 The next item of business is a debate on motion 11290 in the name of Andy Wightman on scrap, the council tax. Can I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Andy Wightman to speak and move the motion. Mr Wightman, please, nine minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The last time parliament had a debate on the future of local tax was in September 2016, when rather typically in such debates we ended up not agreeing to anything. Hadd Douglas Ross, former of this place, not been in Switzerland at a football training camp, however, Parliament would have agreed by a majority to have further discussions, and all MSPs did, in fact, vote for amendments that committed them to that. Today we have further amendments from the Government saying that it is open to further dialogue on options for local tax reform. I don't have any problem sitting down to discuss local tax options, except that is precisely what I did, and indeed Jackie Baillie did, in the commission on local tax reform. Our final report, published in December 2015, contained 19 recommendations, the first of which was expressed in unambiguous terms, and I quote, the present council tax system must end. Our concluding two recommendations noted that with the goodwill that had been established between Labour, Greens, Liberal Democrats and the SNP, the time for local tax reform had come, and it concluded that this was an opportunity that must not be missed. Since September 2016, no substantive discussions have taken place, and for such discussions to be meaningful, they have to have a clear focus, and that focus needs to be a commitment to scrap the council tax and all its associated flaws. If we cannot agree on that, we are failing to live up to our responsibilities. I think that many of us would keep the council tax in the absence of any better alternative. We cannot resolve to scrap it unless we know what we are proposing to replace it. What is the green proposal? Is it a garden tax or what is it? This debate has been bedevilled by people claiming that we have to keep this out-of-date, archaic, regressive tax, because we cannot agree on what should replace it. In order to get rid of that log jam, we should agree to get rid of it, sit down, have an implementation group, as our motion suggests, and come up with an agreed future system. At the budget this year, that is why my colleague Patrick Harby made clear that Scottish Greens would be unable to enter budget negotiations for 2019-20 unless meaningful progress has been made on local tax reform. He wrote to the First Minister, outlining some short, middle and long term options and making it clear that negotiations between the parties would be necessary for such progress to happen. In her response earlier this month, the First Minister noted a range of initiatives under way, including the Government's own tinkering with the council tax, the planning bill, the Scottish Land Commission, etc. In other words, let's kick this can further down the road. Let's ignore the commission established by her in February 2015. Let's wait for more reports, reviews and debate. Greens are not prepared to wait any longer. We want to see action, and that includes a bare minimum and unequivocal agreement to scrap the council tax. It's a fundamentally bad tax, and I'm disappointed that the Government continues to believe that some minor tinkering will make the meaningful changes that are needed. In particular, I reject the First Minister's claim that changes to the council tax haven't, I quote, tackled the fundamental regressiveness of the system. I reject also Derek Mackay's claims in his amendment that the changes made in 2016 make the council tax and I quote, more progressive. In fact, they make it marginally less regressive, but that's a long way short of being progressive in any way. For the record, taxes can be regressive, proportionate or progressive. Regressive taxes are those where they lower the value of the tax base, the higher the tax rate, that's the council tax. Proportionate taxes are where everyone pays the same rate, for example 1 per cent. Progressive taxes are where the higher the value of the tax base, the higher the tax rate, as we have in income tax. The commission's report clearly showed that council tax was and remains one of the most regressive taxes in the UK in relation to the value of the property and, indeed, in relation to income as well. The changes made in 2016 do not change that fact. If we need reminding, the resolution foundation published a report last week, and it observed that someone living in a property worth £100,000 has around five times the effective tax rate of someone living in a property worth £1 million. It articulated the four broad reasons why that is the case. First, that the very wide bands mean that properties with widely varying values pay the same tax. Secondly, that the fixed multiplier of tax rates between the bands, where the ratio is far, far less than the ratio of the tax base. Third, that the property values are over a quarter of a century out of date. Fourth, because of the huge regional variation with band D properties in Edinburgh being far more valuable, for example than band D properties in Edinburgh Clyde. The resolution foundation goes on to argue that because of the gross regressivity of the council tax, it now looks increasingly like the pull tax that it replaced and its failings hit the youngest households worse as they live increasingly in the lowest banded properties. Naomi Eisenstadt, the First Minister's adviser on poverty and inequality, urged ministers in her first report to be bold on local tax reform. She went on to say, and I quote, that this is a central moment of political decision, an opportunity to introduce a much more progressive system, one that will have important implications particularly for working households at or just above the poverty line. That moment of political decision was ducked, but this moment, three years out from the next Hollywood election, can still be that moment. We have the time to begin a process of fundamental reform, to transition to a fair, a modern, a transparent and a flexible system. Instead, the finance secretary and his colleagues routinely turn up in the chamber and in committee and tell us that progressivity lies at the heart of their tax plans. With respect to council tax, it so clearly does not. I understand, as Murdo Fraser observed a few moments ago, that some take the view that, in the absence of agreement on a replacement, we should not scrap the council tax yet. However, if not now, then when? A succession of reports, analyses and inquiries have all said quite clearly that this iniquitous, regressive and archaic tax has had its day. The lion's inquiry said scrap it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says scrap it. The commission on local tax reform end it. The OECD is clear. It is regressive and outdated. The Joseph Rountree Foundation and the Adam Smith Institute both said get rid of it. Why, then, are we not, at the very least, able to agree that notwithstanding various views on its replacement that the council tax must go? Scottish Greens bring this debate to Parliament today to make clear that the status quo is no longer tenable. We are focused on the council tax as a start, but the system of local government finance as a whole is not fit for purpose. Not only do we need a new system of local tax, we need to give far greater fiscal autonomy to councils and to adopt and agree a fiscal framework to replace the annual arguments about the local government settlement. Just as the Scottish Parliament is maturing as an institution with new responsibilities for raising public finances, so too should local government be accorded the same status and the same fiscal freedom that is the norm right across countries in Europe. With constituents of mine who are living in banned E properties, which are worth less than nearby properties in banned B, and where the majority of taxpayers are paying their wrong amount of tax, what conceivable justification can there be for us all to do anything other than commit to scrapping the council tax? Our on-going