 Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Paul Peelhouse, a new psychoactive substances in Scotland. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I'll call on Paul Peelhouse to the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to make a statement today on the matter of new psychoactive substances. Substances whose sale is not restricted but which mimic if taken by an individual the effects of control drugs and can be just as harmful and can in some cases have fatal consequences. I would like to bring the chamber up to date with the latest developments and what the Scottish Government is doing in response. The challenges that are there for my announcements today are not only from an enforcement perspective but also in respect of our education efforts. Those challenges have been well rehearsed in this chamber and I have been struck by and am grateful for the consensual nature of the debates on this issue and the goodwill and well informed contributions from members across the chamber. Members will no doubt agree with me that the biggest difficulty and perhaps frustration is that the existing legislative framework enables those substances to remain legal where they are not knowingly sold for human consumption and thereby not come under the traditional radar of the Misuse of Drugs Act on which we have relied to control drugs. To this end, I am pleased to announce that the expert review group established by my predecessor has presented its report to me and this has been published today. It makes a number of key recommendations on how the existing legal framework might be strengthened, not just in the available law but how the existing legal framework can be made to work better in practice. I am pleased to advise the chamber that on behalf of the Scottish Government I am minded to accept the recommendations of this report and I wish to record my thanks to all those who directly contributed to this work and those who offered the group insights and expertise from the field. You will appreciate that I have only received the report today but wanted to place this in the public domain to alert you to its findings. You have my commitment that these recommendations will be taken forward with priority and in the spirit of collaboration and consensus where they can be found. One of the clear barriers to progress is identifying a shared understanding of the problem. In particular, there is a need for a clear and practical definition of NPS, more evidence of the harms being caused in the immediate, medium and long term, and better data collection and sharing across the range of public services. I heard this directly yesterday from our NPS evidence group, a parallel group of experts that has been brought together by the Scottish Government to review the available evidence on NPS. I am pleased to further announce that this group will be working to develop a definition of NPS that can be used consistently across different sectors. This will assist the courts, forensic experts and those supporting people using NPS. The group will also be reviewing existing systems of data collection and information sharing to improve our knowledge on the extent of NPS use and the associated harms. The particular recording difficulties in respect of accident emergency departments has been raised in this chamber before. In addition to the work of the evidence group, I am delighted to announce that the Scottish Government will shortly be commissioning specific research to enable us to better understand the prevalence and harms of NPS use within specific vulnerable subgroups of the population. Stakeholders across Scotland have raised concerns about the use of those substances among vulnerable young people, adults with mental health issues and injecting drug users as well. Evidence about the use and harms of NPS within those groups is very limited. There are concerns that the consequences of NPS use among those groups may be particularly severe. The position is exacerbated by the alarming number of new NPS products appearing on the market each and every year. I recently visited for for police station in Angus and heard first hand about the proactive approach taken by local police, trading standard officers, Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, community campaigners and others on the proactive multi-agency approach that has been taken in Tayside to tackle NPS. Operation Caronate, as it is known, targeted individuals in premises that sell NPS. It has seen officers utilising common law and trading standards regulations at premises selling NPS. This action has resulted in the closure of premises selling NPS and is an example of good practice of a number of agencies and communities working in partnership to tackle the issue of new psychoactive substances. The partners in Angus indicated that that has reduced NPS purchases in their area, but it is early days. Only last month I had the opportunity to close a member's business debate on motion submitted by Alex Johnstone on new psychoactive substances needs assessment for Tayside, and in preparation for that debate and my subsequent visit I was struck by the excellent work being done to tackle the issue that those substances are causing to local communities. I have also become very aware of the significant degree of consensus across the political spectrum in the chamber on the challenge and the recognition that there are no easy answers to the questions posed by NPS. As I take forward the range of matters discussed in my report, I am extending an invitation to my colleagues in this chamber from across the parties to join me in a ministerial cross-party group on NPS. I will write regarding the details of that to colleagues in the near future. However, in essence, this group will continue to examine the work that is under way to build a shared understanding of the problem, hear from experts in the field and oversee the work as it unfolds. Our education efforts must also continue. Our drugs campaign, Know the Score, continues to offer reliable and non-judgmental advice on drugs and their risks, including new psychoactive substances via our free helpline and website. We also support choices for life delivered in partnership with Police Scotland, a drugs, alcohol and tobacco education programme for school children across Scotland supported by an information website. Choices for life will shortly be releasing a video of the dangers of NPS via the global online learning portal for schools. I have also seen first hand the work of CREW, which is another excellent partnership that we have in place. I personally learned a great deal on my visit to CREW about the harmful effects of NPS during that visit. The individuals that they engage with on a daily basis, including family members, are those who use NPS. I would like to examine, with the ministerial cross-party group, how we might better connect with young people and exploit social media in this regard to educate young people on the risks that they face if they use NPS. I would also like parliamentary colleagues to work with me to examine how we might work with the Scottish Youth Parliament to raise the profile of NPS and to support them to complement the efforts of the chamber. A specific recommendation of the expert review raised the need for first-class forensic capability that can develop clear standards to support fast and accurate information on NPS for those not just in enforcement but also in critical areas of the health service, such as accident emergency departments. I am already in discussion with Forensic Services, Scottish Police Authority on how we can take that forward, and that is particularly important given that there is evidence from Wales of substances increasing in strength. Again, I would hope that the ministerial cross-party group can oversee the development of a national centre of excellence. There is a specific recommendation for new legislation to be introduced, and I recognise and acknowledge the potential role of the UK Government in securing new arrangements to bring NPS under legal control. The Home Office has been helpful and co-operative in the work of the expert group when I will be meeting my counterpart Lynn Featherstone MP to press in her supporting us to bring those substances under legal control in Scotland. In summary, the report of the expert group has been published today, and I have made a number of immediate announcements on commissioning research on the prevalence and harm that is caused by NPS, and I am beginning work on a definition to guide those in the field as part of an immediate response. I have also invited parliamentary colleagues to join me in considering the work in more detail, including overseeing the increased effort in educating young people and developing a first-class forensic service to strengthen our response. I am encouraged that the expert review concluded that there were a range of existing powers that can be used to tackle the sale and supply of NPS, and that those can be made more effective. The practical work to progress these operational matters will now begin, and I am also clear on my commitment to ensure that new legislation is brought forward as quickly as possible to put those substances where they belong, subject to criminal proceedings. As has been echoed in this chamber many times, the term legal high has been regarded as misleading and unhelpful. I hope that the chamber will support the findings of the report that I have published today. Making the question of the legality of those substances very clear, identifying the harms that they cause and putting where appropriate those who seek to sell them in the knowledge of the harms that they cause behind bars rather than behind the shop counters in our high streets. Thank you very much. Thank you minister. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement to intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to next item of business. If you wish to ask a question of the minister, it would be extremely helpful if you would press your request speak button now, and I call Elaine Murray. Thank you minister for the advanced copy of his statement and for making it available an hour in advance of the statement to the chamber. Scottish Labour will be pleased to take part in the cross-party working group that he proposes. New psychoactive substances are an issue that Governments around the world are struggling to cope with. Biochemical knowledge is now so advanced that if one substance is banned, another with similar effects on the receptors in the brain can be synthesised to replace it. With regard to the forensics, has the minister examined the approach taken in Wales where last year the health minister allocated funding to the Wadinos project, which provides a mechanism for the collection and testing of unknown and new psychoactive substances or combinations of substances and issues advice on harm reduction? Has he given consideration to the suggestion by my colleague Kezia Dugdale in the debate just over a year ago, which seemed to have some acceptance by his predecessor, that universities could work with organisations such as Crew 2000 to set up the social enterprise that would enable drugs that are taken off the streets to be handed over for assessment? Can he also clarify what he means by pressing Lynn Featherstone to support you on bringing the substances under legal control in Scotland? Are you arguing for the devolution of those powers, in which case I put it to you that there should be no borders in the fight to control the harm caused by NPS? I thank Lee Murray firstly for her very positive contribution in terms of the debates that we have had up to now and also her warm words at the beginning about wanting to work with the Government in the ministerial cross-party group, and I certainly welcome that myself. On the new substance emerging, she is absolutely correct that we have, I think, in the last year 81 new substances have come in the market, and that shows just how difficult it is for the authorities and those working in the third sector to keep on top of what the impacts are, the harms that there are on individuals and to advise those individuals the risks that they face in taking them. That is why testing and the forensics capability is so important, being able to understand that a new product emerges, just what is in it, how potent it is and, potentially, to rat that information through, cascade it through the community that is serving drug use to make sure that they are prepared for and aware of the risks that they face. We are looking closely at what is being done in Wales and where in us. I cannot promise we will do exactly the same, but we obviously have to look at that and that is something that we can take forward in the cross-party group. We certainly are aware of that, and officials from my own department are engaging with their colleagues in Wales about their progress and being kept informed of that. The point regarding the universities and the social enterprise, I will have to look at that, but it predates me, so I will take account of what Kezia Dugdale said previously, but that is, again, something that we can take forward in the ministerial cross-party group. As to Pressingland Fethreston, we are aware clearly that we want to work collaboratively with the Home Office and the UK Government on that. I respect the point that has been made by Dr Murray about cross-border issues. Clearly, we face challenges. I am a colleague, Cabinet Secretary, who is meeting in a trilateral with the Irish Government tomorrow, and we will be discussing those issues with them. Clearly, it does not respect boundaries. We need to work together and we are learning a lot from what the Irish have done themselves. Clearly, the Home Office has produced its own report last October, with 31 recommendations of its own. We are studying those reports, and I am working closely with our colleagues. I encourage Lynn Fethreston to help us insofar as the UK Government can to effect the result that we all want to see. Margaret Mitchell Thank you to the minister for advance sight of the statement. The minister made reference to my colleague Annabelle Goldie's question yesterday to the Solicitor General on how many people supplying these substances have been convicted under common law with reckless and culpable conduct. The response was that those figures are not available. Clearly, that is a matter of concern, especially as the report identifies that using a charge of reckless and culpable conduct has been successful in securing convictions. I am very pleased that the minister addressed the data collection issue in his statement. I, too, confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will be happy to take part in the cross-party group. However, there seems to be a number of different expert groups looking at the issue without an overarching co-ordinator. I wondered if the minister could perhaps confirm if that is an aspect that has been considered. The member might expect me to say this, but I hope that the Scottish Government is providing some overarching co-ordination of this activity. However, I take the point that it does appear to be different strands, but I can assure Margaret Mitchell that they are co-ordinated and they are complementary rather than cutting across each other. The work that I witnessed yesterday at the expert group looking at data issues was sitting alongside the work that is being done of the expert legal group, looking at the legal aspects of it and a focus on data and statistics and information sharing in the second group that I met yesterday. They are complementary rather than cutting across each other. I welcome Margaret Mitchell's confirmation that the Scottish Conservatives are happy to take part in the group. I know that members such as Margaret Mitchell and Annabelle Golden have a lot of interest in drug use issues, so that is very positive. On the issue that was raised, I know that the Solicitor General is looking at how we can improve the availability of Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service data to ensure that we have as much visibility as possible. That is something that has been taken forward following the question session yesterday. We need to finish by 3 o'clock, because I need to protect the debate that comes afterwards. I have a loving members who wish to ask a question. If you keep to a question and the minister keeps to a brief answer, we will get through. Graham Day, followed by Alice McInnes. The review group reports states that there are a number of benefits to the approach that is taken by the Irish Republic to tackling the NPS, citing as an example the reduction in the number of hedgehogs from 102 in 2010, when the legislation was introduced to just 10. Will the minister accept that shutting down such premises, welcome though that would be, is not in itself going to solve the problem of NPS? It is not least of all because the addictions that they have helped to create will presumably be fed via the internet instead. That is an important point. The Irish have managed to ban all sites using Irish domain names as another part of their approach. If we go forward with proposals to perhaps as recommended in the report in paragraph 6.9 on the merit in considering a new offence to deal with the sale or supply of NPS, that would also potentially ban the sale via the internet. Clearly again, because internet sales are regulated in effect by the UK Government in this context, we need to work closely with the Home Office on such matters and other departments at UK Government levels. It is another example where co-ordinated approach between the Scottish Government and the UK Government may be helpful in this regard and working with our colleagues elsewhere in the European Union to make sure that the internet sales issue is addressed. The minister noted the need for first-class forensic capability. Forensic services is over spent by £0.29 million and is facing a further £0.214 million on allocated cost reductions before the end of the year. The SPA has admitted that that is beginning to put pressure on its finite resources. Given the importance of tackling the menace of NPS, can the minister advise what additional funds will be available to forensic services to build that first-class