount on council tax for all pensioner households aged 65 and over in Scotland, as proposed by the Scottish Conservatives.
Local taxation issues have long been among the most difficult on which to reach consensus and the most controversial. Even the far-reaching and highly regarded Layfield committee's report 30 years ago acknowledged the difficulty of choosing between a property-based tax and a local income tax. More recently, in 2002, the Parliament's Local Government Committee examined the issues and highlighted the need to strike a balance between council tax funding of local services and the funding that we in the Executive provide.
Following the previous election, we committed ourselves to establishing an independent review of local government finance. We delivered on that commitment—the Burt committee published its report on 9 November. We have said that we will consider carefully the committee's final report.
I accept that genuinely different views exist on what the right systems should be. It is very observant of Mr Brownlee to notice the difference of opinion between the coalition parties, which has been highlighted in many debates and in the evidence that both parties presented to the Burt committee.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not have much time and I would like to make progress.
The Burt report presents challenges to all political parties, but it also provides a useful platform for our debate. The committee took a wide range of evidence and was well lobbied by organisations that represent older people; for instance, almost a third of the 350 responses to the committee's public consultation were from pensioners. The committee also received a further 450 postcards from pensioners as part of a campaign that Help the Aged co-ordinated.
The minister will be aware that the report cost the Scottish taxpayer more than £350,000. Was the First Minister speaking on behalf of the Executive or the Labour Party when he dismissed the report before it was published?
The matter is very important and the Burt committee has done serious work on it. It behoves all the parties, if they are interested in the future of local government finance, to examine the work that Burt put into the report and to consider carefully the recommendations and conclusions.
Pensioners' high levels of concern and interest are reflected in the report, in which an entire section is dedicated to pensioners. We should all read that section and the committee's recommendations and discussion. Whether or not we decide to support the recommendations, we should at least make ourselves aware of the committee's reasoning and evidence for its assertions.
One comment by the committee that I am sure we can all endorse is that, under the current system, it is important that pensioners take up the benefits to which they are entitled, including council tax benefit. Pensioners who are on low incomes are among the most vulnerable people in our society, so we want to ensure as far as possible that they receive the money to which they are entitled. It is an entitlement, not a privilege.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry—I must make progress. The debate is so short that I do not have much time to accept interventions.
Take-up rates are still too low and we support the measures that the Department for Work and Pensions has taken to increase awareness of council tax benefit. We, too, are promoting that via central heating programme benefits health checks, by providing additional information in our "Agenda" magazine and on our website, and through groups such as the older people's consultative forum. It makes no sense for vulnerable people to struggle on when they could be entitled to extra help.
Of course, the Executive has taken significant steps to improve the lives of older people in Scotland. We have acted to tackle pensioner poverty in Scotland and, as a result, since 1999 80,000 Scottish pensioners have been lifted out of relative poverty. That represents a reduction in relative pensioner poverty of over a third. We are continuing to tackle pensioner poverty through a number of measures that are targeted specifically at our older citizens. Our central heating programme has so far provided central heating systems to more than 73,000 homes throughout Scotland. That is a great achievement in which we take some pride. Over 2004-05, the central heating programme provided predicted average annual savings on fuel bills of between £217 and £461. Our warm deal scheme has also been targeted at pensioners, and we have provided free bus travel for older and disabled people. We are also providing free personal and nursing care for the elderly.
For pensioners and for all council taxpayers throughout Scotland, we have just had the lowest average council tax increase since devolution. Over the period since 1999, council tax increased by 33 per cent in Scotland compared with 59 per cent in England and 60 per cent in Wales.
For the future, we want a system of local taxation that is fair, reliable, predictable and stable. That is why we need a constructive debate and proper consideration of the best available evidence on where need lies and how we can tackle it. I am sure that that is the spirit in which this afternoon's discussions will take place.
I move amendment S2M-5258.3, to leave out from "the recommendations" to end and insert:
"that the Scottish Executive established the independent inquiry into local government finance consistent with the Partnership Agreement of May 2003; notes that individuals and political parties made representations to this inquiry which published its findings in November 2006, and notes that the Executive will consider the report in its entirety and will respond to the committee's findings in due course."
There are moments in this chamber when one imagines that one could be in a parallel universe because of some of the remarks that are made. In response to a point that Mr Sheridan was trying to make to him, the minister just said that serious consideration had to be given to the conclusions of the Burt review. However, I have here an extract from The Herald, dated 9 November, which has the bold headline that "McConnell will not give ‘the time of day' to 1% home tax". The subheading says that the "First Minister leads emphatic rejection of house levy plan". If that is "serious consideration", I would like to see what cursory dismissal is in the parallel universe in which the Scottish Executive operates.
There are points in the motion that Mr Brownlee moved—in, I must say, uncharacteristically graceless fashion in respect of his remarks about Mr Lyon and myself—with which we can agree. We accept that the council tax system has been unfair and that it has placed a punishing burden on many people in our society. We also accept that council tax has increased by 60 per cent since Labour came to power. We accept the analysis of the problem, but we do not accept the solution that the Conservatives propose.
There is a deep-seated problem—which Mr Brownlee and the minister touched on—in that there is, at its core, unfairness in the council tax system. We must try to tackle that. There are 496,429 pensioners in Scotland who are eligible to claim council tax benefit, but the information that we have shows that only 56 per cent of them claim council tax benefit, which means that more than 200,000 pensioners are not claiming the council tax benefit to which they are entitled. For the minister to labour so much the argument for council tax benefit is, to be frank, flogging a dead horse. Council tax benefit is a failed policy instrument. No matter how hard the Executive tries and no matter how many advice sessions it holds, a sizeable number of pensioners are unlikely to utilise council tax benefit because of the ridiculous and complex bureaucracy that the Government has put in place.