inability to deal with this issue should shame this Parliament. If today we are unsuccessful in persuading members to back our call, so be it. Scottish Greens are a party of radical democracy. We believe in the capacity of the local state to organise its own affairs, be responsible for its own finances and to be accountable to the electorate that it serves. That is why, in the next few weeks, I will be launching a consultation on a draft member's bill to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law. That will have implications for what we are debating today. If we reach no agreement on fundamental reform, there will be no budget negotiations by my party at the end of this year. We reject the idea that we can go on any longer with business as usual. I move motion 11290 in my name. Thank you very much. I call on Derek Mackay, cabinet secretary, to speak to and move amendment 11290.2. Six minutes, please. The package of reforms to council tax set out in our 2016 Scottish Parliament manifesto has been delivered by the Scottish Government with the structural changes in place since April 2017, and as a consequence, council tax is now fairer. As this debate is essentially about local government funding, I would of course restate my view that local government has a fair settlement from the Scottish Government. The commission on local tax reform highlighted that one of the inequities of the original council tax system was that the higher-value properties incurred a smaller amount of tax relative to their value than those in the lower-value bands. We address that by changing the way that council tax is calculated for properties and bands E, F, G and H. I recognise the reforms that were made in 2016, but I do not agree with the minister that they address the fundamental inequity and regressiveness of the council tax and that they do not address the criticism that the commission on local tax reform made that the tax rate for those at the top was less than the tax rate for those at the bottom. That still is the case. Andy Wightman referred to it as tinkering. It raises over £500 million for public services retained locally. I would not describe that as tinkering. I think that that is a substantial investment in Scotland's public services, and that is before we even get to the matter of locally determined increases. In terms of the resolution foundation that was quoted, I am very mindful that they said in terms of the SNP's proposition going into the Scottish Parliament elections that the SNP's tax increase would raise revenue in a progressive manner with the tax rise falling harder on higher-income households. That is what the resolution foundation said at the time. If I could make progress, I think that I will only have five minutes and have taken one intervention. I have a lot to say in terms of the Government's position. There was also a fair judgment around political parties that will attach different weights to the considerations that were set out in the commission on local tax reform. The commission, as it says on local tax reform, highlighted the need for relief to be available for low-income households. A council tax reduction scheme provides exactly that, and reforms enhanced it, especially for households with children where we have an increase in the child allowance by 25 per cent and continue to refuse to follow the UK Government's damaging example of applying a two-child cap. When local taxation was last debated, I was clear that we were on a journey of reform, and those were just the first steps. I was clear that I was willing to engage. Members are well aware that we have made reforms through the Barclay review of the non-domestic rate system, and we are interesting in engaging further in the council tax. However, we have been determined to strike the right balance between protecting household incomes and ensuring that our public services have the resources that they need to deliver. I believe that our decisions on tax and the allocation of resources achieve that balance. That is why we set out in our 2016 manifesto that the time was right after nine years to lift the council tax freeze, but the increases would be capped at 3 per cent, not 5.99 per cent, as currently applies in England. I believe that that does strike the right balance. All councils have now set their council tax rates for the forthcoming financial year, and all have raised the council tax by 3 per cent, which will mean a further £77 million for local services. Without some sort of constraint, taxpayer risk increases such as the 12.5 per cent increase that the Labour minority administration in North Ayrshire proposed for 2018-19. Where we have asked households to pay more tax, we have done so in a reasonable and balanced way. We continue to be committed to making local taxation fairer and ensuring that tax overall is progressive, and we continue to be open to discuss how that might be achieved. The Opposition parties may be able to provide a critique of the Government's position or the existing council tax regime, but there is no majority view on a replacement and in keeping with our collaborative approach on taxation. That debate and proposals for further reform need serious engagement and not cheap political points. I believe that the discussion paper—I have very little time left. I believe that the discussion paper on the role of income tax in Scotland and the consultation throughout was an exemplar in engagement on tax. Even if the Opposition disagreed with the final policy outcomes, the process was one of consultation and sound methodology with clear tests established. There is no clear alternative proposition to the council tax, which commands a majority in this Parliament. Therefore, an implementation forum seems somewhat presumptive. For our part, we have tasked the Land Commission to explore the possibility of introducing a land value tax and to ensure that we can take that forward at an informed decision on that. That is an area in which there is much interest but limited examples of it in operation. Local Government's role in the dialogue is absolutely fundamental. It would have to implement any changes and depend on the decisions that we make, depend on the revenues that are collected or potentially have to deal with any shortfall should the reforms be ill-considered. Changes to local tax must be progressed in partnership with local government, with a clear evidence base. In that regard, the commission on local tax reform did valuable work. Our governance review builds on that. We work with COSLA to engage the public and look across all our public services in order to understand the changes that can improve lives and bring democracy closer to the people. For all those reasons, I move the amendment in my name. I must warn members that there is absolutely no time in hand, so speeches must be kept to time and absorb any interventions. Yes, it is bad timing for you. I now call more defraiser to speak to and move amendment 11290.2.1. Mr Fraiser, four minutes, please. I thank the Green Party for bringing this debate, and at least they are consistent in their messages on local taxation. I think that we have already exposed in this short debate the black hole at the centre of the Green Party's argument, because we cannot resolve to scrap the council tax without agreeing what we are going to replace it with. I listen carefully to Andy Wightman's opening speech, and I am no clearer as to what the Greens are proposing as an alternative. I have heard them talk previously about a garden tax. I must say that that surprised me. I thought that the Greens would be in favour of gardens where they can cultivate their homegrown vegetables, their turn-ups and their marrows, and now it seems that they want to tax the self-same gardens, but we are not any clearer about what they are proposing. I am sorry, but I have only got four minutes to have a chance to respond winding up, Mr Wightman. Those of us with long memories will recall in 2007 that the SNP were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax. Indeed, the language used by SNP politicians at that time about the council tax was near hysterical, talking