 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 14677, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the Scottish Government to penalise Scots for living alone. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate, please, pressures, requests to speak button sound? I call on Jackie Baillie to open the debate. You can call me Jackie any time you like, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, I'm drifting. I call on Jackie Baillie to open the debate. Ms Baillie, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Almost 950,000 people in Scotland receive a discount for their water. For the overwhelming majority, that discount is worth 25 per cent of the total bill. That's a lot of money. For the average band D house, that discount is worth £109 a year. In the summer, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on changing the discount. It is this which has so far received little attention from the chamber that is the focus of my member's debate this evening. I am very happy to clarify at the start that this was a change suggested by the Scottish Government and not by Scottish Water. In a nutshell, the Scottish Government wants to increase the amount of water discount for those receiving council tax reduction. That is welcome, and I have absolutely no problem with that at all. However, it wants to pay for it by taking away the council tax discount from half a million single people. This is nothing short of an attack on single older people. They may be living alone because they are widowed. They may have a small works pension that means that they do not qualify for council tax reduction. They will find it difficult to manage. This is an attack on single parents who struggle to manage bringing up children on one income. That is an attack on half a million people who rely on getting the discount, penalised simply because they live alone. In a second, there is an argument that someone living alone will use less water than a household of, say, four people. However, there seems to be an assumption that people living alone have considerable resources as well. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, Fraser of Allander Institute noted that there are poor people in every council tax ban. I am happy to give way to John Mason. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Would she accept that some of us who are single and live on our own would happily pay a bit extra money? Indeed, if you wish to do so, I am sure that Glasgow City Council would welcome you paying extra, but that is not the point. That absolutely is not the point. The majority of people in this category are on low and fixed incomes. Losing the discount could have serious consequences as they need to find more from an existing small pot simply to stay afloat. Age Scotland, in a briefing for this debate, pointed out that, in a recent survey, six out of 10 pensioners struggled with their fuel bills. Imagine how much more difficult the Scottish Government will make it if they remove the discount for water from older people, too. We know that the number of older people is set to rise significantly over the next decade. In particular, the number of older people living alone is expected to rise by nearly 50 per cent. Has the Scottish Government, in its wisdom, as part of its consultation, published an analysis of responses yet? I was told that the final consultation report would be presented to a multi-stakeholder group on 25 October, and it would be published on its website thereafter. Indeed, it was from the cabinet secretary herself. However, thereafter, somebody ran for cover. Despite emails to Scottish Water, PQs to the Government, the report remained hidden away. Now I am told, as a result of an FOI, that it will be published—wait for it, Presiding Officer—on Friday 21 December, when we have all gone home and no-one is paying attention. That is, frankly, woeful and tells you everything you need to know about the cynicism of this Government. Let me turn to council tax reduction. There is a council tax reduction for single households. You get the water discount if you get the council tax discount. Members in the chamber will appreciate the concern that what we are now witnessing is the thin end of the wedge. Today it is the water discount that they are after. Tomorrow it will be your council tax discount. Welcome to the new Scotland, where you are being penalised for living alone. It is not far-fetched. A former SNP MSP won Roderick Campbell and questioned whether the single person's council tax discount should remain at all. When I put that to the First Minister's questions a few weeks ago, I expected her to rule it out, but she did not rule it out. She pointed to further consultation. Let us be clear about the cost of the removal of both single person's discounts for water and council tax. It will cost the average, bandy household over £400 a year. That is an extra £400 that people will need to find on a fixed income at a time when the price of absolutely everything is going up, but earnings are either flat or declining in real terms for the majority of the population. As I said at the start, providing more assistance for those on council tax reduction is absolutely welcome, but how you pay for it is the issue at stake. I do not believe that taking from the slightly less poor to pay for the poorest is the right way to do it. I cannot begin to understand why the Cabinet Secretary appears to be held bent on making changes that will leave substantial numbers of people in Scotland poorer than