 The next item of business is a debate on motion 8007, in the name of Tom Arthur on the local government finance Scotland Order 2023. I invite members wishing to participate in this debate, to press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible, and I invite Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around seven minutes please. Presiding Officer, to today's debate on the local government finance order seeks Parliament's approval to the guaranteed allocations of revenue funding to individual local authorities for 2023-24. It also seeks agreement to the allocation of additional funding for 2022-23, which has been identified since the 2022 order that was approved on 2 March last year. We cannot ignore the hugely challenging circumstances in which we have had to agree the Scottish budget this year. Inflation is still running at double digits, down to 10.1 per cent in January. At the start of February, the Bank of England raised interest rates to 4 per cent, the highest level in 14 years. Brexit 2 is continuing to cause harm and will continue to cause harm and have an adverse impact on our economy. The International Monetary Fund has forecast the UK to be the only major economy to shrink in 2023, with the economy falling by 0.6 per cent. Despite that and the limitations of the devolution settlement, we have used the powers that we have to protect public services, invest in the transition to net zero and take decisive steps to eradicating child poverty. The Scottish budget strengthens our social contract with every citizen of Scotland for the wider benefit of society. That means that people in Scotland continue to enjoy many benefits that are not available throughout the UK, including free prescriptions, free access to higher education and the child payment. That applies at council level. People can access more local services than elsewhere in the UK, for example, more fully funded early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds, a welfare fund that is delivered locally and free bus travel for nearly 2 million people, including every child and young person under 22. The Scottish Government is providing nearly £13.5 billion in the 2023-24 local government finance settlement, including revenue support of almost £12.6 billion and support for capital expenditure of over £0.8 billion. Following the flat cash position set out in the resource spending review, we listened to councils that are increasing the resources available next year by £793 million. The 2023-24 local government finance settlement now provides an additional 6.3 per cent or a real-terms increase of 3 per cent compared to 2022-23. As we do every year to reach this number, we have compared the proposed budget to the allocations approved by Parliament in the previous year. That provides the best like-for-like comparison of available funding. Individual local authorities will also have full flexibility over local council tax rates and the newly devolved empty property belief. The Scottish Government is also intending to introduce a local visitor levy bill to Parliament this year, giving local authorities a discretionary power in time to apply a levy on overnight visitor stays in their areas and to utilise that additional funding locally. It is important to note that the total funding package is already finalised following the passing of the Scottish budget bill. Today's debate seeks Parliament's approval for the distribution of this approved total funding to individual local authorities. The order seeks approval for the distribution and payment of almost £11.6 billion of the revenue total of £12.6 billion, with the balance mainly made up of specific grant funding, which is administered separately. That £11.6 billion is the combination of general revenue grant of over £8.5 billion and the distributable amount of non-domestic rates income, which has been set at just over £3 billion. That settlement also provides continued fiscal certainty through our policy of guaranteeing the combined general revenue grant plus non-domestic rates funding set out in this order. That means that any loss of non-domestic rate income resulting from the impact of Brexit or Covid-19 will be compensated for by increased general revenue grant, unlike the positions for councils in, for example, England, effectively underwriting this critically important revenue stream. As approved as part of the Scottish budget, the overall funding package for 2023-24 includes £360 million to support local government pay deals, £72.5 million increased to the general revenue grant and £105 million to give effect to the devolution of non-domestic rates empty property relief, an extra £50 million capital to help with the expansion of free-scale mules policy, additional funding of £100 million to deliver a £10.90 minimum pay settlement for adult social care workers and commission services and consolidation of £30.5 million for the homelessness prevention fund. There remains a further £330 million of revenue funding that will be notified to local authorities once the distribution has been discussed and agreed with COSLA. That will be included for approval in the 2024 order. There is specific revenue funding that is paid directly by the relevant policy areas under separate legislation, amounting to almost £776 million. The 2023 order also seeks approval for almost £371 million of changes to funding allocations for 2022-23. The full list of changes can be found in the report to the 2023 order. The Government recognises the financial challenges that local authorities across Scotland and the whole public sector are facing. We acknowledge the importance of providing more fiscal flexibility and more revenue-raising powers for local government. The fiscal constraints that we share also emphasise the need to focus urgently on improving delivery of sustainable public services, designed around the needs and interests of the peoples and community of Scotland. We must also continue to press the UK Government for additional funding for our shared priorities and pressures. I welcome support from across the Parliament in that respect. The budget bill passed by Parliament last week ensured that total funding from the Scottish Government to local government next year not only increased in cash terms but also in real terms. That order confirms the distribution to individual councils and the proposals reflect the crucial role that local authorities and their employees to continue to play in our communities. I move that Parliament approves the local government's finance order for 2023. Across the world, Governments are meeting as we are today to discuss approved budgets. I was disappointed that the minister did not touch upon what has destabilised the whole process. That is President Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Ministers across the Scottish Government need to recognise that and include that in where we are, not just inflation, not just Brexit COVID-19 but the real impact of an illegal war in driving up prices and the inflation rate as well. I thank all those who work in our local authorities across Scotland for their hard work and commitment to our communities, especially during the time of the Covid-19 pandemic, but also the work that they are undertaking to deliver recovery for our communities. That is something that we should recognise. For my council here in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the work that they are doing to support Ukrainians and Ukrainian families who are in Scotland is tremendous. Some of the pressures that I know my council has highlighted to ministers around education and support for housing have not been addressed in this budget, but we need to make sure that that lasting and on-going support is recognised by ministers. The order before us in Parliament today allocates funding for each of Scotland's 32 local authorities, and we do not intend to oppose it, but we will continue to raise and have serious concerns around the overall allocation of resources to local authorities across Scotland and the need for reform of how that is delivered. Council finance chiefs have warned SNP and green ministers that Scotland's local authorities are now facing unprecedented financial pressures, and the Scottish Government's budget is the largest in devolution history, let's not forget that, thanks to additional UK Government funding being allocated during and after this budget process. Tracking funding allocations over the last decade points towards SNP ministers not passing on or delivering the same additional resources that they have received and passing on to local government. That is something that I hope to be able to highlight today, because we are having this debate annually, but we are not finding the solutions that we need for local government. Councils have been left facing a situation in which they have defined savings and cut local services at the same time. This year's budget across Scotland, we are witnessing how councils are having to take those difficult decisions and have come together yet again to condemn their financial settlement and the work of COSLA in that. It is clear that we need to see a new approach and conversation over how we take forward this budget process. The acting finance secretary John Swinney mentioned in his speech last week during stage 3 of the budget debate that the Scottish Government wants to see a new deal with local government. I agree, but I do not want that just set by the Scottish Government. I want Parliament and all local authorities to have that conversation as well, because ministers need to look towards how future finances are properly going to be delivered. I hope that SNP and green ministers genuinely are able to pause and reflect following this budget on the difficulties that councils are already saying will present them at achieving any similar budget in the future. We need to see the resetting of the financial relationship between the Scottish Government and local government. I believe that the development of a new partnership that delivers respect between the Scottish Government and our local authorities gives local authorities the powers and funding that they need to deliver the vital public services that we all rely on. The minister pointed towards a potential additional tax, which I believe that only two councils are now looking at taking forward. Why is the discussion needed over local government reform? I believe that a creation of a new fiscal framework for councils can provide that future provision and powers protected which local authorities currently hold and are respected. That is where other debates, for example, around the national care service need to also look at how that can be reformed. To date, that has presented very little scope for reform or discussion around that, but I hope that outside of this budget process there is that opportunity. The opportunity that a new First Minister, new finance secretary and new local government ministers also present to build a new relationship and have that positive discussion over a new funding settlement. There seems to be a stalemate currently in opening up discussions around this important issue, but there needs to be reforms. It is critical if we are able to work to protect and enhance our local councils and our local communities that that takes place in the future. I do not doubt that councils will continue to face many difficult decisions in the coming weeks, months and years. For the councillors that I have met and spoken to across Scotland, not only from my party but from all parties in this chamber, I cannot see where councils can find any more flexibility. They have used the sticking plasters that they had to get this budget across the line in many areas. There is nothing else for them to cut without resorting to delivering core services and nothing else. I hope that backdrop and the financial pressures that we all recognise can be where we take this debate in the next year ahead of the next budget. I hope that SNP and green ministers will reset their approach to how local councils are funded and their local priorities—each local authority—urban and rural have at delivering services. That is something that I hope all of us in this Parliament will play our role in, but, more importantly, how we make sure that our local authorities are able to deliver for our local communities. We will not be opposing the order today because we know that it is necessary to get the funding allocated to councils. However, as we indicated at stage 1 and 3 of the budget, we do not support that 2023-24 budget because it is laced with yet more cuts, which will cause rocket in council tax bills, and we could see up to 7,000 jobs gone from local government. Councilers in all 32 local authorities in every political party, including the SNP, are making or are having to make heartbreaking decisions that are of this Government's making. £6 billion has been cut from services since 2013, but the Government just seemed to look the other way. Roads are crumbling, libraries are closed, bins are overflowing, staff have been left with no option to strike, strikes that again have left schools closed right across the country, and now it is left to councillors to take the tough decisions to balance the books. Council tax increases of 5, 6, 7 up to 10 per cent right across the country. Not only have the Government passed the buck during the cost of living crisis when food, utility and housing bills are soaring, but