about the unfair council tax or even the hated council tax. Of course, once they were in office, even with an overall majority, they took no steps to scrap the council tax, despite all their promises and despite the fact that it was supposedly hated. Back in 2005, as Andy Wightman has said, the Scottish Government's commission on local taxation reported, and it said that the council tax must go. However, just like the Greens today, they could not actually come up with an alternative proposal. Fortunately, the Scottish Conservatives were there to help out, not for the first time. We established our independent commission for competitive and fair taxation in Scotland, which reported just a month later, in January 2016. That recommended that the council tax structure should remain essentially unchanged but with an increase on the multiplier on the higher bands of G&H. As it happened, the SNP Government rejected the recommendations of its commission on local taxation and adopted proposals that were very similar to those proposed by our commission, although they went further in increasing the multiplier on bands E and F in addition and increased those on G&H higher than we would otherwise have gone. That is where we are. We have already had reform of the council tax and we do not support further reform of the council tax, and accordingly we reject the green motion today. The council tax is by no means perfect. No system of taxation is, but it is better than many of the alternatives. The council tax, as long as it is established, is easily understood, relatively efficient and relatively easy to collect. It is a property tax and therefore an approximation of a tax on wealth, which is appropriate at a time when we regularly express our concern about the bias in our tax system towards taxes on income as opposed to taxes on wealth. Although property may not always be an accurate proxy for wealth, nevertheless, it is our view that some sort of property tax should be a component in the overall taxation mix here in Scotland, as it is in most other western countries. What we would support is broadening the range of taxes that councils have at their disposal. We want to see that underpinned by a new fiscal framework between the Scottish Government and local authorities, as Mr Wightman would say. That is looking for example at devolving lands and buildings transaction tax to councils and looking at more control over business rates. Let me just say in closing that there is one more important point to be made that is covered in my amendment today. When we hear parties on the left, like the Greens, talking about tax reform, often that is code for higher taxation. Already, the overall income tax burden in Scotland is higher than the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not want to see discussions around tax reform being used as a trojan horse for yet more taxes on hard-pressed Scottish families at a time when our economy is faltering. Presiding Officer, we reject the Greens' plan to scrap the council tax without any idea as to what is to replace it. We support plans to give councils additional tax-nation powers, and we oppose plans for overall increases in taxation. I move the amendment in my name. I call James Kelly to speak to move amendment number 11290.1. Mr Kelly, five minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Andy Wightman and the Greens for bringing forward this important debate today and move the amendment in my name. It is time to scrap the council tax. Those are not my words, Deputy Presiding Officer. Those are the words of Nicola Sturgeon on 11 April 2007. Indeed, 11 years ago just now, the country was adorned with posters like this one. Now you know how I feel about props. I will scrap the unfair council tax. It is an important piece of evidence, because it shows that Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond pledging to scrap the unfair council tax 11 years ago just now. The reality is that 11 years down the road, we have Alex Salmond—no, not just now—we have Alex Salmond as a discredited television host, and we still have the discredited council tax in place. How can we trust the SNP on local taxation? The changes that they put forward in 2016 merely tinkered around the edges. In evidence to the local government committee, Professor David Bell said that he did not address the concerns that were raised by the commission for local tax reform. Kenneth Gibb of Policy Scotland described him as a policy fudge. Essentially, he did not address the inherent in fairness that people see in local communities and local MSPs see themselves as they raise as frequently there are cases raised with us about the unfairness of the council tax. Labour, at the 2016 Scottish elections, put forward a proposal to abolish the council tax and replace it with a fairer system of property tax, which was based on modelling prepared for the commission on local tax reform. That demonstrated that 2 million households, 80 per cent of all households, would be better off, surely a much fairer system. In addition to that, it is not just about replacement for the council tax, it is about how we shift the balance of power and responsibility and re-empower local government. From that point of view, we have put forward in recent times proposals for a tourist tax. That is something that is used in countries around the world. It is used in France and Barcelona. In Edinburgh, there are hundreds of thousands of visitors from overseas, particularly during the festival period. It makes good economic sense to have a tourist tax in place and to take the intervention. Rachael Hamilton Does James Kelly agree with me that having a tourism tax would have an impact on our domestic travellers? 84 per cent of travellers to Scotland are domestic travellers. The reality is that, if you look at the international examples, it works fine in countries like France, Barcelona and also in regions like Catalonia. It has got economic benefits there. I would argue that it has got economic benefits in Scotland. That has led to the use of a land value tax, which is gaining traction even in SNP suffocles. Alex Neil recently wrote an article in the Airdrie and Coatbridge advertiser about putting forward support for a land value tax and a social responsibility levy on alcohol sales. All those mechanisms would raise additional revenue for local councils, but, crucially, what they would do is move more powers to local councils. Recently, it has become too centralised and local government has been penalised by the SNP Government. That gives an opportunity for more revenue-raising powers to be in the hands of local councils. From that point of view, we welcome the Greens motion today and the suggestion of cross-party talks to tackle the issue and to try to come up with constructive solutions. It is time up for the council tax and it is time for the SNP Government to build a proper democratic solution that delivers for local people. Thank you very much. I move to the open debate. Speeches of a tight four minutes. John Mason followed by Bill Bowman, who has three minutes. I think that it is good that we are having a wide-ranging debate today with the chance to brainstorm and float a few different ideas. As others have said, there is a lot of agreement that council tax is not ideal, and probably most of us are agreed that we would ideally like to get rid of it. I consider that it was good that it was frozen for a number of years, but now it has been reformed a bit and allowed to rise. One problem with council tax has been that it is based on 1991 values, and any revaluation now is likely to lead to significant winners and losers. If some properties have risen relatively less in value since 1991—and that probably would apply to poorer areas, including in my constituency—they would win as their relative value within Glasgow has fallen. However, I accept that, in the west end, with property values rising more, the owners there might take a significant hit. If it is quick again. John Finnie. Yes, I am grateful for the member taking the intervention. Does the member recall when he and I used to campaign for the abolition of