I hear what Mr Swinney says. However, does he accept that we need, until the system is changed, to try to maximise the amount of benefit that pensioners receive? I hope that Mr Swinney supports that notion.
Council tax has been in existence since 1994, but only 56 per cent of pensioners claim council tax benefit. At some stage, the Executive must conclude that the benefit is not effective and is not working. I am all for council tax benefit being paid to pensioners who are entitled to it, but I am deeply sceptical about the Government's ability to make any sizeable difference on the proposal.
The local government finance debate is obviously immensely complex, but parties must put forward their positions honestly. We argue for a local income tax and we think that the prevarication on the issue has gone on for far too long. The Executive has wasted four years and, as has been mentioned, more than £300,000 on an independent inquiry, but we are not an inch further forward in our deliberations.
We are putting our cards on the table in arguing for a local income tax. I am sure that the Labour Party will stand firm beside the evidence that it gave to the Burt review in saying that it believes in the council tax, in extra bands and in a revaluation—just to punish the council tax payers of Scotland even more than they have so far been punished over the seven years of devolution. We will put forward our proposal for a genuinely fair alternative that relates to people's ability to pay. Until the local tax system relates to ability to pay, it will be unjust and unfair and it will be a burden on those who cannot afford to pay it.
I move amendment S2M-5258.1, to leave out from "a 50% discount" to end and insert:
"the council tax to be abolished and replaced by a local income tax based on the ability to pay."
I call Bristow Muldoon to open for the Labour Party. You have four minutes.
The issue has been debated on many occasions in the past, and I have no doubt that it will be a major plank of next year's election campaign, with each party putting forward its distinctive position. As this is a short debate, I will get through as many points as possible.
The one point that I would agree with the Tories on is that there is an issue in respect of affordability of the council tax for pensioner households that are just above the council tax benefit threshold. Beyond that single point, however, the Tories' answer to the issue is deeply and fundamentally flawed. In relation to their privatisation plans for Scottish Water, it is completely unacceptable.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time—I have only four minutes, I am afraid. The Tories' solution is a complete mirror image of the approach that Labour has been taking in government of aiming to help the poorest pensioners the most, with measures such as the pension credit. In addition to such targeted measures, Labour has sought to help pensioners with universal measures such as the winter fuel payment, the reduction in VAT on fuel, and free bus travel here in Scotland. Most of those measures were opposed by the Tories in Parliament.
The Tory answer is neither targeted at the poorest pensioners nor is it universal. Consistent with the Tories' approach when they were in power, it is targeted at the wealthiest pensioners: those who would benefit from it most are in the largest houses. The poorest pensioners, who are in receipt of council tax benefit, would not benefit by a single penny. It is the classic Tory position of Robin Hood in reverse.
The Tories' proposed means of paying for their policy—privatising Scottish Water—was rejected by the people of Strathclyde in the 1990s and would be rejected again tomorrow if it were put to the people of Scotland. The Tories also fail to answer the question how their policy would be funded on an on-going basis.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have very little time.
It is probably just as well that the issue that every single member in the chamber would agree on, including Annabel Goldie, is that the one outcome that will not happen next year is the election of a Tory Government, so those policies will never see the light of day.
I turn to the local income tax proposals from the SNP and the Liberals. The Burt review concluded that such a tax would need to be set at 6.5p in the pound on top of the existing standard and higher rates of income tax. Such a tax would hurt working families hard. It would damage the Scottish economy by reducing our competitiveness and it would give us the highest income tax in the United Kingdom.
Will the member give way?
I have very little time, although I would like to have a longer debate with Mr Swinney on this issue.
A local income tax would also damage our ability to recruit professionals, including doctors, to the national health service and academics to our universities. The SNP is obviously in retreat on the policy, given that Nicola Sturgeon started to talk about a cap on the level of the tax at the SNP conference. The SNP has failed to spell out to Parliament and the people of Scotland where it would find the £1 billion of public service cuts that would be needed to pay for such a cap. The SNP cannot be trusted on this.
Finally, I turn to Labour's position. To be clear, there are no circumstances in which the Labour Party will support the introduction of a local income tax. For the benefit of Mr Brownlee, I underline that we have no intention of introducing the local property tax that the Burt review proposes. I am sorry if Mr Brownlee was a bit confused on that. Labour believes that a property-based taxation system is a legitimate basis for raising resources. We recognise that there are many other ways of paying tax, including income tax. A property-based tax such as the council tax is easy to collect and hard to avoid. It provides a stable source of revenue and is supported by a benefits system that helps the less well off.
We believe that the council tax can be improved to ensure that those on the lowest bands do not pay a disproportionate amount and that we can do more to encourage the take-up of council tax benefit.
Finally, I suggest that we should consider introducing a rebate for pensioners on their water rates, which are paid by even the poorest pensioners. Even with the recent introduction of assistance towards water rates, the poorest households still pay 75 per cent of their water charges. Such a rebate could be either universal or targeted at the poorest pensioners.
The best way forward is to reform the council tax and to improve its fairness.
We move to the open debate.
I am grateful to the Tories for initiating a debate on the council tax. The need for a local government finance system that offers an alternative to the council tax is an issue in which I have long had an interest, much to the amusement of my Green party colleagues who regard me as an anorak for participating in these debates time after time.
It is absolutely clear that ability to pay is a factor that should be taken into account in considering ways of raising local government finance. It was a key issue that was considered in the much quoted report produced by Sir Peter Burt and his local government finance review committee. In the chapter to which the minister referred, the report deals with the issues faced by pensioner households. It examines why so many pensioners do not take advantage of the available benefits, why we have a problem of council tax bills rising faster than pensions and so on. The minister covered many of those points, so I shall not bore members by recycling them, but it is worth laying out some of the points in the Burt report that appear to have passed the Tories by.