the public will now have to pay for worse services, footing the bill for the SNP's neglect of local councils and local communities. In my own region, the SNP-led Falkirk Council asked its executive to greenlight a plan to put 133 buildings up for sale. School pools, Grangemouth stadium, sports halls, gyms, park buildings, village and community halls all flawed to fill a deficit and with it 200 jobs. SNP-led Aberdeen City Council's review could see swathes of its services, things like social work, welfare fund, council tax collection, health and safety enforcement, free school meals, all put up as options for outsourcing. The smoke and mirrors, the political spin and I think at points, the virgin on dishonest presentation of the budget figures and their impact meant that there was absolutely no real debate about the budget, just game playing and spin that defied and denied reality. At the time ministers complained about their budget, they complained about the changes in real terms but then talked in the same breath about changes to local government budget and cash terms. They spent hours in this chamber demanding an honest discussion about where we would spend additional funding, where we would cut, but the truth has with no honest starting point. We never even had a conversation when the Government claimed during the budget process, during their initial allocation that there would be an uplift of £570 million to local government. Where then was the honest conversation? Where could we possibly have an honest starting point when that was the Government claim? Even if it was realistic, it was still only half of what COSLA had asked for, for what they said would need to protect essential services. Even that figure did not make it to the end of the day because the true number was £71 million when it took into account existing policy commitments. The Fraser Valander Institute also set the record state, making clear that the Government's funding represents a real-term cut to local government budgets. Even when we took £223 million announced at stage 3, that again was committed and spent. It was not additional funding for councils to spend on protecting services, so it has left councils continuing to make cuts. That announcement, like every other year, where the SNP says that there is no more money but then comes to stage 3 and allocates additional funding at the very last minute. Some councils had already had their budget, meaning that some have already set their budgets. When they come to the chamber in the last day at stage 3 to announce that additional funding, that shows absolute contempt for so-called partners in local government. I recognise that sometimes timing can be suboptimal, to put it mildly, but would the member recognise that ultimately we have to operate with any wider UK fiscal framework under Treasury rules? That includes also late notification of supplementary estimates for ourselves within the financial years, which can have a cascading and knock-on effect. Mark Griffin, you should be winding up now. I appreciate the timing of the allocation from the UK Government, but that is a recurring theme. It is a part of every single year in local government budgets, where the Government comes to the chamber and tells us that there is no more money left. They ask us to identify cuts, and at the very last minute they announce extra money from the back of the sofa out of a hat. That is absolutely treating local council colleagues with contempt. As I said, we will vote for the order to allow councils to get the money allocated to them, but it is clear that it will result in more pain and misery for local communities. Thank you very much, Mr Griffin. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton for around four minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by offering my apologies to the chamber for my later rival? I was caught up in a broadcast interview that overran. The tone of Tom Arthur's remarks today is striking. It is completely at odds with what I am hearing from Liberal Democrat councillors at the sharp end of this. The Government benches must be hearing that too. I am surprised that Green and SNP members are happy to go along with it. I am relieved that here in Edinburgh, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, more than £5 million of school cuts have now been prevented. We promised to stop this assault on education and we have delivered on that, but that is not to say that putting that budget together was not incredibly difficult, because the Scottish Government is still cutting Edinburgh's budget by a staggering £76 million. It is those sort of figures that mean elsewhere that we are seeing school librarians cut, community wardens, early years staff cut, music tuition and outreach in some of the most deprived communities in the country cut. Now, listening to the Government benches these past few weeks, it is clear that they have disengaged with the fact that local government is in crisis. Local government budgets have been eroded, squeezed to the pips year after year by SNP and Green ministers. The consequences of that can be seen in the failure to close the poverty-related attainment gap to the potholes in our roads. I will briefly— I am inferring what the member is implying is that there has to be a strategic realignment of funding priorities in government to give local government more money. That would necessitate significant reductions elsewhere. On a lunch day, we have a budget process to go through next year and subsequent years. Does Mr Cole-Hamilton have a place that he wants to take that money from? I have told you exactly where I would take that money from. For a start, I get rid of the vast and unnecessary bureaucracy that is in ministerial takeover of social care. However, I would also point the Government to its own words that you said that you would improve and protect local services, give greater control and influence of decisions. That is what the SNP promised last May. The Greens were at it too. They promised fair funding for our public services and devolved decision-making, though their words, Deputy Presiding Officer, took just 26 days after making big promises at those council elections last May for Kate Forbes and her green colleagues to unveil their plan for more savage cuts in the spending review. Last month, the education secretary introduced a fresh sanctions regime for local government that, if they did not do what the SNP green government ordered, they would face penalties. The education secretary, as such, has treated councils like the enemy who are determined to cut teachers' numbers. That is nobody's wish. Nobody is talking about that as a way forward. The way to protect teacher numbers is to adequately