council tax? He talked about reform. Perhaps he could let us know the point where he stopped wanting the abolition of council tax. John Mason. I am going on to that. To give him a quick answer, I would support the abolition of council tax if we can get something better that is agreed on. We need to have that agreement from at least two parties as to what any replacement should be, but I really feel that that is so fundamental to how Scotland works, and there will be significant upheaval costs, as Derek Mackay rightly outlined, that I would certainly be keen that any new system has widespread party support and widespread public support and buy-in so that most of us can support it and it will stay in place for a good length of time. We cannot be changing the system of local government finance very often. There are certain principles that I hope we can agree on concerning local taxation. For example, it should be linked to the ability to pay. Local government should raise more of its own money so that, like the Scottish Parliament, what is raised and what is spent would be more closely matched. There will always need to be some transfer of resources between richer and poorer areas. That would presumably be based on need, for example, island costs being higher, or there is more poverty in Glasgow or Inverclyde. However, that leaves open certain other questions, which I think is yet we are not agreed on. Should every council have the same range of taxes or choose from a pallet of possible taxes—for example, some want a tourist tax, some do not—is it possible to get one system that suits Glasgow and Clickmaninshire, or is some asymmetric system possible? The SNP certainly has been keen on local income tax, and it still has strong arguments in its favour, not least the link to ability to pay. No, I am sorry, I am just not of time. However, some difficulties with it, practically, could we have 32 different rates of income tax, and would HMRC either be willing or able to manage that? Conceptually, would we abolish the property tax and have some sympathy with the arguments that Murdo Fraser put forward, because it is easy to understand that it is much harder to avoid? Land valuation tax has been popular, I know with the Greens, and I am not sure if that is still their first choice. I have had it explained to me more than once, and I have felt that I was beginning to understand it, but I have to admit that I do not think that LVT is easy to grasp, and we need to have a tax that the public feels comfortable with. I think that the previous commission that Marco Biaggi set up did raise some problems with LVT as well, so that areas such as my constituency such as Ballaston, which is not well off, but people have very large gardens as ex-council housing, would end up paying more, perhaps. It has been suggested in the media that the Greens would like a property tax based on current valuation, and I just wonder how that would work in practice if they would expect properties to be valued every single year. Overall, I think that the Government is open to discussion, and I personally support exploration of the options. However, I would like to see broad agreement in the chamber and in the public as to the way forward. I ask an intervention to James Kelly as my role as shadow cabinet secretary for culture and tourism. However, in my haste, I failed to declare an interest. Thank you. That is not a point of order, but it is now on the record. I call Bill Bowman. No one will argue that council tax is perfect. It is based on values almost 30 years old and is a poor job of actually funding councils, yet the public are familiar with it and understand it. Any change must not add complexity, nor must change be used to slip in tax rises by the back door. That is the worry whenever we hear the Greens talk tax. Just this week, one of my constituents contacted me to express his fear that local tax reform of the sort proposed by the Greens could lead to him losing his home. It is a fear that is well founded. The Greens residential property tax would inflict backbreaking tax hikes on already hard-pressed households, almost £0.5 billion. Nearly £1.4 million homes, more than half of all Scottish properties, would be subject to the new tax burden. Mr Harvey has drawn a red line over the issue. Threatening to withhold his blessing from the next budget unless his hard-left agenda is adopted. I do not have time. You have had your chance, worrying that the SNP offer no assurance that they will not agree to send local tax bills skyrocketing. Mr Mackay has spoken of his commitment to making local taxation more progressive, and today's motion uses the very same term. Far from suggesting fairness, progressive has become a byword for an ideological obsession with raising taxes. If the SNP and the Greens are truly concerned with fairness, they should accept that the simple fairness dictates that the Government should not raise taxes on families working hard to pay their bills. Instead of propping up the lamentable left-wing consensus, Mr Mackay should heed the Scottish Conservatives and give councils more control over their budgets. Devolving business rates income would be both a serious revenue stream and a transformational incentive to grow local tax bases. It was such a strange look that you gave him, I was not sure. Just for clarity, local authorities retain non-domestic rates. Is the position that local authorities should also set the poundage in local areas? Bill Bowman. No, not to set the rate. Devolving LBTT revenues is just good common sense given the obvious connection between LBTT and both council tax and business rates. A new fiscal framework should be agreed to underpin such changes, one that recognises the needs of community and places localism at the heart of council funding. The Scottish Conservatives propose a mature and measured approach, one that gives councils more control and offers the public reassurance. Mr Mackay, please use his opportunity to give Scottish families that reassurance by ruling out any green grab on local taxes. I support the motion in the name of Murdo Fraser. Thank you very much. I call Mark Griffin to be followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Apologies to the chamber and Mr Wightman for missing the opening portion of his speech today. I welcome the opportunity to debate local taxation by design. The Labour and Green proposals differ slightly, but the ambition to make property taxation more progressive is a shared one. Underlining our scheme is a plan to make 80 per cent better off and put local government finance on a stable footing. Just as crucial as the policy intention to have a more progressive system is the symbolism to depart from a discredited Tory system introduced over a quarter of a century ago, borne out of the poll tax. That system has left the majority of householders in the wrong council tax band and has barely been tinkered with since it was devolved to this Parliament. That tinkering, increasing the multipliers of bands E to H, has raised £100 million on the back of those in the most expensive houses, and most can afford it. However, although the Scottish Government promised a new exemption scheme for 54,000 low-income households, it was meant to help to cover those new costs. Last month, I discovered that fewer than 2,000 households have claimed. We were told that a third of eligible householders are pensioners, so there are thousands and thousands of older people still paying too much. What can only be described as a stick-and-plaster as part of a council tax reduction scheme, that is itself only five years old and ripe for wholesale review. A like-for-like replacement of the council tax benefit by design has to compensate for the high costs of the regressive council tax. In social security terms, we tackle the misery of poverty through boosting incomes in two ways, reducing high costs of annual bills and directly boosting the incomes of low-income families. A new, more progressive property tax would lower the bills for people in what we know as bands A and B, so boosting what are generally low incomes. Three quarters of the reduction that is paid