First, as the report points out, if we are concerned about ability to pay, why should a pensioner household on a given income and living in a given house receive more benefits than a working-age household on the same level of income and living in a similar house? That is not explained in the Tory motion.
My understanding is that the Green party favours a land value tax. How would that relate to ability to pay?
If Mr Brownlee wants to know the details, I will be glad to engage with him on that. I refer him to Professor Arthur Midwinter's magisterial work, "A Brief History of Local Government Finance in Scotland 1579 to 1999". It is well worth a read, I must say, because it looks at how laws that operated in Scotland for several hundred years taxed individuals on their means and substance. Ability to pay is based not only on people's income but also on their wealth. Land value taxation would cover wealth.
Some 50 per cent of the total tax take in the UK is made up of income tax and national insurance. If we want a broad tax base, it is right that wealth as expressed in land and property should also be taxed. I note that Derek Brownlee did not see fit to answer my question. Why should a pensioner household on a certain income in a certain house receive more benefit—as would happen under the Tory proposal—than a working-age household on the same level of income and in the same type of house? It is clear that the effect of the Tory proposal to provide a 50 per cent rebate for pensioner households would be to narrow the tax base, which would push more of the costs on to working families.
The Tory proposal is fundamentally flawed. If we are serious about tackling pensioner poverty, which is a major issue, we should not fiddle at the margins with things such as local taxation and fuel tax benefits, but give more money to pensioners in the first place. That means that a citizen's pension should be available as part of a citizen's income scheme. We should ensure that pensioners have the money coming in rather than fiddle at the margins with the money going out.
Given their abysmal record of introducing the poll tax and their failure to outline any clear policy apart from the 50 per cent rebate, which would be another distortion in an already flawed system, it is a bit rich for the Tories to lecture Scotland on a fair approach to local government finance. Despite what we heard from Bill Aitken in the earlier debate and from Derek Brownlee in this one, I am pretty sure that, in claiming to be a new caring sharing Tory party, they are simply wearing a see-through suit rather than the clothes of a relevant political party that is serious about tackling injustice and pensioner poverty.
A review of local government finance was one of the cornerstones of the partnership agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in May 2003, but when it came to expressing a view on the Burt committee's recommendations we had eerie silence at official level, broken only by a few off-stage mutterings from the First Minister's spin doctor. From that we can draw two conclusions: first, the Executive parties have decided to kick the issue into the long grass until after the election; secondly, the local property tax, which was the Burt committee's central recommendation, is under active consideration by those parties.
We know that a local property tax is under active consideration by Labour and the Liberal Democrats because it has found favour with them in other contexts. Homes in Northern Ireland will now be subject to a local property tax as a result of a decision that was taken by the Labour Government at Westminster only last month. At UK level, the Liberal Democrats are giving favourable consideration to such a tax, on top of a local income tax.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am about to come to Mr Lyon. The proposal is alive and kicking. If Mr Lyon would like categorically to rule it out now, on behalf of the Scottish Executive, I would be happy to give him time to do so.
I invited Mr Lyon to rule it out—but he remains in his seat because it seems that when it comes to giving us substantive information on behalf of the Scottish Executive, Mr Lyon is as tight lipped as his boss, taciturn Tom McCabe. It is a great pity that taciturn Tom McCabe is not here this afternoon, because it would be really interesting to know what the Labour Party thinks of all this.
I am coming to Mr Muldoon, believe me. During the summer recess, one of the Labour Party's back benchers, Bristow Muldoon MSP, came up with a very interesting idea. He said that Labour should introduce a council tax discount—wait for it—for pensioners. That was brilliant. Inspired. We welcome Mr Muldoon as a convert to the Conservative case and urge him to encourage all his colleagues on the Labour back benches to adopt our plan for a 50 per cent council discount for pensioners.
Mr McLetchie should have listened carefully to my speech. I made clear that I think we should be helping pensioners, but I want to help the poorest pensioners, not—as the Conservative party wishes to do—only the wealthiest.
I listened to the member's speech, in the course of which he said that the Tory answer was flawed, although it was the same answer that he gave in July. He dissembled slightly because, as the record will show, he went from arguing that we should help pensioners with council tax bills to arguing that we should help them with sewerage and water bills, which is completely different.
Our plan could be introduced right away. We do not need any new taxes, to create any new sets of winners and losers or to shuffle liabilities from one group to another. All we have to do is tackle what is undoubtedly the biggest single source of complaint. That is the Conservative way ahead. We recommend it to the other parties, even if only on a short or medium-term basis, as Derek Brownlee said. It could make a real difference in very short order, irrespective of what we may all think about the longer-term position.
It is essential that I start by referring to Mr Brownlee's comment that helping pensioners is more important than ideology. I hope, therefore, that he or whoever else sums up for the Tory party will begin with an undiluted apology for the 1980 policy of breaking the link between earnings and the state pension. I have the figures in front of me for them. If the link had not been broken in favour of an ideology whose aim was to facilitate the cutting of top-rate taxes for the wealthy and corporation taxes for the Tories' big business friends, single pensioners would today be £53 a week better off than they are and pensioner couples would be £85 a week better off than they are.
If the Tories really do not want ideology to get in the way of helping pensioners, they should apologise for breaking the link with earnings, which they did in 1980 in the name of ideology. I see that Mr Davidson is waiting, like a coiled spring, to intervene.
I want to put Tommy Sheridan out of his agony. The UK policy of the Conservatives is to re-establish that link.
That is why I hope an apology will be forthcoming from whoever sums up for the Tories. I do not want the pensioners of Scotland to get the wrong idea and to think that the Tories have their best interests at heart when their record provides concrete evidence of a different story.