fund our local authorities. It is a pattern that goes back to 2007, with the recently released Cabinet paper showing that John Swinney threatened to centralise the delivery of school education to, in his words, play hardball with COSLA. None of that is collaboration and partnership, as we were promised. It is putting local government and education in a headlock. The Greens should listen to Andy Wightman, their former respected member, writing in Holyrood last month. He said that the Scottish Government's enfeebling of local councils is an attack on our democracy. He rightly suggests that we imagine that the boot was on the other foot and that the UK Government was threatening financial penalties if Scottish ministers did not follow the Tory Government's manifesto. Local authorities need both a fair deal from this Government and a power surge that recognises the importance of the work that they do. That means giving them more powers over economic development, planning, transport and ending the SNP power grabs that I have defined. They need new hope, not another ministerial takeover of social care and a vast and unnecessary bureaucracy that would assert ship and trample over services once again. I will finish by coming on to council tax reform. Tom Arthur says that it is a key priority. We know what that means. Like other key priorities before it, the SNP will make no reforms throughout the entirety of this Parliament. He has explicitly said that nothing will be rolled out before 2026, and the Greens still cannot see that they have gone into government on the promise of talks about talks, a working group and a citizens assembly. At the end of all that, we are being promised options. Tom Arthur says that it could be anything from relatively minor to significant and fundamental. Talk about kicking something into the long grass. You do not just have to take my word for it. Robin Harper, former leader of the Greens, agrees. There is no escaping that the harmless local government settlement will deliver to our communities in every corner of Scotland and the Liberal Democrats will oppose it this evening. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I now call on the minister to wind up the debate for around four minutes. Thank you to colleagues for their contributions. Just turning to Mr Cole-Hamilton's last remark, I appreciate that he made a disagree with the distribution and the allocation, but if he wants to distribute money to local authorities, he needs to vote for this, or at least not oppose it. Secondly, I will check the official report that he said that I had been explicit or made clear that there would be no changes to council tax by the end of this Parliament. That is not what I said. I was specifically committed and was misreported or at least reported now with a particular tone that suggested other than what my intent was, which is, and I want to be very clear about this. The pace that we move on council tax reform will be determined by the outcome of engagement with COSLA and through a deliberative process. I think that members would recognise that the spirit of working in partnership with local authorities and respecting them is one whereby we should not speak to impose a form of local taxation upon them, but to reach agreement and consensus in partnership. I will give way to Mr Cole-Hamilton. That is Cole-Hamilton. I am grateful to Tom Arthur for giving away. If I have misrepresented him, I apologise. In which case, could he clarify for the chamber? I will correct the record if this is the case. Will the council tax be reformed by the end of this Parliament? Yes or no. If the member had listened to what I said before he intervened, he would understand that the pace of council tax reform is not a matter for government or this Parliament alone. It is about reaching consensus and agreement with local government, with communities and through a deliberative process. Mr Cole-Hamilton may think that it is just the job of Parliament to impose a form of local taxation upon local government. We respect local government. We will work with local government in partnership to ensure that we deliver a form of reform through where there is consensus. Mr Briggs touched on the issue of Ukraine. I agree wholeheartedly with Miles Briggs of Ukraine and Russia's illegal and barbaric invasion. It has had a significant impact on not just the Scottish and UK economy but the global economy. I recognise that other members take that view as well. I would note that, while one of my colleagues, Jenny Gilruth, was highlighting the need for reconsideration of timetables around the dualling of arterial trunk roads, clearly a major capital project went amongst a range of reasons the war on Ukraine was cited. One of Mr Briggs' colleagues said that she even had the nerve to blame Vladimir Putin's concern of Ukraine. I think that it is very important to recognise, and if we are going to be reducing the invasion of Ukraine and the impact that it has had on the global economy as a consideration for the UK Government's funding for the Scottish Government and the knock-on effects that it has for our capacity to fund public services in Scotland, we have to apply that with some consistency. We are obviously in strait and financial circumstances. We have seen inflation at rates certainly unprecedented in my lifetime. That is not an ideal circumstance in which we will be delivering a budget, but we have set out key priorities around that just transition to net zero on sustainable public services and eradicating child poverty. What this local government finance settlement does is to provide a real terms increase to local government for the next financial year. I reiterate the point that I made to Mr Cole-Hamilton and others. If there is a desire for a significant and strategic shift in the Scottish budget to significantly increase the resource that is provided to local government, it is incumbent upon members to identify where that resource should come from. We can go round in circles every year in these debates, but unless there is our willingness to engage, I am afraid of time, Mr Driggs. I am afraid of time, Mr Driggs. However, those are conversations that I am happy to have, but it has to be a serious, grown-up conversation. If we are talking about that strategic shift, that reorientation of how the budget is deployed, it is incumbent upon members to engage with that seriously. Again, I urge the interests of local government in providing fiscal stability that members support the resolution this evening. Thank you very much, minister. That concludes the debate on the local government finance Scotland order 2023. We will move on to the next item of business, but there will be a brief pause before we do so.