in bands A and B, the overall cost of a reduction scheme would fall to savings, which could be redirected to those who need it most. Today's scheme, costing £360 million, is paid to half a million Scots each year, although the number is now 11 per cent lower than in 2013. There is a £20 million underspend, but to date the Government has no tracking system of who is missing out. Only a reform property tax and a more attractive reduction scheme could adequately identify the households that need the most help. A new system, which has impressive take-up rates run by Scottish Government and local authorities, would deliver far better poverty-relieving payments, such as free school meals or school closing grants, than the shambolic universal credit system. As the Scottish Government approaches council tax reform with absolute trepidation, it is worthy of note that the finance secretary is less concerned with the reduction system for those on the lowest incomes every year. With a promised discussion on the reduction scheme due this summer, perhaps the Government would be wise to look at a wholesale redesign of council tax. I thank Andy Wightman and the Scottish Greens for bringing this debate to the chamber. Let me start on a note of consensus. I have a great deal of respect for Mr Wightman and his erudition on those matters. I was interested to hear what the green proposition was going to be, because the motion makes reference to a cross-party implementation group, which rather presupposes that there is something to implement. Andy Wightman The implementation group is designed to scrap the council tax. The member will be well aware that there are different views across this Parliament on what should replace it. There is in place a potential progressive majority for it, so the implementation group is merely to make the first start to commit to scrap the council tax. Tom Arthur I thank Andy Wightman for that intervention, but I would be very keen to hear what the green proposition is. In nine minutes and 11 seconds of Mr Wightman moving the motion and an intervention, he still has not outlined to the chamber what his proposition is. The reality is that, simply stating that, he wants to scrap the council tax. Let me say that Mr Wightman very eloquently and convincingly outlined all of the flaws of the council tax system and all of the errors with it and the unfairness. I do not contest that. However, I do not think that it would be correct to simply move it and say that we should abandon the council tax without something to replace it. Mike Rumbles Would it not concentrate the minds of the Government if we were able to set a date in the future for the abolition of the council tax? Wouldn't that concentrate minds? Tom Arthur I think that setting an artificial deadline in that case could lead to bad reform rather than correct reform. The reality is that there is consensus across the chamber that the council tax is not the most ideal form of local taxation, but rather than a cross-party implementation group, a cross-party discussion group. We can all be in situations, but the reality is that, if someone is in employment and they feel their job is unfair and decide to indulge in the moment and walk out of their job and hand in their notice, it might feel good at the time. After that, I apologise, I have taken two already, Miss Bailey, otherwise I would have been short for time, but if one just goes and leaves one's job and does not have another job to go to, one is going to face the consequences. The reality is that there is clearly a desire among the progressive parties in the chamber to discuss how we can make local taxation fairer, but setting artificial deadlines, as Mr Rumble suggests, or just scrapping it with a single idea about what we would want to be placed with, would be a full, hardy measure. What I would suggest is that we begin a process of discussions, but in terms of my ideas, we should start with some basic principles. The cabinet secretary made reference to the consultation document in Income Tax, that outlines some key tests. Maintain and promote levels of public services, lowest earners should not see rises, any change should make the system more progressive and changes should support the economy. Indeed, they could be buttressed further with the Adam Smith principles outlined in the consultation document of certainty, convenience, efficiency and proportionality, and also a strong approach to make sure that there is no tax avoidance because, as Murdo Fraser highlighted, a property tax, in a previous debate, is a very important tax in the regard that it is, very difficult to avoid paying council taxes that could potentially be with some other taxes such as a local income tax. I think that the broader thrust of where the Greens are going with this and where I am sympathetic is the need to have a taxation system that addresses wealth, and I do agree with that. However, I think that within the limited suite of powers that we have within this Parliament, for example, we do not have income tax power oversavings and dividends, we do not have co-operation tax. I think that there is a need for a much more broader suite of tax powers to implement the sort of taxes on wealth and those more progressive reforms that the Greens would like to see. There is much more that I would say on this, Presiding Officer, but I realise that the time is against me. Thank you very much. I call Tom Mason, Mr Mason, in three minutes, please. Thank you. I remind colleagues that I am an Aberdeen city council still. I have looked forward to this debate to make the case for a fairer funding for councils after the Government cuts. Because of the increasing block grant, council funding is down in real terms. It is unacceptable and has taken our public debate in the wrong direction. For all the talk of new solutions today, there has not been a discussion about the mechanisms that we use to tax people. It has been a discussion about how to tax people more. Benjamin Franklin said in 1789 that there remains two certainties, death and taxes. If we must have tax, we must choose them very wisely. I view tax in three criteria—fairness, effectiveness and fitness for purpose. On fairness, ideally, tax is set at a level's thinness being levered equitability. When taxes are apportioned without equity, the result is discord. They also need to be transparent. On efficiency rates that are cheap to collect and provide optimum taxation levels are the only sensible costs. It is not financially neutral to take from customers and consumers and give to the beneficiaries. There is an economic impact. That is why it is important to consider side effects of those decisions and to consider economic growth that is stagnating under the SNP. On fitness for purpose, taxes exist to raise money for public services. Not to re-orders to start in a grand alternative universe that Greens would prefer. In the real world, it is not appropriate to have one increased tax upon another. Local taxation is a key element of this overall tax burden. Whilst income tax rises discourage people from working here in Scotland, local tax rises punish them for living here. Whilst Mr Mackayne will claim that it has nothing to do with him, his decision to continue underfunding local government forced every council to increase tax. The member is actually in his final minute. I am sorry, Mr Mason. If you do it, you will still have to conclude. I hope very quickly that today his colleagues in the UK Government increased local taxation by 5.1 per cent in England. Does he share my hope that many people from England will come and relocate to Scotland, the lowest tax part of the UK? Tom Mason? Very unlikely. We know that every single occupancy household will face a high overall tax burden in 2018-19 than in 2017-18. A 3 per cent rise in the cheapest band A more than affects the maximum income tax reduction of £38 a week. In the written answer, Mr Mackayne said that he kept council taxes at 3 per cent to, I quote, protect the household income. We know that green proposals go well beyond 3 per cent, so when the SNP craves to pass its next budget, it will, by definition, not