I want to talk about asylum seekers of the worst kind—asylum seekers who are scroungers and dodgers and who want to take advantage of this country's public services, but who do not want to pay towards their delivery. The asylum seekers to whom I refer are the 23 billionaires whom only this week Forbes magazine revealed to be non-domiciled residents in London and the 100,000 multimillionaires who now choose to stay within the UK's borders precisely because they seek asylum from fair taxation in their own countries. They have come to live here to dodge their taxes. That is the background to today's debate.
When it comes to scrapping the council tax, what we require is recognition not just that it is an unfair tax but that it should be replaced by a progressive, redistributive tax. I say to Mr McLetchie that that would mean that we would have a new set of winners and losers and that we in the Parliament would be among the new set of losers. All members should be losers because of the income that we receive as representatives in Parliament—the fact that we receive £52,000 a year means that we could pay more towards local government jobs and services so that local government workers and other low-paid workers and pensioners would pay less. That is what redistribution should be all about. We do not need a new head tax.
I attacked the Burt committee before it made its report because everyone who sat on it had little ability to imagine what it would be like to pay more—they, of course, would lose out under a progressive income tax. Unlike the First Minister, I did not attack the Burt committee's members after they published their report; I attacked them before they did so and have more credibility as a result.
We must have recognition that we need a new income tax to replace the unfair council tax and that the new tax must be progressive in that it must tax high earners and the wealthy more. That is the only way in which we can make the books balance. If we have just a single-line tax, the books will not balance and there will have to be cuts in local government services. Let us have a new set of winners and losers. We should let the pensioners and the ordinary workers be the winners at long last and ensure that the wealthy and the well-paid are the losers because they can afford to pay more.
In John Steinbeck's great story, "Of Mice and Men", poor Lenny is so grateful to his friend George for saving him from drowning in the river that he forgets that it was George who told him to jump in the river in the first place.
In attempting to grab some cheap headlines by calling for a 50 per cent council tax rebate for senior citizens, surely the Tories do not expect that their legacy of a decade ago—a legacy of £400 million of costs for Scottish council tax payers for their botched and gerrymandered reorganisation of local government—has been forgotten. Let us not forget, either, the consequential cuts and job losses in areas with high levels of poverty that were caused by the Tories' disaggregation of the former regional councils' budgets, which was conducted purely on a pro rata population basis, with no deprivation element.
We have not forgotten the damage that the Tories did. In Glasgow, the council tax rose by 50 per cent, £200 million was cut from services and 3,000 jobs were lost in the first three years of that Tory legacy.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time. I hope that the facts do not confuse the member.
In the eight subsequent budget years, Glasgow has had no above-inflation increases in council tax. That is partly due to the Labour chancellor's handling of the United Kingdom's public finances, partly due to the Labour-led Executive's growing the local government cake and partly due to efficient government locally, which has generated an average £15 million in savings annually over eight years.
Of course, that is not to say that some absolute levels of council tax are not still too high. Commitment to council tax stability, achieved through efficient government, must remain. Neither is it to say that the council tax does not require reform. The Burt committee report affords us a well informed contribution to that important debate, but it is too important a matter for us to rush to a decision on it. We do not want to rush into another mess like the Tories' hated poll tax or the expensive tower of Babel that would be a local income tax.
In The Herald today, Annabel Goldie claims to have a natural empathy with her UK Tory party leader, David Cameron—I think she calls him Dave and he calls her Miss Goldie. Dave is a slick public relations man by background, while Annabel is a serious—but not overly serious—respected lawyer and politician. This headline-grabbing foray, which would cost £200 million annually, smacks more of Dave than of Annabel. The Tories would pay for it by privatising our water services. Need I say more? Well, I will add this: the next Labour Government will restore the link between pensions and earnings, which the Tories broke; the next Labour Executive will reform the council tax; and, in the meantime, the Labour-led Executive will maintain council tax stability.
I am delighted to be taking part in the debate because, as the Tories have recognised, council tax will be a major issue at the election next year. People know that since 1997 the council tax for those who live in a band D house has increased by 50 per cent. The current system of council tax is now perceived as so unfair and such a huge burden on those least able to pay it that it will undoubtedly be high on voters' list of priorities when they decide how to cast their vote.
The SNP's view is that changing council tax bands, replacing council tax with a property tax or offering rebates here and there in the run-up to the election would only be tinkering at the edges of local government finance and that it would fail, like the Burt review, to address the real issues of local government finance and its relation to national taxation. Like George Lyon, I look forward to having a real and meaningful debate on the Burt review. I hope that he will not still be reading his ministerial brief with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
We must not forget that council tax is a small part of local government finance and that any shortfall in the money provided by central Government to local government has to be made up through a much larger increase in council tax as a result of the so-called gearing effect. That is why the SNP believes that any national Government initiative that is foisted on local government must be accompanied by sufficient funding.
However, there is a much more fundamental issue, of which council tax problems are only one symptom and which the Burt report skimmed over. The McIntosh commission recognised that to achieve a meaningful role for local government and what it called "parity of esteem" between local government and the Scottish Parliament, the financial arrangements between the two were paramount. It is unfortunate that the Burt report did not take that as its starting point.
It is no accident that local income tax forms the basis of the taxation systems of small social democratic countries in the arc of prosperity. Contrary to Mr Brownlee's remarks, we would not be inventing the wheel if we had a local income tax. Other countries have managed to implement it and raise funds quite well. Indeed, this morning Bruce Crawford and I had a meeting with the Nordic Green Left Alliance. Its representatives believe that raising taxation and spending the money raised at a local level increases people's level of interest in Government affairs and has made a significant contribution to much higher turnouts at their elections.
Many in this Parliament now realise that raising revenue in Scotland as well as spending it is important to the credibility and legitimacy of the Parliament. In establishing subsidiarity in communities, it is important to reorganise local government finance. By raising finance locally in a fair and progressive manner, the local income tax is a win-win situation. I ask members to support the SNP amendment.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have argued strongly for the introduction of a local income tax to replace the discredited council tax. I put it on the record, for David McLetchie's benefit, that we do not support Mr Burt's property tax.
