 The First Minister for Business is on item 182, the name of Nicola Sturgeon on the childcare inquiry. Members, I wish to take part in the statement, but it should press the request but now. I call the First Minister to speak to and move the motion. I want to begin my remarks today with a reminder of the gravity of the subject that ymlaen. The US-ledd a UK-backed invasion of Iraq in 2003 began with a strategy that, at the time, was dubbed shock and awe. That was perhaps a far more apt description than it was ever intended to be. For the facts of the Iraq war are indeed shocking and they are awful. The constant human terms has been stark, it has been brutal and it has been heartbreaking. It is estimated that the invasion and the subsequent conflict has cost the lives of around 150,000 Iraqi civilians. The impact on Iraq's infrastructure and economy has been quite devastating. At the height of the invasion, the number of UK forces involved peaked at 46,000. In addition to the many who suffered life-changing injuries, 179 UK military personnel died, 136 of those from hostile action. Each one of those is, of course, an individual tragedy. Last year, the Royal United Services Institute estimated that the cost of UK military operations in Iraq was around £9.6 billion. However, the true cost of any war is incalculable, most especially to those who have been directly affected. The numbers alone do not even begin to describe the full horror and the true human suffering of the war and its aftermath. Of course, any war will often result in a loss of life and suffering on a scale that we all struggle to imagine. However, at the heart of the controversy about Iraq is the fact that the UK was taken to war there on a false pretext. Despite what people were told, there were no weapons of mass destruction discovered. Despite the best efforts of those who took us to war to claim that that war was legitimate, the legal basis of the invasion was, at best, very shaky and at worst, a gross violation of international law. Those who served in Iraq and all those who lost loved ones in the conflict, I think and I hope that we will all agree with this, are rightfully owed and should be given answers to the questions that they have. Should the general public be given those answers, because the general public, of course, in their millions voiced opposition to the war. The Chilcot inquiry was established almost six years ago. At the time of its establishment, we were told that it would provide those answers. In launching the inquiry back in 2009, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this. The inquiry is essential because it will ensure that, by learning lessons, we strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military. Yet, here we are, nearly six years on, and there have still been no answers. I understand—I am sure that we all understand—that it is vital for there to be a thorough examination of all the evidence. However, the inquiry has been plagued by delays from the outset, not least and, most recently, by the so-called Maxwellisation process, whereby those subject to potential criticism are given the opportunity of pre-publication scrutiny of the report and its findings. The Chilcot inquiry's public evidence sessions, and I think that it is important to stress this point. The public evidence sessions were completed almost four years ago. The public evidence sessions were completed on 2 February 2011. It is also worth reflecting and reminding ourselves what Sir John Chilcot said at that point. He said then that it would take, and I quote, some months to deliver his report. Sometime after that, it was clarified that it would take until at least summer 2012, but there was an expectation that publication in summer 2012 is what the public could expect. In 2012, the UK Government prevented the release of details of cabinet minutes and details of discussions between Tony Blair and George Bush from the period before the war. That same year, Sir John told the UK Government that he would not even begin the Maxwellisation process until the middle of 2013. In October last year, the UK Government revealed that that process had still to begin. Most recently, last week, we learned that, in Sir John Chilcot's words, Maxwellisation has not been completed and there is, quote, no realistic prospect of delivering the report before the general election in May. I think that that is scandalous. I think that that is completely unacceptable. The view that the Scottish Government takes on this matter could not be clearer and, for the record, I just want to make it absolutely clear today. The on-going delay in publishing the inquiry report is completely unjustifiable and it should be revisited as a matter of urgency. For as long as that report remains hidden from public view, the suspicion will remain and the suspicion will grow that it is being kept secret because of behind-the-scenes wranglings about its contents. A suspicion that is only fuelled can only be fuelled by the extended delay until after the looming Westminster election. The fact that the report might make deeply uncomfortable reading for some of those involved in the Iraq war cannot be allowed to prolong the delay to publication any further. I think that it would be quite simply unacceptable for the voters of this country to be asked to vote in a general election to vote for or perhaps not to vote for candidates who were MPs at the time of the decision to go into war in Iraq, some of them who will have voted for the war in Iraq. I think that it is unacceptable that the public do not have the answers to the questions they have before they are asked to cast their votes. We were told back in 2003 by the proponents of war that the invasion of Iraq was needed to make us safer. Such was the threat from weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly could be launched at 45 minutes notice. Nobody could today seriously or honestly claim that the Iraq war has made that country itself the wider Middle East region or the world as a whole a safer place. The war's legacy has instead been to usher in a decade and more of bitter and bloody sectarian conflict, including the rise of Islamic State militants as a destabilising force in Iraq and neighbouring countries. In just seven weeks' time, we will mark the 12th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. 12 years ago, this Parliament was still a very young institution. Even then, I think that this Parliament rose to the challenge of debating the Iraq situation. We did so just seven days before the invasion commenced. I was proud along with many others who are in this chamber today to be among those who recorded our opposition to the war when the issue was put to the vote that day. The invasion of Iraq was, I believe, a foreign policy blunder of quite epic proportions, at the consequences of which we are living with today and which we will live with for many years to come. Here is the nub of the matter. We must get to know whether there was more than mere miscalculation involved in that foreign policy and, quite simply, only the full and immediate publication of the Chilcock findings can help to shed light on that. Those responsible for leading the UK to war will have to answer for their actions, but only the full publication of the report will allow them to do that. With every year that passes, the justifications given for the war look ever more flimsy, but with every day, week and month that passes now, the delay in publishing the Chilcock report becomes ever more glaring and the need for full disclosure becomes unanswerable. I therefore hope today that this chamber will come together and, with one voice, demand loudly and clearly that the report and the findings of the Chilcock inquiry are published and published before the general election in May. In closing today, I think that it is also important for this chamber to note the enormous and sometimes the ultimate sacrifices that our armed forces give. Whatever the rights and wrongs of individual conflicts, our service personnel and their families deserve and they have our full and unwavering support. In this instance, that support must include providing those who returned from Iraq and the families of those who did not return from Iraq with the answers that they deserve, and we must do so without any further delay. For those reasons, I am proud to move that motion in my name. I now call on Alex Ferguson to speak to and move amendment 12182.1, around seven minutes, Mr Ferguson. I do not believe for a minute that the date of publication of the Chilcock inquiry's report is currently amongst the top 10 concerns of the Scottish people, but I do believe strongly that it is hugely important that we are all given an opportunity at the earliest possible moment to find out what happened and why during the build-up to and conduct of the Iraq war so that we can learn the relevant and necessary lessons. It is quite clear that the inquiry is incredibly thorough and detailed, as the First Minister alluded to. Indeed, Sir John Chilcock said himself in his letter to the Prime Minister on 20 January that the report will be, and I quote, based on a thorough and comprehensive account of the relevant events from 2001 to 2009. He went on, we are determined to fulfil the responsibility placed on us to identify lessons to be learned from the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken over this long period. So let me begin by saying that I very much welcome the thorough and comprehensive nature of Sir John's inquiry. That is absolutely as it should be. But while I share the disappointment that it will not be published sooner than will be the case, it is imperative that I believe that the process is completed properly for two reasons. Firstly, that the British public is fully informed. And secondly, so that the report is published without fear of it being challenged on the grounds that the due processes have not been properly undertaken. And I would like to expand a little on that. It does seem to me, Presiding Officer, that two of these due and necessary processes are what is causing much of the delay that is so frustrating us all. The first of these is the declassification of documents that will not normally see the light of day for many a long year, but which are understandably deemed to be important to this inquiry. In particular, discussions over correspondence between Tony Blair and US President George Bush seem to have taken up an inordinate amount of time. But I note with some pleasure that Sir John Kilker indicated that in his most recent letter to the Prime Minister that the agreement had now been reached on these matters. The second process is the one again referred to by the First Minister that has become known as Maxwellisation. Now, this is a process that gives any individual whose involvement has been criticised or questioned in a draft report site of it under right to respond before publication. Now, while I fully understand that this process has not been responsible for most of the delay, it is on-going, and I am clear that the published report could be challenged by anyone who had not been afforded that right. Now, this might be highly unsatisfactory, it is highly unsatisfactory to those of us who are impatient for publication, but it is part of the due process that has to be undertaken and one that cannot and should not be controlled or indeed timed by any Government. What we cannot escape in all of this is that the report could have been published some considerable time ago. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday in the House of Commons, he first voted for an inquiry in 2006, but it was rejected by the then Labour Government. Indeed, Labour MPs voted against it in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr Ferguson for giving way. We know the history of obstruction and delay in all of this. The thing that I am most concerned about is that this delay affects families who have faced the death of their loved ones in Iraq, including Alan Douglas, who is a young man who lived in the community that I live in. Do you think that this delay is acceptable to the Douglas family? I certainly do not. No, indeed, nor do I, but nor do I think that it does his family or anybody else who has been involved in this process to publish a report before the due processes have been fully completed and while it can be challenged. That does nobody any favours. As I was saying, Labour MPs voted against it in 2006, 2007 and 2008, thus delaying the process for at least three years. Labour voted against the inquiry, they voted against it being held in public and, as David Milliband, the former foreign secretary said, was big enough to admit in an interview in 2009 that Labour got it wrong. The final point that I want to make, Presiding Officer, and this rather addresses the intervention that has just been made, is that this is an independent inquiry. Like it or not, it is not for the Scottish Government or, indeed, for the UK Government to try to somehow strong arm the publication date of the report of an independent inquiry. If that were to happen, I have finished this point, if that were to happen, the value of the inquiry being independent would be hugely diminished and, I believe, a dangerous precedent would be set for future so-called independent inquiries. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 20 January, Sir John makes it clear that there is no realistic prospect of delivering his report before the general election in May. I may not particularly like that, I do not particularly like that, but I have to accept it if I want this inquiry and its report to be truly independent which I do. Closing, Presiding Officer, I do find the Government motion before us is somewhat confusing in that it calls first for publication of the report before the general election and then concludes by asking that the report be published as soon as possible. I am upset that the member seems to be thinking that this is simply about politicians. Kevin Stewart has raised the case of the Douglas family who live in the community that Kevin Stewart lives in, my constituency. They are calling for this report to come forward because they need answers about why their son died, as do other families. This is not just about politics, this is about people. Not for one minute have I suggested that it is not, and I rather reject that inference. People will be best served by a proper inquiry that has undertaken all the due processes that give it total legitimacy, and that is what we need. That it will be published as soon as possible is what Sir John has said that he will do, and that is what we will support on those benches. Can I just say that, in a reply to a written parliamentary question from Rhoda Grant on 25 November last year, on the delay in publication of the report of the Scottish Public Inquiry into Hepatitis C HIV, Maureen Watt replied as the newly appointed minister on 3 December, as the member is aware that the Penrose inquiry is independent of Scottish ministers and it is for the chairman, Lord Penrose, to decide on the process and timetabling of that report. If it is good enough for inquiries that are instituted by the Scottish Government, then surely that is the right process for Chilcot. In all honesty, Presiding Officer, I do not really understand why the Government has chosen to debate this today, other than for narrow political reasons. But as the amendment in my name reflects, I believe that independence of the process has to take precedence over any other factor. That is why we cannot support the Government's motion at decision time and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, and I will call on Kezia Dugdil. Almost done for around five minutes. Presiding Officer, Chilcot should be published as soon as possible. Today's motion could have been agreed while saving debating time in this chamber for matters that require our urgent attention, the crisis in our NHS, the failure of schools to tackle educational disadvantage, the threat to jobs in the North Sea. Because on this side of the chamber, you will find no quarrel that Chilcot should be published as quickly as is possible. Chilcot must be allowed to publish when ready. There should be no question of any pressure to delay. That the full truth of the decision to go to war and the failings during and after the conflict are fully aired so that they may be learned from and never repeated. In that, we recall, before my own time in this Parliament, that this chamber did not vote to oppose the war when it was put before it. However, what we will not support if we hear it today is talk of using the Chilcot inquiry as a political tactic. This is too important for that. The report is a matter of national importance, not of nationalist posturing. In the years since the Iraq war, many things have become clear that the intelligence behind the decision to go to war was wrong. No thank you, that the Iraqi people were let down by failure of post-war planning and that the price in lives lost was far too high. We have a duty to learn lessons because we owe that to our service personnel, not just those who have given their lives defending us but those who continue to do so every day. I do hope that, as well as debating the past, this Parliament and the Scottish Government can find more time to debate and deal with the many problems faced by veterans living in Scotland today. When Chilcot reports, we all hope for fresh insights and understanding, but I do hope, perhaps nileively, that, as with previous inquiries, those who are loudest calling for the report's publication are not also the first to claim that it is a whitewash. This report is an opportunity for a deeper understanding, not rerunning political arguments of a decade ago. No thank you. In a Middle East that is increasingly complex, we surely need that. It is clear across the Middle East that there is a thirst for democracy, but, as that has created hope, it has uncovered competing interests and, at times, dangerous conflict. We see a region where a sustainable peace between the Israeli and the Palestinian people seems as far off as ever. We see petro-economies struggling to meet the demands and fulfil the dreams of angry and young populations. We see confusing coalitions shifting and regional power struggles playing out at the expense of the poorest. A region that has already had too many displaced people now finds itself home to 3.8 million new refugees from Syria. Across the region and far beyond Iraq, in countries that had nothing to do with the conflict, we see extremists who abuse Islam killing innocent people in Syria, in northern Nigeria, from Pakistan to Paris. No thank you. Little wonder, world affairs commentators have a new acronym for the region, broken, angry and dysfunctional. What matters isn't what side of an argument you were on a decade ago. What matters is learning from the past and working for a more peaceful and secure future. No thank you, no thank you. Whatever side of the argument we were on 10 years ago, we should all unite around a vision for the Middle East with human rights, the rule of law, democracy and peace at its heart, and in that spirit we will vote with the Government tonight. Thank you. We now move to the open debate. Joe McAlpine, far by will or any speeches are four minutes long, but we do have some time in hand if interventions are taking. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The First Minister today reminded us of the words used by Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he launched the Chilcot inquiry, promising that it would help us to learn lessons that would strengthen our democracy. The delay in publication must surely undermine that original promise. The lesson offered by this scandalous delay is a harsh one, as the health of our democracy, as Mr Brown put it, really served by the impression of tiptoeing around powerful vested interests. In the run-up to the invasion, I was working as the Deputy Editor of the Herald newspaper, and the Herald at that time called for a UN resolution to be obtained before any invasion could even be contemplated. However, the paper also strived for a balance, giving its long reputation as a journal of record, and it reported the Government's case in Good Faith on its news pages. I remember the day on which the so-called Dodgy dossier was published by the UK Government, and the efforts made to present the story with the appropriate prominence and gravity and analysis. So, even at that time, even those who opposed the word did not know how far they were being misled. Parts of the media would, of course, have been gung-ho for the war, whatever the evidence, but other responsible titles were unwittingly pulled into the deception. Of course, that is before you consider the information that we never got to see at the time, information that we hope Shillcock will reveal. Shortly after the inquiry opened, it heard from one of the most devastating pieces of oral evidence from Fixer Christopher Mayer, the UK's ambassador to the US prior to the war. He stated that after a private meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in April 2002, Mr Blair's rhetoric began to reflect the idea of regime change. He also claimed that military preparations for war overrode the diplomatic process. That seemed to be confirmed by Tony Blair when he appeared before the inquiry the following year, and the tone of his evidence suggested that regime change was indeed what motivated him. Worringly, however, crucial evidence was withheld, as has already been mentioned, in particular the correspondence between Blair and Bush in the run-up to the war. That very special relationship was key to how events unraveled. Blair gave Bush credibility at home and abroad, and that a Labour Government would lend the camouflage of credibility to the neoconservative extremists around Bush, Beggar's belief. The inquiry was extensive, we know that, with the last witness giving evidence in 2011, but the extensive weight is completely unacceptable. In addition, many members of the public will be surprised to learn that we are apparently being made to wait to allow those criticised in the report to scrutinise it, make comments and demand changes. The practice referred to earlier as the Maxwellisation process. It was, of course, so named after the late Robert Maxwell, took a civil legal action against the Department of Trade and Industry when it found in an inquiry that he was not a fit and proper person to lead a public company, and it said so in his report. As subsequent events proved, the DTI was right. How ironic that Maxwell is now coming to the aid of Mr Blair, who many now believe was not a fit and proper person to lead a country. But the wider point, the one that we must address in the interests of the health of our democracy is this, how did he get away with it? What was it about the system of government in Westminster that allowed these calamitous decisions to be taken in secret? And in the spirit of the cross-party consensus, I would like to mention one piece of Chilcot evidence that many members of the cabinet, the Labour cabinet, were actually excluded from decision making, which is why I welcome the fact that Labour is supporting the Government's motion today. Chilcot must answer all those questions, and for truth's sake, voters must see it before passing judgment on the Westminster system and Westminster politicians, this May. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is yet another occasion on which the First Minister's party and mine have been united on the issue of Iraq. I'm sure that she was as disappointed as I was that this Scottish Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq, but I was proud that we stood together against majority because we knew it was right, standing together just like today. It's a shame that the delays that have characterised the Iraq inquiry were also not a characteristic of the decision to go to war in 2003. Greater deliberation may have avoided the tragedy that unfolded. Thousands of lives lost, many more maimed and a country still recovering today from those effects. I visited Amkazar, Bajra and Baghdad in 2007 and saw for myself the ramifications that were still being felt four years after the invasion. The fact that Iran had a great interest in Iraq, that balance between Iran and Iraq had been unsettled. Not a great relationship, but one that was secure and, nevertheless, before that. That kind of ramification was something that the Blair Government did not foresee and did not plan for. I subsequently visited Erbil in 2010 and was able to hear directly for myself from the Kurds about the ramifications for the northern part of Iraq, again unsettled, again not planned for. And we hear today regular reports about the Islamic State and some of the atrocities that they are inflicting upon minority populations and the rest of Iraq and Syria. So I could see for myself the folly of the invasion and the failure to plan for the aftermath that will have long lasting effects. In the comments, I voted on four separate occasions for an inquiry into Iraq. Four separate occasions over three years. On each of those four occasions, the Labour Government at the time rejected those pleas. We came up with a variety of different ways the inquiry could be conducted but on every single occasion it was rejected. They finally conceded at the fag end of the Labour Government when they could not resist the calls anymore. In a debate in Westminster Hall I led one of those calls for an inquiry and again that was rejected. I recall the arcane debate about whether the inquiry into the Dardanelles in the First World War was a precedent for an inquiry to be held while the country was still at war. It was claimed that it would be a distraction for the military when the enemy was still to be defeated. That was four years after George Booth. We all remember it on the aircraft carrier off the coast of the United States of America. He wasn't even in Iraq declaring that it was mission accomplished. That was four years before we were asking for an inquiry to be done. So this farce about the conflict still on going therefore the inquiry could not be held was literally a farce. And from the beginning the inquiry was considered an establishment stitch-up. And despite Sir John Chalkot's determination it is difficult to disagree. At first behind closed doors restricting access to records vetoing transcripts and more all compounding the delay that we're feeling the effects of today. The composition of the inquiry was supposed to expedite matters but the result has been an inquiry with insufficient authority. Has there been one single person who has held up matters? Probably not. But the establishment the system the culture has contrived so that six years later we still have no answers to show. So it is right. I think it is absolutely right that this Parliament speaks up to add weight to the growing chorus and a chorus that says quite clearly quite simply publish and publish without delay. It may be that the lessons we learn are that we need to invest more in our diplomatic networks. It may be that we learn more about the complex and uncomfortable choices that government have to make about international matters. And whilst I would never advocate an isolationist foreign policy it may be that we learn on which occasions it may be best to sit it out. I hope it is the case I hope I really hope it is the case that those who made the decision are held accountable for their actions. Whatever the conclusion we must learn the lessons before the war is a distant memory. In 2007 I attended the funeral of Black Watch Private Scott Kennedy from Oakley who died from a roadside bomb in Iraq. For Private Kennedy and for the people that Kevin Stewart talks about the thousands of others who lost their lives in Iraq and beyond we must learn and learn soon. Thank you very much. Now calling Christina McKelvie to be followed by Neil Bibby. Thank you very much Presiding Officer the most important keyword in this whole debate is transparency. And why is that? Because there isn't any. The Westminster establishment has abandoned even any semblance of transparency about this inquiry. But what else could we expect? We have plenty of experience in Scotland, don't we? The lies so ingeniously spun by the no campaign, the lethal nuclear warheads that passed through our biggest population centre and the depth of night, the cover-up in the 70s and private memos revealing huge amounts of oil and the North Sea where they are not shared with Scotland, rendition flights, treatment of asylum seekers, refusal to allow our ministers to speak in Europe and when the UK ministers even absence, I could go on and on. When this Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, that transparency was a crucial promise to the sovereign people of this country and it remains the keystone of all that we do in this place. This Government at least will not deceive, will not dissemble and will not lie. All of us are the elected representative of all of our constituents and we absolutely owe them that integrity and honesty and everything that we do. If there are members who have not here who have not lived up to that demand, then I asked them to examine their own conscience and to deliver only the truth. Since the Chilcot inquiry was set up in 2009, expected to publish in 2012, it has cost over £9 million to date, the output zero. Some facts have come out not because of the Chilcot inquiry but despite it. We know that 27 lawyers warned Tony Blair that the warrant was illegal and that he knew this at least two months before the invasion. UN representatives have made it absolutely clear that there was never a prospect of a majority of members voting in favour of a second resolution. We know that abuse of attacks on President Shearac for his caution were deliberately played up. President Shearac himself described it as Soviet-style misinformation. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, the ultimate judge and a Labour loyalist miraculously changed his mind from illegal to legal, presumably under pressure from George Bush after spending a day in talks in Washington. All of that will have been grist to John Kilg, Jill Cot's grinding mill, but he himself did not expect the mill to grind on for so long. So why are we tolerating this absurd delay? Yes, there has been a great deal of work by the inquiry team and it is abundantly clear that the ready access and co-operation to the corridors of Whitehall promised by Gordon Brown has not been forthcoming. Still it is nearly 12 years since the invasion took place. There is a limit to the public's patience and that of the families who have lost loved ones in this illegal and immoral war. People who I have stood with in George Square and silent remembrance with the family of Rose Gentle, her and her daughters, people like that. People mentioned by Kevin Stewart today. People mentioned by Willie Rennie today. It would be too convenient for Tony Blair and several other key figures to keep quiet. Mr Blair never wanted the inquiry anyway. It is convenient to leave a lingering impression that is all John Chilcot's fault for taking so long. Convenience serves David Cameron's case well too as he moves to the general election. John Chilcot's report has long passed the stage of acceptable delays and thoroughness of the final product. Lord Hurd even said this is becoming a scandal. Our own First Minister has described the notion of going into a general election without the report being published in full as intolerable. Like many people, including the families, I want and I want to know that this report is being so conspicuously withheld apparently by nameless Whitehall mandarins. Chilcot was foolish enough to sign what amounts to a non-disclosure agreement so that he cannot publish without government approval. So much for his independence then. I would like to ask him, well, what would happen if you just go ahead? Sir John, what would they do? I suggest you do. Can you be condemned for telling the truth and being transparent about what we have all of the right to know? I just won't do, Presiding Officer. We demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we demand it now. Not for us but for the families affected. Not after the general election but now. Is that too much to ask for? Yes, almost certainly, it seems to be when it comes to getting transparency from the Westminster establishment, but we will fight for it relentlessly and I believe that our purpose is sound. Thank you very much. Now Colin Neil Bibby to be followed by Jim Eadie. Thank you Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to what I know is the first government business debate that Nicola Sturgeon has brought forward as First Minister. Kezia Dugdale has said that we could have spent this afternoon debating other issues, such as the health service, but Nicola Sturgeon has chosen to prioritise a debate on the yet-to-be-published chill-cut inquiry and she is, of course, entitled to do that. Presiding Officer, the chill-cut inquiry was set up because it is vital that we learn lessons of a rack and I agree with the others who have said this afternoon that the inquiry should report as soon as practically possible. In 2003 I was a student at Glasgow University and like many others I didn't support military action in a rack and indeed marched against it. I had deep reservations about military action but, in spite of those and what has happened since, I do believe that these were extremely difficult decisions that were made in good faith and with good intentions. As we know, both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament did not vote against military action. Although I think that they were wrong, I criticise nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and I believe that it is important to place on record our gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces who fought and died there. Because irrespective of individual opinions on whether the invasion of a rack was right or wrong, those are the people who do not have the luxury of debating the legal or moral case for military action and for the families of the service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice in a rack. The chillcott inquiry will have added significance. Presiding Officer, the reality is had we known in 2003 what we know now, the invasion of a rack would very likely not have happened. Our members are right when they say we must learn lessons from those mistakes. That is why Gordon Brown and the Labour Government initiated the chillcott inquiry in 2009 and inquiry that was initiated after combat troops were drew from a rack. It is also why we think that the report should be published as soon as practically possible. But I am sure that we would all hope that some lessons have already been learned and I do believe that that is the case. A number of senior figures have expressed regret at the decision to take action. Alex Ferguson mentioned David Miliband but not just in the UK, in the United States. The former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, last year omitted that she said she got it wrong, plain and simple, in voting for the invasion of a rack. We know that the chillcott inquiry is an important piece of work and has a real public interest in its findings, but what must not be forgotten amongst these discussions is the continued need to support the people of a rack. The refugee agency UNHCR says that there are about 3.1 million internally displaced people in a rack, including 1 million people who were displaced between 2000 and 3 in 2013 and 2.1 million people who were displaced last year. Just this week, we have seen reports of thousands of Iraqis living in extreme poverty and running out of money altogether after fleeing fighting and settling in the south of the country. So it is a clear need for support from the international community and it is absolutely right that the UK Government continues to provide humanitarian aid. The people of Iraq cannot afford for the current needs to be lost in the discussion of these past mistakes. We know that the conflict continues to affect a number of countries, Sunni, Aishia and the Middle East, including Iraq. Those are, of course, not just challenges for the international community. Iraq's future is best served by an inclusive and united Government. Presiding Officer, the chillcott inquiry is undoubtedly an extremely important piece of work and I think across the chamber we are in agreement that it should be published as soon as possible. In the meantime, we must not forget the need to support the people of Iraq in their struggle with the challenges of 2015. Thank you very much. I now call on Jim Eadie to be followed by James Kelly. Presiding Officer, this debate does go to the heart of one of the greatest issues to have faced the United Kingdom in modern times. For there can be no graver decision in that of whether to go to war of whether to place our young men and women in harm's way. The purpose of the Iraq inquiry was to shine a light on all of the circumstances leading up to the Iraq invasion, to understand what lay behind the decisions that were taken to assign responsibility for the mistakes that were made, to hold those who made them to account and to learn the lessons for the future. The First Minister quoted the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who said that the inquiry is essential because it will ensure that by learning lessons we strengthen the health of our democracy our diplomacy and our military. Who today in this chamber or in the country can doubt that the UK's democracy, diplomacy and military have been damaged by the decisions that were taken? Who now doubts that the trust between the UK Government and the people has been broken and that that trust has yet to be restored? Who can deny that the UK's standing in the world has been diminished by the actions of its Government? Weapons of mass destruction were the basis on which the case for war was predicated. Tony Blair told the House of Commons weapons of mass the weapons of mass Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing and it is up and running now. That claim was not true. It was the United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix who referred to weapons of mass disappearance. He said it was like surgery intended to remove something malignant finding that the malignancy was not there. The dossier based on the findings of the joint intelligence committee contained a number of allegations none of which to this day have been proven or substantiated. Among those were the claims that Iraq had an on-going nuclear programme that WMD programmes were concealed and well-funded and that chemical and biological weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes. Those claims were echoed in the tabloids as they sensationalised the information and framed Iraq as a direct threat to the people of the United Kingdom. For example, the Sun's headline proclaimed Brits 45 minutes from doom. Yet it was major general Michael Lorry who said in his evidence to Chilcot we knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war rather than setting out the available intelligence which to quote his words was sparse and inconclusive. The motion in the name of the First Minister quite rightly makes reference to the human casualties of the war but it is now clear that a major casualty of the conflict was the truth itself. Many believe and this is a point that Joan McAlpine touched on earlier that Blair was intent on war in order to bring about regime change illegal under international law but something which he and the neoconservative administration in the White House wished to bring about indeed were determined to bring about. Clear shot to left the Blair Government over Iraq said that Blair's actions were an honourable deception but there are millions of people throughout our world who now believe them to have been a deliberate deception and a dishonourable one at that. Only the publication of Chilcot will allow us to know the truth of what actually took place. The Chilcot inquiry should publish its findings in the earliest course. The families of the fallen and the people of this country expect and deserve no less. I call on James Kelly to be followed by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to support the Government motion specifically the call for publication of the report as early as possible. However, I agree with the sentiments of some of the other speakers in the debate in that if you look at some of the issues facing us in Scotland the growing crisis and Scotland's accident emergencies the youth unemployment that blights so many of our communities and the college cuts that deny access for many to get into the courses that they want to enter I think the Government's time would be better used with those issues than using it in an exercise no thank you in an exercise to support the SNP's general election campaign. On the on the issue of the Iraq war itself all wars are controversial and there's no doubt that the war in Iraq was very controversial. As others have stated it was supported not only by the Scottish Parliament but also by the UK Parliament but some who voted in favour of that have since acknowledged that they regret the decision and indeed they feel it was a wrong decision. The reason there's been such controversy over Iraq was because of debate over the basis of the decision to go to war and whether that was a correct decision or not. Obviously, in addition to that you then have lives lost and substantial costs to the country. So from that point of view the Labour Government was correct to set up the Chilcot inquiry but it is important that that inquiry no no thank you it is important that that inquiry is independent that it does run through its due process. However, I do agree with the sentiments of those who express extreme frustration at the amount of time that the report no no thank you that the report that the report has taken to publish I think we need the report published as soon as possible and the reason for that is that those who lost loved ones in the conflict those military personnel who fought in the conflict and also who suffered suffered injury in the public and also the public because it's an issue of great public interest throughout the UK need answers not only on the decision to go to war but on how the conflict was actually waged so I think it's absolutely imperative that we get answers in publication no thank you we get publication of the report as soon as possible so in summing up Deputy Presiding Officer I do understand and support the sentiment of the Government motion but I think if you look at today in Parliament we've heard how because of cuts in mental health there's a reduction in the number of educational psychologists required no thank you we've heard about issues in appeals in appeals to appeals to examinations FMQs and we've also heard about the issue of the lack of access from people in deprived communities to Scotland's universities I think I think we don't do ourselves any purpose any service as a Parliament if we ignore these issues we need to in the run-in to the general election it's absolutely crucial that the Government if we're going to act responsibly and we're going to act responsibly as a Parliament then we debate issues that we've got locus over that we've got responsibility for and that we can make a difference to now and it's important we get those issues right and we get on Kevin Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer There are many occasions when I come into the chamber and I don't necessarily want to debate the issue that's on the business bulletin but we're here to debate Chilcot today and it seems that others seem to be trying to avoid that it doesn't matter whether they want to debate this or not this is what is in the business bulletin and this is what we should be debating and we owe it to the families who have lost loved ones to actually debate the point that is being made today I thank you for your point of order, Mr Kelly I'm afraid Mr Stewart it is not a point of order notwithstanding but you have made your point Mr Kelly, have you finished? That concludes my remarks Right, thank you very much I now call on Christine Graham to be followed by Kenny McCaskill Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer I don't want to dispute with the Presiding Officer but I've no doubt the reason why members on the Labour benches don't want to talk about the Chilcot inquiry is because it impacts on past Labour governments that's the real reason and that's a disgrace when the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK and beyond is entitled to know the truth of what happened then and like Neil Bibby I marched against the war not in our name many people did it and the dogs on the street knew there were no weapons of mass destruction they knew it was about regime change they knew it was a Blair and Bush cohort together discussing how they could do it they knew that why we're waiting for the Chilcot inquiry I don't know because it will be a whitewash at the end of the day there is no way we're going to get people exposed to the critique of why they went into that illegal war and took us into a bigger international mess than ever before quite rightly you opened it up to discuss the plight of the Iraqi people now and all that has happened we are not safer from what happened in those days and the delay the delay in the time it's all right to say we want it published as soon as possible I know you're not saying before the UK election Jim Murphy doesn't want it published then why not why not because Mr Blair on his website claim number five he stopped he stopped these illegal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan he's cured everything he's got 50 claims on his website and that's one of them and the delays because there's too many people with too much to lose Blair and then we've got Gordon Brown who told the inquiry the war was right and that the troops were properly armed properly financed why was I reading about the fact they were getting food parcels that they had their own shoes on their feet that the vehicles they were in did not protect them was I dreaming all this you've got Jim Murphy who apologises for everything but not voting for the Iraq war and Sir Jeremy Heywood who has been cabinet secretary now to the David Cameron who's been there in the centre of government through all these decades he's keeping stum and George Bush and his extended family and their interests in Halliburton all the money they made during that war after that war and continue to make they're all in this together and you know not only was it illegal and was it about regime change the conduct of the war was absolutely disgraceful and I'm quoting from people who know far better than me Admiral Lord Boyce chief of the defence staff at the time of the invasion quotes I suspect if I asked half the cabinet were we at war they wouldn't have known what I was talking about there was a lack of political cohesion at the top Lady Manning on Bwller former head of MI5 the invasion of Iraq undoubtedly increased the threat of terrorist attacks in Britain how right she was quotes I regard the invasion of Iraq as illegal the roles of international law and the use of force by states are at the heart of international law collective security as opposed to unilateral military action is a central purpose of the charter of United Nations Elizabeth Wilmerst deputy legal adviser to the then foreign secretary Jack straw I was not sufficiently involved in the meetings and discussions about the UN resolution and the policy behind it that were taking place at ministerial level Lord Goldsmith I bless the internet because you can't hide these things from the public and on the invasion itself the shock and awe referred to by the First Minister here's another statement everything would depend on what came next but the American fantasy that the Iraq state would continue to function and would pick up the pieces the day after Baghdad fell proved entirely unfounded quote you had no Iraqi institutions to co-op recalled general McKernan no Iraqi army no Iraqi police no local or national government organisations ministries didn't exist general William Wallace commander of the US Fifth Army Corps put it more succinctly there was nobody to receive the surrender from we couldn't find them they weren't there the whole thing is a disgrace and you may not have been here at that vote in 2003 but please don't defend the actions of anybody of any party who took us into that illegal war you're worthy of better many thanks now call on Kenny McCaskill to be followed by Mark Griffin thank you deputy Presiding Officer I've had the privilege of serving in this Parliament since its re-establishment in 1999 and being present at each and every debate on Iraq that is taken I recall the first debate on Iraq not in this chamber and not in this setting but up at the old assembly rooms where we first met I remember outstanding speeches that took place in the Lee as hundreds of thousands and indeed millions not just Neil Bibby marked against a war and protested that the war would not be in their name at that debate that we had the first debate there were some outstanding speeches and I recall a speech from George Reid using his past experience from the red cross to war of the war of the devastation hardship that would be wrecked around the globe and it followed and I think it's there for shameful that those Labour members who used their votes to drive through a majority in favour of war are not here today to apologise or atone for the actions that they took they may think that by putting forward representatives who were not there their fingerprints are not on the arach war that new skins can be put forward this war remains not just the war of Tony Blair but the war of Jim Murphy and the war of the Labour Party that has wrecked havoc in Scotland and the rest of the world taking lives of young servicemen and women and caused difficulties throughout humanity but there are two particular points that we have to deal with all wars by all means Sir Dugdale microphone for Kezia Dugdale would you please repeat yourself you may be but you still have not atoned for the culpability of the actions of the Labour Government that have made this world a far less safe place all wars wreck devastation all wars leave obfuscation and certainly in this one as we heard from the First Minister there has been devastation not just Iraq and the wider Middle East but as we've seen tragically in the streets of Paris in the streets of London or in Madrid and elsewhere devastation has been wrecked because of the actions in whipping up a horn its nest and creating an unsafe world and certainly there's been obfuscation because all wars all wars can cloud rather than leaving it difficulty to be able to differentiate between truth and fantasy reality fiction or whatever but it is important that we have obfuscation to avoid to avoid mythology coming through and to ensure that justice is delivered we do need to ensure that we nail the lie that this was a war to deal with weapons of mass destruction when it was known before during and after let it be wrung out loud and clearly from Chilcote that there were no weapons of mass destruction that this was a false pretext and the points raised by many other speakers let us hear what went on between Tony Blair and George Bruce because there has been devastation throughout the world but not in Whitehall some of the understanding that happens after wars can be very difficult but we have a situation where Chilcote has taken longer and still has not reported than the conduct of the Nuremberg trials after world war 2 they had to pursue people who fled from justice but managed to carry it out after world war 1 with the collapse of empires Romanov, Austro-Hapsburg and indeed the hoysolerant we managed to conclude a treaty albeit a very flimsy one at the Treaty of Versailles in the hall of mirrors that was concluded in a shorter period of time than Chilcote has managed to report and yet what we have to remember is there has been no devastation wrecked in the palace of Westminster there has been no burning embers and bunkers down in Whitehall the information is there it should be readily accessible in the modern technology that we have in a 21st century world when we fought a 21st century war to be able to make that information clear to Chilcote and those to serve with them those who sought to flee from justice in world war 2 are not represented in Chilcote we know where they are we can follow the trail as they put out invoices and fees for the bills that they charge for the lessons and the lectures that they go they mascarade emissaries or peace or whatever else so the time has come if we can deal with Versailles and we can deal with as I say in Jürnberg the time has come for the publication of the Chilcote report we are entitled to no law and glass as was mentioned by speakers from moral political parties not just my own young men died their parents grieved rose gentle as Sandra White has mentioned the clearest example we owe it to those memories to find out just what happened to some extent we know but we need to find out why and we need to make sure that this is the first of many inquiries that will be followed not just by what happened in Iraq but what happened in Libya what happened when rendition and what happened in that cosy relationship between new labour and George Bush that has made this world a less safe place not just for Scotland but most certainly for all of humanity thank you very much now Colin Mark Griffin to be followed by Czech Brody thank you Presiding Officer we have consistently stated that the Chilcote report should be published as soon as possible we agree with the Government on that point and we will be supporting the Government motion at decision time I say that again after all Labour speakers have said that because it does seem to be a point that has been missed by every SNP speaker that we will actually be supporting the Government at 5 o'clock what I do find strangest with that and mind when we all agree that the Chilcote should be published as soon as possible that we're debating that subject we're missing our opportunity to talk about issues in our NHS educational inequality or problems facing the oil industry even if the Government had wanted to have a debate about Iraq which seems like they want to do it seems like they want to rerun a debate on Iraq in the conflict line let's do that let's not bring a false premise of Chilcote sorry I'm just making an opening my opening remarks now if the Government did want to debate Iraq then that's fine let's have that debate this debate still represents a missed opportunity to state our support for the families of those soldiers who lost their lives an opportunity to state our support for the families of the Iraqi civilians who lost their lives an opportunity to state our support for the troops who've returned to Scotland and are coping with issues related to combat stress and finally an opportunity for us to actually talk about Iraq as a country how they've moved on from the conflict what we can do to contribute towards the regeneration of Iraq and how we can support its citizens to make them feel more confident and secure in their country and with their countries placing the world there have been improvements in Iraq although I think that they are far far from the pace of change that was promised issues of sectarianism have blighted Iraq and although it's not as bad as it was in the height of the violence in 2006 still far too many people die every week in religiously motivated attacks and we see news of more deaths all the time I've said in the chamber before that I grew up with an awareness of the situation in Iraq which was probably more than most people my age and that's because my mum had a childhood friend who was in Iraqi they both grew up in Deniston and she had to move back to Iraq in her teenage years with her family now my mum would often tell stories about her friend when I was growing up anytime you heard any news reports on the tv about the latest massacre that Saddam had inflicted on his own people and talk about how she hoped that her friend may was still alive since she was a family, a member of a family of academics who were considered a threat to the regime now may did survive she was able to move back to the UK after the conflict she got back in touch with my mum she spent recent christmases with her husband with my family here in Scotland then she's spoken to me at length about the conditions Iraqi people were living in under Saddam and how things are for her family who still live there and she spoke about the sectarian violence which plagues the country the number of people living in poverty the issues with power supplies and issues of access to clean water these are the issues which should dominate any debate around Iraq how can we as a country support Iraq to address some of those issues and help boost the confidence and pride in the country which is clearly evident when I've spoken to people from there air links to Iraq are still not well developed it's only recently that we've seen connections between the UK, London and Baghdad connecting probably one of Iraqi's biggest populations outside the country electricity hasn't supplied 24 hours around the clock and an energy-rich nation Point of order, Christine Grahame Presiding Officer, I do seek your guidance because we're now talking about air links to Iraq and I cannot for the life of sea even in the most tenuous way how that links to either the motion or the amendment down on the business bulletin and it was open to the Labour Party to put amendments in if they wanted to bring that in as well so I seek your guidance on how far we may digress from what is down on the bulletin I'm content that Mr Griffin is within the content the confines of the debate I'm sorry perhaps the members of the SNP benches don't actually want me to talk about the Iraqi people and the situation they've faced they would much rather campaign on general election points to try and kick opponents rather than hear rather than hear about the plight of the Iraqi people and what we can do to realistically support them I'll take the intervention from Mr Adam George Adam The member told us much about his family influence with the person that his mother knew that was from Iraq does with that background does he personally believe the Labour Party were right to invade Iraq all those years ago? As you draw to a close please Mr Griffin I didn't understand that it was a debating point on whether we agreed or not to go to war we've already had speakers from our benches Neil Bibby Apologise Mark Neil Bibby Neil Bibby spoke about his experience in marching against the war I personally personally didn't support the war I'm not going to apologise for a vote that took place when I was still at school so I would rather talk about the person Order Order Mr Griffin you must close please very very soon you must close Presiding Officer security is improving in Iraq citizens have now access to mobile phones I didn't make myself clear you must close thank you very much Check Brody Thank you Presiding Officer I'll be brief On 10 April 2002 in the House of Commons Tony Blair said I quote Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable he is developing weapons of mass destruction and we cannot believe him doing so unchecked on September the 2002 he then said it the intelligence service concludes that Saddam has produced chemical and biological weapons and his plans that would see them activated within 45 minutes on the 4th of June 2003 he said there are thousands thousands of sites and as I have said throughout I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction what we know Presiding Officer Hans Blich's team found nothing Blair lied and David Kelly died an intelligent officer dying in the most questionable of circumstances this was an illegal despicable destructive war the background to which we should be told about and told about now just as we've had in the in the Arab Springs I would suggest that the war had much more to do with oil and the buttressing of large corporate companies like Halliburton whose former CEO became vice president of the United States at the time of the war that Kofi Annan in his recent memoirs reflected on what might have happened if without the second UN resolution Blair had said to Bush this this is where we part company you're on your own Chilcot must tell us what happened and what was said twixt Blair and Bush preferably unredacted but I live with little hope of that the delay to the Chilcot report publication is an insult to the 179 UK in four and a half thousand US service personnel who died and to the Lancent estimate of 650,000 Iraqis among the many many children losing their lives now it's we know that the delay allegedly is because the witnesses want to see what is said about them what about the families the families of the children of the Iraqis the families of the service personnel in the UK and US what about their rights to know what happened the war cost the UK economy £9.6 billion funded as authorised by Gordon Brown for what fly Karen McKenna wrote so splendidly last week in the national that events and I use the delay in producing the Chilcot enquiries an example he wrote that Westminster produces a fabric of the state where London oxbridge labour conservative and secretaries the cabinet conspire to maintain what they believe is their established right to alternating UK governments in so doing in the case of the delayed Chilcot enquiry that fabric is a black curtain which has now been drawn across this particular infamy six years in the making 80% in the Beepix poll believe Blair was lying 40% think he should be jailed and when Blair appeared before the Chilcot enquiry on the 29 January 2010 stating responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein which of course was not the purpose of UN resolution 1441 that resolution was breached and Blair misled Parliament and the people of the UK with dire consequences finally Presiding Officer there is always a story a story behind every death none more so than telling the that of Rose Gentiles who lost a 19 year old son Gordon in that debacle present at that session when Blair gave his evidence to Chilcot she said and I quote I'm not a politician I'm not a politician trying to score cheap points but a mother seeking justice for her son she deserves to know she deserves the answer we all deserve and demand an answer and an answer now so let us unite across this Parliament and demand demand without fear or favour and in the name of open government publication of the Chilcot enquiry and publication now thanks so much and before we move to the open debate I invite all members who have taken part in this debate to return to the chamber for the closing speeches Alec Johnston up to five minutes please very much Deputy Presiding Officer this debate is essentially about Chilcot and the enquiry but in reality it is probably more about truth during the course of the debate we've had a number of interesting contributions some have been focused and passionate but I have to say that others have been rambling and incoherent but we need to focus back on truth and the truth is that Scottish soldiers have given their lives for the United Kingdom in many wars and we should respect the memory of those who have done so even during my lifetime I have seen on a number of occasions Parliament discuss the prospect of war and that has been characterised by the fact that oppositions have trusted the information that they have been given by governments that trust it seems has been undermined in the build-up to the second gulf war but yet there is plenty of evidence that that trust did exist and exist strongly at the time we heard from Joan McAlpine about how the Herald reported the Government's position in good faith it did not know the extent to which they were being misled at the time and neither did any of the rest of us if the report was published tomorrow however and it failed to support the First Minister's particular view then how much further forward would she be many during this debate have prejudged the outcome of the inquiry even Willie Rennie a man whose reasonable attitudes are famous said that he believes that the inquiry was an establishment chip stitch-up even in ancient Greece they knew that tooth was the first casualty of war we're now six months or six years on from the time we expected Chilcot to begin to give us the answers public evidence was completed four years ago and we still wait for that report but we must remember who this report is for many have spoken today with passion about the families of those who lost their lives we must also remember those who still have their lives but have had their lives destroyed by things that happened in that battle but remember it is not only for them there are those who may be at risk in future wars at risk of becoming casualties of a process which is not informed by the inquiry that we are awaiting the outcome of those who seek the truth and desire to learn from it want this report when it is published to tell us the truth to be accepted on all sides and to ensure that it is a conclusion that we can all accept if the outcome of the process that we have engaged in today is a rise in public opinion to have this report published at any cost before the general election then we risk not having the benefit of that truth I will take an intervention briefly I thank the member for taking an intervention I will just want him to answer this particular question is will delaying the start of the inquiry and prolonging the publication until after the next election not lead anyone to conclude that this inquiry has been fixed to make sure that the Government avoid having to face up to any inconvenient conclusions David Cameron June 2009 I believe that that's a very good question but one that is not relevant to the argument that I am trying to make truth is the most important outcome of this inquiry if the process is not completed or if it is interfered with in any way so that anyone can claim that the independence of this inquiry and its report has been compromised then we have lost everything the time the money and the lives that have been invested in this process for that reason I do believe that this report should be published before the general election but if it has not completed due process and cannot be published then I regret that but I accept it I want to see this publication happen in a way that we can trust believe and understand and I do not want to put any barrier between us and getting them full advantage of that inquiry when it is published The Chilcot inquiry, established by Gordon Brown when Prime Minister, is a crucial inquiry that must be given time to be conducted thoroughly. However, the timescale between the last evidence session in 2011 and now rightly causes many concerns across the country and it is only right that publication of the final report must take place at the earliest opportunity and as we head into a general election we must also be aware of this becoming a party political issue despite calls from all parties to have the report published in 2010 Sir John Chilcot who has the final say over the timing of the inquiry at all stages rightly ordered a recess to avoid influencing the general election and I feel we are now in danger of allowing that to happen now no thank you Presiding Officer we must not forget the lives lost during the conflict and I know the families will never forget what these families want and deserve are answers and to know that other families will not suffer the torment of losing a loved one the government motion states that it is in the interests of transparency accountability and democracy that the report is published as soon as possible the Scottish government are correct and that is why Scottish Labour supports the government motion today no no thank you what we have to remember on top of the justified bewilderment over the release is that families of our armed forces want answers it's been reported from different media sources that this person's to blame or that person's responsible for the delay in publication no matter who is to blame or what people say the final call on publication will be made by Sir John Chilcot these delays are as the First Minister has called them totally unacceptable and I spoke earlier about the danger of this inquiry becoming a feature of the forthcoming general election but we must remember that the most important people in this are the families of those killed and injured and they deserve better and that warning must be heeded by all parties whether or not they supported what's happened in Iraq and today was an opportunity for us all to unite behind behind our concerns around the delay in the publication of this inquiry to debate our genuine concerns and acknowledge the hurt and damage that has been caused and unfortunately the tone taken by someone the government benches has detracted from that choosing instead to make political mischief and in contrast when opening for labour kesia dugdale rightly warned that we won't support the use of chilcot as a political tactic because this issue demands greater respect than that kesia dugdale also spoke about the things that have become clear since the iraq war that the intelligence was wrong that the iraqi people were greatly let down by a failure of post war planning and the price in lives was unacceptable mark griffin and james kelly talked about this afternoon about being a missed opportunity for the parliament to debate matters that we do have influence over mark griffin also no thank you mark griffin also recounted how a long standing family friend and iraqi women moved back to iraq before the war and how this how his mother feared for her friend living under the regime because her family were educated and therefore a threat we also heard of the humanitarian impact sectarian violence poverty and problems with the infrastructure the promise of improved infrastructure was a promise not delivered to the iraqi people neal bibby spoke of poverty and access to food much of this related to the displacement of the iraqi population the unhcr reports that about 3.1 million people are displaced with 2.1 million of those people fleeing in the last year alone this devastating crisis needs to be addressed we cannot have a rerun of what was witnessed in the run-up to the 2003 war presiding officer not a week goes by where we don't hear about the continuing terrorism that is occurring in the middle east the situation in syria and iraq and the assault by isle presents the region with further problems and the international community must unite to support the country to be an inclusive and united nation with a government that represents all of its people the chill caught inquiry should allow us as a nation to learn from our mistakes and i do recognise that the majority of public opinion was against the intervention in iraq a recent you gov poll 68 of people would like to see the inquiry report as soon as possible in closing can i repeat our support in these benches for the government motion we will support the motion at decision time and believe it is right that the inquiry's findings are published as soon as possible however i also repeat my earlier warning that this must not be used in general election campaigning it would it it would be disrespectful to the dead the injured their families and the iraqi people thank you thanks very much now calling Keith brown to wind up the debate in half of the government eight minutes please mr brown thank you very much or i suppose the last remarks really lead us back to the point of why is this debate important the first minister said when she spoke that this is a very grave subject and indeed it is but it is a very important because there is nothing wrong with holding elected representatives to account that's part of the democratic process democratic responsibility is extremely important and the stain for democratic accountability i think is wrong this is the third general election that will take place since iraq war happened the third general election democracy is the ability of citizens to have faith in and scrutinise the processes and decisions of the government is extremely important it's also important because the chelcott inquiry has become a very central element in the public's ability to know the truth of what happened at that time it's also important that we should have a fearless investigation and it should not be hamstrung and seeking to protect very powerful people from what has happened in the past but it should not be hamstrung and seeking to protect very powerful people there's an old saying in the legal profession understand it says let justice be done though the heavens fall and i would say that we should let justice be seen to be done though the heavens fall or even reputations of some individuals may fall it's important most of all labour seem to have forgotten this whether it's talking about during this debate the nhs educational psychologists various other thing anything but the subject in front of us it's important to remember the 179 souls who died during that conflict serving the country from this country as well as the tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of iraqis who died as well they should remain in our minds of course it's perfectly legitimate we should discuss an issue like this and those people and their families are entitled to ask why they were asked to do what they were asked to do we know that they weren't told at the time it was weapons of mass destruction that were only 45 minutes away from the UK that was the case that was made in a dossier that itself can best be described as a weapon of mass deception they all saw that for service personnel ours is not to reason why ours is but to do and die that cannot be the limit of the service personnel's human rights they have obviously obviously explicitly foresworn the right to object to refuse to do what they're asked to do in a democracy they do as their elected government asked them to do even if they think their political masters are stupid or veal or naive they have to do what they're asked to do but they more than anybody else surely have a right to know the arguments the processes the reasons and even the deals that were done before they were sent to put their lives in danger and one thing that's occurred to me thinking about this over the years is I tried to imagine how service personnel would have felt having been told that saddam had these weapons of mass destruction having seen friends die in the pursuit of that conflict having seen conways being disabled by their injuries how did they feel what would be more horrifying to them was to find the weapons of mass destruction or to find out there were no weapons of mass destruction having seen the carnage which had preceded that point the idea there were weapons of mass destruction they now found out was a false respect this the idea always preposterous there were 45 minutes from being a threat to the UK increasingly preposterous everybody realised that at the time our service personnel though to come back to them they're individuals they're very often characterised as was done disgracefully during the debate in the referendum last year by people like Ian Lang they're not all the same mind they're individuals they have different views on things but they I think would be of one mind in saying that they want to know why they were given one reason for being asked to put themselves in harm's way i weapons of mass destruction and then after many of them had died being given another reason regime change was the excuse the fig leaf that was used after the war to try and justify some of the actions of people and I hope that is a fig leaf that chill cop will remove when eventually it reports and who wants these answers why did we discuss these issues well we've heard from some of the contributions from others rose gentle wants these answers is that wrong you know should she be waiting to have another debate on the health service or an educational psychologist does she not have a right to have her views represented in this place as well the family of Alan Douglas they want to have answers as Kevin Stewart went as well the deafening silence of 179 deceased souls they want to have answers as well and why shouldn't they have answers and why should they wait for a longer period in the entire second world war to have those answers we heard from Kenny mcaskill about the alacrity with which the newremberg trials were carried out because of the gravity of what had happened and also because the need the need to try and get to the truth these things very soon after they've happened is huge and yet I heard somebody saying a self congratulatory tone on the labour benches labour called for this inquiry and six years after the war had taken place three or four times I think as Willie Rennie said after they had a chance to vote for it and refused to vote for it it took that long how much information was lost at that time how many personal testimonies could no longer be found because of that delay or give me to Alex Ferguson Alex Ferguson thank you I wonder if the minister if the cabinet secretary I beg his pardon who I believe is a very reasonable person would accept that there is a need and these people will be better served if there is total integrity behind the report when published just as those victims of hepatitis C will require total integrity and that total integrity could only be achieved if the due processes are seen to have been done and not have a false publication date placed on them by the politicians by the politicians can I first deprecate the analogy that Alex Ferguson has used the hepatitis B investigation with this investigation I don't think the two stand comparison but the point that we're trying to make is of course it's got to be done in the correct way everybody understands that the point is why has it taken six years for it to happen why did Chilcot say in 2011 at the start of 2011 this will be done in a few months that is the important point it's been delayed unreasonably in fact your own colleague in the House of Commons today David Davis has pointed the finger expressly at Whitehall in fact I think Jack straw maybe wrong I think Jack straw said the same thing as well so they're saying there is some something going on which is delaying this process other than the the Maxwellization process that we've heard about so something is delaying this and it's a scandal and what I'd like to have seen to be honest from Alex Ferguson is some higher priority attached to the needs of those that either have people have died in their families or those that have been injured well then some of the things about process I think it's far more important that some urgency should have been shown in the UK government's handling of this and that's not happening and that's unfortunate in closing I believe it's very important for this chamber and for the Scottish government to note the huge and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice that our armed forces give in the preservation of our safety and security and whatever the rights and wrongs of individuals there's absolutely no doubt that our service personnel as the First Minister said and their families deserve our complete support I should just say though that we betray rather than serve the interests of those if we try to sweep this under the carpet or endlessly avoid debating it as has been suggested by some others in this instance the support that we should provide must include providing those who returned and the families of those who did not with the answers that they deserve and we must do so without further delay and for those reasons I'm proud to support the motion in the First Minister's name many thanks and that concludes the debate on the chill cot inquiry and it's now time to move on to the next item of business which is a debate on motion number 12176 in the name of John Swinney on the community charge debt Scotland bill I'd invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak weapons now or as soon as possible and Mr Swinney Deputy First Minister if you are ready 10 minutes a generous 10 minutes Sinoffsr on the 2 October last year the former First Minister announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation to ensure that councils can take no further action to recover ancient community charge or poll tax debts today we are considering that legislation with the co-operation of the parliamentary authorities we have been able to bring it forward on an expedited timetable so that the legislation can be enforced for the start of the next financial year as a result we have not had the time to put our proposals out to full public consultation but we have consulted with the convention of scourge local authorities and with local authorities themselves who are the only bodies that could be adversely affected by our proposals I acknowledge the point made by it of course no the government decided on the principle of the bill the government takes policy decisions and then we consult about how we take forward those policy decisions I think that's a kind of I can't think of many examples where we consult on the principle of particular issues without taking setting out the government's policy position which we then consult about the details of what we take forward I acknowledge the point made by the France committee in their stage one report on the bill that consultation should take place prior to the introduction of primary legislation but there will be circumstances when the government believes we should act swiftly and parliament is prepared to support this action if it is prepared to take forward the approach to the expedited legislation we have sought the agreement of parliament to undertake an expedited bill process to enable us to make the bill effective from the first of February 2015 and ensure that there is clarity before the start of the next financial year and I'm grateful to the parliamentary authorities for that agreement the government decided to act because we were concerned that an appetite had been expressed among certain local authority leaders for using the information that was gathered from voter registration from the independence referendum to reactivate the pursuit of many of the outstanding arrears we felt that that sat uncomfortably with what we believe was a wide appreciation throughout the country for the upsurge in democratic participation during the referendum which was supported and complemented across the political spectrum we felt that it would be a rather strange conclusion to that democratic process to use the information that had been gathered to pursue historical debts from attacks that is discredited and which has not been operational in scotland for more than 20 years we wanted Presiding Officer to do two things we wanted to act expeditiously to address that point which is why we have followed a shorter consultation process we also wanted to make it crystal clear that local authorities were absolved of their obligations to collect poll tax debt which as I explained to the France committee was a reason for introducing this legislation and may we that some public opinion does not support the ending of recovery of community charged debts and I've received a number of letters from members on behalf of constituents about this issue and also from members of the public into the bargain I understand the concerns expressed by members of the public who have paid their community charge as I have done I start from the basic principle that people should pay their taxes and I do not support the fact that people do not pay taxes for which they are liable in this case however we are dealing with a tax that lasted for four years and was the subject of massive political controversy and enormous political disruption and was concluded more than 20 years ago now despite collections being I take his point on that but surely to goodness that is a breach of the principle that he is just espoused it's not a breach of the principle that I've espoused because if I look if well if mr Brown looks at the data that is available to to parliament and let me just look for example at one particular example let me take Angus council for example Angus council ceased to collect any community charge arrears in 2008-9 that was the last time any community charge arrears were collected but Angus council declared that there were 3,627,000 pounds worth of uncollected poll tax debts still in existence in Angus now the point that I'm making here is that a tax which was in existence for four years was a subject of massive political controversy and ended more than 20 years ago is now incapable of being collected in well there's one local authority example I've given I can give other examples in Falkirk in the western Isles in Shetland in Orkney and no poll tax debt collected in recent years so I simply illustrate that to make the point that the poll tax has fell into dispute at the time and significant periods have elapsed where there is no practical proposition or practical capability of collecting the anything like a substantial proportion of the arrears that are existing so the government is taking a practical step to remedy that particular point now despite collections being pursued around £425 million if community charge still remains uncollected in relation to the four years that the charge operated in Scotland almost all of the £425 million can no longer be collected in the 20 years which have passed since the community charge was abolished and replaced with the council tax many people have moved home moved away from scotland even married changed their name or even sadly deceased they could not now be traced and linked to a debt even if a person could be traced if no attempt has been made to recover outstanding arrears from a debtor within the last 20 years then the local authority cannot pursue the debt any further. The last financial year 2013-14 those authorities still collecting community charge debts collected a total of only £327,000. Ten authorities have decided that their share of £425 million is just not going to be collected so the the canalast stand for the poll tax which is being deployed which is being deployed by Mr Brown is I think indicative that the Conservatives have perhaps not moved on terribly far from the application of the poll tax all those years ago the collection of community charge has declined from £1.3 billion in 2009-10 to £327,000 in 2013-14 projecting that declining rate of collection forward we can easily see a point at which the costs of collecting are greater than the sums collected local authorities tell us that the total they can recover under existing recovery arrangements is £869,000 councils will receive their share of this £869,000 in 2015-16 by agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA. We have given a reasonable length of time and opportunity for historical debts to be collected and we have reached a point at which we must all recognise that the community charge has entirely run its course despite the affection for which it seems to be held over on the Conservative benches today. In its stage 1 report the France committee asked why we did not request information on the value of community charge debt recovered through informal or sporadic payments in order to include these in the settlement to local government. There is no reliable means of estimating that because by their nature these payments are informal and sporadic. We can however look at the pattern of poll tax arrears of payment of poll tax arrears, which, as I have indicated, shows that payments have been steadily declining year by year. In the last financial year for which data is available 2013-14 payments totaled £327,000 down from £512,000 the previous year, which was down from £923,000 the year before that, so the payments are petering out significantly. For years after the abolition of the community charge, collection rates for the community charge and for the council tax that replaced it were lower than for the domestic rates that the community charge replaced. I can understand that there may be concern that this legislation will have a similar effect and in its submissions to the finance committee local authorities did express that concern. However, people objected to the community charge because it was a tax that bore no relation to what people could afford to pay. Council tax liability is linked to ability to pay through the council tax reduction scheme, which supports those on low incomes in meeting their council tax liability in so far as that is possible through the council tax reduction scheme. The collection rate for the poll tax was approximately 88.4 per cent. The in-year collection rate for the council tax is 95.2 per cent. That is for the immediate year in which the liability arises and the expectation is that, in excess of 97 per cent of council tax will be collected once follow-up mechanisms are used to ensure collection. Those still paying off community charge debt, however, include some of the poorest and the most vulnerable in our country who were unable to pay at the time and are now paying very small sums towards their rears every week or having them deducted from social security benefits. In some cases, those benefits may be their only source of income. Over 20 years after the community charge was abolished, it could still be many years before some of those debts are cleared. Furthermore, the referendum on independence inspired record numbers of people to register to vote. Many of them had not voted for decades, some never before. We do not want people to fear being on the electoral registers because of decades-old debts from discredited legislation. This bill will help to avoid that and to ensure that everyone's voice continues to be heard. None of that detracts from the clear view that I and the Government hold that people should properly pay their taxes for which they are liable. It is for each local authority to determine the most appropriate means for recovery of council tax debts, but I would expect them to decide how to pursue their debts in a way that is sympathetic to the needs and the circumstances of the debtor. This bill is one step that the Scottish Government is taking to make local taxation fairer. The independent commission that we are establishing in partnership with local government to examine fair alternatives to the current system of council tax is another. Many members of the public have written to their MSPs, to the First Minister and to me, pointing out that they paid their poll tax even though they disagreed with it in principle and despite whatever hardship that may have caused them. They asked the Government to address the issues that are associated with the abolition of the poll tax, which is what the Government is doing in the legislation today. We believe that the poll tax is a defunct tax and it is a discredited tax. Local authorities are pursuing increasing historical liabilities, which crystallised over 20 years ago, and we can see from the data that the amount collected is peterning out year by year. There is a necessity for us to ensure that the poll tax is consigned to history once and for all. That is the action that Parliament has before it today, and I encourage members to support the motion in my name to agree to the general principles of the Community Charge Debt Scotland Bill and to abolish the disgraced and defunct poll tax. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Finance Committee in this debate. The bill provides for an end to the collection of community charge or poll tax debts in Scotland and will do so with effect from Sunday as a result of the anticipated provision contained in section 1 of the bill. As lead committee, the Finance Committee sought written and oral evidence on the bill and I wish to place on record the committee's thanks to the organisations and individuals who took time to let us know their views. The committee's scrutiny of the bill focused on a number of issues, including voter registration, the possible impact on council tax collection, the financial settlement to be provided in connection with the bill and I will address each of those in turn before concluding on the issue of engagement and consultation. Last October, the former First Minister announced that the Government intended to legislate for an end to collection of community charge debts. That announcement was made following media reports about the plans of some local authorities regarding its collection. Those reports suggested that the increase in voter registration following the referendum or rather preceding the referendum would allow individuals with outstanding debt to be identified in arrangements put in place for the collection of that debt. The cabinet secretary explained to the committee that the Government was, and he has already used this quote, concerned that an appetite has been expressed among certain local authority leaders for information to be used in this way. However, Glasgow City Council's evidence was that their figures did not suggest that the expansion of voter registration could be attributed to re-engagement of people with outstanding poll tax debts. The committee has asked the Government to provide further details of which local authorities are using or intend to use electoral register information in this way. Evidence received mentioned the potential for the bill to have unintended consequences or create a voidable risk in relation to the council tax collection. Those concerns related to a perception that similar debts might also be forgiven in the future. For example, East Ayrshire Council referred to its concern about the risk of losing income as a consequence of misplaced public perception. We put those concerns to the cabinet secretary who was clear in asserting that the council tax remains a live tax. He did not see similarities regarding this bill to council tax collection. While that position is clear, it seems to be differing views between COSLA and the Scottish Government as to the response should a collection of council tax become more challenging. COSLA indicated its understanding that there would be negotiation on the way forward and that local authorities would look for support from the Scottish Government, but, in contrast, the cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government would not underwrite reduced collection as a collection of council tax as the responsibility of local government. Turning to the financial settlement, the headline figure for outstanding community charge debt in Scotland is, as we know, £425 million, and the financial settlement provided for in connection with the bill is £869,000. In our scrutiny, we sought to understand how the settlement figure had been arrived at and clarify what portion of the headline figure could potentially be collected, given that, last year, only £327,000—less than 0.1 per cent—actually was. Obviously, in the 22 years since the poll taxes abolished, many of those to whom debts might apply will have died, emigrated or moved away, so the sum available to collect will be considerably smaller, albeit unknown than the headline figure. The financial memorandum accompanying the bill stated that recovery of much of this debt is now prevented both by practical considerations and by the law of prescription. In relation to community charge debts, a 20-year prescription period applies with two conditions needed for a debt to prescribe. Those are that no claim has been made by the creditor in court and that the debtor has not acknowledged the debt. We sought to understand how it could be assessed that community charge debts had been prescribed or not. Dundee City Council explained that it depends on whether they had been contact and the date of the warrant. Noting that the community charge ceased to have effect more than 20 years ago, it was also explained that local authorities may have re-warranted the debt. In seeking to agree a financial settlement, it is understood that the assessment was based only on the value of debt that could be recovered under existing arrangements. In doing so, no account was made of informal or sporadic payments. The committee understands that the settlement figure that has been agreed is therefore not a full reflection of the total revenue that will be foregone as a result of the bill. However, most local authorities, proving evidence to the committee, are content that the settlement was a fair reflection of what could be foregone in relation to existing repayment arrangements. Indeed, 10 local authorities have already ceased collection of their own volition and Falkirk has not collected anything in the past 12 years, despite having a book debt of over £5 million. Nevertheless, it would have been a assistance to the committee if more detailed analysis of the financial settlement had been available. We have asked why that information was not requested from local authorities. Another point in relation to collection of outstanding debts was the cost of collection compared to the sums collected. The cabinet secretary stated that we can easily see a point at which costs incurred were greater than the value of their revenue being collected, but no collection costs were provided and it is unclear to the committee what evidence the Government used in reaching its conclusion. Finally, this bill has proceeded rapidly through the stage 1 process, with this debate coming less than two months after the bill's introduction. The speed at which the bill was brought forward and what it meant for consultation opportunities was a theme that came through strongly in the evidence. No formal consultation was undertaken. The Scottish Government stated that this was a result of the limited period available for the bill's development. However, the Government did work with COSLA on the bill's provisions. In a letter to the committee, the cabinet secretary set out that the topics that were discussed with COSLA included mechanisms for collecting community charged debt, the questions of whether their debts had been sold off to private collectors and the anticipatory provision to enable the bill to have effect from 1 February. Asked about discussions between the representatives and Scottish ministers, COSLA summarised discussions by saying that, I quote, the conversation to reach an agreement and come up with a settlement was very brief. Everyone in this chamber welcomed the high level of engagement and participation that we saw last year and we hope that it continues. While the committee understands the Government's wish to proceed quickly in introducing its legislation, we also make clear our expectation that consultation and opportunities for engagement take place before primary legislation is introduced. At the committee supports the general principles of the bill. We should just recap on where we are today with the bill. We are here because, at the referendum, we saw a massive increase in people registered to vote, something that should be celebrated. Sadly, we then had a Conservative council leader say that this registration would be used to go after Poltak's debt from some 20 years ago. Alex Salmond's response to that was that he would legislate and here we are today. Labour will support this bill and we will also work with the Government to move the legislation through the Parliament without delay. In doing so, it is worth making the point that many local authorities have already taken the view that what remains of this debt is not realistically collectible. Indeed, as the Spice brief has pointed out, recovery of much of this debt is now prevented by both practical considerations and by the law of prescription. Perthync and Ross Council, for example, make the point in their submission to the finance committee when they say, we believe that further attempts to collect the community charge debt would be expensive and may come at a cost off to the council tax collection. I note also that the policy memorandum with the bill says that the policy will contribute to the Scottish Government's national outcomes of tackling inequalities in Scottish society and promoting a strong and fair inclusive national identity. I am sure that most people in this chamber today will remember the time of the poll tax, how unfair it was and that there were masses of people in households the length and breadth of Scotland who simply could not afford to pay. To quote a pamphlet from that time, under the poll tax, two adult working class family in Edinburgh pays on average £500 more per year. However, Malcolm Rifkin, Secretary of State for Scotland, pays only £400 per year for his castle-like villa in an Edinburgh suburb, so it was an unfair tax, a divisive tax, and for hundreds of thousands of people across Scotland, they simply could not afford to pay. They ended up with masses of debt, we saw wages being arrested under unforgivable warrant sales that took place, warrant sales that were rightly outlawed by this Parliament in a bill that was brought forward by Comrade Thomas Sheridan. It is interesting that, referring back to the submission from Perth and Cymru, they say that many of those with historic debts also have council tax debts, which indicates that people on the lowest incomes have been stuck in that position over generations. So the Government's view on tackling inequalities can stand up, but it tells us that we need a more coherent strategy in Scotland to break the cycles of deprivation that seem to run through generations of the same families and the same communities. That is why I say today in supporting this bill that we should not be waging war on people who cannot afford to pay, we should be waging war on poverty. But the point should also not be lost that councils in Scotland have been robust in pursuing historical poll tax debt from those who could pay, and in deciding not to continue to collect poll tax debt as many have, it is not something that councils did lightly given the major financial pressures that they are under. So, as I said in the introduction, most of this debt is at a point of being uncollectible, and it is councils who are saying this. That nevertheless will leave some people who paid the poll tax feeling aggrieved, and that point is made also by individuals and councils and their evidence to the finance committee. East Ayrshire Council, for example, makes a point when it says that it is difficult and it is a difficult argument to have with many individuals who feel aggrieved that they paid and in some cases placed themselves in considerable financial hardship to do so when others are now being excused of that obligation. I think today that it is also important that we recognise that many people who objected in principle to the poll tax and many people who struggled to pay the poll tax did pay. To all those people, we should say thank you as they kept council services running through what was a very difficult financial period for local government in Scotland. The poll tax was abolished in 1993 and hastily replaced by the council tax, which, as we know, has not served the purpose that was meant to. That is my final point that I would like to make today, Presiding Officer. If we do want good public services and I suggest that if we are to tackle the unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality in Scotland's communities, we must have strong local government and good public services and therefore we need a system of taxation to pay for those services. The SNP Government promised a new system of taxation, and today it has failed. It is the consequences of that failure that has now been felt across every community in Scotland with cuts taking place in vital public services. We will support the bill in truth. It is happening anyway, but our message must be today that we need to fix local government finance and put it on a proper sound phone once and for all. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It probably will not come as a great surprise to learn that we will not be supporting this bill at a decision time today, but we do not do so for any great affection or love of the community charge, as Mr Swinney rather lazily suggested. We do not do it because we have yet to catch up. We do it on reasons of principle and reasons of pragmatism. The principle outlined by John Swinney has said so many times in the chamber that people should properly pay taxes for which they are liable. What he has not said before is that that only applies to taxes with which he agrees or to taxes that, in his view, are live. I thank the member for giving way. I wonder if he would accept that there are other principles at play here, for example, mercy. Let's throw another principle in, Mr Mason, the idea that you may have two people who both disagreed vehemently with the community charge, but one of them paid it and made financial sacrifices in order to do so, another who may well have been able to pay it but did not do so for a reason of choice, but the first has to pay, and the second, thanks to this Government, does not. There are a number of principles at play, but it is the Scottish Government, I will give away just one thing, that says that people should pay the taxes for which they are liable, but that has been broken, and it will ring hollow, I have to say, when Mr Swinney or other finance folks, people from their party, say it in the chamber in future. I'll happily give way to the cabinet secretary. Now that we're collecting in the last financial year for which data is available, £327,000, and £425 million outstanding, would Mr Brown care to share with Parliament his proposals for collecting the remainder? He will know as well as I do that COSLA are not enthusiastic about this bill and that the majority of councils that responded to the committee, indeed the majority of responses to the committee, were not in favour of it, didn't think that it was necessary and were against it on reasons of principle for which I have outlined. In terms of the £425 million, Deputy Presiding Officer, I accept entirely that that will not be in the amount that is collectible. It's Mr Swinney that put that figure on page 1 of the policy memorandum, Deputy Presiding Officer, so if he doesn't like the figure, it's him that put it down on the memorandum, but even if he proportion, even if he proportion of that tax can be collected, let's say 90 per cent of it can and only 10 per cent of it could be collected. That is a significant amount of money that could go to fund public services. Even the amounts that he talks about in the bill, the £800,000 or so, that is money that should and would have been paid by those who were liable for the bills, but instead will be paid by those who are not liable for the bills. That's why we're against it in principle, but I said I'd give way to Mr Swinney and I'm happy. Mr Brown hasn't in any way addressed the fact that we are in the most recent year collecting £327,000, and if the trajectory carries on, that will be a lower amount for 2014-15. In what way, in what proposal can Mr Brown marshal to us today that justifies the maintenance of this on the statute book when he and I know that that money cannot be collected? Mr Brown, I don't have a lot of time, but I will give you an extra minute. We can justify it simply because COSLA and the councils who gave evidence to the committee said that there was not a need for legislation as they are having, and not just as a breach of principle. Actually, their bigger concern is one of pragmatism, the idea that this could have an impact on the collection of council tax going forward, too. COSLA said that people may shake their heads. I'm simply quoting what councils and COSLA have said to the finance committee. Mr Swinney claims to know, but he didn't do a consultation. He says that he consulted with COSLA, but he did not formally consult with COSLA. We were told by COSLA that the conversation lasted a matter of minutes and it was simply a conversation over quantum and how much each council was going to get to be recompensed. It wasn't a discussion of the principles. It wasn't a discussion of what impact it could have on council tax. Just to show you how far apart they were, Deputy Presiding Officer, when I asked COSLA would they be compensated if their council tax collection rates faltered as a consequence of that, and they were under the impression that they would be compensated on evidence in front of the committee. The COSLA representative suggested that they would be compensated where that to happen. When I put the same question to Mr Swinney, he said absolutely not that there is no way in which COSLA would be compensated if that were to happen. Now we don't know if it is going to happen. They have suggested that it might, but the Scottish Government has said that there is no way COSLA will be compensated, and so the cost of failure, if that is to happen, will fall upon the councils, not upon the Scottish Government, the ones who centrally force this policy on COSLA and the councils and the rest of the country. If it does have an impact, we could be talking about significant sums. There are over £1 billion of council tax rears going back over the last two decades or so, so it might sound great when Mr Swinney says that 97.5% of it is collected as a percentage, but when you tot up the amount of unpaid council tax, there is over £1 billion. Even if it has a small impact on council tax collection, it has a big impact on councils and public services, and the Scottish Government ought to be on the hook for that, because it is their policy and it is they who force it through. It is they who refuse to consult to try to thrash out and see through some of those issues instead of just pushing it through in the way in which they are going to do. As I said right at the start, we are not fighting for this for any lover affection of the community charge. We have listened to councils and we think that there are pragmatic reasons for being against it, but we are against it, too, in principle, because, as Mr Swinney said, those who can pay their taxes should properly pay those for which they are liable. Thank you. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please. Mark McDonald to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that there are a few things that need to be dealt with here. The first is that I consider that the use of the £425 million figure that was used at the time that this discussion was first taking place has been unhelpful. The reason that it has been unhelpful is that we know through the evidence that we have received that the vast bulk of that money—indeed, the overwhelming bulk of that money—is uncollectible. It is uncollectible for the reasons that the Cabinet Secretary outlined in terms of people having moved out of Scotland, in terms of people's names changing, and in terms of people having deceased. However, it remains the sum total that is being looked at. The second element of it that I think is unhelpful is that when we took evidence from Glasgow City Council and Dundee City Council at the finance committee, my committee colleague Jean Urquhart asked about the outstanding debt, if that debt was considered to be outstanding for councils. Glasgow City Council responded saying, as I have said, that it was written out of the books in Glasgow in 2003, so it was not held on the books of Glasgow City Council, it had written it out of their finances in terms of debts that the council held. Dundee City Council said that community charge debt is not sitting on the books of Dundee City Council, so two councils giving evidence said that the debt relating to the community charge was not held on the books of the council. One of the things that we wanted to consider in the committee was whether that applied to other councils, and COSLA at the time was unable to give us that information. I have to say that it does concern me sometimes when COSLA spokespeople arrive at committees and seem unable to provide us with information relating to local government in Scotland. I think that we need to look at how COSLA presents the information, given that it is the umbrella body for all 32 local authorities. The question then is whether that can be collected. We have heard pretty strong evidence that it cannot. We have heard pretty strong evidence that there will come a tipping point at which the expenditure in relation to pursuit would outweigh the money that would be collected. The other interesting issue that was raised as well was around the element of prescription, the 20-year prescription, and the fact that, essentially, the entire debt was being reapplied through the summary warrant in order to circumvent the 20-year prescription. It was not that that was debt that could be pursued, but that the summary warrant was simply being reapplied for in order to get around the element of prescription rather than it being debt that could physically be pursued. On the issue of precedent that Mr Brown has raised, we saw evidence and we have heard it today that 10 local authorities have unilaterally taken the decision themselves locally not to pursue community charge debt. If Mr Brown's contention and the fears that were expressed at committee were accurate, that action would result in council tax debts and council tax payments showing a tail-off. We would have seen evidence of that and I would have expected us to receive evidence to that effect from those councils who had taken that decision locally to cancel the debt. I am in my last 30 seconds, Mr Brown. I can give you evidence. In that case, I will take the tremendous intelligence. I acknowledge, though, that Dundee City Council, who he quoted and who, in favour of the bill, raised those very same concerns in quite intelligent terms. I did not say at any point that those concerns were not raised. I am simply saying that, if those concerns were in fact material, I would expect to see them having materialised in those councils that had taken that decision at a local level, some of whom took that decision over a decade ago on the basis of the figures that were presented to the finance committee. We would have seen that arising there. Finally, on the issue of requirement, and it was questioned as to what evidence was there regarding councils having said that they would pursue the debt. We saw Jim Gifford, the leader of Aberdeenshire Council, say, if we are asked to write off those debts, we will do that, but we expect to be fully compensated for the amount of money that is sitting on our books. That raises the question around whether money is being held on the books in some local authorities, not in others. Mr Gifford raised the question of whether the electoral registers post-referendum could be used to pursue the debt, but it was not just confined to the Conservative Party. Labour councillor Willie Young, finance convener of Aberdeenshire City Council, said, for the last number of years, we have been looking to see how we can claw back poll tax arrears. We have still got approximately £1.8 million to recover. The referendum gives us an opportunity to see how much money is due and how we can pursue it. You must again to close my case. That was not restricted to one council leader. There was a pattern of potential pursuit through the referendum electoral registers. I think that the right thing to do is to take the action that the cabinet secretary is taking, and then we can move on and enjoy the flourishing democracy that the referendum sign-ups created. I support the bill, which feels very much like the last nail in the coffin of the poll tax, although we should remember, keeping that in perspective, that that actually happened in England more than 10 years ago. While supporting the bill, however, I think that we should recognise that there are some genuine concerns and take them seriously and also question some of the details of the bill. The main concern, hearing the evidence on the finance committee, was about the possible effect on council tax collection. We have to send out a very clear message that this is a one-off bill because of the particular circumstances of the poll tax, to a large extent, because there is not much left that could be collected because many local authorities have recognised that and stopped collecting already. We also have to recognise, although Conservative colleagues may not agree, that the poll tax was a completely unacceptable tax, certainly by far the most controversial tax of my long life and because it bore no relationship to the ability to pay. I think that it already is in a unique category, so I do not think that we should draw analogies with the council tax too much. Of course, I also recognise that some people—we have all had letters about this—feel that it is unfair that they have paid and others have not. However, I think that we have to repeat some of those points to them about the uniqueness of the tax councils not collecting, not much to collect and so on. There are, and the finance committee report raised certain questions and, to some extent, the cabinet secretary has already responded to most of those. The first one being whether the bill was necessary at all since we did not find evidence about the use of electoral registers either currently or prospectively. We have had two examples quoted from Alex Rowley and Mark McDonald of politicians saying that they were going to use them. I had not heard that before, so it may well be that that was the trigger for the bill. Equally, we heard Glasgow in the committee saying that they did not believe all the new people on the register were people that were actually around anyway at the time of the poll tax. There are obviously conflicting views on that, but we have to accept, given the evidence given today, that perhaps there was a certain trigger for it, which the First Minister was responding to. I think that the consultation point is important as well. The finance committee put it quite delicately and tactfully saying that the consultation should take place prior to legislation. The cabinet secretary suggested that that was not always the case, but I think that it is a feature of the Scottish Parliament that committees do not just consult on bills when they are published, but that Governments tend to consult on the contents of bills before they appear. I give way to the cabinet secretary. I am grateful to Mr Chisholm. The point that I was making was that the Government does and will consult on the substance of measures in ordinary course. What the Government does not consult about is the purpose and the policy intent of the Government, because that is the Government's choice as to what it wants to do in its programme. We could not discuss that further, but I want to finish on the financial aspects of that, which are clearly important. If you say to the public £425 million, they will say, goodness me, that is a lot of money, but of course there was £327,000 collected last year. The council seemed to be fairly happy with the less than £1 million that is being distributed to them, although the committee raised a point about sporadic and informal payments with the cabinet secretary. Finally, the committee made the point of no estimate of potential savings, although Perth and Kinross just stated as a fact that further attempts to collect may be expensive and at cost to council tax collection. In conclusion, this Sunday is the end of the poll tax, so that is a matter for celebration. However, as Alex Rowley said, we should not become too fixated on the past, because the urgent necessity now is to fix local government finance. I think that we are all glad that there is now a process that is going to start soon to try and do that. I would like to echo a lot of the comments that were made by Alex Rowley, because in this speech I will go back further than the Iraq war that I did in the last one, back to the period of the poll tax, when the Parliament had not indeed been re-established, when it was still awaiting it coming again. We had the situation of the Tories calling on the poll tax to be brought in, positively brought in a year earlier in Scotland than elsewhere. At that time, the SNP was not a majority government. We were a minority party. We had less MPs than the Greens currently have MSPs. Perhaps some of the Opposition benches should realise that standing up and speaking out for what is right, whether it is a poll tax or a rack, can pay electoral dividends. However, I was proud at that time to lead the can pay, won't pay campaign by the Scottish National Party. Those who could pay wouldn't pay, so that those who couldn't pay wouldn't ever have to pay. We didn't accept that there should be a non-registration scheme that was put forward, certainly by Tommy Sheridan, because we argued that that would lead to people coming off the electoral register and they did, and it is only due to the hard work of activists over recent years with a referendum that we have got many of them back on. We also realised that it would incur a fine and a significantly greater penalty than simply not paying, so we discouraged it. However, we did encourage people not to pay, those who couldn't pay, to stand firm shoulder to shoulder with those who just couldn't to try and give that collectivity and defence in numbers. We did say that those who could pay, once a battle had been won, should pay. The battle we did win. We defeated the poll tax. As with the Iraq war, hundreds of thousands marched. We had significant level of political debate, not as much as last year with a referendum but significant amounts, and people participated. We brought down the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as the Tories will never probably allow us to forget. I was proud to pay my poll tax at the end of it, and I paid 10 per cent more. People need not worry about the effects, because I along with other can pay won't payers contributed more through the 10 per cent surge hards that was levied on myself, Sandra White and all those on the SNP benches, but it was the right thing to do, as Alec Rowley said, because it was part of the efforts by the Tories to commoditise tax at local authority level to get to a situation where, if you don't have kids, why should you pay for education? If your child is not disabled, just you bless your lucky stars and why should you pay for care for those who are mentally or physically handicapped, that it should be done on a pure per capita, per head basis, without any ability to pay or any as Alec Rowley, and indeed I think Malcolm Chisholm referred to any consciousness of what you had to look after. That's why we fought and defeated the poll tax on public services. Let's remember the gearing effect that was going to cause the poll tax to either have to rise incrementally year on year or public services to have to be cut and pulled back. That's why we fought it and that's why this bill is correctly brought in by this Government. It was an evil, iniquitous tax. It would have been catastrophic for local authorities, not just for the poorest, and that's why it was defeated. There will be some who probably haven't paid deliberately, but there are always those and those same people that worry Mr Brown will be the same people who don't pay any tax who view that that's for the, uh, this by all means. Kevin Brown. The minister is making a very passionate speech, but given that he was a minister for seven years, if he feels so strongly, why did he never propose this legislation in seven years as a minister? Ken MacAskillan, could you begin to conclude? That local authorities would have used the common sense that we're born with and not seek to be vindictive, and that is sadly what happened after the referendum, because what we saw was a point correctly made, the point that was echoed previously in the southern states of America viewed against black people, and you look at the research by institutions such as Pew Centre Research in states in southern America, they used circumstances such as this to discourage those who sought the franchise to try and ensure that those who might not vote for them would not be able to vote against them. That is why this has been triggered, and it is on that basis that this tax deserves consign to history. Those who cannot pay in the main now, those who people are seeking, those shameful authorities, are those who in the main simply cannot pay. They need help, not punishment. The other minority that Mr Brown refers to, yes, I agree, let's deal with these corporates and these big businessmen. Thank you. Cameron Buchanan to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The bill before us today has made many headlines through its aim to remove liability to pay community charge debt. This is a point of principle has been stated, not affection for the tax, as we have stated many times. Despite all of this attention, we in this Parliament and the public are still left with many unanswered questions that are a cause of great concern. How is this fair to those who paid their tax? Will it stand up to a legal challenge from those seeking compensation? Will the compensation being offered to local authorities match the true cost of this bill? What will be the total effect of the worrying precedent that this bill sets on tax avoidance? That is really what I want to focus on. Why hasn't there been a public consultation? It is apparent that this policy was rushed into existence by a Government thinking only about narrow politics rather than fairness of the people for Scotland. One of the most worrying aspects of the bill is its total disregard for the majority of people who have paid their taxes in good faith. As the total collection rate, as we have heard, was approximately 88.4 per cent, it is clear that while some people avoided paying the community charge altogether, there are others who paid their contribution whether or not they agreed with it in principle. Inexplicably, this Government is choosing to side with those who have avoided paying their tax. What kind of Government rewards tax avoidance? Certainly. John May, Alex Rowley. Alex Rowley, we cannot accept that there were 10 authorities who had already said that they had reached a point where it was going to cost more. Indeed, many other authorities were fast reaching that point where it would have costed more to collect, which just does not make sense. Cameron Buchanan. Thank you. I accept partially that, but I think that it is more the point of principle that tax should be collected. It is only about 22 per cent—I think that it was 22 per cent here—who said that they would not pay it. What I was going to say was really that it is more a question of principle whether the tax should be collected. The Government is choosing to side with those who have avoided paying their tax. We have heard from many constituents—I have particularly—that it is grossly unfair that they have paid when others who deliberately did not pay are being excused for free. I completely agree with them that hard-working taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise other people's tax avoidance and the SNP's grossly irresponsible rhetoric. That leads me on to another point that is yet unanswered by the Government. Will those who paid their tax in good faith be reimbursed? The Government simply cannot claim it is acting fairly if it will nullify some people's debts and ignore those who paid. As we have already pointed out, there is a strong possibility of legal challenges seeking compensation on this matter. On the subject of compensation, it is important that we fully understand the implications of this bill for local authorities' finances in relation to the compensation that the Government is presently offering. At first glance, the £869,000 being offered is only 0.2 per cent of the total uncollected £425 million, which I think answers Alex's point. That does not seem to be nearly enough. That was the sum that local authorities said was the amount that they would collect through collection procedures. The £425 million, which the member quotes, the vast bulk of that is uncollectible. I accept that a lot of it is uncollectible, but I am really trying to get the point of principle that we should not be rewarding people who do not pay tax, which is what we have not collected. On the point that is projected in the amount of informal sporadic payments that have been made to local authorities, which is not included in the £869,000 once-and-for-all settlement, furthermore, the compensation figure completely ignores the potential knock-on effects regarding future tax payments to local authorities. Writing off community charge debt would set a damaging precedent. That is my real point, whereby people who avoid paying tax can expect perhaps their debt to be cancelled by a future Government. This concern that there is a risk of losing council tax has been echoed by councils, yet the Government has explicitly ruled out compensation being given to local authorities that suffer from a knock-on effect in council tax collection. I would also like to raise serious concern about the process by which this bill has been brought for Parliament. The SNP tried to use the high levels of democratic engagement in the referendum to justify this bill, yet they have not even put it out for public consultation. Despite all of their rhetoric, the SNP is neglected to gather and analyse the views of the public. I think that this policy is typical of a Government that repeatedly chooses grandstanding instead of delivering genuinely fair policies in Scotland's best interests. I am afraid that we have just about used up what extra time we had, so members really need to take interventions in their own time from now on. John Mason, to be followed by Sandra White. I have to say that I speak wholly in support of this bill today. Sometimes, I think that members might think that I am occasionally cool towards certain pieces of Government legislation, but I am happy to say today that I have no reservations about this legislation. Principles have been mentioned as a word already by a few speakers. I think that there are a number of principles at work here that we need to take them all into account. First of all, we should all pay our taxes set by an elected Government, whether we like them or not. That is justice, and Gavin Brown has mentioned that point. The problem that Gavin Brown has missed is that there are other principles at stake that he seems to be ignoring. For example, community charge or the poll tax was a particularly unfair tax, taking no account of ability to pay. Another principle is that a lot of the outstanding tax is unlikely in practice ever to be paid, and there is little point throwing good money after bad. The collection has fallen every year from £4.6 million in 34 to £327,000 in 1314. I have to say that I was slightly disappointed by Cameron Buchanan's speech just now, which is normally quite good. However, the reality is that all bad debts get written off eventually. Most of us pay our electricity bills, a few people do not. The electricity company is right off the bills eventually. That is not just to do with the poll tax. Bad debts get written off normally. Cameron Buchanan, I thank you for taking any intervention. It was a point of principle rather than that to the amount. I felt that the principle should not be written off. That is what I was trying to make. John Mason. There is also a principle that, in practice, what is the point of cutting off your nose despite your face? That is the kind of logic that we are seeing from the Tories today. Another principle is that we do not want to discourage people from registering to vote, and another principle is that there has to be a place for mercy in our systems. We know that, in the health sector, people cause themselves health problems, but we still help them. We know that, in debt, some people get into debt by their own fault, but we still have a responsibility as a society to help those people. How do we balance up all those principles? Is this the right bill at the right time? I have to say that it is the right course of action. The time being was clearly prompted by the talk of pursuing new voters, but 10 councils had stopped pursuing those debts already. Although the gross value of the debt is £425 million, I understand that all of that has been provided for, and the net debt in the accounts is nil. There has clearly been consultation with councils on the detail of the bill, and the question has arisen should there have been more consultation on the principle of the bill. On the one hand, I have had one or two constituents objecting, but on the other hand, the committee only got 12 submissions, which suggests that, for many people, it is a dead issue. On the whole, I am in favour of consultation, and I can think of some acts that have been passed by this Parliament that needed a lot more consultation. However, this Parliament, as it has to be said, is much better than Westminster at consultation—look at stamp duty land tax—and sometimes you just need to step out and take action. In the consultation responses, Glasgow City Council, commenting on the increase in voter registrations, said that it did not think that it was poll tax non-payers who were re-engaging, but, much more, the additional registration were younger voters. They also said that their debt policy is aimed at breaking the cycle of debt for the individual and to direct resources at current collections, which benefits people and services. I have to say that I completely agree with that approach by Glasgow. The £869,000 that is being refunded to councils is not big money, and most councils in Caesla seem happy with the split. We did hear grumbles from North Lanarkshire and a few others. However, my feeling is that they were being a bit over-optimistic as to how much they might have collected in the future. I do think that it is a bit odd that Dundee is getting £305,000 for its £11 million debt, and Glasgow with £125 million debt is only getting £20,000, but I suspect that we can live with that. I am happy to give my support to this bill today, and I do feel that it is a good balance between justice and mercy. I reiterate one sentence that the cabinet secretary said in his opening speech. He mentioned that even if a person could be traced, if no attempt had been made to recover outstanding arrears from a debtor within the last 20 years, the local authority cannot pursue the debt any further. I think that that is something that we have to remember, and that is why the bill is a very sensible proposition. Another reason to end the collection of this iniquitous tax is that it is completely undemocratic to threaten people who register to vote in the referendum with sheriff officers for a debt that is over 20 years old. I think that we have to remember that as well. Kenny MacAskill mentioned that the poor tax was introduced to Scotland in 1989, one year before England and Wales, and we were used as guinea pigs here in Scotland. We should never forget that at any other point at all. I want to pick up on something Alex Rowley who said that it was absolutely correct when he mentioned that the tax was an attack on the poor. How can it be right that someone who stays in a mansion, a castle even, and I won't name any names, actually pays the same as someone who could live in a one or a two-bedroom house? That's why it was a very, very iniquitous tax. I want to share some of my experiences from those days in the poll tax. Jess MacAskill said that I was part of the campaign that can pay, won't pay. Some of us had our wages arrested. Most of us paid 10 per cent surcharge at then, so there was more money paid from that. Some of us even had warrant officers and warrant sales in our houses. We entered into that campaign to support the people, and I was a council at the time that I represented, but to support the people in Scotland from this iniquitous tax. I went in marches with many, many other people, members of the public. I also stood outside doors where there were people, young mothers with kids, where warrant officers came to their doors. I and others stood outside their doors to stop them from removing goods from their houses. Young mothers who couldn't afford to go out and buy a new cooker or whatever it may be, and we ended up getting a list that we gave round doors that said, if a warrant officer comes to your door and none of us are here with you, show them this list, make sure they cannot take these essentials from your house. We worked with our communities to enable them to ensure that they did not get the essentials that they needed for their families, for their kids and for themselves, to take them out of their houses. I am proud of the part that I and many others played in that campaign in the iniquitous tax. If it had not been for the ordinary people out there, you could probably say that it was a grassroots campaign, because it really affected the people on the ground. People who could hardly afford to get the luxuries that lots of people who were paying the same as them could very well afford, who could not afford luxuries, and yet they were being penalised by the iniquitous poll tax that came from a Westminster Government. I want to thank every single person, not just us, who were in the can pay, can't pay campaign, can pay, will pay. I want to thank all the ordinary people who saw this as an unjust and unfair and immoral tax and stood together and defeated it and brought down the Thatcher Government. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call Richard Baker to be followed by Richard Lyle. As a new member of the Finance Committee, which convener informs me, I am highly privileged to be a member of, I have had the chance to hear the evidence on this bill. Along with the great majority of members who have spoken today, I do support this legislation. I think that it is quite wrong to link the issue of outstanding community charge debt to electoral registration. Indeed, I have some issues with local authorities using electoral roles to pursue wider debts as well. In my view, such matters should not affect efforts to encourage as many people as possible to take part in a democratic process, and that is why I raise with the cabinet secretary whether other legislative solutions have been sought to address the issue that this bill rightly seeks to resolve. I think that it would also have been legitimate for the Scottish Government to look at other ways to ensure that local authorities did not use the electoral register after the referendum to pursue those debts. While I support this bill, I think that it is regrettable, as others have said, that there was in effect no consultation at all with anyone before its introduction. I understand the reasoning entirely behind acting speedily, but the fact that COSLA was simply informed in a phone call of the Government's intention to legislate on the same day that the announcement was made to Parliament is, in my view, not acceptable. Indeed, the committee refers to that in its report. To be fair to the cabinet secretary himself, I acknowledge to committee that that was not optimal. Indeed, I suspect that, given the place that the Scottish Government was at when the announcement was made, he may not have had a huge amount of influence over the arrangements around the former First Minister's statement. I believe that there was also a case for at least curtailed public consultation on the bill, but, given that this is a matter of great importance for local authorities, whatever our views on the merits of this legislation, consultation with COSLA should have taken place. It was frankly disrespectful to councils not to have done so, because there has been no great divide politically amongst councils in pursuing this debt. Indeed, the council that will receive the greatest proportion of the financial settlement is done by the City Council, which is an SNP administration, because it has been the most assiduous in pursuing these debts. Indeed, when the SNP were in the administration in Aberdeen and convening the finance committee there, the authority recovered nearly £155,000 in poll tax arrears between 2007 and 2012, but, of course, other authorities have, in effect, ceased collecting these debts already. While I think that it is right that a committee raised the question of fairness for those who, despite opposing the poll tax, paid their debt whereas others who did not are now exempt, I think that the issues around practicality are rightly taken into consideration. Many authorities have found that the costs of collection have not justified pursuing this debt, but it is also important that we send out a message that this is an exceptional circumstance, with regard to an historic, deeply unpopular and, in my view, a deeply unfair tax, and that, looking forward, we must all pay our contributions to local authority taxations so that our councils can carry out their vital work. In short, I am disappointed that there was not proper consultation with councils on this bill. I think that it would have been appropriate to give at least some time to look at other legislative options, but, ultimately, I agree with the principle of what this bill is seeking to do. In essence, it is simply giving legal effect to the approach taken by most local authorities already in Scotland. If looked at from the perspective of ensuring that poll tax is now fully consigned to history, that can be no bad thing. Thank you very much. Before we turn to closing speeches, I call Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A form of poll tax was first levied in 1275, then 1379 and was resurrected in 1641 in England to finance the raising of an army against Scottish and Irish uprisings. Now a form of poll tax was first levied in Scotland in 1699. Poll tax, officially known as the community charge, was a tax to fund local government in the United Kingdom, instituted in 1989 by the then Tory Government of Margaret Thatcher. It replaced the rates that were based on the notional rental value of a house. The new poll tax was first trialled in Scotland and replaced the rates from the start of 1989, 1999 financial year, by a Tory Prime Minister that Scotland never voted for. It was highly contentious, opposed by many in Scotland, and after being introduced in England where its introduction caused riots in the streets of London, it was rightly bind after the resignation of Margaret Thatcher by the new John Major Government. After 20 years, we still have councils trying to collect this inequitous tax. The bill, introduced by the SNP Government, puts an end to the scourge that is the poll tax, an old tax that is hated by many in Scotland. From what we saw in the referendum in Scotland's independence, when millions of Scots were engaged and for many felt it was the first time in a long time that they had something to get out and vote for, it was ever a worrying story to hear that some local authorities here in Scotland intended to use the increase in democratic participation and, in particular, in registration on the electoral register to pursue old poll tax debts. I would like to take the time to highlight another issue, and it is indeed an important issue. That is the need to seek the power from Westminster to control the electoral register and, in particular, to remove the ability of the register to be sold to private debt collectors. It is not right that the people of Scotland should be put off or the scourge from participating in Scotland's thriving democracy, a result of the fear of being pursued by private debt collectors. As members will know, councils are well within the rights to use current information to assess council tax liability. Unlike the imposed and hated poll tax, the council tax is one that forms a key part of local authorities' finance. It is also a tax that this Government has continued to take action on whilst it has been in office. Since 2007, it has frozen the council tax, and the council tax reduction scheme protects over 500,000 of our most vulnerable citizens from increased liabilities following the UK Government's abolition of the council tax benefit. It is indeed in stark contrast to the action of the con-dem Westminster Government that continues to impose its austerity agenda on the people of Scotland, an agenda that I hope the people of Scotland will reject in May. The bill writes a wrong. A wrong has been too long in its insistence. It compensates councils for its standing immense in line with current collection rates. It also means that the people of Scotland will no longer be pursued for a tax that they did not want, did not vote for, and I believe that this Government has a record of taking action to protect the people of Scotland, and in supporting this bill today, that is exactly what we will continue to do. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and we now turn to closing speeches. I call on Gavin Brown, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me begin my closing then with a quote from North Lanarkshire Council on the written evidence that they submitted to the Finance Committee, where they said that they find it incongruous that a bill considered necessary as a result of the high levels of democratic engagement, the bill itself will not be subject to a formal public consultation, and they asked the question, how are the views of the public, the majority of whom have made payment of their community charge liability, to be understood? I think that that's a perfectly fair question, Deputy Presiding Officer, and one that merits an answer from the Scottish Government. They said that there wasn't time to do so, yet the Finance Committee managed to have a consultation on that very same subject. That consultation, albeit a fairly swift one, raised a number of issues. I'm happy to give way. Mark McDonald. The member is quite right that the Finance Committee undertook a consultation. Can the member refresh the memory as to how many members of the public responded to that consultation? The Finance Committee from memory had 12 responses in total, of how many were members of the public. I would probably say about four of those were members of the public. I may be not exactly right on that. However, the point is this, the number of people that will respond to a Finance Committee consultation is surely bound to be smaller than the number that respond to a formal Government consultation on a piece of legislation. If you contrast the number of people who responded to the Finance Committee on the Smith proposals were probably somewhere in the region of 20, perhaps 25, the number of course who responded to the Smith commission itself is over 14,000. Had there been a formal public consultation from the Scottish Government, we would have got considerably more than we got to the very shortened Finance Committee publication. I would draw attention of the member to some committee consultations, which, where there are very strong views on an issue, can achieve a very strong response. I recall from memory the equal opportunities committee in the last session managed a 12,000 response consultation. The Finance Committee's consultation pales in comparison. I disagree with those numbers, but my point is this, if we have a considerable number of issues coming out of a mere 12 responses, how many other issues would have come out from a formal public consultation that the Government could have addressed? I do not think that it is good enough the way in which it has approached it. For the Finance Minister to say when he was speaking to the committee and asked that question to simply say, we are where we are, I do not think that it is good enough for this Scottish Government or indeed any Scottish Government if we are going through a formal programme of government. Returning to the principle, Deputy Presiding Officer, members have stated that they do not find the £425 million figure helpful. I accept that that figure clearly is not the amount that can be collected. I suspect that the majority of it cannot be collected, but the point is this, if only 10 per cent of it is collectible, that is still a pretty sizable sum, and what the Government does not know and what the Government has not been able to say is what percentage of it do they think is collectible. I do not think that it is good enough to just say that we do not think that most of it will be collectible. They must have some idea of what could be collected. I am grateful to Mr Brown. The local authorities have told us that they have payment arrangements in place that would draw an £869,000 worth of Portax debt out of the £425 million. Given what I said to Parliament already in my speech and in my contribution to the French Committee that once a 20-year period had elapsed from connection to particular debts, it is impossible to resurrect those debts to be collected, can Mr Brown now tell us how much he believes with that information it is possible to collect out of this debt? Does that not make the case for the pragmatic decision of getting rid of the debt? The Government is unable to do the work to tell us how much could be collected, but they expect one MSP to be able to put an exact figure on it. Just to correct him, he is getting uptight. He is getting uptight, Deputy Deputy Presiding Officer, which is always a sign, as it was at First Minister's Questions today. What he said was that COSLA was asked how much they think they would collect. Well, they were not asked that. They were asked how much do you actually have formally in place for collection mechanisms. That is not the same question as how much do they think they could collect. If I am wrong on that, I am happy to give way. The point that I am making to Mr Brown is that, given what I have said to Parliament, that, after the period that has elapsed from the debts being incurred to now, it is impossible to resurrect debt collection arrangements. We have asked local government what they can collect, and they have told us that they can collect. Cabinet Secretary, please draw to a close. Mr Brown, you need to draw to a close. I think that COSLA were asked to the exact question that I put there, but in closing, let me say this. We are deeply concerned about the impact that it could have on COSLA's collection. He says today that COSLA is linked to ability to pay, yet, just a couple of years ago, Mr Swinney and Mr Salmond specifically said that COSLA is an inherently unfair tax, with a very loose connection to people's ability to pay. Let me close with one final thought. That really must be a quick point. He attempts, Deputy Presiding Officer, to talk about principle. We don't want people to fear being on the electoral roll for a decades-old debt, yet he is very comfortable, and his Government is extremely comfortable, using that same electoral roll, the expanded electoral roll, to collect decades-old debt for council tax. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I start by thanking the Finance Committee and the Clarks for their work in scrutinising the bill to take us to stage one proceedings today. I am very clear that the intention behind the bill was absolutely to respond to the concerns when some local authorities considered using the increase in voter registration to collect historic poll tax debt, and I think that that would have sent the wrong message about democratic participation. However, it is interesting, having said that, that COSLA does not actually believe that legislation is necessary. Indeed, the former First Minister himself, I think that a day after the announcement, did not believe that legislation was necessary either, as he noted that the bill would have no practical effect, and I quote, because there is already a legal bar on chasing debts that are more than 20 years old. Glasgow City Council, in one second, also did not believe that the increase in voter registration could be attributed entirely to non-poll tax payers. In fact, much of that was suggested to be a very welcome increase in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds registering to vote for the first time, and, of course, they were not even born when the poll tax was introduced, never mind being in debt as a result. I understand that that applies to the minister, who himself was six at the time. I am happy to give way. I am slightly older than six, but not by much. In terms of the issue around prescription that Jackie Baillie raises, we heard in evidence at the finance committee that a number of local authorities reapplied for the summary warrant in order to circumvent the 20-year prescription. Although she is technically correct, that issue remains live in a number of local authorities who had circumvented through reapplying for the summary warrant. I accept that, because, although the premise for taking action might not be entirely evidence-based, I do think that there were concerns, and that is why I have sympathy for the cabinet secretary's position, and Scottish Labour will support the general principles of the bill. However, in supporting the bill, we are alive to the concerns that have been identified by the committee and expressed by members in this chamber today. I hope that those will be addressed by the minister in his closing remarks. Firstly, there is this question of consultation. There is no getting away from it. I think that it is fair to say that, despite Mr Swinney's best attempts at a very elegant explanation, the lack of consultation with stakeholders at the start of the process was undoubtedly unhelpful. Never mind the lack of consultation more generally. In the circumstances, I understand the need for speed, and particularly in ensuring that we reach a conclusion at stage 3 timiously. However, I do not accept that there could not have been a much longer conversation with local government, or at least a more detailed one, before the bill was announced. Moving on, let me agree with the cabinet secretary. I think that the poll tax has run its course. That was a tax that was totally discredited, it was overwhelmingly rejected, it was then and is now an unfair tax. However, I acknowledge, as many others have done today, that those who paid their poll tax and, in many cases, struggled to do so will feel that this decision is unfair. Alec Rowley was right to thank them for paying, because they helped to sustain local services on which we all rely, like schools and care homes. However, it is the case that it is unlikely that those debts would be collected at any point in the future. The amount that is collected is, without doubt, declining to very small numbers indeed. There are legal and practical difficulties in collecting debts that old. In some cases, those debts were inherited from predecessor authorities. They were paper-based, they weren't computer-based, so there are real practical issues about collection. The majority of local authorities have, rightly in my view, focused on pursuing council tax debt, because there is much more chance of recovery. I think that Kenny Gibson is right to raise concerns about the potential impact on council tax collection. Local authorities do very well to achieve aninyear collection rate at 95.2 per cent, rising by the time that they take appropriate measures to something like 97 per cent indeed. I will be interested to know that, in 2013-14, of the 10 local authorities that had ceased collecting the poll tax debts, nine of them were actually above that. That is interesting, and that bears out my point exactly. That is where I think we should focus. It is right for Kenny Gibson to raise the point. I do not want to dwell on the difference of opinion between COSLA and the Cabinet Secretary, but I do not think that we would want any unforeseen consequences of the bill that we passed today to have an impact on those very good collection rates. I wonder whether the Government would not commit to should that happen as a direct result of this bill to at least having a dialogue and reviewing the position with COSLA. I think that that would certainly be helpful. There were concerns, of course, about whether councils had been adequately compensated, but I know that COSLA have agreed the amount with the Scottish Government. Finally, I think that Alex Rowley hit the nail on the head. The real debate is not really about this bill today. It is important, though that is. The real debate is about how we finance local government. I welcome the commission that the Cabinet Secretary has set up, and we will participate in that fully. The importance of local government is that they provide essential services such as teachers for our schools, such as home help for our older people, such as maintenance workers to clear our streets, and there can be no more important time than now when our streets are covered in snow and ice. It is local government who have borne the brunt of the SNP Government's cuts. I, too, this evening, and indeed at stage 3, look forward to consigning the poll tax to the dustbin of history. There is a wider problem that the SNP does not really want to talk about, and it is something that we must debate urgently, and that is the underfunding of local government as a direct result of the choices made by the SNP Government. Thank you very much. I now call Mark O'Biaggy to wind up the debate. Minister, you have until 5 pm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank everyone for what has been a debate with many perspectives, but I want to take us back as my starting point to the important starting point of the bill and where we were then, and the motivation to maintain the integrity of our electoral register. It is such an important point that we cannot understate it. It is the basis of not just my remarks but our elections, the constituencies that are structured, and the democracy of this country itself. Last year, people who had never taken part dared to step forward and have their say on their nation's future. Instead, they were hit by what was more an unquiet remnant of our political past. We had 85 per cent turnout—4.3 million on the register and all-time high—but to listen to some people, they should have marched into the polling station and been handed a bill rather than a ballot paper. In the aftermath of the referendum, there were different responses, but let me assure Malcolm Chisholm that there were responses that led to concerns. Some were gung ho, but others expressed a doubt and were drawn back as local authorities to the statutory duty that exists on local authorities. In 1987 and 1992, acts made it a duty of every local authority to collect the taxes that they owed. To answer Jackie Baillie, that is why we must put the issue beyond doubt by extinguishing that liability entirely. My second point is that poll tax is a dead tax. In a way, it is a dead tax. In a way, it is not. If I want to dare to contradict the Deputy First Minister who described it as a dead tax, maybe I would describe it as a bit of an undead tax. It is like a ghost that is clanking its chains in the night to disturb the living. Who is it that gets kept up at night by those howls? It is surely by now not the people who had the ability to pay, and it is time that this was laid to rest. There is a difference between reward and recognising reality. Mark McDonald very succinctly pointed out that bad debt is a concept in accountancy. Gavin Brown, with his well-lodded finance background, I am sure, is well aware of that. It was also set out by John Mason that this is how electricity companies and utilities will work. I have to say that, in looking at the experience of debt right off, it has been good for some. This note here from the House of Commons library cites one occasion that there was a £5 billion debt right off in the prices of the day. It happened in 1989 also the notorious first year of the poll tax. Who was it that had their debts written off that day? The water companies? Who buy? The UK Conservative Government and why? So they could be privatised. Debt right offs can be used as an instrument of policy, and I have to say I might not have agreed with that one, but in these days this is the time. John Mason summed it up contribution on the principle of mercy, but even in accountancy terms when you've got £2 collectible out of every £1,000, administrators will tell you that it's time to liquidate, and that £425 million, which is not just a ghost, it's a phantom number, can finally be still. If we have councils listening to this who are concerned about future collection of council tax, particularly historic council tax, do they not think that they will be concerned when the minister says that debt right off can be used as an instrument of public policy? Administrations have used that from different purposes. There's been the right off of housing debt. There's been the right off for privatisations. Of course, to respond to the thrust that has been the basis of everything Gavin Brown has said other than his worship of the poll tax, it is of course that people should pay their tax. Kenny McCaskill and Sandra White set out the campaign that was run by the SNP at the time. It supported non-payment as a form of protest and as a temporary one to withhold the tax until it was abolished and then pay it back, or pay it back plus 10 per cent, in the case of some particularly enthusiastic protesters. As Alex Rowley said, we should recognise those who did that. Liking doesn't come into it. The tax was imposed on the mandate of a Parliament who did have a right to rule, which this party has always sought democratically to remove. However, when it comes to tax avoidance in the Conservatives, why are they showing such enthusiasm for this particular issue here? Why is this pleasure in harrying people to the modern-day equivalent of a debtor's prison? There's a cast briefing that I saw from September 2013 that highlighted UK Government figures that benefit fraud was £1.6 billion in 2012. Campaigners are often contrasting that with figures like the ones from the National Audit Office, who in 2012 reported that HMRC had 41,000 identified open tax avoidance cases totaling £10.2 billion. When the Conservative UK Government is better able to collect that tax, then perhaps we will be sure that their motivation is healthy public revenue and not simply picking out a certain group of people who are liable for extra attention. We have to remember as well that this is not the first step on this road. The Scottish Government will not be the first authority to do this, at best where the 11th—11th—ten councils already have. Western Bartonshire has stated a similar support. More than that, 24 of 32 local authorities last year collected less than £10,000. That is not a great spring of cash. It is a trickle, and it is a trickle that is drying up £1.3 million in 2009-10, then £1.2 million, £900,000, £512,000, £327,000. The time will soon arrive when collection costs outweigh any remaining revenue. After 20 years, the debt is simply not collectible in the main. That is already the law. Deits expire, even taxes. What the bill does is draw a line under the issue and say enough. Malcolm Chisholm's starting point is also my conclusion—the singular unfairness of the poll tax. Marx is not someone who had many adherents in the UK Government in 1989, but there were many who professed to adhere to another philosopher. Adam Smith, whose first maxim on tax said that the subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities. The campaigners called it the poll tax because they knew the history of the poll tax. It was the name given to the tax levied in England from 1377 that Richard Lyle mentioned that required the payment of a sum of a groat to finance the war on France. People didn't stand for it then and they revolted, but you can go further back. Theophonies the Confessor in 722 A.D. Chronicle that when the emperor in Constantinople sought to levia poll tax on his domains in Italy, it was met by outrage and rebellion. The poll tax was a tax so bad that it didn't just make what Tyler burned the temples of London, it made Rome declare independence from the Roman Empire. Anyone should have known better. Hansard in 1991-92 shows that 6.34 million people received some kind of benefit. That meant that everybody else was paying the same whether you were the spiritual inheritor of what Tyler or were living in an imperial palace. If I am talking about history here, it is because for me this is. When the first poll tax bills dropped through doors in April 1989, I was more interested in the sandpit in Mrs Diggle's classroom or whether Optimus Prime was the best leader of the Autobots. That this supremely unfair tax is still being used is depressing. Let's go back to where this started. Instead of dwelling on it, let's remember that participative outflow, that democratic spirit, and if £869,000 to write off a bad debt is the price of our democratic renewal, I say it's one worth paying. That concludes the debate on the community charged debt Scotland bill and the history lesson. It's now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 12171, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the community charged debt Scotland bill. I call on John Swinney to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 12187, in the name of Shona Robison. On the health and social care safety and quality bill, private members bill, UK legislation, I call on Shona Robison to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 12182.1, in the name of Alex Ferguson, which seeks to amend motion number 12182, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the childcare inquiry being agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12182.1, in the name of Alex Ferguson, is as follows. Yes, 15. No, 63. There were 31 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12182, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the childcare inquiry being agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12182, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is as follows. Yes, 96. No, 0. There were 14 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12176, in the name of John Swinney, on the community charge debt Scotland bill being agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12176, in the name of John Swinney, is as follows. Yes, 96. No, 14. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12171, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the community charge debt Scotland bill being agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12187, in the name of Shona Robison, on the UK health and social care safety and quality bill, private members bill, UK legislation being agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.