capability? I recognise that, like all parts of the public services, we are under pressure at the moment due to funding constraints, but we will work closely with Police Scotland and the forensic services to identify what is possible within existing resources, and if there are additional resource requirements, we will take those in board. However, it is early days that the report has just been produced. We are signalling that we accept the point that has been made by the expert legal group and look forward to working up the detail, and that is clearly something that we can discuss within the group that I have suggested today. I am very grateful to the minister, of course, for his statement. I recognise that he is doing lots of things about the physical supply within the country. If I could just extend Graham Day's point, I am wondering what the minister feels he can do presumably with the Home Office to deal with what is going to happen, which is an internet sale and supply. That will, however, be worked out through international discussion. It is early days, but I appreciate that the European Justice Council, the issue of NPS use, has been discussed in the past. I know that it is unpotentially an agenda item that is coming up in the near future. That may be a forum whereby we can engage with other Governments to discuss a co-ordinated approach across the European Union into tackling the problem of internet sales. There are some challenges in terms of internet sales for those who wish to use that route. I heard in Angus that there are predominantly young, unemployed males that are using NPS and, therefore, they may not have access to credit cards or other means to use internet sales, but clearly there is also a risk that somebody could do so and then sell on to those individuals separately. Clearly, we need to have a sophisticated approach to that. There is no single silver bullet and that is why it is useful to take on board the ideas of all other parties in the chamber and work together to try to come up with a co-ordinated solution. The minister will know how important that is to the communities that I represent in Dundee and Angus, where there have been fatalities as a result of legal highs. Scottish Labour called this week for the collection of data, the amount of people presenting themselves to A&E having taken legal highs. The minister said today that he would be reviewing existing systems of data collection, but he did not give a specific commitment to collection. Can he please tell me what timeline he aspires to for the collection of this data? I certainly recognise the issue that data collection and looking at new means of collecting data is obviously something that we are interested in. The group yesterday that I met in Edinburgh, we are looking at that very issue. What we could use in existing data but obviously what other forms of data we could deploy, whether there are existing information systems that could be adapted, could be adapted in such a way that they could capture more useful information on the granularity of drug misuse and therefore within that NPS use. I can give the member an assurance that that is something that we are looking at. Clearly it is important to take an evidence-based approach to policy development at any point in time and we do lack at the moment a comprehensive picture and there are some differences of opinion emerging that perhaps the statutory sector see a different message emerging in terms of use of intravenous drug use deployment and in the third sector are people seeing an increasingly a new group of people using intravenous drug misuse. We have some conflicts in data and we need to bring them together and understand and get a comprehensive picture so we know where the problems are, the prevalence rates and indeed the particular drugs that are being used. The local government committee is currently looking at the air weapons and licensing bill and there is a sense of frustration among folk in Aberdeen that there is a lack of licensing provision for shops specialising in the sale of psychoactive substances and drug paraphernalia. Is there a practical way that we can bring those kind of shops into the licensing regime to give folks peace of mind? The expert legal group did look at alternative models in places like New Zealand where licensing has been taken. Although there are some strengths of that approach, there are also concerns about it as well and it was not deemed to be, in the words of the expert legal group, the most appropriate solution in this case. I recognise the point that Kevin Stewart makes about the concern among communities about the prevalence of head shops in their high streets and that is why it was so positive that the action that was taken in Angus to tackle this issue through trading standards, through Police Scotland and the local council, working together to identify how they could use common law and careless and reckless behaviour to identify where there was irresponsible sale of NPS putting at risk young people and others in the community. Successful action has been taken in that community, led by community groups forcing the issue home and putting their own pressure on those suppliers and it has had the benefit of shutting down those shops. Dr Richie Simpson, followed by Alex Johnson. Minister, there is considerable avoidance of prosecution by labelling products as not being for human use and at the same time not saying what effects could occur if it was used by a human. Can I ask him if he would hold early discussions with the New Foods Scotland agency to look at those products which, whilst labelled for animal use, are clearly being sold with the intention of human use to see if we cannot get warnings to be extended so that at least people are being protected? That is a useful point that Dr Simpson has made. Certainly, I agree with him that there is great concern that the whole perception of those products as being legal highs is entirely misplaced. They are legal if they are not being used for human consumption. They are clearly very dangerous in many cases if they are used for human consumption and we know some of the substances which mimic existing illicit drugs, maybe eight or more times as powerful as the equivalent product. People will be taking maybe a similar quantity and then completely taken by the strength of the dose that they take and that may cause fatal consequences. We all have an interest to make sure that labelling is clear to make sure that people do not consume them at all. I certainly take forward the point that Dr Simpson suggests and we will discuss that within the ministerial cross-party group. Alex Johnson, followed by Mark McDonald. I thank the minister for taking action across a broad front after being in receipt of this report. I also suggest that we commend the action that was taken by Police Scotland in Angus where the common law and trading standards were used in combination in order to facilitate a raid on such a shop. I wonder if the minister could tell me if any other sections of the police force across Scotland have taken similar action and whether that is likely to become policy both for Police Scotland and for the future. I am aware that, in South Ayrshire, a similar approach was taken some years before, but I think that it would be fair to say that Angus has demonstrated a much more co-ordinated and wide-scale approach to tackling the problem at a community level and there has obviously been a strong community impetus behind that as well. Perhaps it is more recent and it is more in the light of emerging trends, if you like, in higher incidents of NPS use and the higher availability of products. In the case of Angus, it is certainly very much welcome what has been done there. It is certainly something that we are very interested in, but in order to be able to use careless and reckless in terms of the common law, we need to be able to demonstrate harms. That is why it is so important to have the forensic capability and the co-ordination with our health professionals to understand the physical, emotional and psychological impacts of those substances on individuals and to be able to demonstrate harms makes it much more easy to enforce once we have a clear idea of the harms of each product. Mark McDonald, followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the minister for his statement and also for the focus that is being placed on education within the action that the Government is taking forward. However, beyond the education targeted at children and young people, if he will examine the expansion of that to include the adult population, given the important role that parents and community leaders will play in terms of ensuring that the strong messages that the Government wishes to convey are put across, but also in terms of being able to spot the signs of NPS use in young people who they are responsible for, either as parents or perhaps as youth leaders. I think that those are extremely important points that Mark McDonald makes. The work that CREW do in Edinburgh is a good example, but they do a national organisation, a national commission, and they can provide support across the country. However, CREW work with parents, so often parents will come in for confidential advice about the substances that they know their children may or may not be taking and be able to get advice. They are aware of the risks themselves and are able to support their children, hopefully coming off the substances. However, it is equally important for adult users that we are seeing an increasing incidence of experienced drug users perhaps diverting into using NPS. They are sometimes cheaper than the equivalent and more freely available. Therefore, there is a danger that they are getting back into a culture of people using intravenous methods of deploying drugs and, therefore, putting themselves at risk of bloodborne diseases, ulcers and even amputation risks. There are serious consequences associated with injecting drugs intravenously. Therefore, we need to make sure that people are equipped with the knowledge to keep them safe. If they are going to use those substances, we need to do the absolute maximum that we can to prevent them from putting themselves at risk. I ask what assistance can be given to local authorities with regard to licensing premises that sell NPS and whether lessons can be learned from the approach taken by the local authority down in Lincoln to stop those outlets opening on our high streets? Certainly, on the latter point, we are going to take an interest in what is happening in Lincoln. It is a measure that is not directly comparable in Scotland, but we are going to study what the implications are of that. It will deal with activity that is out in the public space, but it will not necessarily prevent sale of the substances, as we understand it. Therefore, it will only have a limited impact. On licensing, I recognise the important role of local authorities in discharging their functions in planning, licensing and the role of trading standards. They are clearly important to players in that, and they have worked constructively in Angus Council and South Ayrshire Council to help to tackle the problem at a local level. We want to make sure that all local authorities are aware of what is possible and what the tool kits are available to them. That is one of the key recommendations in the report, developing a tool kit for trading standards officers to know what the powers they have are and how they can deploy the most effectively learning from good examples in Angus and South Ayrshire. The more we can do on that to help local authorities to tackle problems at a local level, the better. However, I welcome Rhoda Grant's comments and I am keen to help to ensure that that happens. How would the minister evaluate the success of the Now The Score helpline and website to date? Certainly, the website has been effective in that it has reached a large number of individuals. Now The Score provides a good source of information, which is that it can be read at time and a leisure of the individual who does not deal with any issues to do with anonymity. They can read it in their own time and in their own space and learn about the challenges. However, we have had some evidence of using Facebook, for example, to promote the use of Now The Score. I know that a campaign that was launched last year managed to generate 11,000 clicks or 5,000 additional people visiting the website over a single month. We can do more to make sure that people are aware of where the information is, where they can access it. There are no agencies such as Crue and the local ADPs to make sure that local residents are aware of Now The Score and that it is a valuable resource for them. However, it is only one part of the picture. Using information on the internet through Glow to educate children is also a very important part of what we propose to do. The misuse of drugs legislation represents 45 years of failure in many people's eyes, myself included. We must engage in terms of people that are understanding. In the meantime, that is the term legal highs. I commend the work of Crue as you do. Do you agree with me to use education as the primary vehicle for addressing the concerns that we all have? I do think that that is probably true. We have a situation where we have to deal with immediate impacts on individuals, but in the longer term, because there are a number of those products that are coming in the market, we need to get people educated, young people particularly, that the risks that they face. We know that many people attending clubs that are being presented with the NPS as a so-called soft option or legal high and maybe not aware of that. That does not imply in any way, shape or form, that they are properly regulated and that they are safe. The misleading aspect of them being properly professionally packaged also leads people into thinking that they are perhaps safer than they are. In truth, when people take them, they cannot be guaranteed that they will get the same experience with one packet that they will get with another. We have found that they have sometimes been cross-cut with illicit drugs, so they might be taking something that is extremely powerful and might do enormous damage. We have to educate people as to the risks and make sure that they are not going into a situation where they might be using an NPS product without a good grounding in knowledge as to what the risks they face and perhaps to deter them from doing so. Thank you. That ends the ministerial statement. I thank the minister and members. We can do it when we try to keep it brief. We have managed to get through all of it. We now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12423, in the name of Marco Berger, on the commission on local tax reform. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request to speak with me now. I call Marco Berger to speak to me with the motion minister, 13 minutes. From the outset, I want to say that in looking at tax, in the Scottish Government, we base our approach on four principles—efficiency, convenience, certainty and of being proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay. Those principles are not new, neither to this Government nor in general. They are attributable to Adam Smith in book 5 of the wealth of nations. The present council tax is compliance with the first three of those maxims might be debated, but most would recognise that the council tax, as set out in the 1992 act and which has been with us now for over 20 years, does not, in a substantive sense, adhere to the fourth of those maxims of being proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay. That is not just our view, it is the view of many around and outside this chamber. We have all proposed or suggested reforms over the years to try to address the shortcoming. On that point, just a couple of weeks ago in this very chamber, John Swinney, defending the council tax said, and I quote directly, that council tax liability is linked to ability to pay through the council tax reduction scheme. It is linked. My statement was, if you go back to what I said, that it was in a substantive sense adhered. There is a linkage, yes. Could it be greater? Yes, it could. Let's look at that act. The 1992 act hardwires in a lack of progressivity. Band H properties, yes, they do have a liability greater than that of band D, but their value is four times and the liability is twice. Clearly, there is a limit to how close that link is. As those values are based on the situation in 1990, it takes in no account of subsequent changes in relative price. Areas that have not benefited from house price increases have not seen their council tax bills become lower than those that have had a bit of a boom. The valuation bands in council tax also mean no differentiation between properties in the same band. As with the late unlamented stab duty, there is a bit of a slabbing effect that penalises those properties whose values bring them just into the higher band and no more, giving them the same charge as one that is near the top of that band. Even looking at the banding should raise concern. 74 per cent, almost three quarters, are in A, B, C or D and only one in 200 are in band H. All of that is based on the assumption—one subject in many debates in this place over many years—that the best way of assessing an individual's ability to pay is looking at the value of their home. Since 2008, we have been addressing the worst failings of this flawed system by delivering funding to local government that has enabled all councils to freeze council tax. With the continuing agreement of all councils in Scotland, that freeze is about to run for the eighth consecutive year. The cumulative savings over the period 2008-09 to 2014-15 for band D households amount to more than £900. We estimate that that will rise to around £1,200 by 2015-16. Before the introduction of the freeze, the average council tax per dwelling increased by more than 50 per cent between 1997-98 and 2007-2008. That was not just far beyond inflation. It was financially crippling for certain types of households, such as pensioners, who were dependent on a modest fixed income but still earned a little bit too much to qualify for council tax benefit. For many, there was a real fear in awaiting the annual council tax letter dropping through the letter box and on to the door map. Today, this at least is no longer the case. In addition, with our local government partners, we stepped in when the UK Government abolished council tax benefit to ensure that vital reliefs could continue. The council tax reduction scheme, which Gavin Brown kindly introduced to the debate, affords people a targeted relief from council tax liability. At its peak, it applied to over 550,000 people in Scotland. It corresponds to £360 million of support in that year and 22 per cent of all households. We have to contrast that with the approach that is taken in England, where localisation of council tax relief has meant over 300 different schemes being operated, some of which mean that the UK Government's budget cuts are falling on those that are least able to pay, even more so than council tax unamended. The minister conceded that the suggestion that council tax relief was abolished in Scotland is not entirely accurate and that what happened was that a significant proportion of that funding was devolved to Scotland and that much of the scheme that exists in Scotland is funded from that devolved resource. Council tax benefit was a reserved benefit, it was abolished, the funding was devolved with a 10 per cent cut, which we have had to step in and plug the gap of. In England, as I was saying, there were some councils that chose to absorb the 10 per cent cut in funding within its own budgets but some who require those not in work, including disabled and carers, to pay 30 per cent of their council tax liability. That is the wrong approach. Instead, this Government has implemented policies to try and protect people from the fundamental flaws of the present council tax system. I need to make some progress, but we all recognise that the present system, perhaps with the exception of the Conservatives, as defined in an act passed in 1992, is not fit for 2015. In our manifesto of 2011, this party became government committed to consult with others to produce a fairer system based on ability to pay to replace the council tax and to put that to the people at the next election by which time Scotland will have more powers over income tax. That is why the First Minister's statement on the Scottish Government's programme for government last November set out that we would establish an independent commission to examine fairer alternatives to the current system of council tax, advanced in partnership with local authorities and with all political parties invited to be involved. That is why we accepted the recommendation of the local government and regeneration committee, made in its report on the inquiry into the flexibility and autonomy of local government from last summer to establish a cross-party commission. To that end, I am happy to accept Alex Rowley's amendment, which gives due recognition to the work of that committee. The first steps in establishing that commission reflected our continuing partnership with local government. We found them fully supportive and they proposed a joint chairing by COSLA and the Scottish Government. Those chair roles have now been taken by myself and Councillor David O'Neill, president of COSLA. Our invitation to the other parties to participate in that commission, Julie followed with a letter jointly from myself and Councillor O'Neill to each, inviting them to discuss potential remit and membership. I am grateful to Willie Rennie, Alex Rowley and Patrick Harvie for contributing to this early discussion. That discussion allowed a proposed remit to be refined and developed and we were happy to take on suggestions. A number of key organisations were identified from outside the world of politics who could contribute. I would therefore like to record my sincere thanks to them as well, to Citizens Advice Scotland, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants, the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute for Society and Social Justice Research, as well as the political parties and the independent group on COSLA for all agreeing to nominate representatives onto the commission. We met for the first time on Monday of this week. The commission that we have established, which will be independent from both the Scottish Government and from COSLA, but will report to both brings many strong voices, differing perspectives and experience, as well as an analytical rigor to the process. On the basis of that first meeting earlier this week, I am confident that the membership has the right mix of skills and knowledge, as well as immense enthusiasm to tackle the task that has been set. That brings me to the remit that has been agreed by everyone participating. The commission is being asked to examine the alternative systems of taxation to support funding of local government services with a range of what I think will effectively become tests to apply covering inequalities, macroeconomics, administration, transition, democracy and scale. In conducting its work, the commission will engage with communities across Scotland to assess public perception of the emerging findings and to reflect that evidence in its final analysis and recommendations. The commission is not being asked to make a specific recommendation, although it is perfectly entitled to if it reaches one particular view. Rather, we envisage that its work will be to develop a profound understanding of all the potential systems. I think that it is unimaginable that the next Scottish Government, whoever that is, whichever party or combination of parties will have a policy of maintaining the existing council tax as set out in the 1992 Local Government Finance Act. That commission will help us all to understand what the alternative propositions are, what they would mean and whether they would be politically viable. The evidence approach that will be taken by the commission will provide the basis for those alternatives to be more thoroughly developed and informed than otherwise, as well as calibrated against public opinion. The work of the commission will mean that the appropriate knowledge will be in the public domain to allow policy options to be challenged and validated. We have to be realistic, though. Perhaps we have all been missing something, but my expectation is that there is no perfect solution. There is probably not going to be one that everybody is going to look at and say, yes, that is the tax that I am happy to pay, but the real world is about trade-offs. The work of the commission can allow us to understand those trade-offs and allow policy to be developed to address them. We may well take different choices. Instead of thinking about delivering a main course, perhaps it will give us a menu from which we can all choose in the knowledge that all the options have been rigorously tested. Additionally, the commission will look at international practice to see if there is anything that we could learn from abroad and apply to our system here. Furthermore, the work of the commission can provide an administrative route map for implementing alternatives. That is key, because whatever is wrong with the council tax—and I have gone into great length about it—it delivers £2 billion to the funding for public services, so what replaces it has to be capable of doing similar. With that £2 billion funding staff and workforce that deliver vital services that have to be planned for for years in advance, revenues would benefit from being stable and predictable. We cannot afford a future change that introduces unmanagable revenue risks. Equally, the people of Scotland cannot afford a change that exposes them to unfair or unanticipated tax liabilities. That is just one of those real-world trade-offs that is going to be for the commission to wrestle with. Council tax fundamentally is of a profound importance to so much of our lives in Scotland, so much of the services that we deliver. It has to deliver—or its replacement—financial accountability to local government and transparency to the over 2 million households that currently pay it. Council tax today is visible. Aside from income tax paid by self-assessment or vehicle excise duty, it is the only tax that you have to make an effort to pay. Every other tax is collected at source by employers and providers of goods and services. However, as I have set out, it is a flawed system. For those reasons, I am delighted that Opposition parties and many civil society groups recognise the importance of that work. I move the motion in my name and I hope that parties in this chamber, in addition to showing their support by participating in the commission, will also show their support by voting in support of that motion later this afternoon. Thanks. I now call on Alex Rowley to speak to and move amendment 124 to 3.1. Mr Rowley, you have nine minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am pleased to move the amendment in my name. I was a bit concerned when I heard the minister start off his speech there that we were going to have the debate today about the merits or otherwise of the council tax and what should be replacing it. That is not for today. That is obviously why the commission was set up. That is why I wanted to amend the motion, because the local government committee, while it carried out its report on flexibility and autonomy of local government, heard a lot of evidence for a lot of different people with expertise in local government and in government more generally. They all raised the issue of local government finance and the fact that we needed to put local government finance on a stable footing moving forward. That is why it is important that the local government committee recognised that and highlighted in the report and called for an all-party group to be pulled together to try and move this thing forward. The local government committee made the point that local authority funding expenditure in Scotland in the current year is expected to exceed £11.5 billion across the 32 local authorities. That highlights how important local government is to every community across Scotland. It made the point that those three elements, four elements that make this up as council tax, fees, charges, Scottish Government grant and other income. I will say a bit more about the council tax and just the percentage that that actually does make up. However, they did say that one area where there was almost unanimous agreement amongst politicians and parties is that the current system of financing requires to be reformed. That seems to have been a view that has been around for some time. I am disappointed that the Conservative group has taken the decision not to participate in the commission. I say that because, like the minister, I do not have an expectation that we will reach a conclusion and we will then say that that is the system of local government finance that needs to be put in place. I am much more keen that the commission looks at the options that are there and is able to provide a useful report that all parties can then use to move forward as we set our manifestos and as we look towards finding a sustainable way of putting local government finance on them. I am grateful to the member for doing that. Is it his view then that this commission will not come up with recommendations? I think that the commission may choose to advise on the benefits and merits of each of the different options that it looks at. If it is informative and if it is able to bring forward a number and arrange the options that are available, it will be for the political parties. Mone party, for example, does not believe that a local income tax is the best way forward, but other parties may well want to make that case. If the commission is able to look at the merits of local income tax versus property tax, all that information should be there and should be useful. More importantly, I hope—and certainly the discussion that we had at the first meeting—that I hope that we will be engaging with civic Scotland, with local government itself and that we will be engaging with communities and individuals right across Scotland to discuss the merits and discuss the principle of local taxation and local people paying for local services. There is a wider discussion and a wider debate. I certainly hope, in the short timescale that has been set, that the commission will be able to have and engage people right across Scotland. There is no doubt about it at the end of the day that the council tax freeze has been popular. Right now, Mone party takes the view that it would be wrong to introduce increases in charges to the council tax at a time when people, in effect, have had a wage freeze for the past four or five years and they are facing, at the present time, a crisis in family budgets. There is to be a discussion, I think, with communities and with people across Scotland about what type of local government. Indeed, that is a point that I read a report just the other night that was produced by the common wheel and they called the silent crisis report on the failure and revival of local democracy in Scotland. I was not aware because they highlighted that, in 2006, in this Parliament, the local government finance review committee reported that there is a fundamental question about what the relationship between central and local government should be. There is a long-standing and unresolved debate about the respective roles. The committee view is that it is essential that the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, as it was then, and local authorities grasp the nettle and resolve what appears to be a corrosive argument about the relationship. You could argue that that was back in 2006, not a lot has moved on since then. We saw only in the last couple of weeks the finance secretary threatening to cut the budgets of local authorities over teacher numbers. The ridiculous situation was that local authorities across Scotland do not want to cut teacher numbers, but they need the moneys to be able to provide the education service in the first place. The debate on local government and funding local government services seems to have been going on for some time and yet has not been resolved. In 2007, we had a minority SNP Government in here that was committed to local income tax. By 2011, when they had a majority, a local income tax perhaps did not seem to be as popular or might not look like it would actually work. We have travelled at some distance and not actually made a lot of progress when it comes to financing local government, but hopefully some of my colleagues and some of the speakers today will start to highlight why local government is so important and why we need to find a way forward. COSLA last year produced a report with partners that commissioned for local democracy. In that published report, they stated that, 50 years ago, local authorities raised well over 50 per cent of their own income through local taxation. As recently as 1998, around half were still generated in this way. Today, that has fallen to some 18 per cent. I contacted a number of council leaders, but I thought a response that I got from Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow Council, was quite interesting, where he says, I am disappointed that the remit of the group narrowly focuses on council tax, which accounts for some 17 per cent of funding to local government and ignores the 83 per cent block of funding that is allocated by the Scottish Government, typically a highly centralised Scottish state. That is a major omission. He goes on to say that since 2008-09, Glasgow's percentage share of the available local government settlement has reduced from 13.9 per cent to 12.8 per cent for 15.16 per cent. In cash terms, that equates to a difference of £109 million for 15.16 per cent. The distribution formula has a greater impact on Glasgow than the council tax freeze does. In his last minute—I am sorry, Mr Stewart—the point being that, certainly, this commission and looking at local taxation and isolation is not going to be the panacea for all the issues in local government finance. There needs to be a much wider debate, and that is for the political parties to have. When the political parties come forward with their proposals for the elections next year, how we fund local government, not just that 17-18 per cent, but how we fund all the local government and the important role of local government seems to me will be the important issue as we move forward. The reason that it is so important is that, if we look at local government, local government does something that this Parliament really does not do every day. Every day in local government across Scotland, local authorities are impacting on people's lives. They are delivering services that are at the co-face when it comes to tackling poverty and inequality, when it comes to jobs and apprenticeships, when it comes to housing and all those areas. Local government is key. It is far too important for us not to get the answers, and that is why we will be supporting, as amended, the motion that has been brought forward today. I have to begin my submission with a degree of surprise, I have to say, from listening to the first two speeches from the SNP and Labour about just what this commission is exactly going to do. I look to the membership of this commission, and I have to say that there were some names that I did not recognise, but many that I did, and I have to say some that I rate particularly highly. So I am staggered to learn that we are going to get all of these people, some of whom I genuinely rate highly, with a secretariat in a room engaging with civic society over the course of a year, and at the end of all of that, to quote the minister, we are just going to produce a menu. Hearing from the Labour Party, their view is that there will be no recommendations from this commission at the end of all of this work. I am genuinely surprised. It sounds just like a talking shop. What is the point of getting all of these people together if we are not actually going to recommend anything at the end of it, and it is going to be just a menu from which political parties can pick and choose when drawing up their manifestos for the 2016 elections. But surely I must recognise that it is better to have tried and perhaps failed and