Local income tax would benefit around 70 per cent of households in Scotland. That is backed up by the Burt report, which states:
"It's clear that around 60% of households are no worse off under a local income tax and some are substantially better off."
Of course we are disappointed that Burt did not go down the local income tax route, but he made it clear that the council tax had
"fundamental and inherent shortcomings and couldn't be made fairer."
That is the key point. The Liberal Democrats have always argued that the council tax is not a fair tax and that it is not related to an individual's ability to pay it.
It seems, from the Tories' motion, that the Tories now accept that the council tax hits those on the lowest incomes and those on fixed incomes the hardest. We share the Conservatives' aspiration to help our pensioners, but do they want to get rid of the council tax? No: they just want to tinker at the edges of it.
The Conservatives seem to accept that Labour's policy of getting people on low incomes to claim council tax credit is failing because the system of form filling and red tape is confusing and difficult for them. According to Derek Brownlee, the Conservative spokesman, that is why 200,000 pensioners who are entitled to council tax credit do not claim it. What is the Conservatives' solution to the problem of red tape and difficulty? Is it to create a fairer system or to remove the red tape? No: their solution is to have even more red tape and to get our pensioners to fill in even more forms to claim the new rebate.
Let us for a moment ignore the ever growing mountain of paperwork and red tape and consider whether the Conservatives' policy would solve the problem. The council tax for a band H home in Glasgow is £2,400. Half of that is still £1,200. If we add water charges, the cost for a pensioner couple is £1,900. The proposal would do absolutely nothing to address the plight of many pensioners, who are asset rich but cash poor. The Tories' proposal is not a solution to the unfairness of the council tax, but a gimmick that they think will play well on the doorstep.
Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who foisted the poll tax on Scotland, then had the nerve to introduce the council tax, then broke the link between pensions and earnings. Now they promise to halve pensioners' council tax bills. They have already admitted that they cannot win the election next year and say that they will not go into a Government in any form. They know that they simply cannot deliver their promise to pensioners. It is as empty and hollow as their apology for the poll tax—which came not from the Scottish Conservatives but from David Cameron.
Charlie Gordon made huge assumptions in his speech. I certainly do not agree that we should assume that we will have a Labour-led Administration next year—that is up to the voters.
The council tax hits those on low and fixed incomes the most. It is supported by the Labour Party and the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that there is no majority in this Parliament to get rid of the fundamentally flawed council tax, but we look forward to next year, when the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to change that situation. We look forward to the opportunity to replace the completely unfair council tax.
I have never heard, in any debating chamber, so many people try to defend the indefensible. Indeed, I find it incomprehensible that any intelligent person can argue for the retention of a totally regressive taxation system.
In response to Tommy Sheridan, Charlie Gordon said that the Labour Party will restore the link between earnings and pensions. That will not happen until 2012, which will be exactly 15 years after Labour came to power—if it is still in power at that time—and a third of a century after Maggie Thatcher did away with the link. On Mr Sheridan's point about the erosion of the value of pensions, today's pension will be worth the equivalent of only £71 before anyone gets around to reassessing the situation and restoring the link.
I could make 1,001 points and talk for four hours on this subject, but I have only another three minutes. Where do I start? The Burt report recommends that
"a new Local Property Tax (LPT) should replace council tax."
That is simply the council tax by another name.
We should take a hard look at recommendation 10 in the report, which refers to
"the introduction of an optional deferment scheme for pensioner households who own their own homes".
That is already happening. As soon as anyone enters a care home, the first person at their bedside is a social worker to means test them. Means testing is the abomination that we all have to live with today. Good, decent people who have worked hard all their lives are being degraded by having to parade their poverty before civil servants and getting—if they are lucky—a pittance in return.
As far as "deferment" is concerned, social workers already tell people in care homes, "You don't have to sell your home to pay for your care—just sign this deferred agreement." The soul signs the paper and, when he or she dies, the vultures descend and take the house to pay for the care that he or she received over the previous X number of years. That is probably what the Burt report means by the
"optional deferment scheme for pensioner households who own their own homes".
What about those who pay rent? They simply do not come into the calculation and will receive no relief.
It cannot be right that, in 2006, a pensioner can receive a national pension of only 9p a week from this Government. Someone might have cared from the age of 16 for their mother for 20 years until she died and then cared for their father for another 24 years until he died. When they turn 60 and try to collect their pension, they find that they have no stamps. When they say, "But I've been a carer all that time," they are told, "If you had applied, we would have given them to you." When they ask whether they can apply retrospectively, they are told that they cannot. Moreover, they might be asked whether they have any money. If they say, "My father left me £25,000," they are simply told, "Come back when you're poor. In the meantime, you can have the minimum pension of 9p a week." We should all think shame of ourselves.
In any case, we must do something to stop means testing. I liked Mr Pringle's suggestions in that respect; indeed, I might even be tempted to vote Liberal with my first vote.
Actually, it was Mr Rumbles.
Sorry.
As everyone hates everyone else's local government tax proposals, we should perhaps concentrate on something that we might all agree on. The Burt committee made much of the relationship between national Government and local government and claimed that it had heard from many sources that local government was unhappy. Perhaps we should sort out that issue while all the other proposals remain in the long grass—or wherever it is such proposals end up.
The Burt committee also suggested that we separate water and sewerage charges from council tax collection. The suggestion has merit, because although water and sewerage charges, which are high, are not within councils' control, people regard their bill as a global figure for which they blame their council. We could pursue that issue.
In an answer to a parliamentary question that I asked, I was told that qualifying pensioner households can get a 25 per cent reduction in their water services charges, if they know how to apply for it. That is a little step in the right direction.
I am pleased and interested to hear that.