they are today. Let me genuinely ask her to think again. Let me ask her if she is considered if there is a way of protecting single-person pensioner households. What discussions has she had with, for example, the Social Security Minister now that the Scottish Government has new powers? Has she thought imaginatively about how those could be used to help those on low incomes with water charges? Will she meet with age concern and directly include pensioners in a discussion about the policy that will affect their income going forward? I genuinely hope that we can persuade the Cabinet Secretary who is politically astute not to rush into that. Let's work together to ensure that you are not penalised if you happen to live alone in Scotland today. Open debate speeches are four minutes. I call James Dornan to be followed by Finlay Carson. As is normal, I would like to thank Jackie Baillie for securing today's debate. However, I am deeply disappointed with the tone of her motion, and I am surprised that it was allowed in the first place. The motion is as talked as if it was a formality and a proven fact that the Scottish Government is penalising Scots. When she knows that, that is clearly not the case. The fantasy motion that Jackie Baillie has gone from the Scottish water rebate to the council tax rebate, when none of those things are factually accurate. Our record as a Government is clearly showing that what we do is about making sure that people that we help, that we make sure that the help goes to those that need it most. This is a Government that takes the necessary action to protect those on lower incomes and supports the poorest people in our society, whether it is through our commitment to tackle child poverty, only if it is not coming off my time. I thank the member for giving way. I gather that, based on his remarks, he is asking the Scottish Government to rule out removing the single person's discount for water. I am sorry, I thought that Daniel had been here long enough to know the difference between a consultation and not a consultation. We are still in the consultation process. You look at the consultation results and then you make your decisions after. If you roll things out before a consultation starts, there is no point in having it in the first place. I thought that you would have known that by this time, Daniel. Whether we are protecting the poor through our commitment to tackle child poverty, for example, using our new social security powers to support young families on low incomes with a new best start grant, the first payments of which we are made in one day, or through our commitment to tackle funeral poverty, where we have unveiled a 10-point funeral cost plan to help those who face financial problems during difficult times, or whether it is through our world-leading commitment to tackle period poverty, this Government looks after those who need to look after. It is called being progressive, and I look around and there is maybe one or two, but maybe the Labour should give it a go. Some of the older ones might have a distant memory of it, but I will tell you, since I have come into this Parliament, I have seen absolutely no sign of it, except for impressed releases and speeches. Since Scottish Water's creation in 2002, we have seen continual improvements in what they do, the collective focus and the need to improve the quality and standards of services, determination to keep charges affordable, and the commitment shown by our water industry has resulted in Scotland's drinking water quality, environmental performance and levels of service reaching their highest levels ever. Those are impressive achievements over a period in which average charges have fallen in real terms and remain among the lowest in the UK. According to SPICE, the average annual household water charge in 2018-19 is £363 in Scotland, and this is over 20 per cent cheaper than Labour run Wales, where consumers will be charged £439 this year. I look forward to Jackie Baillie's next motion, how the Welsh Government can learn from the Scottish Government about how to treat people fairly. However, I do not deny that significant challenges lie ahead, and we have to plan carefully to address these and ensure that the progress made is maintained. We must continue to have a sustainable, high-performing water industry meeting customers' needs and affordable prices. As Jackie Baillie well knows, the process of determining charges for the period 21 to 27 is now under way. The Scottish Government plays a central role in determining the key policy parameters to guide that process, and everyone was encouraged to submit their views on key issues central to the development of that framework. Views received will be taken into account in the finalisation of those documents at a later stage of the review, which will allow the water industry commission to issue its final determination in March 2020, which we will set out as views of charges for the regulatory period. It is just a shame that Jackie Baillie's views are not part of that consultation if she did not bother to participate in it. It is set out by the First Minister in November. Coincidentally, in response to Jackie Baillie, there is absolutely no proposal to remove the single occupancy discount. The Scottish Government is indeed reviewing the responses to the consultation at the moment, but, importantly, any detailed changes to the charging policy would be subject to further consultation with customers and stakeholders. Any possible reduction in a discount for a single person