be protecting household incomes. Scotland deserves better. It deserves a government that prioritises the high growth, low tax economy, boosting wages and creating jobs. There you must conclude, Mr Mason. There you must conclude. Please sit down. I call on Willie Rennie to close the Liberal Democrats for minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not know what has happened to Mike Rumbles. This afternoon, he agreed with Humza Yousaf on two separate occasions, and now he has been cheered on by Patrick Harvie. I think that there must be something wrong with Mike Rumbles this afternoon. Yes, he won't be sacked, honest to the Murdo Fraser. We have heard this afternoon from Murdo Fraser and James Kelly, in fact, that the SNP has been on a journey with the council tax. There used to be a time that they would take every single opportunity to condemn it. Alex Salmond called it unfair and insisted that he would scrap it. Then he didn't. Nicola Sturgeon said that she hated it, quite strong. She hated it. She went on to criticise any suggestion that it should be tinkered with, then she did. Now the SNP seems to be the staunchest defenders of it. When they secured the support of the Greens and the Labour Party for their arbitrary increases to the council tax, I argued that it would not be the first steps towards further reforms, but the last steps. I think that now, what we have heard from the minister this afternoon, is that we are going to have to get a consensus across the Parliament from the other parties before he will even consider taking it forward. Rather than being with us on the villainic consensus, he is going to be a bystander. His long grass amendment this afternoon confirms that. I have said that I will work with any party to find a parliamentary majority, so it is not the case that I will be a bystander. I clearly have a role as finance secretary, but to ask us to vote for a proposition to abolish a form of taxation without any idea of what replaces it is simply irresponsible. That is a positive step forward, because that is not what the position from the Government was before. If they are prepared to take part in a constructive engagement about the replacement of the council tax, I think that that is a welcome development from the minister, because the previous position was that they had delivered their manifesto commitment and they had no obligation to do anything else at all. I think that that is a welcome change. I also commend the Greens for trying again after they were convinced to back the Government last time. Andy Wightman used to make the case that the Government's last set of council tax changes violated international law—not an argument that I heard him make this afternoon. He cited article 4, article 9, article 9.3 of the European Charter of Local Government. He made a convincing case that the Government's council tax proposals were illegal before voting for those very same proposals. However, I do hope and I do wish them well in changing the Government's mind this time. They seem to be pretty determined to make sure that they will not vote for the budget unless there are changes, and we will be with them on that, too. We favour the ending of the council tax. We think that it is unfair. A land value tax is our alternative, as it would levy a charge based on the real economic value of the land rather than just on the property of that land. It would be reflective of how well that land is serviced and what value it could deliver for the benefit of wider society. It is a strong set of lobbyists and enthusiasts who believe that this could be the best. We have not just raised the revenue but shaping the way that our society and economy works in a fair and just way. However, if we are to deliver change, it must be changed that enhances local democracy. I was disappointed with the minister's comments earlier on in favour of capping, because I think that that undermines local democracy. The new local government tax must be a truly local tax set locally. That means leaving it to local authorities to set the rate that is right for them. It must be a step towards allowing councils to raise the majority of the money that we spend. That is our proposal and that is what we enter into this debate in a genuine and optimistic way. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. I call on Jackie Baillie to close with Labour for four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me also take you back to 2007. In the SNP manifesto they said, and I quote, local taxes can be fairer, the SNP will scrap the council tax and introduce a fairer system based on ability to pay. No, you didn't take an intervention from me, I'm not taking one from you. That was, of course, the first of many broken promises to follow. The 2011 SNP manifesto promised to replace the council tax. That went well, didn't it? Roll forward to 2016 and the promise to scrap the council tax had all but disappeared. Our history is littered with quotes from John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon. Remember the discredited council tax or the unfair regressive council tax? No, you refused to as well. Or my personal favourite, Labour's hated council tax is totally unfair. Perhaps you should sit and listen to this, so I'll repeat it. This is my personal favourite, Labour's hated council tax is totally unfair and any tinkering with bans would not make the system any fairer. Nicola Sturgeon, April 2007, what a delicious irony. Here are the SNP simply tinkering with the bans, keeping a hated and unfair council tax exactly what the SNP said they were against. The council tax is regressive, the very poorest shoulder proportionately the larger burden. A decade on and the SNP have not scrapped it, but we can. I must have done something wrong in a previous life as I served on the commission for local taxation together with Andy Wightman. Let me say to Murdo Fraser that the Tories refuse to participate, so asking parties about what they propose is just a tad cheeky even for you. Let me say as well that we heard from experts, we heard from communities, we heard from professionals and elected members, there was data, there was modelling, everything that you needed to know about local government finance and the options available to us were in the commission's report. 19 recommendations, the very first of which was, and I quote, the present council tax system must end. Seven words, the shortest recommendation, but the most powerful, and the SNP can't bring themselves to implement the unanimous view of the commission by scrapping the council tax. A word to all those SNP members, including the cabinet secretary. The commission was chaired by a Scottish Government minister, there was Labour representation, Liberal Democrat representation, the Greens and of course the SNP, they all agreed, they all agreed. Now, guess what, that makes a majority in this chamber. Are you saying that the SNP minister that was the chair got it entirely wrong? Is that the case? Because I think that that is really, no I'm not taking an intervention. Members in her last minutes, sit down please. Presiding Officer, there is a clear majority to replace the council tax, but let me also, in a 90 page report of which there were several other volumes of evidence, remind the cabinet secretary that it said that this report serves to inform the design of alternatives. That's what the green motion is about. Let's have that discussion, let's move it forward, we welcome the Greens motion, we will be supporting it, we have sympathy with the principle behind the Tory amendment, but they have clearly done a deal with the SNP to remove most of the green motion and stifle progress, and for that reason we cannot support it. The SNP has a choice, a choice to reform local government funding, a choice to make it fairer for the people of Scotland, but I regret that they appear to be far too timid to even do so. Thank you very much, I call Alexander Stewart to close the Conservatives, three minutes. The Greens say today's debate is about fairness, nothing could be further from the truth. The Greens want to scrap the council tax, but that would mean hiking taxes for a hard-working family. That would mean penalising aspiration, as Murdo Fraser has already said, that they have no alternative and they have no idea. Bill Bowman talks about the tax being not perfect, many people would support that. Over the past few months it has become increasingly clear that the SNP, the Greens Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to increase taxation. It is only the Scottish Conservatives who have the confidence to challenge this cosy consensus, but it is a fact that we should at this time not be thinking about dealing with hiking any taxes. Last year, the UK growth was 1.7 per cent of the Scottish economy forecast, and even with that 0.7 per cent the OECD has forecast that Scotland will have the lowest economic growth rate in the developed world for the next three years. Why would you want to put taxes up during that time space? There is no doubt that there is an opportunity to take place to debate about local taxation, and it is clear that, although there is a strong public awareness of the council tax, there is absolutely no doubt that there are flaws in the system, going back to 1991. At present, however, there is little public appetite to reform the council tax itself. That is perhaps why the SNP has failed to deliver on their promises in their manifesto and having been in government for the last 11 years. No, time is very tight. There are nevertheless many ways that we could deal with trying to support the taxation from councils. We in the Scottish Conservatives support widening the range of taxes that local authorities can use. For example, there are strong cases for allowing councils to keep all their business rates in income and to deal with that and ensure that there are incentives throughout the location to inform and support. In conclusion, we on the Scottish Conservatives believe in empowering our local communities by devolving new financial powers to our councils to improve accountability and to drive growth locally. Today's call from the Greens for reform of local taxation is less about however, and it is more about trying to get tax rises through the back door. I therefore are very happy to support the agenda that the Scottish Government's amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser, and we would encourage all those across the chamber who believe in supporting hard-working families to do likewise, because by doing that we may get a fairer system. Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. I call on Derek Mackay to close the Government Cabinet Secretary five minutes please. I will need to check the official report, but Alexander Stewart referred to introducing new local taxes. I am genuinely interested in what the Tory secret plan for those new local taxes is. I am genuinely interested, because I think that every party has suggested that there is potential in local discretion in this area. There is a bit of consensus from every single party in the chamber, which is why I am not walking away, Willie Rennie. I do believe that we can find consensus. I just spend a moment—sorry, Presiding Officer—I miss how much time I have got. I am sure that it will be very generous—five minutes. I would be very interested in that. However, as well as the parliamentary party in here, I think that this is a serious point. Yes, there was a commission on taxation, but it is subsequent to that. There has also been parliamentary elections, and arguably even more important local government elections. I think that it would be fair, at the very least, to engage with COSLA on what it thinks about local taxation going forward, because elections are indeed important. The Tories have asked what are we doing and are we delivering on our promises. I was elected in the 2016 Scottish Parliament manifesto that set out what we would do in council tax, and that is exactly what we have done in terms of our proposition. All my colleagues in the SNP are in the same position in that regard, but I recognise that we are in the Parliament of minorities and need to reach a consensus with others. My door remains open to discuss that, but I think that it is unreasonable to set out to say that we will scrap the council tax without an alternative. We need to test many of the issues in relation to local taxation. I suppose that the Scotland team being in Australia at the moment, the Commonwealth Games team, will be proud of the Parliamentarians in terms of the policy somersaults that have gone on. If we want to date back to 2007, where was every other political party's position in relation to local taxation at that point? We committed to consult in 2011. We committed in 2016 to reforms that were delivered, which put in an extra half a billion pounds to Scotland's public services. It is significant to say, just for a moment, that local government has had a very fair settlement from the Scottish Government. Yes, in part, because of the constructive approach from the Greens, and I acknowledge and accept that. In terms of the Tories, it was almost laughable. I understand the position of the pragmatic, but it is in Tory-run England that council tax rises are above 5 per cent, so it does seem a bit rich to criticise the Scottish Government. Of course, it is making England the highest tax part of the United Kingdom, opposing rate capping, despite it being in the Tory manifesto and trying to take credit for the changes to the multipliers that the Tories voted against when push came to shove. We will take forward a tax debate, because it is really important that local government has continuity of funding, security of funding to deliver for public services across Scotland. Local authorities have that degree of discretion in which we have said that we will look further at. Do not dismiss at the serious governance review that we are undertaking in partnership with local government cosla, the work around land value tax, the work around further local discretion, the work around further local and community empowerment, and the commitment that I have given previously, and I restate around ensuring that we could deliver a more progressive system. That is essentially the offer that I have made to the opposition political parties, but in a reasonable, fair, evidence-based and pragmatic way. That is a reasonable and fair approach that gives certainty to local authorities in planning out their resources, but also acknowledging the difficulties in any alternative to look at what further refinement we can make. It is a serious proposition that we are putting forward to engage with the other parties over a period of time, but in a fashion that can strike consensus, recognising that we have to find a balance. Of course, we will respect Parliament and the Parliament's position in that regard. In terms of on-going financial outlook for local government, I will continue to work in partnership with them to give them the best possible settlement that we can to look at how we can empower them to make more decisions at a more local level. That is all the more reason to engage in the reviews that are under way, not to walk away from them. It is in that spirit of consensus and positivity on our constructive approach to ensure that, if we refine the system further, we can do it in a fashion that commands confidence, I believe, in the way that we did around the engagement and income tax. You must conclude, cabinet secretary. We have delivered on our manifesto commitment, and we will keep on. I call Patrick Harvie to close with the Greens until 5 o'clock. I thank the members who have taken part in the debate, but I must begin by expressing my frustration that, nearly 20 years after devolution began, we are still trying to break the log jam. Every aspect of local taxation for local services of any form that we wish has been within the devolved competence of this Parliament from day one. Nobody, I am pleased to say, has really been in this debate defending the council tax on its own merits. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. If, for example, there was to be a local income tax administered, does he believe that that should include savings and dividends, which we do not have the power for in this Parliament? We do not have the power on that, and I do not support a local income tax. I will come on to that later. Nobody here has been really defending council tax on its own terms, and that is understandable because it is a fundamentally broken system, still regressive after the most recent tweaks, 25 years plus out of date, and in which most households, most properties are in the wrong band. How absurd to continue with a system of taxation where we know that most people are paying the wrong amount. I welcome the case that has been made by a number of members, James Kelly and others, that the long-standing argument needs to be addressed, but there is a need for wider reform of local council services and new fiscal powers, the flexibility that that could offer. There needs to be that wider reform, and it needs to include asset wealth in the form of property as part of the tax base. There seems to be a consensus still on that, and the argument there is one bizarrely, where I agree with Moro Fraser. Absolutely, property wealth needs to be part of that. In relation to the earlier arguments on local income tax, I was never convinced that that was the right option, but clearly, even its advocates must see that in the context now of devolved power on national income taxes, the case for an additional local income tax is messier and less necessary. There have been some unwelcome comments that I need to draw attention to. The idea that we are pretending that there is no alternative. The green proposal is not a prop, but merely a document to refer to that we published over two years ago. Other parties have their own proposals as well. We know that consensus needs to be built. We are not insisting in this debate that other parties just adopt our policies wholesale. We are only recommending that we endorse recommendation 1 of the commission report that council tax has to go and then begin to build the consensus. Derek Mackay claims that he has addressed the unfairness of the council tax, and he cites the resolution foundation, but they have been very clear that the SNP's tax increase would raise revenue in a progressive manner. They have not said that the resultant tax, as amended, is a progressive tax. Of course, it absolutely is not. I will give way one more time. Would Patrick Harvie agree with me that if the Scottish Government set a date years in advance for the abolition of the council tax, it would concentrate the man's and we would get to achieve something? Patrick Harvie said absolutely. We seek an implementation group. If the Government wants to call it something else, fine, call it something else, but it needs to be about cracking on with the job and making progress. That would begin to see the prospect of legislation during this term of the Parliament. We have suggested a five-year transition period to any new system, so we are talking about a long-term argument here, but you do not make progress on a long-term argument unless you take the first steps. The idea that there is no majority for a specific replacement is, for one reason only, because we have tolerated an unjust status quo for so long. That is our collective failure over years as a Parliament across the political spectrum. However, it now seems during this debate that there is a measure of consensus emerging. There have been comments from Greens, Labour, Llydd Dems and some in the SNP, and I know that there are some even in the Tories, for example, who have made the case for a broader range of tax measures at local level and some who support the case for a land value tax, who do not echo the nonsensical rhetoric of a garden tax, as if Murdo Fraser actually imagines that gardens are not already counted in the valuation of properties as they stand. The problem is that they are counted in a valuation scheme that is out of date broken and in which most households are in the wrong band. Presiding Officer, there is a great deal more that I would like to say. I hope that we have many more chances to progress this debate further because it needs to be progressed. I believe that the range of options is out there. The argument that we have addressed the fundamental unfairness of the council tax is spurious, and we need to crack on and get this job done. People in Scotland have been voting for political parties saying that they want to scrap the council tax for donkeys' years. Let's all now commit. There is a measure of consensus that we can reach, and if we agree that we are going to pass legislation during this Parliament, we will have done something that is not only economically sensible but socially just as well. I commend the motion in Andy Wightman's name. Andy Wightman Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on scrap the council tax. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1139, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who objects, who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 1139. Andy Wightman Formally moved. Andy Wightman Thank you very much. I know when I was asked to speak against the motion. The question, therefore, is that motion 1139 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I could ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Bureau to move motion 11340 on approval of an SSI and motion 11341 on designation of a lead committee. Andy Wightman Move together. Andy Wightman Thank you very much. Now we turn now to decision time, and there are 10 questions this evening. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Humza Yousaf is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Jamie Greene and Colin Smith would fall. The first question is the amendment 1289.2 in the name of Hansa Yousaf, which seeks to amend motion 11289 in the name of John Finnie on better buses be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. Andy Wightman We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1289.2 in the name of Hansa Yousaf is yes, 63, no, 51. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. So, two of the amendments are pre-empted, and the next question is that motion 1289 in the name of John Finnie, as amended, on better buses be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. Andy Wightman Is there a no there? Members are not agreed. Andy Wightman No. There was a no there, yes. In that case, we shall move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1289 in the name of John Finnie, as amended, is yes, 109, no, zero. There were five abstentions. The motion, as amended, is, therefore, agreed. The next question is that amendment 1290.2.1 in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend amendment 1290.2 in the name of Derek Mackay, on scrap the kinds of tax be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1290.2.1 in the name of Murdo Fraser, is yes, 28, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 1290.2 in the name of Derek Mackay, which seeks to amend motion 1290 in the name of Andy Wightman, on scrap the counts of tax be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11290.2 in the name of Derek Mackay is yes, 86, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 1290.1 in the name of James Kelly, which seeks to amend motion 1290.2 in the name of Andy Wightman, on scrap the counts of tax be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of James Kelly is yes, 23, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 1290 in the name of Andy Wightman, as amended, on scrap the counts of tax be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1290 in the name of Andy Wightman, as amended, is yes, 86, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 11340 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We are. And the final question is that motion 11341 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on designation of a lead committee be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members are not agreed. We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move now to members' business, the name of Graham Day on Earth Hour. And we'll just take a few moments for members and ministers to take their seats or to change seats. Thank you.