We will not reach an agreement on a system of local taxation, because everyone hates everyone else's system. Indeed, everyone unites in hating poor Sir Peter Burt's proposed system, which was kicked into the long grass before the first ball of the match was bowled—that was unfortunate. Nobody likes paying tax and all systems are defective in some way, but somehow we must take a rational look at the different ways of raising local taxation.
We will not do anything in this session of the Parliament. The coalition agreed that there should be an inquiry and until the election it will—legitimately—hide behind the fact that it is carefully studying the local government finance review committee's conclusions. That is how life is. However, the election will be heavily fought on local government systems of finance and I hope that, after the election, members of the Scottish Parliament—I will not be one of them—will be adult enough to discuss sensibly how to proceed, because the status quo is not an option and all other options have been rubbished by someone. There will have to be some concessions, which people will find difficult, but it is possible that the new Parliament will be full of extraordinarily enlightened and co-operative people, who will be prepared to compromise and dwell in amity with all parties. I will watch with interest.
There is a palpable sense of déjà vu in this debate on the council tax—perhaps with two exceptions. Even though I was sitting at the back of the chamber, I could feel the discomfort of the minister, Mr Lyon, when he outlined the Liberal position, which appears to be all over the place.
Will the member give way?
I will come to the member later. He should give me a chance to get started.
As members said, when the Conservatives initiate a debate on the council tax, credibility is stretched too far. No one can trust the policies on local government finance of a party that defended the poll tax for so long. The propositions that the Conservatives make therefore come under immense scrutiny and fail the essential trust test.
In previous debates on the council tax, the Executive has told us many times that we must wait for the local government finance review committee's conclusions. The long-awaited report has been produced, but the Executive's response is simply to defend the status quo. Labour and the Tories defended the council tax and kicked the review into the long grass for years and years, only to end up in the position in which they started—there are no surprises there.
People argue for a local property tax on the basis that, first, such a tax would have an approximation to an income tax, and secondly, a property tax cannot easily be avoided. We have heard those arguments many times, but better arguments must be proffered in this debate if we are to be attracted to such a system.
Members talked about the impact of the council tax. We have studied the matter for many years. Many pensioners find that as much as a quarter of their income goes to pay their council tax bill. The Parliament has debated fuel poverty. Given that a person who spends a quarter of their income on their fuel bill is regarded as being in fuel poverty, it is clear that tens of thousands of pensioners in this country could be regarded as being in council tax poverty.
Frankly, council tax is an unfair, unjust and hated tax base. As members have said, not only is it not related to the ability to pay, but the reality is that the rich pay coppers, while pensioners and low-paid workers pay a relatively high proportion of their income.
As members have rightly said, council tax will dominate or be a prominent part of the 2007 elections. Mr Swinney talked about honesty and other members talked about distinctive positions. The people of Scotland will realise that the Scottish Socialist Party has had a distinctive position on the issue from the beginning: we wish to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax. The Scottish Socialist Party, the only party that has stood by that position consistently, will remind the voters of Scotland that, on 1 February of this year—February fool's day—the SNP and the Liberals, members of which parties have talked about distinctive positions and honesty, had the opportunity to support a local income tax to replace the council tax, but chose not to support the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill. No party has done more than the Scottish Socialist Party to highlight the inequities of the council tax and the need to replace it with a progressive alternative. We stand by what we have done. Other parties will be called to account on the issue. The minister said that we need further debate on the matter, but we have debated it for four years and the Liberals still seem not to know where they stand. Go on, minister, take a view on the issue rather than prevaricating. The Liberals should have voted for, not against the bill that would have scrapped the council tax and replaced it with a local income tax.
Much of the speculation about the Tory party these days focuses on whether it is pursuing a distinctly different set of proposals in Scotland from those that David Cameron is developing at Westminster. In the debate, the Scottish Conservatives have managed to pursue both: like David Cameron, they tell people what they think they want to hear, but they remain, in Mr Cameron's words, Conservative to the core. The debate has exposed that, when we get beyond the branding and the newly created public relations image, the Tories—in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom—do not have the answers to the problems that face people in Scotland today.
David Cameron would put our economic stability at risk. The tax report that the Tories released in October outlined plans for a huge £21 billion cut in public spending—how very old Tory.
Give me a minute to make some progress.
The cuts that the Tories intend to impose would damage our country's long-term competitiveness by undermining Labour's investment programmes in matters such as skills and training—again, so very Tory. From what Tory members have said this afternoon, it is clear that the Scottish Conservatives are signed up fully to that agenda, but they have also told us that they will destroy public services in a distinctively Scottish way. Mr Cameron has been at great pains to put across the PR image that the Tories will not look for tax cuts, but Annabel Goldie, ploughing her own furrow, announced subsequently that the Tories plan to cut taxes for pensioners by 50 per cent, which would cost public services £200 million per year in the process. There we have it: populist nonsense coupled with economic irresponsibility, wrapped in Tory tartan.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer today announced £284 million per year extra for the Scottish Executive, which could fund the policy in full, if Michael McMahon does not like our proposal. He talks about the record of the Labour Government, but is he proud or ashamed that £100 billion has been taken out of pension funds as a result of Gordon Brown's actions when he first became chancellor?
I am certainly not going to take any lectures from the Tories about stealing from pensioners.
As everyone knows, the Tories have given us an undeliverable promise, which, when held up against the core Conservative instincts, exposes an uncosted ideological sham, despite what Derek Brownlee says. When the Tories left office in 1997, they had created the greatest pensioner inequality in 30 years. Their high-inflation economic mismanagement had eroded incomes and savings for two generations of pensioners, while the mass unemployment that they created deprived many older workers of the chance to build a decent retirement income. Since they were, mercifully, kicked out of office, they have, in opposition both at Westminster and here, opposed everything that Labour has done to help pensioners. The proposal to cut council tax for pensioners would reduce the money that is available for local services on which pensioners depend. We need to provide help for pensioners, but the Tories want to concentrate on helping only wealthy pensioners. They then revert entirely to type by announcing that they will pay for their tax cuts by privatising Scottish Water.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute.