be more enlightened rather than to have even bothered at all. They are not even actually trying on the basis of what the minister said to come up with actually firm recommendations. I am genuinely confused about what the purpose of the commission is, and it sounds to me generally something that really needs to be rethought about by the Government having heard them today. Mr Rowley made the point that we are going to make. We chose not to sit on the commission. We are grateful for the invitation from Mr Biagi and from Councillor David O'Neill. We talked it through very carefully as a group and as a party and reached the conclusion that we would not be sitting on the commission for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it was our intention, and it is our intention, to set up our own commission looking at finance more widely. The low-tax commission was announced by Ruth Davidson at the UK party conference in September of last year. It was formally launched as the commission for competitive and fair taxation this week. Again, I think that a range of commissioners who have experience and can bring a lot to the task and who will ultimately produce conclusions and, in this case, recommendations on what ought to be done. It will look at taxation widely, but given the size of local taxation, in round figures it is about £5 billion when you add everything together and expenditure well over double that. That will occupy a significant amount of the resources of this group and be a key feature of their recommendations. Our view is that, as a party, we would put our support behind the work of this group instead of diluting it across two different work streams. I wonder whether Mr Brown can bring together the equation that says, on the one hand, that this group is going to produce proposals that will be independent, but it will also inform the Tory party manifesto for next year. That seems to be a rather mixed-up picture emerging from your own particular commission. Like many commissions, which I know he has been involved in and seen, we have set it up, but it will operate independently. Its exact work on a weekly basis will not be set by us, and its conclusions will be independently reached by those commissioners. It is then, of course, up to the party to decide to take all or most of those recommendations aboard. That is how most independent commissions work, Mr Crawford, and he ought to know that having sat on one or two himself. However, the other reason that we did not go into it is because ultimately we thought very carefully about where this group might end up. In our view, given the views of the left-wing parties within this Parliament, the cosy left-wing consensus that exists across this chamber, we genuinely do not believe that there is almost any prospect of us agreeing with the SNP or the Greens for that matter on what local government taxation should look like. We know that the Greens want a land value tax. They always have done it, and I suspect that that will be what they are pushing for. We know that the Liberal Democrats want a local income tax. We know that the SNP wants a national local income tax. We do not know what the Labour Party wants. The Labour Party does not know what the Labour Party wants, but we are pretty clear that all those parties would want to hammer taxpayers in a way that we would not. The LBTT debates over the course of the budget were a very clear example of that, because none of them battered an eyelid when the punitive rates were announced, including a staggering 10 per cent on homes over £250,000. Labour and the Greens were unhappy when Mr Swinney changed his mind and introduced the 5 per cent banding rate. We did not think that he went anywhere near far enough. The SNP, of course, were happy. The Lib Dems, I think, were happy. Labour and the Greens were unhappy that he had moved at all. Ultimately, we are setting up our own commission. We think that we are very unlikely to agree. When it comes down to 2016, we believe that voters deserve a choice. We believe that they deserve a choice based on the independent work that is done by our commission and, of course, the work that is done by the commission laid out by the minister earlier on. The Government, when it responded to the local government committee, said very clearly that it should be put to the people. Our concern, I have to say, is that if all of the parties simply agree and put one proposition to the people at the next election, that is no choice at all. That is why we are not joining the commission, and we will not be supporting the motion at decision time today. I thank my colleagues and the local government and regeneration committee for the work that they did on the flexibility and autonomy report. One of the aspects that we looked at during the course of our deliberations was the legal and constitutional funding mechanisms available to local government. Paragraph 101 of our report says that steps should be taken within the lifetime of this Parliament to initiate an agreed approach to facilitate meaningful debate on alternative approaches with the aim of having a new system identified in time for the next local government elections in 2017. We consider that to be the latest appropriate timetable that would enable candidates at that election to put forward their policies, linked to revised funding mechanisms. Given the desirability of reaching consensus, we consider that that should be done by a way of an independent cross-party commission that should include representatives from local government and wider civic society across Scotland. I am extremely pleased that the Government has listened to the recommendation of the local government committee. I was extremely pleased that every single member of the local government committee signed up to that recommendation, including the Conservatives. I am quite surprised at the attitude of the Conservatives here today, because what we need in dealing with this very thorny subject is the input of Civic Scotland. What the Tories are basically saying here today is that they are not interested in the views of Civic Scotland. I am glad that the Labour Party, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, as well as many members from Civic Scotland, have agreed to join that commission. I will take Mr Brown. That would be a fair criticism if we were doing nothing, but given that we have set up our own commission, who will engage extremely widely, surely that is an unfair criticism. That is the kind of situation that you face every day in a playground where, if somebody disagrees with your point of view, you take the ball home. That is what the Tories have done here in terms of what they have decided to do. I feel that they have put their own representative on the local government committee here in a really bad place. I have to say that the debate in that committee was pretty immense in terms of the points that we got to. There are often times where we have disagreements about certain things, but we agreed completely and utterly that that was the right approach to take. I am pleased that the Government has listened to what we have said and taken that approach. It is just a pity that the Conservatives have chosen to take their ball home on that one. In some regards, they will miss out on having the views of civic Scotland when it comes to the formulation of their own policy, which, let us be honest with you, probably will not be up to much anyway. Mr Brown says that all of the parties involved in the commission will hammer taxpayers. I would like to point out to Mr Brown that, during the course of this Parliament and the previous Parliament, this Government has ensured that taxpayers have not been hammered. They have chosen to freeze the council tax for eight years. That is something that I am pleased about. Between 1996 and 97 and 2007-08, council tax in Aberdeen on average on the average house rose by 81.9 per cent. That was a burden that people in Aberdeen could not bear. I am pleased that that burden has not been added to over the peace. However, we recognise that the system is not perfect, but, during the course of this, the Government has ensured that hard-pressed families have been protected. In terms of hammering taxpayers, I suggest to Mr Brown that the very opposite has been the case when it comes to this Government and the council tax. I am pleased that the remit and the membership of the independent commission. I hope that it will look at a number of things when it carries out its business. I want to touch on one thing. I wrote to the Government recently about the provision for carers in the council tax system in Scotland. I got a response back from the Deputy First Minister who suggests that what we should do in terms of the commission is that it should look at issues such as this one. I hope that that commission will agree to look at issues around how carers have to pay into the local taxation system, as well as other hard-pressed folk in our society. Finally, I wish everyone on that commission all of the best. I encourage Civic Scotland to engage with that commission and, again, I am pleased that we have moved forward, as per the recommendations of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I now call Willie Rennie to be followed by Clare Adamson. I have spent the last five years being accused of, by all sorts of people in this chamber and beyond, of being right-wing. It is so refreshing to be called left-wing. I thank Gavin Brown for nothing else. The commission is not, however, about deciding whether tax should be high or low. It is about trying to come up with a taxation system that will work not just for Scotland but for local government. When Gavin Brown indicates that what he is interested in is his low tax, there is no bar to be involved in the commission. He could be equally involved in that, and then, subsequently, argue that whatever we came up with should involve a low tax element. That is up to him and his party to be able to decide. I think that it would be advisable, if Gavin Brown did seek the advice of others from other political parties. I know that he has his own commission, but there are many more people who are going to be involved in that. I think that he should seek the advice of others, because the conservative track record on coming up with a local government taxation system is not a good one. The last time that he came up with a taxation system for local government, it was not a universally successful and approved system. In fact, I had to be abandoned in a very short space of time, so perhaps he might like to reflect on the history and come back and decide to join his commission if nothing else is to save him from himself. I will take an intervention. Gavin Brown Dems would be advised to study more recent history of electoral success, Deputy Presiding Officer. Is it his view, then, that the commission will come up with a recommendation for a tax system? I think that the ambition that we should be aiming for is trying to come up with a consensus. I think that all commissions should be looking towards that, but I do not think that we should bind ourselves into absolutely having an agreement. What I think we should be doing is trying to shine a light, because there is an awful lot of misunderstanding and misconceptions about local government finance. I think that there is a big argument to be had, as Alex Rowley quite rightly pointed out, about the balance of local authority funding between different regions within Scotland, but also the balance between central government and local government. I think that we need to look at that to make sure that we have a sustainable system. That is what I think that the commission should be looking at. We are far, far better informed about how local government should be financed. If we cannot come up with an agreement, at least if we have a better understanding, then there were many steps further forward than there would have been otherwise. Local government finance has been far too particularised in recent years. I think that it is an admirable step from the committee, but also from the Government, to try to bring everybody in together. I partly think that it is to try to get the Scottish National Party of a hook, that they find themselves with a policy that they are perhaps not so convinced about any more. Nevertheless, the fact that they are looking and willing to work with others is a good thing. If you look at, in the 1870s, 4.5 per cent of local government finances were provided by central government. 1880s, 9.8 per cent, 16 per cent in 1928 and 1970s went up to 60 per cent. It is now in 1990 that it was up at 85 per cent that was provided by central government. That needs to change if we are going to give local authorities the true flexibility that they need and the aspire to have. Because Scotland, just like the United Kingdom, is a diverse country with greatly differing needs. Some areas might like lower-leveled attacks, some want higher-level attacks, but just now they are bound into a system that means that they have to follow whatever Edinburgh says has to happen. Any idea that the council tax freeze is anything more than a straight jacket is nonsense. That is, I believe, one of the principles that we should be trying to establish with any kind of outcome that we agree on this commission. I think that it needs to involve flexibility and true freedom for local government so that they can decide what is best for their communities. In addition to fairness, Liberal Democrats have been strong advocates of local income tax. We believe that local income tax is truly local, not a central income tax that is provided to local government, but a local income tax that has variability at a local level is something that we should strive for. It is something that we have campaigned for for many years. We know that there are weaknesses in the system, and other people have pointed them out. However, trying to strive towards a system that is based on the ability to pay is something that we should be working towards. We will be putting that idea into the commission, others will be putting other ideas in it as well. In true Liberal Democrat fashion, we will have arrears wide open and we will be listening to what other parties have got to say. If we can come to a consensus on that, which will result in substantial change, which will shine a light on how local government is financed, we will have provided a great service to the country. We might not all agree—I would like us to agree if we possibly can—but we might not agree. Even if we do not, if we shine a light, that will be significant progress. We should look, as the minister says, right around the world to see what works. There probably are no missing great answers out there. It is probably all the way before us, because any change is difficult. We have seen what happened in Wales where there was a revaluation, and it was incredibly unpopular. We should be careful whatever we do with it, but we should also strive to have freedom and fairness as sound principles for any change. I am very pleased that the commission on local tax reform is under way and has already had its first meeting. I was delighted to read about the make-up of that commission. I particularly welcome the fact that Angela Hagan is there as a research fellow of the Institute of Society for Social Justice Research and the convener of the Scottish Women's Budget Group. I am very pleased, because I think that women sometimes have been let down by local government and we consider the equal pay issues across Scotland at the moment. I think that a strong academic voice on that commission is very, very welcome indeed. I also welcome Joseph Rowntree's foundation, Severed Scotland, being involved. Indeed, my colleague for the local government, Alex Rowley, has considerable experience in local government who will bring much in his role as shadow minister for local government and community empowerment to that role. I agree with him and regret that the Conservatives have taken the decision not to be part of the commission. I think that the commission is an opportunity for us to try to reach a consensus in the Parliament given all the recent work that has been done on local democracy throughout this Parliament and by colleagues in COSLA. I really think that the Conservative parties have been missing out there. However, my experience of being in the welfare reform committee is that, even faced with overwhelming evidence that there are problems in the austerity budgets and the welfare reform is having a detrimental effect on people and has led to increased use of food banks. The fact that the Conservatives do not acknowledge what detrimental effect the welfare reform has in the most vulnerable in our society makes me lead that perhaps there will not be much missed from the commission. I really think that the people that will be involved will come up with some good menus and good propositions of what may be possible going forward. I will pick up on Alex Rowley's comments. I really hope that we have consensus on this and that we can work going forward, but I do not think that it helps with some of the language around the relationship with local government at the moment. No council in Scotland was prevented from raising the council tax, none at all. They had that option to go and raise the council tax. Had they done so, they would have to explain to their constituents why they were wanting to increase it, even to stand still with the funding from the Scottish Government. That would have meant going forward with the average 3.5, 3.6 increases just to stay still, and then they would have had to explain to their constituents why that was increasing again to raise any additional meaningful money. We were talking about the horrendous case again that was highlighted by Mr Stewart showing over 80 per cent increases in Aberdeenshire. What that would have meant for the local authority that I served as a councillor in and from my constituents now in North Lanarkshire is very specific. I hope that the minister and the commission will take on board the geographic and demographic pressures that are on different areas in Scotland to ensure that whatever replaces that system reflects and is fair to the people in the area. In North Lanarkshire, 82 per cent of the population that lives in Band D or below valued houses is over 50 per cent of the population in Band B or below houses. When you look at that and also that in a recent house price survey, Wisha in North Lanarkshire, my hometown, had one of the lowest rises in house property values in the whole of the UK. So the experience of people in North Lanarkshire on the whole cannot be compared to Aberdeen or Edinburgh City or other areas where house prices and land values have increased to great respect. For my point of view, any increase in the council tax would have been so detrimental to ordinary hardworking people that it was not something that we could ever have contemplated. I am so glad that the Scottish Government asked for the council tax freeze. Margaret Maddugl. Thank you for taking intervention. Does the member agree that the people in better-off areas with higher council tax bans actually benefit more than those in the lower tax bans from the council tax freeze? As I said, it is not a fair tax. It has never been a fair tax and the freeze has put a stop to the horrendous increases, a lot of which were through Labour-controlled councils, in increasing that, but the minister pointed out that increase in the tax, the tax man, does not even represent the doubling in value, as he was pointed out when he was responding to Mr Brown. So it has been unfair, it is unfair and that is why we should come together in the commission and get behind the commission in their work in coming up with a system that is truly fair, but I do not think that the council tax freeze was the wrong thing to do at all by any stretch of their imagination and I do not think that the Scottish people would have sold any of the ridiculous 80-odd per cent increases in this tax over time, no other tax as well. No, I am not going to take any of that in time, I am struggling for time now to finish. I welcome the fact that Mr Rowley mentioned the effect of democracy reconnecting with communities. I think that this is an excellent document about how we should proceed and look and work together in not only, because we cannot take individual decisions about financing, it has to be about our whole communities, empowering communities, our hot democracy as a whole and I think that from that document that it says, making Scotland a fairer, healthier and wealthier place when not get cheered without a democracy, which people can see how decisions are made and where communities are active participants in that process and I think that the commission will take us a long way towards reaching that goal for our constituents. I now call on Anne McTaggart to be followed by Chick Brody. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and as a former member of the local government and regeneration committee, I am pleased to speak in this debate today and to support my colleague, Alec Rowley's amendment, which recognises the work of the committee and its call for the establishment of this cross-party commission on finding an alternative to council tax. I will speak later about the time that I spent on the committee where we did develop what was to become the eighth report examining flexibility and autonomy in local government and the European fact-finding sessions, which shaped much of our conclusions. Firstly, I would like to speak about my own experience serving as an elected member in local government. In particular, I want to highlight the important work that local government has done and the vital services that it provides to some of our most vulnerable and deprived citizens. It is this experience that, through services such as social work and social care, local government is on the front line, tackling inequality and poverty and caring for our elderly and disabled citizens. It is local government that carries the responsibility for educating our children, local government that is often tasked with helping those who cannot access employment, gain the skills, the need to do so, and it is also local government that houses those who have nowhere else to reside. I would argue that local government is the most important tier of government and certainly the most visible to our citizens. In my own area of Glasgow, it has been the city council leading the fight to tackle poverty and inequality by working within our most disadvantaged communities to increase skills and get people back into work. It is the Glasgow city council that has led the way in introducing a living wage across the city to protect our lowest-paid workers. And yet, despite the importance of local government and the vital work carried out by local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, councils across Scotland have seen austerity plus passed down from this very government. Glasgow, for example, has lost £370 million in total since the SNP Government came into power. The Scottish Government's own figures show that, if Glasgow got the same share of the local government budget as it did under the Labour Administration, it would have an extra £96 million in its funding this year alone. I would ask Ms McTagger to join me in calling on COSLA to have a full review of the funding formula, which I think would benefit my constituents in Aberdeen, and which is something that I have called for for a very long time. I am not really sure whether that is going to be on the menu, shall we say, for the commission, but it is something that has to be addressed. It is clear to me that local government is not being properly funded in Scotland, and the vital public services are suffering as a consequence. We must be honest about the pressures that our councils are facing. It is tough and unpopular. During a debate recently in Parliament on local government financing, I challenged a number of Labour speakers to tell us how much more they would put into local government settlement and where that would come from. Can you enlighten us on that, please? It sounds like a Green Party moment now, doesn't it, for our front to get these figures rattled off the top of my head. Mr Crawford, yes, we would want to see an increase, and yes, we would want to see some restructure in there, but to have the figures to the top of my head, my apologies. Anyway, tough and unpopular decisions have to be made. Those unpopular decisions are exactly what Bruce Crawford has implied. Budgets need to be stretched to breaking point, and that is unsustainable. We must now agree to find a way to move forward, and we must agree that local government should be properly funded, and vital public services must be protected. Therefore, I welcome the cross-party commission on finding an alternative to the council tax, and I am glad that the work done by the local government and regeneration committee is being taken forward in this way. One of the things that, during taking evidence within the local government committee, we did seek some evidence from European countries, and one of the things that did become immediately apparent to me was that across Europe local government is changing to meet the new demands and priorities of its citizens. I believe that, in this country, our local government must change too. The community empowerment bill, currently passing through the local government committee, gives us an opportunity to bring about some of that change, but communities will not be impaired if the money is not available there to back this up and support them. I see you rolling over, so I will come to my conclusion. In conclusion, I welcome the commission and will be following its progress extremely carefully. I also welcome the acknowledgement of the work done by the local government committee in its establishment. However, I feel that we must be open and honest about the challenges that lie ahead, and that is also about what funding does it need in the future. For local government and its pressures, our councils face, I hope that we can now begin to move forward and find an alternative to council tax, which is fair and more progressive and meets the needs of local government. I also hope that we can now have an honest and open discussion about the challenges facing local government and the need to properly fund our most vital public services. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well done. I will call on Jack Brody to be followed by Margaret McEllach. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the debate today. Presiding Officer, some 10 years ago, I sat in the gallery of the Parliament, listening to a raging debate on local taxation and loud support for a local income tax by the then Opposition. Now it is clear that the sole and existing property-based system of local taxation was neither progressive nor was it fair, proportionate nor was it efficient nor was it timious nor did it achieve all that should and that we should move to strengthen local autonomy and democracy through a proper taxation system. In pursuit of our principles, as enshrined in the community's empowerment bill, we must address a fundamental change in the financing of our local authorities. However, they might be structured in the future. Is that a local democracy in autonomy so that that might be achieved? We can no longer exist with the current regime, the council tax, which we have rightly frozen in the past eight years, given the straightened UK national economic circumstances. That council tax might eventually become and should become a lost element in the history of local tax revenue garnering. Why we recognise that compulsive action by central government working with COSLA has purchased local government funding both through maintaining annual revenue and capital funding at current levels in 2015-16, with new allocations operated by finance for new responsibilities allocated to local authorities. It is to be applauded that local government budgets over the period 2007-08 to 2012-13 have increased by 9 per cent, demonstrating an accord between COSLA and the Scottish Government over that difficult financial period. I know that it will be mirrored in the relationship in joining the commission. I am confused by Mr Brown's statement that he will consult with Civic Scotland. Is he expecting a different answer from them that they give to the proposed commission? It is shameful, frankly, that they have not participated and made this a consensual effort. However, that requirement, if anything, highlighted the need to change and meet our manifesto commitment to replace what is aniquitous council tax. If Scotland is to compete economically and globally, then the funding of local government and its nature must change. If we are to empower communities, then so must we empower local authorities and their associated communities to set them free to achieve returns on local investment in innovation, efficiency and productive achievement. If we are to compete seriously, then we have to consider that competitive countries, particularly in Europe, have local governments with... I have enjoyed the last 30 seconds or so of the member's speech. Does he then think that the new system, given what he has just said, should be a lower tax system than the one that we currently have? I think that you missed the point when I talked about setting local authorities free. It should be right for them to determine the level of tax gathering and tax revenue that is appropriate for their circumstances. That competitiveness that I was about to mention regarding Europe will, I believe, provide competition between local authorities and that in itself will improve our economic capabilities. We have to look at Europe. Local governments with equivalent responsibilities to Scotland garner at least 50 per cent of their income locally, whereas we have, as Willie Rennie pointed out, a base currently of some 20 per cent. Local communities shoot and must have the right to determine whether they wish to pay more for better governance and cost of better services or not in their local area. In staying faithful to its remit, I am sure that the commission will, in a short time span, construct positive proposals that will embrace not just fairness and efficiency, but will set about using the adopted local taxation system or systems to eradicate inequalities in our local areas and secure the wellbeing of each and every one of its citizens, so that they will use it to hand power back to those citizens and ensure that there is then more direct engagement through that with local people. We will each of us have a view on what that local taxation base might encompass. There will be those of us who seek a combination of a form of local income tax married to a site valuation tax system, with regular assessment of land values as opposed to the current unfair property values. Both taxes—progressive, fair, more equal, embracing personal income and asset positions and demanding more accountability from local representatives—will be down to the commission. However, I suggest that a brief stopover in Denmark, particularly to assess the impact of site valuation tax and any income-local tax on local and national economies, might be helpful. The commission is most welcome. Its recommendations and the consequent actions, which we will follow, will be even more so. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate today on a subject that I believe the Scottish Parliament has had to confront for some time. We cannot defer reform of local taxation again for another term and another Parliament. We cannot launch from one fix to the next knowing that long-term damage has been done to public services. We cannot continue to tax properties today on the basis of evaluation that was conducted in 1991. We cannot pretend that council tax freeze is anything than underfunded. As Unison, the leading trade union for local government workers, has said, we need to develop a new consensus that provides a long-term solution. I would therefore congratulate the local government and regeneration committee for showing leadership on this issue by recommending that an independent cross-party commission on local taxation be established. In doing so, I hope that they are brought about the means by which we can finally address the serious mountain issues surrounding the finances of local government. Figure cited by Unison indicates that council tax only accounts for about a fifth of the income of our councils in Scotland. There will be variations from one local authority to the next. For instance, there have been times when the income generated in South Lanarkshire has been greater than in its larger neighbouring north Lanarkshire, but the level of need and deprivation is greater. That is because the council tax, as I said before, as a property-based tax, is based on a yield from tax and property values, and the values of properties in some of South Lanarkshire suburbs will be higher. However, the overall share of income generated through council tax relative to grants from central government has been declining everywhere and it will have declined further since the council tax freeze was introduced. And so, while a review of local taxation is welcome, we cannot lose sight of wider issues in the financing of local government. We have to be clear about the remit of this commission, what it does do and what it doesn't do, because council tax is just one income stream. There have been several reviews into non-domestic rates. One such review is on-going at present into the cumbersome appeals process. More and more businesses are appealing and so our assessors and valuation boards are swamped. Many businesses have told me that valuations are completely out of kilter with the property market. The last valuation was postponed and so taxes are effectively being levelled at properties at pre-recession values. Our experience of business rates might offer us some lessons for the commission if they decide to continue with some form of property taxation. I would also draw the Government's attention to the impact that changes in the Scottish Government grants are having at local level. For example, South Lancer Council have advised that, while grant levels for 2016-17 are not yet available, they expect that they will have to revise their budget strategy for the financial year beyond 2017. The previous budget strategy from May 2013 to 2016-17 assumed that there would be a consistent level of central funding. That has not proven to be the case. South Lancer Council have also warned that if the Parliament is to make laws that have obvious financial implications for local authorities, then that should ideally be reflected in their funding. In evidence to education committee, the council specifically highlighted costs arising from new legislation on additional support for learning as an area where the council want to meet the expectations of the Parliament but are struggling because of financial constraints. Those issues are so important because grants account for so much of a council's income. Finally, I would draw the chamber's attention to the work of the Scottish women's budget group, which I raised with the First Minister during our recent public session of the convener's group. The budget group directly challenged assertions in this year's budget equality statement that there is parity in the council tax freeze. They do not accept that it helps people with low incomes because of cuts to council services, which those in need depend on most. I will simply remind the Government and members of the commission of the need to consider the distributional effects of any changes in their entirety. What does it mean for those on low incomes? What does it mean for those who depend on council services the most? What does it mean for women and those who already face the greatest inequalities? In conclusion, the local government and regeneration committee have helped the Scottish Government and this Parliament to take an important step. They have not only recommended that we examine those issues, but they have recommended that we do it in the right way, with an independent all-party commission. Many thanks. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Cameron Buchanan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome today's debate and the establishment of this commission. I would however like to ask the Conservative party to reconsider its position and take an active part in helping to devise a modern fairer alternative to the council tax. No tax is popular—we have already heard that today—but no tax is popular, but the commission that has been organised can help to generate a new fairer chance of being accepted across the country. It would be accepted even more so if there was total cross-party activity in it. It is also allowing for all the voices in Scotland to have a say in the creation of an alternative to the council tax. Before examining the role of the commission and the possible alternatives open to them, it is important to highlight the current situation regarding the funding of local government in Scotland and the problems with the council tax. In contrast to what is happening in England, the Scottish Government has protected local government funding with the 2015-16 budget, providing a total funding package of over £10.85 billion with further funding available to maintain the teacher numbers between 2007-8 and 2012-13. The resources in the Scottish Government's control increased by 6.4 per cent and, over the same period, local government's budget increased by 8.9 per cent, demonstrating the strong financial settlements that were agreed with local government during challenging financial times. The difference between local government funding in Scotland and in England was highlighted by councillors on Merrick Cockle, who is the chairman of the local government association, who, following the 2013 UK spending review, said, "...every year I meet my opposite numbers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and they listen to us in wide-eyed disbelief at the budget cuts we are enduring and they are not." In looking at any alternative, it is important to review the record of the council tax and to ensure that the failings of this form of taxation are not repeated when discussing a new system of funding for a local government. The council tax system is unfair and also aggressive. It taxes a higher proportion of the value of cheaper properties compared to expensive ones, and it bears little relation to a household's ability to pay. People on low incomes, including pensioners and those on low wage employment, can pay 20 per cent or more of their incomes in council tax, for those who are better off can pay 1 per cent or less of their incomes. The abolition of council tax benefit by the UK Government resulted in the funds for supporting those on low incomes being devolved to Scotland, but with a 10 per cent cut. The Scottish Government, in co-operation with COSLA, managed to plug that gap. Without that action, over 530,000 low-income households, including 200,000 pensioners, would be facing a massive rise in their bills, as has happened in some areas in England. Before the fully funded council tax freeze, local communities were facing enormous rises in their council tax bill. Across the country, council tax bills are not up by 46 per cent. I know that other parties have suggested altering the tax bans to try to improve the council tax, but, quite simply, that is not going to be enough. No amount of alteration to tax bans or minor changes can substantially improve that tax, and it simply has to be replaced. The establishment of the commission on local tax reform is a positive step forward in devising a fairer, more progressive alternative to the council tax. I am pleased that the commission has general cross-party support, except from the Conservatives, and that it also involves external advice from the third sector and other bodies who can contribute their expertise and their experience. We need to examine all the options that are available both domestically and internationally to find a fairer alternative system. My colleague Chick Brodie mentioned about Denmark. I certainly mean to look at Denmark and elsewhere as well. I think that it is also welcome that the commission's remit is not prescriptive, allowing it to look at alternative systems while considering the impact on individuals, households and inequalities in income and wealth. It is important that future local taxes should embrace the established taxation principles of efficiency, convenience and certainty, and are being proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay. That will certainly be no easy task for the commission, and I am sure that many organisations and individuals will have their own preference for a new system of taxation. There are certainly arguments for and against local income tax and value tax, and there is even a hybrid form of taxation based on property income. However, I am sure that the commission will be up to the task. Gently to the Conservatives, some years ago, the Constitutional Convention was established and the SNP withdrew from it because the issue of independence was not allowed to be discussed. The commission on local tax reform has a remit to identify and examine a fairer alternative systems, and the commission's remit is not prescriptive. I know why the SNP came out of the Constitutional Convention. I cannot understand why the Tories do not want to take part in this cross-party and non-party commission. It is not prescriptive. If all the political parties can come to a compromise on constitutional matters, surely it should be a lot easier to come to a compromise on local taxation. Alex Rowley mentioned the word compromise in his contribution. The commission allows that to happen, but the Conservatives do not agree and they do not think that compromise is that important. I warmly welcome the commission and I wish it our success. It is welcome to have the opportunity to discuss the best way forward for local taxation. Although the Scottish Government is seeking to debate exclusively about the commission on local tax reform, it seems that such an important issue as tax should not be restricted to such limits. The discussion should not be confined to political parties' negotiations, but rather consider what form and level of taxation would produce the best outcomes for the public. We need a practical, well-rounded and sustainable tax system. We therefore need a wide-ranging inquiry concerning not just the council tax but the whole range of taxis devolved to Scotland. For this reason, we have set up a commission for competitive and fair taxation. With new powers coming to Parliament, the opportunity is there for a broad reconsideration of multiple levels of taxation. We need to get all taxes right to have an enterprising economy that will attract talent, create jobs and finance our public services. This should be the aim of taxation policy with the public's best interests put first. The commission on local tax reform unfortunately I think will kick this issue into the long grass by freezing the political debate meantime. Its premise is built around making deals between parties with the ultimate aim of being a situation whereby whichever way the electorate votes in future elections, there will be no option of change to the local tax system. Sorry, I need to press on. The Scottish Conservatives will not allow this to happen. It is only right that parties can openly offer alternatives to the government's view and the public are given a real and meaningful choice. We will consider at length the recommendations of the commission for competitive and fair taxation. Sorry, thank you, I'm going to press on. For competitive and fair taxation, continue our drive for an enterprising economy that sustainably funds its public services and delivers for everyone. The merits of varying approaches should then be decided by voters rather than deal making politicians in the commission on local tax reform. Sorry, no thanks. The recently set-up commission for competitive and fair taxation on the other hand will have the interests of taxpayers at its heart. An economy overburdened with tax will struggle to reach its potential and taxes that are too low and will not allow for sufficient funding of our public services. The point is that taxes need to be very carefully thought through. Furthermore, it seems plain to me that a well-rounded approach considering of all the taxes devolved to Scotland would be far more practical and sustainable than a bit-by-bit approach. It is indeed worth looking at our approach to local tax, but for a system to be coherent, competitive and fair, a much wider outlook I think is needed. Finally, I would like to highlight a crucial attribute of this commission. It is independent. It is formed of experts who are independent of the Scottish Conservative Party and would like their recommendations to be considered by all parties. It will have six members, chaired by the former CBI Scotland director Ian McMillan CBE, whom, together, bring a wealth of expertise to business economies and tax. Recalling, Presiding Officer, I would like to reiterate my belief that, when it comes to taxation, the key principles applied should be competitiveness and fairness. Most local authorities are facing financial difficulties at the moment, which only serves to highlight the need for sensible and sustainable taxation policies. With so much at stake, the public must be given a choice rather than a political deal. It is for this reason that the Scottish Conservatives do not think that it would be appropriate for all discussion of local taxation to be limited to the commission on local tax reform. Instead, as you have heard, we have launched an expert commission for competitive and fair taxation that aims to produce practical and fair recommendations that allow the public to judge for themselves. I like others. I welcome the appointment of the commission on local tax reform, and I wish it well with its deliberations. How we finance local government, as other speakers have suggested, is not an easy question. Exploring the issue across the political landscape has to be the right way forward. However, I am equally disappointed that the Conservatives are not participating in this commission. I agree with Willie Rennie that it is better to have tried the never to have tried at all, and I also agree with him that, hopefully, this commission at the very least will succeed in shedding some light on these very difficult questions. As we know, if we finance local government spending disproportionately from national taxation, the local element of accountability is reduced. We know that many local authorities such as East Lothian believe that local accountability has been weakened by the continuing erosion of local government's fiscal autonomy. Others would contend, however, that the public are not necessarily concerned with the source of local government funding provided that services are maintained. Clearly, there is not necessarily a universal understanding that the present time, more than 80 per cent of local government expenditure is received from central government. In Scotland, we have had a council tax freeze that has capped the overheads for many hard-pressed families over the past eight years with considerable success, despite the concerns and opposition of some local authorities. I am glad that Alec Rowley accepted that the council tax freeze at the present time was popular, but we should bear in mind also that, despite criticism of the Scottish Government, the position of local government in Scotland at a time of austerity has been better protected than south of the border, as David O'Neill has conceded. Demands on local government are, of course, increasing. We have to accept that the days of such council tax freezes must inevitably be drawing to a close. It is right and proper that we work towards a revised system of local finance in good time for the next local elections in 2017. Council tax is clearly a blunt instrument. Certainly, in terms of reducing inequality, it can be easily criticised. My colleague Stuart McMillan has talked about previous plans to increase the number of bans at higher levels, but that was really something that was tinkering and would not have had a significant impact. However, I have to accept, of course, that the Scottish Government's own land and buildings tax sets rates that the Scottish Government believes are more proportionate to house prices, while seeking to protect those at the bottom of the housing ladder. Banding and playing with rates at the top is not something that is completely alien to this Government. Income tax, nationally collected, contains the redistributive element in its rates, although, except for many who favour rates of income tax in excess of 45 per cent, may not be redistributive enough. However, in seeking to fund local government by local income tax, that redistributive element would be maintained. However, in any system that is moving forward, ability to pay has to be central to any replacement. Indeed, the commission's remit makes it clear that future taxes should be proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay. What does that mean in practice? Is it right, for example, that single folk should receive discounts or exemptions from local taxation that are otherwise payable, irrespective of their ability to pay? If they own property or land, those are assets that have a value upon which monies can generally be raised. Any tax based on value should reflect that. In national taxation, we do not tax on the basis of the extent of usage of public services by individual taxpayers. It is not clear to me why similar considerations should not apply to local taxation. For those on fixed incomes of whatever age-over, who may be capital-rich but income-light, that presents a problem—a problem that local income tax might have avoided. Grappling with this kind of issue has to be part of the commission's thinking. I am not sure of the details of the mansion tax, but if it is purely a tax on value, I am assuming that that kind of concession will not be made. I do not know if anyone on the Labour benches can enlighten me as to the details of the mansion tax, but I will leave that open for anyone to interrupt me on that point. What about charges that are thaw in the area that are more so in a time of austerity? Although they do not accept the argument that they should be considered a form of local taxation, at the present time, those charges can cause considerable distress to the disadvantaged. Kevin Stewart talked about the position of carers. I do not know how charges fit into the Helping Tackling Inequality agenda. I hope that this is something that the commission will pay some attention to. Is it right that charges should fall fully within the local authorities' discretion? It is certainly worthy of debate. What about local authority commercial enterprises? How do they feature in the assessment of local government finance? Can they play a bigger role? What impact would they have financially in looking at the whole question of local government funding? What about council tax benefit and its successor, the council tax reduction scheme, tied in, of course, with the concept of the ability to pay? How should that operate? The present time, more than half a million people benefit from that, but clearly that has a bureaucracy attached to it. Is that inevitable with any scheme based on the ability to pay? I feel again that that is something for the commission to consider. Presiding Officer, I am not sure what can be gained from international experience. I think that Mr Brody referred to Denmark earlier on, and I know that members of the local government and regeneration committee visited Germany, Denmark and Sweden, but, hopefully, the commission will cast a wide net in trying to learn from international experience. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, whilst we may agree that the present system of local government is broken, as a Scottish Labour devolution commission indicated, finding an alternative fit for purpose will not be an easy task. I wish the commission well. Thank you very much, and I now call Kara Hilton to be followed by Willie Coffey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. How are local councils funded is certainly one of the most contentious issues, not just in Scotland but across the UK. It is no surprise when we are considered that it is often local government that has the biggest impact on people's lives. From the education that our children receive to how often our bins are collected, the decisions that local councils make touch people's lives in a more direct way than many of the decisions that we take here at Holyrood or down at Westminster. Strong local democracy empowers local people to be in charge of their own lives and to decide the priorities of their local communities, yet a report by the Carnegie UK Trust found that only 21 per cent of adults in Scotland agree that they can influence decisions affecting their local area. Across the chamber, as we have seen it in the debate today, most of us agree that devolution should not stop at Holyrood. Devolution should be about ensuring that all decisions that are taken as close as possible to the communities they affect and that local people are involved in shaping those priorities. An important principle of local democracy should be that councils are accountable to the communities that they serve for the decisions that they make. Yet increasingly we have seen that local councils are losing that power and Scotland has become more centralised in the past few decades. Increasingly our local councils are at breaking point and it is disappointing that it has taken so long for this debate that we are having today to happen, but it is welcome that it has now taken place. We talk a lot in this chamber about empowering communities and ensuring that the power to shape our lives is in our own hands, but when it comes to local democracy, our local authorities' hands are increasingly tied. Yet we only have to look at what our councils are achieving to imagine how they could transform our communities further with more freedom and with more financial resources to do so. There is absolutely no doubt that their form is needed. The fact that such a very small proportion of the money that local authorities spend is raised locally undermines our local democracy. The current system of local finance is broken and that is something that most of us agree on, and as a result we are seeing local authorities resort to desperate measures. In Fife, I have been campaigning alongside local parents against a possible cut in the school week. The thankful campaign has been a success and the proposal has been withdrawn, but what parents cannot understand is why our local councils have been put in a position of having to look at cutting the hours that our children are taught in school, yet they are pressing ahead with rolling out national priorities such as free school meals. We are seeing the Scottish Government underspending on education in areas that councils are having to cut. The parents that I have spoken to simply do not make sense yet, thanks to the funding crisis that local government faces, that is the reality across Scotland. Alex Rowley highlighted a similar example in respect of teacher numbers, which puts pressure on local authorities to deliver centralised commitments. As always, it is the poor in our communities right across Scotland who are paying the price with local authorities forced to resort to charges, as the only way of bringing in extra revenue are cutting services, which are often a lifeline to local people. Scottish Labour supports the council tax freeze, but we all know that that can only be a short-term measure. At a time when individuals and families are facing a cost-of-living crisis, the freeze is a welcome boost to family budgets. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the freeze is underfunded and that it dilutes the power of local councils to deliver front-line public services. Councils who are already faced with... Ruth Davidson Will she pay to go her place to a constituency as a five-councillor and suggest to them that, just to stand still, they will have to have an increase of at least 3.4 per cent and in order to generate any money from the council tax to actually be facing 8 per cent, 9 per cent increases, which were the norm of what was happening before the council tax freeze came in? I would be happy if the SNP would be honest with people about the council tax freeze and the impact that is having on our public services. It is unfair that that freeze is that local authorities are being in the brunt of austerity from Westminster and here in Holyrood. At a time when 83 per cent of our local authority budgets are controlled by the Scottish Government, councils are in an impossible situation. However, despite that, councils like Fife are achieving great things, investing money to renew and regenerate our town centre and infirmland, investing in early years and early intervention to end the cycle of disadvantage, creating new and much-needed apprenticeships for our young people, building new and much-needed council houses to provide affordable housing for local families, policies that are transforming our communities and informing people's lives. Imagine what Fife and other local authorities could do and deliver if they were properly resourced. The link between taxation, representation and spending is vital to effective democracy. At the moment, I think that that link is broken. It is time for change. Change is long overdue and I am pleased that we are now seeing action. In common with other members across the chamber, I strongly welcome the commission on local tax reform and I look forward to hearing its findings when it reports in the autumn. I am not sure whether it is in the commission's remit or not, but I hope too that as well as council tax, business rates will also be considered. Devolving business rates to local councils would help to restore the link between local economic development and higher revenues, given local authorities much more freedom to use those in ways that support the local economy, especially given our high streets a boost. I agree too that the commission should be looking at the overall local government settlement to give councils a fairer deal. There is no doubt that a lot of work needs to be done to find a solution that delivers a fairer deal for local authorities and a fairer deal for local taxpayers, a solution that secures the future of local services that our communities rely on. Whatever the outcome, we need a system that delivers a long-term solution to funding local government services so that local finance is no longer a political football, a system that establishes a clear divide between the roles of central local government and determinant local budgets that is fair and progressive and ensures our public services are sustainable now and in the future. Whether that solution is a fairer council tax reform to make it more progressive or whether it is a different solution altogether, that is a welcome debate and I hope that it is one that is focal engaging across Scotland. I congratulate the local government committee on making the recommendation for a commission and I look forward to its findings. Securing cross-party consensus on reform is really important, so Tories aside, I hope that we can work across the chamber to make this happen. The final open debate speaker before I turn to closing speeches is Willie Coffey. As some of my colleagues have said, the SNP in our 2011 manifesto committed to consult during this Parliament on a system to replace the council tax to have a system principally based in fairness and the ability to pay. The commission set up to take this work on, I am sure, has all of our best wishes and will carry the hopes of the vast majority of our people that a fairer system of local taxation will emerge from the process. From the era of the Tory poll tax where millionaires paid the same amount to ordinary families, struggling to make ends meet, to the unfair council tax based on property values and not on a person's ability to pay, Scotland has basically had a system of local government taxation for over 25 years or so that the majority of people fundamentally didn't agree with and currently no longer support. That, I think, gives the commission a good starting point, I think, and I hope that all members who serve on it will relish the task. It looks nicely balanced. It is a good mixture of national and local government representation, as well as some experienced people from Civic Scotland. I wish colleagues well. Two of whom are part of the chamber debate today, Minister Biagi, from the SNP Scottish Government and Mr Rowley from Labour. It is quite a remit when you examine it when you take a close look to identify more than one possible system. Two, it must be fair, it must support the delivery of local services, has to take into account income inequalities, the housing market, the revenue-raising capacity of all the options, administration costs, timetables for implementation and, of course, transition to whatever new system may emerge. In doing this important work, the commission will also engage with Scotland's communities and include an assessment of what they think of the emerging proposals. I can already see some useful stress tests that might apply to this process, but the commission will no doubt come up with their own. In my view, fairness and the ability to pay must be at the heart of any new system. Nobody actually likes paying tax, and some people these days seem to dislike paying their taxes so much that they might do anything to try and avoid it altogether. But more important than the details of any new thresholds or bandings or rebate elements that might be part of any new system for local tax reform, I think that the public will expect that it will be generally fair and, hopefully, simple enough to understand. The big message that I think for me for the past eight years has been the SNP Government's freeze on the council tax. That freeze has meant that the average band-dee taxpayer will save over £1,600 by 2016. That is a substantial saving for households, especially during these economic times, and our councils will get an additional £70 million this year to implement that freeze. One of the consequential effects of a freeze is that actually the lowest income households in Scotland get the greatest benefit, since the savings offered by the freeze represents a bigger percentage of their net earnings compared to those on higher earnings. The overall council tax bill, I think, was getting out of hand, and in my authority, the previous Labour administration had increased it by 61 per cent in 10 years. The public was concerned about escalations like that, and I should have to think about the level that it would be now if that sort of hike had been allowed to carry on. The Scottish Government has, in fact, protected local government funding compared to the drastic real-terms cuts that are seen in England, mentioned by my colleague Stuart McMillan. More recently, as a result of UK Government policy, the SNP has introduced other mitigations that help to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our communities. Stuart McMillan also mentioned the United Kingdom Government's abolition of council tax benefit, with the Scottish Government putting £69 million towards alleviating that. We also protect low-income families from the bedroom tax, a tax, arguably, just as bad as the poll tax. Some £90 million has been committed to fully mitigate the bedroom tax, and from April to December last year, more than 100,000 awards were made under the discretionary housing payment scheme. That is real help from the SNP Government for the poorest in our society. We shouldn't, though, be in a continuing position where a Scottish Government has to nullify those negative measures being meted out by the UK. Who knows what they might do next? One thing we do know for sure is that Labour has supported the Tories to agree to another £30 billion worth of austerity cuts, so it's one thing for Labour members to come here and argue for more money when they agree that their MPs have agreed with further cuts in the House of Parliament down in London. If either of those parties are left to their own devices, people in Scotland will be facing even more hardship. Presiding Officer, this work to come up with some real proposals for change and how we apply local taxation comes at a time when the Scottish Government is offering further progress in engaging with and empowering our councils and communities. Ring ffencing has dropped from nearly £3 billion worth to around £200 million, meaning that local councils now determine many of their own priorities, and with the new empowerment bill we will go further, allowing councils to offer local business rates reliefs, for example, to fine tune help for local businesses throughout Scotland. Communities 2 will be able to drive change themselves to shape and deliver those local services that this new local tax will support. In that regard, Presiding Officer, I think that the new commission's work can be pivotal in helping to bind all of this together. Once again, I wish all of my colleagues the best of luck in doing this very important work for the people of Scotland. Thank you, and we now turn to the closing speeches. I call on Gavin Brown up to seven minutes, please, Mr Brown. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that there have been some very interesting elements to this debate, and a number of speakers, I have to say from every party, touched on why there are issues that I think we ought to debate in the future, although they weren't strictly within the remit of the debate today. I think that talking about the relationship, I think, as Mr Biyadgy did, between central and local government is key, some that all of us need to reflect upon. It just reminds me of a quote that former Labour MSP Charlie Gordon once said in this chamber, which has stuck with me for a long time, where he asked the question, do we want local government or do we want local administration? I think that that is a question that we should all ask in the lead-up to next year and indeed 2017. We heard about government finance needing to be looked at more widely. We heard, I think, lastly from Kara Hilton about the devolution downwards from this place to local authorities being something that needs to be looked at. I do think that over the last couple of years, powers have shifted, I think, from local authorities and from health boards and from colleges to this place. And I think that there are strong arguments for devolving them downwards. And actually there are strong arguments too for devolving some powers downwards from local authorities to smaller entities such as community councils. Some of our local authorities are particularly large and geographically widespread and there is an argument, I think, for pushing powers down to local communities where that could be done reasonably well. So good elements, but, Deputy Presiding Officer, let's focus, I guess, on the meat of the issue. We heard a lot of speeches, mainly from the SNP, about how awful the council tax is. This is despite John Swinney's resolute rearguard defence of the council tax in this very chamber just a few weeks ago when he made it sound like one of the best taxes ever put forward. But the thing is about the speeches that I heard today, I heard all of those speeches from the SNP in 2007. I heard all of those speeches from the SNP in 2008. I heard all of those speeches from the SNP in 2009, too. And then they went quiet on the issue of local government taxation. They, despite having a pledge, I know that Mr Beardgy wasn't an MSP at that time, so he may not realise that the world did not begin in 2011. He may not realise that there was a commitment before that, but they had seven key commitments in 2007, Presiding Officer, seven key commitments. The SNP in 2007 will scrap the council tax and introduce a fairer system based on ability to pay. Families and individuals on low and middle incomes will, on average, be between £260 and £350 a year better off. Nine out of 10 pensioners will pay less local tax. Given that this was in 2007, can the minister tell us what happened? Will the member take just one moment in his speech to recognise that the reason that didn't take place was in no small part because his party voted against it? Gavin Brown. Presiding Officer, I appreciate that he wasn't a member at the time, but we are 15 strong now. We were 18 strong then, but still, even with 18 MSPs, we didn't manage to outvote the SNP. Had there been the political will of the administration at the time with the support of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and, indeed, the late Margo Macdonald, I don't actually have any doubt that they could have got that through, because when we did debate the local income tax, there was just a majority, I have to say, in favour of it in this chamber, so it was a lack of political will as opposed to a lack of numbers within this chamber. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to apologise to Willie Rennie for describing him as left wing. Earlier on in the debate, I am advised by him that he is centre left and not left wing, and I would like to apologise to Kevin Stewart as well for describing him as left wing because, listening to what he had to say, he is actually a low tax MSP. Kevin Stewart is a tax cutter. He is not left wing in any way, shape or form, and let's hear it straight from him. I don't have a problem of being called left wing, and I'm not necessarily a tax cutter, but what I do believe is that when you have an unfair tax, you've got to tackle that. That's what the council tax was, and that's why we have the freeze. I believe in progressive taxation, which is something that Mr Brown certainly doesn't. Kevin Stewart is the rarest of creatures, Deputy Presiding Officer. He might be the only one I know, but he is a left wing tax cutter. My goodness, what a debate we have had today. Willie Rennie actually hit the nail on the head, probably without meaning to it, but when he described that the real reason for the commission being set up was to get the SNP off the hook. They've got a bit of a political problem with local government finance, and they want political cover for their local income tax, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Rennie was quite right to say that. I actually wish the commission well. I hope that it does shed some light on issues, but I have to say that, given what I've heard today, my hopes are not that high. We've got a Labour Party who basically are convinced that there will be no recommendations from this committee or commission at the end of it all. We've got a Liberal Democrat Party who believe that there really ought to be some recommendations at the end of it all, and we've got a SNP who want a menu of options for all of us to choose from at the end of this commission. Even among parties that appear to be differing views, Deputy Presiding Officer Roderick Campbell talked strongly about trying to end the single-person discount because it's very unfair, according to him, that single people currently get a discount. Chick Brody argued strongly for a local income tax where the local authorities can set the rate of local income tax. That, Deputy Presiding Officer, is Liberal Democrat policy. I know that the member used to be a Liberal Democrat. What I didn't realise was that he still was, in many ways, a Liberal Democrat, and then we had Kara Houghton arguing that business rates ought to be part of this as well. I'd be interested in what the minister says, so I'm pretty sure that, from reading the outline that will not be considered, perhaps the minister can address that in his closing. Deputy Presiding Officer, we've outlined clearly why we're not part of the commission. We've outlined clearly what we're going to do, and we've had a range of responses to our position. Chick Brody described that it's shameful, which is probably a little bit strong. Roderick Campbell was disappointed. Claire Adamson said that we won't be missed, but I was heartened by Kevin Stewart's response, because Kevin Stewart's position is that he's rather worried that the Scottish Conservatives will miss out by not being part of the commission. I'm heartened by Mr Stewart's response to that. Deputy Presiding Officer, I do wish the commission well, but I've outlined clearly why we won't be part of it, why we're pursuing matters with our commission, and I'll close there. If I can pick up from where Mr Brown left off, I did say in introducing this debate for Labour that, in 2007, the Scottish National Party Government had a commitment at that point to a local income tax and by 2011, for whatever reason, whether it was the unpopularity of the local income tax, or the fact that it would be very difficult to work, that that has not happened. Mr Brown rightly points out that, during that period 2007 to 2011, there was an official coalition between the Tories and the SNP, and perhaps had there been a will then, the Tories and the SNP coalition could have brought that about. He may also be right that the SNP Government won't let off the hook in terms of the council tax freeze policy, because where is it going to go and the damage that is being done to local authority services. However, the fact is that local government is so important, and so many speakers have emphasised the importance of local government. It is so important that that is why, for our point of view, regardless of the reasons that the Government has decided to go along with the local government committee, regardless of those reasons, local government is so important that, certainly, the Labour Party in Scotland is going to work as part of that commission so that we can look at what the options are that are available, look at where consensus can be achieved, and look at where there is a wider consensus out there in communities, because the one thing that is absolutely clear is that we need to get a long-term sustainable financial programme in place for local government. It is far too important not to do so, and that is why it is so disappointing that the Conservative Party has not signed up to that. Gavin Brown says that one of the reasons is that it is because all these left-wing parties are there, but I thought that Willie Rennie addressed that fairly to the point where we are not talking about the levels of taxation that have to be charged, we are simply looking at the options that are available for the systems of taxation that are actually out there. It would be wrong at this stage for any party to say that we are going to sign up to whatever the outcome is, that is not how it would work, but hopefully what we get is a well-informed report coming forward that sets out a number of options, sets out the opinions, views and flaws, because there is no perfect system of taxation. It was Willie Coffey who said that no one likes to pay tax at the end of the day, but people will pay tax if there are certain principles that are achieved, and that is around a fairness and ability to pay. That is something that the Conservatives have a track record of not delivering in the past. I am sorry, I want to make progress. I will see how far I get, because I want to pick up on some of the issues that were made. Clare Adamson made a number of valuable points about the impact of tax on the ability to pay, the most vulnerable in our society, and how that impacts on people. The importance of having a proper system of local taxation that can address policies at the local level. I believe sincerely that if we are going to tackle inequality and poverty in Scotland, local government is absolutely key to that. More so than central government, central government can provide, the strategy can provide the finances, but local government, if you look around Scotland at the 32 local authorities, the front line of tackling inequality and poverty day in and day out has been achieved by local government. Adamson then goes on to make the point about no council was stopped from raising the council tax. You are right, but there was a penalty of x amount of millions of pounds. In Fife's case, it was £4.5 million in her consultation. I said this at the first meeting of commission in Fife in her consultation, I asked two questions. It was part of the budget consultation on council tax. They asked, would you be prepared to pay additional council tax around friends to education? Would you be prepared to pay additional council tax? One, if the penalty was there, which in their case was £4 million, and two, if the penalty was not there? The answer came back—absolutely not—in terms of having to incur the penalty, the £4 million, before you even started. However, if the penalty was removed, the answer came back that there was a majority saying that they would be prepared to pay more money. I should be clear that Scottish Labour's position is that we would not increase the council tax right now because we believe, as I said, that we have had this crisis, in terms of the cost-to-loving crisis, that is mainly brought on by Mr Brown's party, I have to say. We have had people, people, people—sorry, I have not got the time—people, we have had people on, in effect, a wage freeze and, in many cases, a wage cut over the last five years, so it would not be the right time to start by introducing taxis for hard-pressed families at this time, but we do have to find a way forward. There is an indication coming from public consultations that have taken place in local authority areas across Scotland that people do recognise that local services need to be paid for, and that is why the minister may want to touch on it and summon up, but that is why I really believe that one of the roles that this commission has to do is to engage with civic Scotland, engage with communities across Scotland so that we can get a wider discussion and a wider debate around the types of services that we want to see. I am grateful to have given—I am going back to an earlier point that you made, though. The commission is barely four days old, and he suggested that the Labour Party might not sign up to any proposals that it comes up with. Is that the position of the Labour Party four days into that commission? What I am saying is that the Labour Party will bring forward for its 2016 manifesto a vision of local government and how we see local government moving forward. Local taxation in terms of council tax is something like 16, 17 per cent of the way that local government is financed. We would want to see a much bigger vision for how local government delivers for the people of Scotland. I would not expect any party to today say that they are going to sign up to the outcomes of a commission that is going to report in August. What we will have is a lot more information than this commission can work to inform all the parties is just a pity that your own party did not get involved in that. That is perhaps more to do with your lucky commitment to a local state and the acknowledgement that the state has a role to play in government. Kevin Stewart made the point again about engaging with civic Scotland and the importance of engaging with civic Scotland. I absolutely agree with that. Kevin and the committee have done an excellent job in getting around Scotland, talking to people and listening to people about local government, and hopefully the commission will also pick that up. Ann McTaggart made the point about poverty and inequality. There is an example in terms of Glasgow, the authority that Ann McTaggart was a member of, the city deal that has been struck with the seven or eight authorities around the Clyde and in Glasgow, is going to bring about major change and major investment into the wider Glasgow area. That has been achieved by the local authorities, working with the Scottish Government and working with Westminster. Therefore, there are many other routes to finance than just simply the narrow council tax that has been looked at in this sense. That is where, if we are looking at a vision of the future, we have to look at how we move forward. I realise that it is time to wind up. I very much welcome the fact that we have the commission and the Labour Party in Scotland will certainly work with the other parties. It is just a pity that the Conservatives are not going to join us. I now call on Mark Obeidgy to wind up the debate. Minister, you have until 5 p.m. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I at the start want to say that the commission is here to really achieve a greater clarity. That is the fundamental mission of it. If this debate has achieved anything, I am glad that I am now, in my mind, quite clear on the Labour Party's position on the council tax freeze, which I have heard repeatedly from Alex Rowley that it is in support. Perhaps as part of the new leadership of the Labour Party, but I am glad to have that clarity. We will be able to factor it in, as all members will, to on-going debates about the funding of local government and the council tax freeze. After all, the council tax freeze, which Labour claimed it invented—much as Kara Hilton might dispute that now has been both fair and funded—helps those at the bottom twice as much as a proportion of their income as those at the top. No wonder that council tax is a regressive tax. It hits the poorest hardest, putting it up, hits the poorest hardest, not putting it up, helps the poorest the most. It is fairly simple. As a wider issue of local government funding, which this debate has touched on, I would just say that broadly there are three big chunks to what the Scottish Government spends money on. There is health, which I think everybody in here has agreed that we have to protect. Then there is local government, and then there is everything else. Between 2013 and 2016, that local government chunk is seeing a 2.6 per cent increase in cash terms. Everything else is just seeing a 1.0 per cent increase in cash terms. Let us accept that local government is under pressure. I would not ideally want to be in a situation where I was getting a 2.6 per cent cash increase or a 1.0 per cent increase in cash, but we are all under pressure here. There are departments in this Government coming under far more pressure than the local government finance team. If you need an example of what austerity economics can mean for local government, you just need to look at England, where local authorities are facing in the current spending round a real terms cut of about three times that of local government in Scotland. That is just today. There is tomorrow. If we are looking ahead for local government funding into the spending round in 2020, there are massive implications from the Conservative Party's spending plans. The First Minister has set out an approach where UK public spending should rise in real terms by 0.5 per cent per year. According to OBR analysis, that would still result in the debt-to-GDP ratio, but for local declining, local government would have massive benefits. If, for no other reason, the £59 billion gap between the First Minister and Scottish Government's ideal situation at UK level and what the Conservatives plan to do would mean between £4.5 billion, perhaps, and Barnett consequentials, which would have a huge impact on the funding that is available to local government. We are talking about a funding gap that is broadly equivalent to every penny that we spend on nursery, primary and secondary schooling in this country, and the consequences for local government would be severe. Those are plans that would see us live out a decade of austerity and return to public spending terms levels not seen since the 1930s. If we want to protect the core funding that goes to local government as well as the taxes that they have to raise themselves to make up the rest, we have to work together as much as we can in this chamber to resist that austerity and protect the needy and vulnerable that depend on the vital services provided by councils. For that, we all agree on the need to find more revenue, but I would hope that none of us would want to raise it from those least able to pay. There is a difference, incidentally. Gavin Brown should be aware of, between a tax that takes into account ability to pay, which council tax to an extent does, and one based on an ability to pay, and his beloved poll tax from previous debates passed that took no account whatsoever. In Westminster in 2010, Labour and the SNP went through the lobbies together to oppose George Osborne's VAT rise because we agreed that although it would create more money for vital services and that more money was broadly needed, it would hit the poorest hardest and it was the wrong way to do it. That is the principle that we have here. Will the minister acknowledge that the current system, the poorest, is not hit hardest because they are supported through the benefits system to pay their council tax and that that is 90 per cent funded through the block grant from Westminster? The poorest were certainly not helped very much by the 10 per cent cut to that scheme that was introduced by the UK Government. The Scottish Government had to step in and let us remember as well that people who are just above the level that is required to qualify for council tax benefit suffer very severe increases. I used to think that the Conservative Party supported the person in the middle, the person of modest income, the person on the low but fixed income like a pensioner. Those are exactly the kind of people that have had difficulties with the council tax system. Gavin Brown before was remarking on Kevin Stewart, apparently being a left-wing tax-cutter. I will leave that for the discussion afterwards. But it is not about cutting or raising tax. When that VAT vote went through, that would have made every Conservative in the House of Commons a right-wing tax-increaser. The measure of the principle is not whether tax is going up or down but who it is going up or down for. In looking ahead and looking at how we fund local government, that commission has to set out that kind of cost-benefit analysis. It assesses the options and provides the next Scottish Government whoever that will be a platform on which to base local tax reform. I described it as a menu beforehand. I mean, yes. But when he talks about the commission, one of the local government's recommendations was to examine other ways in which local government can raise funds and not just about the council tax. Will that be on the menu for the commission? The commission, as has been identified by Willie Coffey, has quite an ambitious remit already and a tight timescale. The commission is focusing on replacements for council tax, but the broader debate is one that is in process. I have had meetings with COSLA over the issue of wider local government finance and that debate will continue to happen. However, to go back to the menu analogy, if the commission produces a menu at the end and Labour decides to order the meeting potatoes of council tax, it is stodgy but a little bit familiar, that is well informed. Perhaps the Greens will look at land value tax, the open-top Scandinavian sandwich that everybody looks at but not very many people order, and perhaps everybody, other people will look at some kind of fusion cuisine. However, what we will have is a suite of informed options. As the remit says, the commission will identify and examine alternatives. We have to do that because it would be a brave person that predicted that the commission could unite around one option. However, we can unite around an assessment, we can unite around a suite and we can therefore lay the groundwork for quite relatively rapid options. That was a suite of options with a UITE, I hate to add. I am sure that there will be something for dessert, but that is a debate for another day. That debate, that process of change that happens probably quite quickly after the 2016 election, because let us face it, we cannot continue a council tax freeze for 40 years, we have to have a long-term solution, has to carry legitimacy. It has to carry legitimacy from those of us around this chamber, it has to carry legitimacy from the public. The commission is going to lead a participative process. It was one of the biggest topics in the first meeting and we aim to finalise, launch a written consultation very soon. However, we also want to go out there face-to-face around the country to understand what the public wants and expects. We have had those commissions before. There have been commissions of the great and the good that have examined things behind closed doors. There have been local authority commissions that have looked at it but have not really had the power to implement their changes. You have had academic, professional, single party examples. That is one that brings the people together who could be in a position as the next Government to implement change. It has a political buy-in widely around this chamber that makes it uniquely capable of being effective. I say that it has political buy-in around the chamber. I am very sorry to say that Gavin Brown has not just abstained from membership, he actually asked a question, what is the point? I have to say very often when Gavin Brown talks, I sometimes wonder that myself, but the point of this commission is to go through this, to engage. The Conservative party commission has been suggested. I simply would ask Gavin Brown, is it going to, with its remit to examine all kinds of taxes, and no one from civil society social justice background on it, is it going to be able to examine things in enough detail? Is it going to be able to provide the detail for the carers that Kevin Stewart mentioned? Is it going to be able to provide the detail on how regional mechanisms will work as Clare Adamson highlighted? Will it provide clarity for everyone? I think that this commission will. I ask for everybody to support it here, and sadly if the Tories are not going to, it is just one more example of Scotland going one way and them going another. That concludes the debate on the commission on local tax reform. We now move to decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment 1, 12423.1, in the name of Alex Rowley, which seeks to amend motion 12423 in the name of Markleby Adger on the commission on local tax reform, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parents are not agreed. We move to vote. Members recast the votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12423.1, in the name of Alex Rowley, is as follows. Yes, 8 to 8. No, 13. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12423, in the name of Markleby Adger, as amended. On the commission on local tax reform, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The parents are not agreed. We move to vote. Members recast the votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12423, in the name of Markleby Adger, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 8 to 8. No, 13. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time.