household would potentially allow increases in discounts for those in low incomes to be introduced all the same. That is a point that Citizens Advice Scotland welcomed. According to CAS, the proposal to increase the maximum reduction for recipients of the water charge reduction scheme from 25 per cent to 50 per cent will provide additional benefit to over 340,000 households and full-counsel tax reduction. Members should be concluding, Ms Baillie. And another 160,000 on personal council tax reduction. That sounds rather progressive to me. Again, I will reiterate that no decisions have been taken on the issue, but when the decision is taken, I will be about making sure that the help that we provide goes to the people who need it most. It appears to me, Presiding Officer, that just as it was done during our better-together days, Labour continued to try and scare our most vulnerable to make political points. Thank you, Mr Dornan. Just for clarification, you asked why the motion was not allowed. The process is that the motion was submitted to the chamber desk. The chamber desk ruled that it was competent. That is the first thing. You all know that. Secondly, the bureau agreed that this should be debated and that the bureau is unanimous and across all the parties. There is nothing to sit down, Mr Dornan. Well tread carefully. It better be a point of order. The point of order is that we have any clarification about what the boundaries are for a member today. Sit down, Mr Dornan. That is not a point of order. You asked why it was allowed. I have explained the parliamentary process. That is why this is being debated today. There is no conversation to be had. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would first like to say that my speech completely misjudged the tone of the debate. However, I will continue. I would like to thank Jackie Baillie for bringing this important subject to the chamber this evening. As a member for the rural constituency of Galloway and Western Frees, I am acutely aware of my many rural constituents who are living alone, some through choice but many not through choice. Age Scotland's briefing ahead of this debate highlighted how, over the next 25 years, the number of older people who are expected to live alone is expected to rise by 50 per cent, and they are the people who are going to be hit. That is one reason why the proposal by Scottish Water to reduce the single occupancy discount from 25 per cent to 10 per cent are misguided and need to be readdressed. It is beyond belief to suggest that a single occupancy in vacant homes such as use as much water as a fully occupied house, and there is every reason to maintain those discounts given the people it is going to affect the most. However, it is not beyond belief that those proposals are nothing more than an attempt to increase council taxes by stealth on single occupancy homes and vacant properties. Council tax is already a progressive system and those with low incomes rightly receive discounts. That once again demonstrates that under this Scottish National Party Government, hard-working taxpayers will pay more and get less. It will also hit rural users disproportionately. Not insignificant because of another issue facing my constituency, that is connectivity, which is still a major issue throughout rural areas. Age Scotland has pointed out that many people simply do not have access to the information relating to applying for the benefits that they are entitled to. For example, 40 per cent of people eligible for pension credits are not claiming it, so it is a double whammy. You get extra costs but less accessibility than information to assist you to get support. This morning, I met with the council for voluntary organisations on the subject of affordable broadband. I just wonder how many MSP colleagues, let alone constituents, know that, if there is a receipt of certain benefits, they can sign up for a £10 a month home, phone and broadband package from BT. That is an example. If you do not have connectivity, you cannot find out what support you can get. The importance of boosting our digital connectivity across rural communities cannot be understated. Bringing about improvements cannot only open up further job opportunities and bring our communities closer together, helping to reduce social isolation. However, in this ever-more digitally-driven world, we must ensure that everyone has access to the information that they need. Presiding Officer, with what has gone before, I hope that you and the mover of the motion will indulge me by going somewhat off a tangent. When I initially read the motion, I thought that it was about people living on their own and loneliness, which would have been very appropriate at this time of year. I was pleased to meet Red Cross on the subject of loneliness, and they provided me with a great insight into the effects of social isolation and feeling alone. It was highlighted in a report trapped in a bubble. The exact people that Scottish Water proposed policy change will hit them most. I met Social Security Secretary Jane Freeman, asking what action could be taken to address social isolation and loneliness. It is disappointing that it has taken until this week to reveal the findings of their consultation when the consultation finished at the end of April. However, in response to my colleague Annie Wells, I put forward wide-ranging plans to combat loneliness and could not national awareness campaigns, and perhaps most importantly all the recognition that the need for loneliness support affects people