That is not only a failed policy from the past, but one that makes even less economic sense today.
Will the Conservatives tell us how, after their one-off windfall—and it is debatable whether it would even cover the £200 million loss to local authorities—they intend to find the money in the subsequent years? They simply cannot, and no matter how populist they try to be, they will never erase from the minds of our pensioners the consequences of their policies.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute.
Their proposal is incredible in its substance and in its ideology. It is Tory, it is Scottish Tory and, because it is so, it will never happen.
I am beginning to feel a bit sorry—just a bit sorry—for George Lyon. When the going gets tough, Tom McCabe gets going and George Lyon is plucked out to deal with matters.
Derek Brownlee set the tone for a consensual, pragmatic debate, so he is reaping what he sowed. The Tories are scandalous. They broke the link between pensions and earnings and now they are talking about restoring it. They imposed the poll tax on Scotland—we were the sorry guinea pigs, but who is sorry now, Mr Brownlee? It is like an albatross around his neck, from which he will never escape. Scotland's pensioners have nothing to thank the Tory party for and they have nothing to thank the Labour Party for. As John Swinburne so eloquently described, the Labour Party happily kept a Tory policy and has not restored the link with earnings. It has kept the council tax. In fact, that is how it got elected in England: it pinched the Tories' clothes and now Mr Cameron is trying to steal them back from a very weary Tony Blair.
What people require is a decent citizens pension and a proper taxation system that takes account of income. John Swinney talked about flogging a dead horse—I could not have put it better myself. How many times have we stood here and said, "Forty-eight per cent of pensioners entitled to pension credit do not claim it. More than 40 per cent entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it"? There is no point in saying that we must encourage pensioners to claim those benefits—they just ain't working. Targeting and means testing have been a failure for the poorest in society. I say to Bristow Muldoon that, as we know, the Burt review was yet another shameless delaying tactic to stitch together the Lib-Lab coalition until after May, when they will all pretend that they have had nothing to do with each other for the past seven years.
Does Christine Grahame accept that if we had a vote to replace the council tax with a local income tax, we would not win it because the Labour Party and the Tories would combine to defeat it?
Mr Rumbles is stating the obvious. The point is that this is the umpteenth time that we have watched Labour and the Liberal Democrats keeping their marriage together on the slimmest of grounds. After the election we know that the Liberal Democrats will try to take the credit and blame the Labour Party—hence Mr McCabe's absence.
Two principles should be applied to a tax: it should be equitable and collectable. A local income tax meets those tests. It is based on the ability to pay. We have an income tax system that already identifies those who are liable, so we have the processes in place. It is clear and simple, and would not involve the bureaucracy of the council tax and the council tax benefit system. It would protect not just pensioners, but others who we have not mentioned, such as those on low and fixed incomes and families on the poverty line. A local income tax would be reliable to collect. Income tax collection rates are around 96.17 per cent. Collection rates for the council tax are 92.7 per cent. A local income tax would be easier and cheaper to collect. Collection costs for the council tax were £78 million, £30 million of which was spent on the failing council tax benefit system.
There are people out there who must despair that, after seven years of a Liberal-Labour coalition, we are no further towards a fair, accountable system of local tax. We have had yet another fudge on the Labour and Liberal Democrat side of the chamber, while on the Tory side of the chamber, for "interim measure", read "election bribe". Everyone can see through that. No wonder the Scottish electorate is turning to the Scottish National Party, with our local income tax—which would remove people's fear of losing their house—a decent citizens pension and a nuclear-free Scotland. I rest my case.
The debate has been reasonably constructive. Although I welcome the concern that has been expressed for me, as the minister who is appearing, it is deeply disappointing that my appearance is not appreciated and that members would prefer someone else to turn up to answer the debate.
Not at all; we are your greatest fans.
I am not sure what to say after that, to be honest.
Scotland faces a number of challenges and opportunities, including an aging population. It is expected that there will be a 35 per cent rise in the number of people of state pension age from 2004 to 2031. We want to respond proactively to that expectation to safeguard the future of Scotland. The debate on the future of local taxation must be set in that context of a declining and aging population and in the context of a change in the way people live that has, for example, created a huge demand for affordable single-person housing.
We are setting the agenda with our public services reform work. It is a challenging agenda, but the Burt committee welcomes our public services reform work and makes the point that local taxation cannot be considered in isolation from the kinds of public services that we want to deliver. Our vision is for world-class public services that provide the people of Scotland with the platform on which to build better lives for themselves and their children and that are there for them when times are good and support them when times are hard. We are achieving that by progressing a range of cross-cutting policy and delivery programmes that are driving up standards and creating the kinds of sustainable and accessible services that the people of Scotland need and deserve. That work must all be underpinned by a modern and sustainable taxation system.
I have spoken about the future, but I am aware of the pressures that the council tax can place on many people, especially those who are on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The setting of council tax levels is a matter for local authorities, but we have repeatedly said that we expect councils to keep council tax rises to reasonable levels, which remains our position.
Will George Lyon give way?
I am conscious that I do not have a lot of time. Otherwise I would be delighted to give way.
The most recent council tax charge in the average band D was £1,129, which is an increase of £35 or 3.2 per cent on last year's figure. That was the lowest increase since devolution. Councils in Scotland have benefited from unprecedented levels of funding in recent settlements. In the eight financial years from 1999-2000, funding for local government through the core settlement will have increased by more than £3 billion.
It is too early to say what next year's council tax increases will be, but I expect councils to continue to maintain downward pressure on council tax levels as they consider their budgets. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has said on several occasions that he is prepared to reconsider local government funding for 2007-08 in light of the pressures that local authorities face and I am sure that everyone will welcome our decisions when the minister makes his statement to the Parliament on 13 December.
It is worth remembering that we asked the Burt committee to conduct a thorough examination of the full range of local taxation options and to make recommendations. All political parties that are represented in the Parliament made their proposals to the committee and set out their plans for making local government taxation fairer. I am sure that we can all agree on that objective.
Will George Lyon give way?
You do have some time, minister.
That was a reckless statement, Presiding Officer.
Will Mr Lyon concede that, in the claimback process that it envisages for its local property tax proposals, the Burt committee has produced a system that is as unworkable as the council tax benefit system and that that represents a fundamental flaw in the Burt review's approach to pensioners?
I am aware that a number of parties have expressed that view on the point that Mr Swinney raises.
It is clear from the debate that there is still little agreement on the appropriate way forward to deliver a fairer system of local government taxation. In some ways, Burt gave us a starting point for debate when he stated that he was unable to recommend either continuation or reform of the current system. I have no doubt that this debate will continue in the coming months and that the Scottish Executive will consider carefully the contents of the committee's final report. I ask members to support the amendment in my name.
How long do I have, Presiding Officer?
Nine minutes, maybe.
I congratulate my colleagues on their excellent speeches. It is painfully obvious that people have woken up to the fact that we will do something for the pensioners of Scotland—and every family has got one. We can do something early. Our proposal is achievable and deliverable and it should not get kicked into the long grass.
It is shameful that no minister was prepared to come to the chamber today and talk on behalf of the Executive on this serious subject. We have had next to nothing of content from George Lyon. We recognise that he is here to represent the Executive, not one or other of the Executive parties. However, we have not heard where the Executive is going with Burt—we have been told only that it is not going to touch it until after the next election.
I have said consistently that we will examine the report in some detail and that, at some stage, we will respond to it.
Does that mean that the Executive will respond before the election, to enable the electorate to understand what the Executive's policy is?
I have said what I have said.
I thank the minister for that response, which means, in other words, no answer yet again.
A number of questions have been raised today about how we would pay for our proposals. We did not say that we would privatise Scottish Water; we said that we would mutualise it, which would give it an ability to go into the marketplace. I cannot quote the figure offhand, but I think that the Executive's figure—not one that we dragged out of nowhere—for revenue support for Scottish Water in 2007-08 is something like £190.8 million. On a yearly basis, that would more than cover the costs of our proposals, which are indicated in the figures that we have produced.
I am intrigued about how Scottish Water would plug the gap that would be created by the withdrawal of that revenue support.
If Mr Muldoon had listened to some of the debates that we have had in this Parliament in the past almost eight years, he would know that, if Scottish Water, with a different funding system, had been allowed to go into the marketplace, money would be flowing at a much faster rate—which would mean that water would not be being lost at the current rate. Labour might be able to answer that point when it gets around to thinking about it.
The minister said that all will be well on 13 December. Santa will come early for councils because the local government settlement will be wonderful—that is more or less the phrase that he used. Could Mr Lyon tell us whether there will be recognition of the new burdens that his Executive has placed on local government, which are most certainly not funded? The fact that they are not funded has resulted in ever-higher council tax levels for the people of Scotland. There is no getting away from that.
Mr Lyon and Charlie Gordon also talked about public service reform. I found it quite amazing that, with a wee bit of an elbow from Tom McCabe, councils managed suddenly to find efficiencies that they had been unable to find for years, yet service seems to roll on. Perhaps people in local government have something to consider as well.
I take it that the new allowances for pensioners' water charges that Bristow Muldoon mentioned are part of a new Labour policy.
Mark Ballard has still not told us what the Greens' policy is. We still do not know—we know only that it is a land tax. Even Robin Harper admits that that is not very helpful or fair to anyone.
The Burt report goes into land value taxation in great detail and recognises its many advantages. Certainly, what it says about land value taxation is more promising than what it says about the Tories' non-existent policies in this area.
On another day, Mr Ballard might tell us how that tax relates to ability to pay. However, that is another story.
Everybody loves to condemn the Burt report and nobody wants to support it. The Executive says, "It wisnae us. It's not what we wanted." The First Minister was the first to have a go at the report and we have heard nothing positive about it from the Executive parties. It is obvious that the Burt report was a costly delaying tactic that allowed the Executive to say that it would look at the matter in due course. I have a feeling that the Executive has looked at it and that it is terrified to do anything and terrified to make an announcement.
The Liberal Democrats and the SNP had the opportunity to vote for their flagship policy of a local income tax when the Parliament considered the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill, but they ran away. Perhaps on another day the Liberal Democrats and the SNP might care to tell us publicly what the difference is between their schemes. If they are to go into coalition, which they seem to be rumbling on about, we and the pensioners need to know—
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not think that I have time.
You have enough time. You have four minutes.
You have a bonus two or three minutes, Mr Davidson.
That is very kind of you, Presiding Officer. In that case, I will take Mr Sheridan's intervention.
I thank Mr Davidson for the reciprocal arrangement. Does he share my dismay that, after seven years of the Parliament, neither the Liberal Democrats nor the SNP have managed to produce a bill that tells us what they would replace the council tax with?
The reason is simple. They are terrified to do that because they know what the cost would be to the Scottish taxpayer.
The Burt report does not address all the issues. We are stuck with political parties having to decide what they are going to say to the Scottish electorate. I assure you that the Scottish Conservative party is proud to propose a 50 per cent reduction for pensioner households. We cannot offer that to everyone over 60 because of equality rules, but we are honest about our policy, which is fair and deliverable. We have laid it on the table, we can cost it, and we know how it will work. The people of Scotland are entitled to expect such clarity from all political parties. I am proud to support Annabel Goldie's motion.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—