of all ages. Tonight, in the spirit of the season, which I presumed that this debate was going to be more involved with, I would like to pay tribute to some of the organisations working tirelessly across Dumfries and Galloway to help those people living on their own. Well, I have been quite indulgent because she did not read the motion properly, so do not stretch, test my indulgence here and do not give me a big list of all the organisations that you want on the record. I certainly will not, Presiding Officer. No, you will not. At this time of year, when the focus is on goodwill to all men and women, Scottish Water needs to look again at their misguided plans that will punish people simply for their living circumstances. I see you found your car and I found my glasses, so things are improving. I now call James Kelly to be followed by John Scott. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by paying tribute to my colleague Jackie Baillie in securing this debate and bringing this very relevant motion to the chamber this evening? Jackie Baillie has a formidable record as a campaigner in bringing issues of substance and issues that matter to the Scottish Parliament chamber. That issue in relation to the Scottish Water discount for single persons is no different from that. I think that you just need to look at the extent of the issue. It affects nearly a million people and the breakdown geographically shows that it affects 138,000 people in Glasgow and 57,000 in South Lanarkshire. I have no doubt that across Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Blantyre, there are many people who will be concerned about the proposals that have been put forward in the Scottish Government consultation document. Age Scotland is right to highlight the impact on pensioners. We know that, over the next 25 years, the impact of that will grow by 50 per cent. I think that it is relevant that the debate comes at this time of year because we are also focusing on fuel poverty and a quarter of people in Scotland suffer from fuel poverty and a half of those are older. A lot of the issue in relation to a single person discount affects older people. From that point of view, I think that the policy intent that the Scottish Government is pursuing here is one that is wrong. First of all, it is unfair if that was to be successful in terms of reduction or removal. It would affect nearly a million people and it would affect a lot of pensioners. The second thing is that there seems to be an argument about trying to shift to the council tax reduction element of the water charge. There is a very poor uptake on that. That would not have the same impact in terms of trying to help people. There are unintended consequences in relation to that. I suspect that what is behind it is that, as the Scottish Government continues to pursue other options to fill the black holes in their budget, not just this year but in future years, it is looking at other fundraising options. Nobody should be surprised that, when you look at the publication of last week's draft budget, just on local councils alone, you have a decrease of £319 million in real terms. Obviously, there are clear issues there. I think that this is a very relevant issue that Jackie Baillie has brought into the chamber. In looking at the consultation, I would say to Mr Dornan that it lists very clearly what the different exemptions are currently. It goes on to say that ministers consider that there is a strong case for reducing or removing the discount accounts, not just a case, but a strong case. It shows you the way that the Government is thinking on this. The Government clearly knows that it is controversial if it is going to publish the results of the consultation on Friday, when most people are heading off on the Christmas break. I agree with Jackie Baillie in the sense that the Government has to rethink on this, if it has a direction of travel in terms of reducing or getting rid of the discount. I think that this debate has been very relevant in bringing the issue to the chamber. I hope that the minister is constructive in responding to this, because it would have a detrimental effect on nearly a million Scots, particularly a lot of pensioners. I think that we need to rethink how we go forward on this issue. Thank you very much, Mr Kelly. I call John Scott, last speaker, in the open debate. Mr Scott, please. I begin by declaring an interest as the owner of a dormant water distribution company. I also congratulate Jackie Baillie on bringing forward this motion today, which questions the Scottish Government's intention to remove the 25 per cent single occupancy discount for those living alone. Certainly, the proposal to reduce the 25 per cent discount to 10 per cent will be a significant blow to the ever-growing number of people living on their own in Scotland and will not bring Christmas cheer to the many hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected by the proposal if the Scottish Government has their way. Of course, it is not just those living alone who will be affected by this, but particularly those single people on low and fixed incomes, as well as the elderly, who will feel most upset if the Scottish Government reduces the discount. In addition from information provided by each concern and used by others, it appears that, over the next 25 years, the number of older people living alone in Scotland is set to rise by almost 50 per cent. The Scottish Government's proposals would see all those people facing increased council taxes as a result of increased water rates. We know that the Scottish Government is consulting on proposals on how to change the charging structure to Scottish water customers, and we are also aware of the growing need to fund new infrastructure projects in Scotland as Victorian water distribution and sewerage systems become obsolete and are simply overwhelmed by a lack of capacity and higher rainfall from climate change. However, the renewal must not be undertaken at the expense of pensioners or single people, or the least well-off in our country. Desperately needed new infrastructure in Prestwick, in my constituency, for example, where frequent external sewer flooding is now a regular occurrence, must not be funded in this way. Rebuilding the sewerage network to deliver new external sewerage capacity must be delivered from charging and taxing those who are better able to afford such costs. I hope that the Scottish Government, through Scottish Water, will soon create this new infrastructure so desperately needed in Prestwick, without feeling the need to put their hands in the pockets of those who are able to afford it. Returning now to water rates and new charging structures, water rates are just one of the many costs that disproportionately affect people living on their own, with currently only a 25 per cent reduction being in place. It is important for the Government to remember that 40 per cent of people eligible for pension credits do not claim them. Other benefits to which many of our proud, but often lonely, elderly are entitled, are also unclaimed. I am always happy to ask our ever-helpful South Ayrshire Council and the DWP in Ayr to organise a benefits check for any of my constituents, just in case they are missing out on benefits to which they are properly entitled. My congratulations to Jackie Baillie in securing and promoting this lively debate on this important issue this evening. Scottish Conservatives certainly agree with her motion this evening, the last member's business debate before Christmas, and we would urge the Scottish Government, in the spirit of Christmas, to listen to Jackie Baillie and the many contributions to the debate today, before reducing discounts on water rates for single people. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. Anna Cymru is on a cunning one to close the Government, Cabinet Secretary, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I need to restate at the outset that this is a debate about a consultation about which no decision has yet been made. The consultation dealt with a number of issues, one of which was the current discounting system and whether it could be better focused on those that are most in need. Water charges in Scotland remain among the lowest in the UK, and we offer a series of discounts, exemptions and reductions to classes of customers facing certain circumstances that are just not available elsewhere. This is a source of pride and shows the merits of our public sector ownership, but can we be clear that those discounts and exemptions are not Government grants or subsidies that they are paid for by other household customers? The present range of discounts cost them £146 million, equivalent to nearly £63 on the average bill. It is not unreasonable to ask whether the current system helps those who have most difficulty paying. That is what we set out to consider and what led us to put that proposal in the consultation. We did that in close discussion with Citizens Advice Scotland and in the light of research undertaken by them. Research undertaken by Fraser of Allander on behalf of them and published on our website has estimated that 12 per cent of households in Scotland spend more than 3 per cent of their weekly income on water and sewerage charges. That is 297,000 households who could be said to face affordability issues. The research noted that not all single occupant households do face affordability issues. Indeed not, as John Mason pointed out, there may be a fair number of MSPs in that category themselves. A single person household does not equal inability to pay. The research by Fraser of Allander further concluded that households in receipt of council tax reduction are the most likely to face affordability issues. The consultation was about whether there was a way to better support those who are most vulnerable. I am surprised that anyone would think that that is not a reasonable question to ask. As I have indicated, we worked with Citizens Advice Scotland just of course. I do not think that anybody is disputing that we would actually want to see those who have the very least gain more by way of discount, but the method by which you choose to do that is removing it from others who actually cannot afford to have that discount taken away from them. I made the comment about single person households being a status that is not actually related to affordability. I have indicated that we worked with Citizens Advice Scotland. Members might wish to have a look at their report, published in September, titled, charting a new course, a study in developing affordability policy for water and sewerage charges. The results of the consultation have been analysed and are now online. People will therefore be able to see who did and who did not lodge a submission to the consultation. Further research, consultation and engagement with the potentially affected demographics and relevant interest groups will be undertaken prior to making any decision, but I need to reiterate that no decision has been made. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting.