 The next item of business is a debate on motion 2.949, in the name of Kate Forbes, on budget Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons or enter R in the chat function. I call on Kate Forbes to speak to and move the motion up to nine minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their report on the budget. The budget is clear in its missions. It will tackle the climate emergency, it will support economic recovery and it will reduce poverty. It will also deliver on other priority commitments, including free bus travel for young people, non-domestic rates relief for businesses and substantial increases in health and social care spending. As I've made clear previously, the absence of Covid-related funding, despite the very real, on-going impacts of the pandemic that all of us can attest to, has meant that this is a challenging budget. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has highlighted that as a result of reductions that overall Scottish budget for next year is 5.2 per cent lower in real terms. With Covid funding having been removed, our day-to-day funding next year is less compared to the current year, at a time when we undeniably need to invest in the economy and help services to recover. As I've said before, this is a budget of some hard choices, but I believe that we have made the right choices. As I stated yesterday, I recognise the valued contribution that our local government partners make to the delivery of our front-line public services. Having engaged with COSLA and individual local authorities regularly over the last few months, I'm conscious of the challenges that they face, including the increasing impact of inflation. I've repeatedly said that next year's Scottish budget is fully allocated. That remains the case. However, I've also been clear that I've been monitoring this year's budget very closely. The UK Government has spent weeks advising us that we should not expect further funding. That has changed in the past few days. The UK Government has advised in a matter of days that we should anticipate further funding for this year, which will be finalised and confirmed at the spring supplementary estimates next month. As I said last week in the chamber, the fact that next year's Scottish budget is fully allocated remains the case. However, in light of new information from the UK Government, I wonder if it would allow me to finish this piece and then I'll bring him in. In light of new information from the UK Government, I now have some new and additional flexibility on this year's funding. I am pleased to confirm my intention to utilise the Scotland reserve to carry forward sufficient funding from this year to next year to allocate a further £120 million of resource to local government. Councils will have complete flexibility to allocate that additional funding as they wish next year, and I intend to bring forward an amendment to the budget bill at stage 2 to deliver that. If I just finish this piece and I will then bring in Mr Kerr. Councils ask for an additional £100 million to deal with particular pressures. We have heard them and listened and we are going to go further. That will allow them to deal with the most pressing issues they face and at a time when people are understandably worried about the cost of living. I would point out that the increase in funding would be equivalent to a 4 per cent increase in council tax next year. Whilst councils have full flexibility in setting local council tax rates, I do not believe that there is a requirement for any inflation-busting increases next year. Is this £100 million that is coming as part of the additional money from the UK Government? Is it on top of the money that the UK Government has already committed to the Scottish Government as part of the Covid recovery money? The money that the Scottish National Party Government made is such a great big fuss about saying that nothing was certain about this. We might end up with less and all the rest, but this is additional money. Can you just confirm that that is the case? The member is right to ask those questions. Next month, as in every year, we expect the UK Government to confirm at the supplementary estimates our final position for this year. Over the last few days, I have had a personal conversation with the chief secretary to the Treasury and officials have been engaging quite extensively with the Treasury. As he will recall, when it came to the £440 million, there was some suggestion that some of that would be clawed back if the consequentials were not generated. What the UK Government has now confirmed is that that will not be the case in terms of the £440 million, but the final position will be confirmed next month. That provides me with sufficient flexibility to prioritise funding for local government. I will take an intervention. Miles Briggs, for taking this intervention. Can she confirm to the chamber, with regard to the National Insurance Contribution Compensation Fund, the £70 million that has been given to ministers on that? Is that part of that funding, or is that another announcement that we will have to hear from ministers? As I said with the £120 million, that allows local government to cover the challenges that they face. Quite clearly, National Insurance Contribution is a cost that they have to deal with. That £120 million will allow them to deal with those additional costs. I will take a third intervention. Willie Rennie. I am very generous with her time. There still will be massive cuts for local government. Does she think that local councils should be grateful that the cabinet secretary has just taken the foot off her neck a little bit? Should she not recognise that there are massive cuts coming to local services? The member has articulated, I think, an important point that all members of this chamber have been calling for me to go further with local government, particularly in light of the pressures of inflation. We have done that today. I have painstakingly identified additional funding from this year's budget. I have not changed my position on next year's budget, which is fully allocated, but we have chosen, out of a challenging budget settlement, to prioritise additional funding for local government. Local government will be able to determine how that funding is spent. I think that that is something that we can all welcome. As the member would expect me to say, the real question will be at 5pm tonight whether or not all parties in this chamber back additional funding for local government or not. This decision ensures that next year's budget delivers for Scotland's local authorities a total funding package of more than £12.6 billion. That is an increase of more than £1 billion or equivalent to a 6.1 per cent increase in real terms. That provides the best funding package that we can offer for local government based on our current resources. That will deliver increased resources for social care and education, ensuring the continued delivery of vital local services across Scotland. It is a fair settlement for local government within a challenging budget. At this budget, we recognise that we are facing some of the most challenging economic circumstances through rising inflation, increased costs and the fact that Covid-19 has had an unequal impact across society. This is a budget that reflects the on-going realities for many families and some of those challenges have only increased since the budget was laid. The budget delivers on our national mission to tackle child poverty through increasing family incomes and continuing our action to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. We are investing £197 million on our new Scottish child payment, including doubling it to £20 a week from April 2022. That will fund the most ambitious anti-poverty measure anywhere in the UK. I would be delighted to, but I am going to look to the Presiding Officer because I am quite behind with time to ask if we have time in hand. In line with the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast, we are committing over £3.9 billion for benefits next year. We are also continuing to tackle homelessness, committing £831.5 million next year towards the delivery of more affordable and social housing. Underpinning those spending commitments, the budget also invests in Scotland's ambition of being a well-being economy, a growing economy that enables successful business activity, entrepreneurship and innovation. It is a particularly crucial time to support businesses. That is why we will deliver the highest level of investment for our enterprise agencies since 2010, with more than £205 million in capitalisation for the Scottish National Investment Bank. It will continue to offer a generous non-domestic rates package and ensure that we support all parts of Scotland. As I come to a conclusion, the budget is a transitional budget. It is supporting Scotland's recovery next year, but it is also looking beyond as we build the foundations for a just transition to investing in delivering that just transition to a net zedah and climate resilience Scotland. I recognise that the budget delivers on Scotland's priorities. I imagine that most people across the chamber share priorities of tackling poverty, supporting Scotland's economy and ending Scotland's contribution to climate change. I commend it to the chamber. I warmly welcome the actions taken by the UK Government to assist with the budget. On a few points of consensus, I acknowledge that the backdrop to the budget is particularly challenging. A lengthy Covid pandemic, although the signs are improving, is by no means over. It is a worldwide economic trend that is due to major issues with supply chains and energy costs, plus the political dangers of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, creating serious inflationary pressures, labour markets having to cope with the post-Covid and post-Brexit landscapes, and increasing issues about forecast errors and forecast timings. The cabinet secretary is pleased to know that we do not believe that any of those are within the cabinet secretary's control, so we do understand why she has been keen to describe the budget as one of difficult choices it is. I certainly know that we cannot commit to absolutely everything that we would like to do. Secondly, just pursuing the consensus for a little bit longer—it will not last—we agree with the cabinet secretary on some key commitments, for example, the doubling of the child payment, investing in employability schemes, additional sums to tackle the attainment gap, which is ever widening, as we know, and maintaining landfill tax in line with UK rates. As I say, I am afraid that that is where the consensus has to stop, because we are very clear that the Scottish Government has created many more problems within this budget than it has solved, despite receiving a £3.9 billion increase in the core block grant funding from the UK Government. I am suggesting that Mr Mason is a substantial increase when it comes to the core block grant, and that is extremely important as a backdrop to the budget. I can deal with business first. Specifically, the sector has very strong feedback about the future of the Scottish economy. Backed up by extensive statistical analysis from the economic forecast groups, they all tell us that, although there is little cause for optimism in the next few months as we see it, the sector will not be able to do what it wants to do, and the sector will not be able to do what it wants to do. For quite some time now, they have been warning successive cabinet secretaries about the inherent structural weaknesses in the Scottish economy, present long before Covid, long before Brexit, and which the budget will be a huge challenge for the Scottish economy. ond i gael o ddwyifetol eich cynllun gyfnodau yn y Llywodraeth Cymru, yn mynd i ddiweddorol, i ddyn nhw i brexit, i ddyn nhw i ddyn nhw i ddysgu, yn y prifioedd yng nglyfydd. Mae Ffiscal Commission, Cymru Cymru, Cdynziai ddwylo, Fraser of Landau, byddai'n gael i ddysgu'r Government o ddyn nhw i ddyn nhw i ddysgu'r ddwylo yn gwybod ddechrau, o ddyn nhw i ddyn nhw i ddysgu'r o annach eich ieddiadau, swyddog i'r gym которые, a faint tych yn amaporio i gweithio'n adrodd yn gyflydd y sefydling에is ac i'r fusural yr cyngweith-goel. Cym deflectu greif iawn a'r acid zest darkness mae ddym yn gwybod â sprwp yn gwybod yn gwybod y dyegeperiwyr sy'n meddwl yn gwneud won i delegentau shalu col என o prery Bismylo Llywodraeth ond d organismu rhagoriaeth yn y f Greengible Europe Cygodesol.bell, yn o !r Lithu rinôr, enw i qug o'w gulf smudu inni alles o'w dweud those field workforces will just exacerbate these problems. or serious statistics, cabinet secretary. And so too are the statistics about weaker productivity and economic growth. And it's our contention that this budget should be responding to them. Yes, of course. In a constructive spirit what policy does the member think fundamentally the missing that would significantly deal with those challenges and what funding would she allocate to that? I'm actually just coming to that, Cabinet Secretary, but I think if you listen to what business is saying, one of the most important things is about the skills gap and the policies that have to address what we can do to ensure that there is greater productivity and economic growth. Two things that I think we can concentrate on—we made a commitment back in our manifesto that we want to see 100,000 lifelong learning accounts to be specifically spent on training and qualifications and, on longer-term, much more flexible and demand-led apprenticeships, which are a big ask from the business community. We know, too, from business that there are serious concerns about our town centres already in trouble before the pandemic, and that's why we are so keen to see business rates' relief extended for the course of the whole year, not just for the three months, which is what the SNP is committed to. That brings me to local government and notwithstanding the announcement today. Last week, the Conservatives, in their debating time, along with Labour and the Liberals—although noticeably not the Greens, who not so long ago, with Andy Wightman in their ranks, would have been agreeing with us—exposed the full extent of the SNP attack on local government. What has been said by COSLA, by every council group leader, including the SNP's own, and from various groups like care workers who are on the front line of delivering council services, is that they all see really big cuts coming. Kate Forbes said on 9 December, in her budget statement, that she felt that this budget deepens the relationship between the Scottish Government and local government, and that it is very clearly not what local government thinks. I won't, if you don't mind. I need to make a little bit more progress. The SNP has quite rightly asked us what we would find the money. Before I say anything more, we would definitely not be devoting millions of pounds to a second referendum, preparing for independence or doubling up on external affairs. That money would be far better spent supporting business and local government. Like many in local government across the political spectrum, we are quite concerned about the setting up of a controversial national care service, which has all the signs of being an extremely costly reorganisation of the care service. There are many people in local government who feel that that will not work indeed. We think that it is the very lasting that care workers need right now. Today's Audit Scotland report into social care spells out some of the biggest concerns. No one believes that sitting budgets is easy, but Kate Forbes has had at her disposal the largest UK budget settlement, an extensive additional money for Covid recovery from UK Barnett consequentials. She has asked for a rational approach from the opposition parties for her spending plans, and we will continue in that approach. In the same breath, she cannot explain why it is Scotland's oil, yet the SNP will walk away from that sector. She cannot say what currency the SNP would adopt if Scotland was ever to become independent, nor can she explain why she has been so harsh to local government at the very time that she claims that they are central to the delivery of more efficient public services. The budget does nothing to properly secure Scotland's economic future or to safeguard essential local services, so we will oppose it at stage 1. I now call on Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment 2949.2 up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for not being there in person. I am dealing with something of a domestic Omicron wave, but by the same token it allows me to test the efficacy of the vaccine and the booster. After two years of Covid-19, the budget needed to be a turning point. It needed to build resilience and support recovery. It needed to create jobs and build back our public services. It needed to help those who would put themselves on the front line to care for the vulnerable and for those who had missed on their education. Indeed, there are some things that we support in this budget—increased funds for the NHS and the increased child payment—but the Government knows that this will not be enough to meet its own statutory child poverty targets. The budget delivers neither the focus or foundation to deliver the wider needs of recovery. Instead, it offers an insulting pay rise of just £48 per social care workers and under funds are councils. Just on the cabinet secretary's announcement, while £120 million is welcome, that still leaves local services short of £250 million. Moreover, it rather seems that, while Derek Sofer has been moved out of that office, he has found a few pennies down the back of our armchair, there is no way to construct a budget in a serious and rational way, as the cabinet secretary seems to seek to propose. That brings me to the next point, that we need more honesty about the numbers. The Government wants to compare this budget to the emergency Covid funding of this year and last. The Government was clear that Covid money would only be used for non-recurring Covid spend. I took it at their word and agreed with that principle. That also means that, with a 2.9 real terms increase in core funding in the block grant, the sum was unallocated going into this budget. Baking emergency Covid funds into their calculations not only misrepresents the position that we are in comparing a year of emergency with a year of recovery, but it also misrepresents the approach that the Government took as it allocated those emergency funds. Less available in total, yes, but almost £3 billion unallocated available to be invested in recovery. If the Government were to apply the logic that they apply to their funds to that of local government, including the emergency funds that local government had at its disposal, that would mean local government facing a 25 per cent cut, which is not the line that I hear from the cabinet secretary. However, we know that this Government lacks transparency when it comes to their budgets and how Covid money has been spent. That is what Audit Scotland said in July and again in September and again in December. We are also clear that it is not possible to track money from budget to announcement to outturn to consolidated accounts. This Government must be honest about the numbers, but so too must the Conservatives. Using the figure of £3.9 billion at a time of raised inflation is disingenuous, and to claim that it is additional spend is simply to imply cuts on every other budget line in real terms, not cash terms. The budget requires difficult decisions, but more so because of the SNP mismanagement of the economy. The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts are clear that Scottish income tax receipts are underperforming not just the south-east as the SNP tried to claim, but the UK average as a whole. On wage growth and employment growth, every Scottish region underperformed the UK average bar 1. That failure to grow jobs and grow wages does not just let down Scottish workers and has left this Government with £200 million less than if income tax had not been devolved at all. What we needed in this budget was focused intervention to get people into work to fill labour shortages, to re-skill people into better pay. When it comes to the economy, the Government's constitutional distraction leaves Scots less money in their pockets and this Scottish Government with less money to invest in public services and recovery. Where is the plan to address labour shortages? Where is the plan for our cities? Where is the plan for building green industry and supply chains? What sums up this SNP Government is that two years into this pandemic, they have yet to publish an economic or jobs recovery plan and their promised 10-year plan is delayed for another day, no plan for the here and now and a delayed plan for the distant future. To social care and local services, however, where this budget moves from being flawed to being unsupportable. The continued decrease in local authority funding is unacceptable, regardless of what the cabinet secretary manages to pull out at the last minute. Analysis from SPICE confirms that local councils were the losers in this budget. Almost every single other budget line was static in its share of public spending, whereas cash trap local government social spending has fallen by 2.4 per cent in its share of funding. If they are looking at the real terms cut outlined by COSLA or this analysis, local government's share of total spend, whatever way you cut it, fells at a further centralisation of public services and undermining local services. On top of that, the scandalous pay offer of just 48 pens per hour to social care workers is nothing short of that. The reality of this work is that staff are dealing with the vulnerable people around the clock and working under tremendous time pressures. Findings from the Audit Scotland report just this morning underline those points and the stark realities. It outlines a lack of worth felt by each social care worker and the immense vacancy pressures across the sector. 36 per cent of services are reporting vacancies as of December 2020. That is three times higher than across all employers in Scotland, with 20 per cent of staff not on permanent contracts, 11 per cent on zero hours contracts and 15 per cent working unpaid overtime. We need a social care system that pays its staff well and attracts people to the sector. The question is not whether paying £12 an hour is affordable, but whether, in terms of recruitment and preventing bed blocking in the NHS, we can afford not to pay care workers this reasonable sum. In conclusion, there are things that Labour supports. The needed increase in child payment and NHS funds, but the SNP budget fails to deliver for those who desperately need it. If you can conclude, please, Mr Johnson. I will. You do not grow the economy of underfunding local services. You do not build recovery and reskill and avenge without targeted support. For these reasons, Scottish Labour cannot support the budget. Can I just confirm, Mr Johnson, that you have moved the amendment in your name? I believe that I just did in my closing breath there, Presiding Officer. I apologise. Lovely. Thank you very much. I move, though. Indeed. I now call on Kenneth Gibson to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I am pleased to speak to the Finance and Public Administration Committee's report on our budget scrutiny. The Scottish Government Parliament in Scotland faces a challenging year. The independent Scottish Fiscal Commission made clear that this Parliament would suffer a real terms cut in the Westminster block grant, saying in evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that the overall Scottish budget in 2022-23 is 2.6 per cent lower than in 2021-22. After accounting for inflation, the reduction is 5.2 per cent. Indeed, with further declines in resource expenditure likely in the years that follow. However, we now find that additional monies will be made available. It would therefore be helpful to have clarification on the detail of those resources as soon as possible. With UK Government capital grants slashed by 9.7 per cent, borrowing to the £450 million maximum permitted is required to enable a 1.2 per cent increase in infrastructure expenditure after inflation. It is inevitable that previous budgets and reports have focused on the health pandemic and its economic and fiscal impact. However, although still dealing with Covid, we must and are looking to the future and recovery, assessing the extent of economic damage and how we move beyond it. The FPA committee acknowledges the need to balance the short-term demands of responding to and recovery from Covid-19, with continuing longer-term pressures such as demography, poverty, inequality and structural imbalances, a key theme of both our pre- and final budget reports. Scotland faces structural inequalities as we move back towards a more normal way of life. To ensure that our public finances are placed on a more sustainable footing, we note on our budget report that productivity, wage growth and demographic change should focus Scottish ministers. Scotland must improve its economic performance both in absolute terms and relative to the rest of the UK. Doubtless other members will pick up on those, and indeed two of them already have, and other issues such as business investment levels, labour market participation and skills. We face a number of risks. Inflation is rising at the fastest rate in three decades, with the worst to possibly still to come. Average earnings are failing to keep up. Of Time is expected to soon announce that the energy price cap will rise again on 1 April. The SFC points to a slow recovery in wage growth and income tax receipts as we merge from the pandemic. The FPA committee is particularly concerned to note forecasts showing Scotland's income tax receipts falling behind the block grant adjustment that could put Scotland's future fiscal sustainability at risk. With social security expenditure likely to reach £764 million more than allowed for in the block grant adjustment by 2425. Next year, Scotland's net income tax position is likely to be negative by £190 million, and the SFC expects its gap to grow to reaching £417 million by 2627. It is also clear that with UK Government grants continuing to decline, it is time to consider further fiscal flexibility for Scotland. Borrowing limits are too constrained and are being eroded by inflation. Tax rates remain unchanged, but, as in the rest of the UK, inflation will bring more people into higher bands through fiscal drag, while UK increases in national insurance contributions erode disposable income yet further. The committee believes that the two Governments must engage on the impact of UK tax policies, including national insurance, that interact with devolved tax policy to ensure that Scottish taxpayers are not negatively impacted. The fiscal framework review provides an opportunity to put in place formal arrangements for intergovernmental working to ensure that interactions between tax policy decisions by the UK and Scottish Governments are fully considered. Regarding tax receipts, the committee was drawn to the reasons behind the gloomy forecasts. Labour market participation is driven by demographic factors and is declining at Scotland's population ages. The number of working-age people aged 16 to 64 is falling, while fewer migrants at a record low birthrate made an upward trend in the population aged over 65, many of whom have longer-term health-related needs. Any future population growth is projected to come from inward migration. The committee would be keen to hear more about the work of the population task force and how it plans to reverse adverse demographic trends, given that there is no control over immigration. That presents challenges for Scottish ministers in considering how to grow the working population and, in turn, income tax receipts. In scrutinising Scottish Government plans for the budget and resources available to it, the committee wrestled with the figures and information received. Identifying and tracking Covid funding is becoming more difficult as the lines between what is and isn't Covid-specific funds are becoming increasingly blurred. Will the committee recognise the challenges around this transparency in the full and timely presentation of figures is essential alongside how monies are allocated by the UK Government and subsequently Scottish ministers and the impact of this expenditure? The committee flags that in its budget report. Transparency in the presentation of figures is also highlighted by Audit Scotland, who agreed that the Scottish Government has had to it quickly and decisively to respond to the pandemic. Nevertheless, we would welcome clarification on how the additional financial package for business is being funded. As part of the fiscal framework review, both the UK and Scottish Governments must consider and agree a process whereby Barnett consequentials are clearly communicated to bring greater certainty over what is new and what is reprofiled money. A briefly referenced fiscal framework review, while both the medium-term financial strategy and resource spending review framework have informed our budget scrutiny, the committee is undertaking a separate, short, focused inquiry aimed at influencing the framework and a targeted content review of the strategy to ensure both support parliamentary scrutiny. We report on those in March. Those reviews provide an opportunity to engage with stakeholders about how public resources should be invested to meet future challenges. The scope of the independent report to proceed the fiscal framework review will focus on block grant adjustments only. The review itself will be broader and stakeholder views sought as part of both processes. It will be helpful to continue receiving updates from the cabinet secretary on the view and timetable. The committee notes that the Scottish Government assumptions that it will receive an extra income of £620 million for the resource budget in 2022-23 from a range of sources, including current state offshore wind leasing. The SFC expressed reservations about some of those sources, but thought unbalanced, the assumptions were reasonable. When we agreed our report, there was a positive information about Crown estate income that may contribute to the £620 million. The subsequent ministerial statement was useful in clarifying that money raised will reach the Scottish Exchequer funding in part net zero policies within a surplus utilised across other portfolios. It would be helpful to know in more detail how and when the funding will be deployed and how Scottish ministers will secure economic benefits for Scotland. When the committee considered SFC concerns about future workforce and tax receipts, we would be specifically noted the loss of highly paid oil and gas jobs in North East Scotland, given the historic importance of this sector to overall income tax receipts and its projected decline. Such a huge structural change will surely require a change in the baseline figure by which the block grant adjustment is assessed. Scottish ministers have committed to using some of the Scotland leasing income to ensure a just transition for oil and gas workers. The committee will return to demographics in the tax base and looks forward to receiving the cabinet secretary's response on those matters. In terms of net zero ambitions, we welcome on going work with the joint Scottish Government and Scottish Parliamentary review of the budget to improve information on climate change. To progress this, the joint review commissioned external research through climate exchange. An update was provided to the committee last November and we look forward to more. It would be helpful to hear how the cabinet secretary intends ensure the joint review delivers improvements to subsequent budgets in line with the programme of work shared with the committee. The FPA committee also included in our budget report comments on the replacement of EU structural funds. Having pursued them relentlessly since October, the committee will take evidence from Michael Gove MP, the minister for levelling up housing and communities in February and question them about the criteria for replacing EU funding. It is useful to hear about representations from Scottish ministers to UK counterparts regarding the lack of clarity around the UK shared prosperity fund. The FPA committee and its predecessor's flag preventive spend is an important area for prioritisation and remains convinced that such spend can help to protect the health of the nation and the environment. The Scottish Government has set out the areas that it wants to prioritise, but we seek clarification as to how ministers deliver preventive measures, along with examples of how that approach has resulted in a shift in policy and expenditure across its budget. The committee will return to that in our review. In conclusion, the Finance and Public Administration Committee looks forward to feeding its views into the resource spending review and the opportunity for the Government to prioritise where it wants to spend its available funds in subsequent years. In doing so, the Scottish ministers must prepare for potential future pandemics or adverse events to minimise the adverse impact of such shocks that should be transpired. I rise for the Liberal Democrats to speak in the budget debate this afternoon. As with all other budgets, the Liberal Democrats approach this with good faith and an open mind, but I am afraid that a considerable gulf still exists between our position in that of the Government and the budget that we debate today. I will come on to the details as to why. When Governments set budgets, they must look to the most vulnerable in our society first and foremost and build their offer around them as a matter of principle. It is not clear that that has happened in the budget before us today, but it is a matter of public record that the Scottish Liberal Democrats support the doubling of the child payment. In that budget, what the SNP Government give with one hand, they take away with another. Scottish families and particularly those below the poverty line are being hit hard and hit hard from all angles, with the cost of food and energy absolutely soaring, with the rise of national insurance, the cut to universal credit. Many people are feeling the squeeze like never before. It is not clear that this budget entirely recognises that reality. The UK's biggest supermarket, Tesco, has said that its prices could be set to rise by around 5 per cent. Energy costs are reaching an all-time high whilst wages stagnate due to inflation, which this year will reach its highest level in nearly 30 years. Citizens Advice Scotland has found that a third of Scots are worried about being able to pay for food and other essentials. That means that parents will be facing the anxiety of not being able to provide for their children. That is not a good reflection on Government in Scotland in our country. We need to reflect that crushing reality in the budget that we pass. Instead, we see cuts, and they are cuts to local government, and they will see an unavoidable rise in council tax, which will compound that reality still further. I thank the member for giving way. He makes some general points about where he would like to see extra expenditure. Can he tell us where he would make savings to give more to families? I am grateful to the intervention. I am going to come on to that in my speech, if I can make some progress. Despite the additional money announced this afternoon, COSLA has already indicated, as Daniel Johnson says, that we are still a real terms cut to the local authority grant of around £250 million, much of which will be taken up with a £70 million uplift required to match the increase in national insurance contribution of employers. In Edinburgh, we have already seen SNP budget cuts impacting on every single primary and secondary school, removing all funding from community police and all qualified teaching posts from our nurseries. In the highlands, that is going to put pressure on services and local communities. Presiding Officer, there was already a severe funding gap in the far north. This will only serve to compound that. COSLA recognise this for what it is. They have told us whichever way you look at it. The reality of the situation is yet again the essential services councils deliver have been overlooked by the Scottish Government yet again. I want to pause on those words. Presiding Officer, this is a dance that we do every single year. Every December, the cabinet secretary brings forward a budget that utterly terrifies our 32 local authorities—one that looks like it will demand cuts in every aspect of public spending. They are then held in that awful limbo until come stage 3, or as it is today, where the Government miraculously finds money down the back of the sofa. They are suddenly loaded as heroes for delivering a smaller budget cut than was expected, but it is a cut nonetheless. Would you believe it? Here we are again today. I find the Government's whole approach to local government finance quite shameful. If Westminster was treating the Scottish Government in the fact-right way that it treats local authorities, then those benches would be taking to the streets. I think that the member will find that him and his coalition partners in Westminster significantly reduced equivalent local authority budgets for years south of the border. However, my question is whether he might speak to Willie Rennie, who made an excellent point on local government funding in response to the Conservatives by saying, if all parties agree that we should pass on health consequentials, where do we get the money from? The Government are so deep in a hole that they have to dig back 10 years to tag my party. The budget does not answer the crisis in social care, either. Our care workforce is hollowed out, as we heard extensively today at FMQs. Our care staff are exhausted, and they are telling us that they cannot give the charges that they help the dignified support that they deserve. They are in desperate need of colleagues, but they will not find colleagues and will not recruit new staff if that derisory settlement is all that is offered. That pay settlement is not transformational. It will not attract people into the profession, and it is particularly myopic. I said at the top of my remarks that we will always try to find consensus on the budget processes and in other things, such as the public health response. We act in good faith, but this Government do not make it easy. Once again, they have announced in recent days an overarching agenda, which makes it almost entirely impossible for the Liberal Democrats to support it. Since the start of the emergency, the SNP has used the pandemic as a ubiquitous shield. It has deferred action and excused inadequacy by making repeated reference to the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves in the pandemic. Patients are waiting in pain. Children have been deprived of life-qualifying education. Health workers are on their knees in want of a break. Those problems and those people have not gone away. In fact, they are growing every single day, but despite all that, we are expected to believe that the pandemic and its impact have evaporated to the point where the Government and this Parliament will shortly drop everything to pass legislation on another independence referendum. Hidden in the pages of the budget, we know that there is a cost to that preparation as well. An FOI, published this afternoon, reveals that nearly £700,000 a year will be spent in preparing the prospectus. It is not so much a white paper, Presiding Officer, as a white elephant. I will close by saying that it is unforgivable. For that reason, and the others I have offered, that we stand a considerable distance from the coalition Government on this budget's priorities and will not vote for it tonight. We now move to the open debate, and I call Michelle Thompson to be followed by Douglas Lumsden. As an MP, I sat in the budget bill committee, the base select committee, and my register of interest shows I remain an ambassador for the APPG for Fair Business Banking. In all those roles, I dealt directly with UK Treasury ministers, so I have to say that it is a pleasure to join this Parliament and deal with such a competent finance and economy team. However, the greatest contrast is not at the personal level, but rather at the level of powers and constraints imposed on the budget setting process. We are currently facing major supply side shops caused by Brexit and the pandemic, as well as significant climate issues that require sustained action towards our net zero ambitions. Those three challenges have one element in common, the need for significant investment in Scotland's infrastructure and economic development. To that end, I commend the provision of significant support for the three economic development agencies, with spend being at its highest level since 2010, despite the wider financial challenges of setting this budget. However, the constraints on the Scottish Government means that we do not have sufficient powers to borrow to invest on the scale that is required, not just my view, but also that of Nigel Wilson, the chief executive of legal in general. At the recent launch of their latest version of rebuilding Britain index, he called for a massive investment boom and increased borrowing powers for devolved administrations. The political narrative thus far from the Tories is to ask Scotland to give thanks for its large assets, but it failed to mention the ways in which the Scottish people for generations have been bankrolling the Scottish Government. UK Government borrowing currently stands at over £2 trillion, according to the Government's debt management office. Most of that is funded through the issuance of gilts with purchases made by pension funds, investment trusts and some individuals. That is just one of the ways that Scots lend money to the UK Government. However, there is another route, of course. I am very grateful to Michelle Thomson for giving away issue really saying that today's announcement that has come from the UK Government isn't welcome. Of course I am not saying that, but what I am saying is that I do not have a posity of ambition that means that I go cap and hand asking for money. We are a wealthy country, we are a wealthy society and I want to see a lot more ambition in this Parliament for betterment. There is another route, where us Scots in return show our largest. Some of the more mature members of the Parliament may hold premium bonds, which provide cheap borrowing for the UK Government given that only 1 per cent per annum is distributed through winnings. At the moment, the total value of UK premium bonds is currently £114 billion, which represents around 5 per cent of the UK Government's debt. Through the relatively small financial vehicle alone, we can therefore estimate that Scots are currently lending the UK Government almost £9.5 billion. Consider that another way through premium bonds alone, Scots have on loan to the UK Government twice as much as the Scottish Government is currently allowed to borrow in total for capital and revenue combined. Those borrowing limits represent a quite ridiculous constraint on the Scottish Government and are dwarfed by the amount that ordinary Scots lend to the UK Government. I am very grateful that I do not mean to interrupt Michelle Thompson in full cry, but we are fascinated by some of the numbers that she is coming out with. Can she tell the chamber when she expects to have her column regularly printed in the national with those kind of figures? When they ask me, I'd be delighted. Thank you for suggesting that. Another area is where the Scottish Government has denied the power to act is in financial crime. Stopping institutional crime is predominantly the preserve of the UK authorities such as companies house and HMRC who do a poor job of preventing abuse of the financial system. Only this week, Lord Agnew, the Treasury and Cabinet Office Minister, resigned over the UK Government's lamentable track record on Covid fraud, stating that the Treasury showed no interest in tackling the issue. On the same day, Spotlight and Corruption published its report estimating that financial crime costs the UK economy £290 billion per year. The UK Government has consistently failed to act on multiple calls over years to tackle large-scale financial corruption, as I know only too well from my work with the APPG that I mentioned. Putting those figures there for another way, the UK Government is failing to act on financial crime costing approximately 276 times higher than the annual borrowing powers of the Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, excuse my frustration, I've been boxed into a system where people in Scotland lend to an incompetent Tory Government that shields large-scale financial corruption, denies our Scottish Government access to proper borrowing powers and subjects our budget to constant cuts. That is why I remain passionately ambitious for change in Scotland. We seek powers for a purpose. Scotland is our business and the SNP means business. Only by having the normal financial powers of an independent country can we better fund the Scottish National Investment Bank, invest more in our infrastructure needs and increase our support for new developments such as hydrogen technologies. As a member of the Public Finance Committee, we have been hearing evidence over a number of weeks from a variety of different groups. What we have heard is a catalogue of confusion and obfuscation from the Scottish Government in terms of how they are spending resources. This is a devolved Government that loves to make grand announcements but provides little detail on who is woeful on delivery. This is a Government that cares more about spin doctors than our nurses on the front line of our NHS. I will give some examples on that. We keep hearing from this devolved Government. We have heard it again today, our funding is going down. When, in reality, it is going up but there are muddy in the waters including the emergency Covid funding. No, I will make this point first than I will. The Fraser of Allander Institute has confirmed that the core resource block grant will be £35 billion in 2022-23, 8 per cent higher in real terms than it was in 2019-20 and higher than it has ever been out with the pandemic years. However, it is all about grievance politics from this devolved Government. I will take the intervention. The Scottish Fiscal Commission sets our forecast. It is the ones that determine the budget. It claims that next year's budget is 5.2 per cent lower in real terms. Are they wrong? Douglas Longstone is including the emergency Covid funding. What is the Fraser of Allander institute wrong? We know that the core budget has increased. A great example of the political deceit is local government funding. The SNP green coalition of chaos was badging it just earlier today as an increase. COSLA said that it was a cut. The SNP council leader said that it was a cut. SPICE still says that it is a cut. I know that everyone in this chamber knows that it is a cut of now £251 million. That is how the devolved Government views local government. It is not really partnership in working. I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton. We go through this pantomine every year as a council leader for the last four years. Today is a bit like Groundhog Day. It was always about £350 million of a gap, and it was always £100 million thrown in at last minute. We used to think that it was a green saving of day, but now we know that it was going to happen anyway. I will take the intervention. I am very grateful to the member for giving an intervention. It is a very simple question. Can he state the exact amount that he believes that the total local government settlement should be in the budget? I will easily set the budget for the move out of office. Once again, it is all spin. When you cut through the spin, the detail is very hard to find from this Government. For example, the North East transition fund remains a mystery that Agatha Christie could not solve. With little contact having been made with local authorities in the area, and local representatives kept in the dark about the scope and the aims of the fund. We see it as a budget line, but where will the money be spent? We do not know. How will it be spent? We do not know and by whom we do not know. What engagement will be made with local authorities in the North East and when? Of course, the budget is about priorities. This is about a devolved Government whose priorities are all wrong. The Government's priorities should be to help businesses to recover from the pandemic, help us high streets and retail sector, find ways to help the economic divergence from the rest of the UK, grow our economy, manage the energy transition and not throw the oil and gas industry under a bus. Instead, we see spending on the offices and staffing abroad, but no detail or reasoning as to why this money is being spent or by whom it benefits. Of course, we see resource being diverted to planning for another divisive independence referendum, which will drive investment away, wreck business confidence and be bad for jobs due to the uncertainty that is caused. We have seen from the finance committee's report the economic challenges that Scotland faces, and I have to say that it is sheer reckless to be even talking about an independence referendum. If this Government cared about Scotland's economic future, then it would take the threat off the table and now. Are my members of my register of interests that show that I am still a member of Arming City Council and it is from a council point of view that makes me so angry about this budget? As well as the cut in funding for essential services, the devolved Scottish Government has also increased ring fencing to council budgets. With further projects announcements, I mean that the bread and butter of council work, the issues that people care about, are cut further. Local councils deliver those projects in good faith, but are concerned with the funding being cut. Essential services can no longer be delivered. Yesterday, I took part in Arbenine City Council's education committee, where we learned that the funding for early learning and childcare had been cut by £4.6 million, despite a promise from the Scottish Government to fully fund early learning. It is now a statutory service, so it must be delivered, meaning cuts to other services. Moray and SNP Ron Cymru also reported a £3.3 million black hole in their funding for ALC, thanks to the Scottish Government breaking their promise. The reason why I get so angry when it comes to local government funding is because I am sick of the hypocrisy coming from this devolved Government. Time and time again, we hear about prevention. I heard it at committee, and I heard it in this place just yesterday. Early intervention is key to so many challenges that we are facing as a country, but much of the best prevention and early intervention takes place by local government. It is local government that provides the youth club, social centre, sports facilities, lunch clubs, community police and centre community school counselling services. All of those services are now at risk if the Scottish Government fails to properly fund local councils. Those are the things that will bring savings to the health and justice budgets. Those are the things that will improve people's outcomes. Without those preventative services, how will we tackle the challenges that Scotland faces at the earliest possible opportunity? Presiding Officer, this budget is a missed opportunity. Thank you Presiding Officer. This budget could not have come at a time of more economic and social uncertainty for families, for communities and indeed for services across Scotland. The pandemic created unprecedented challenges for businesses, for our schools and added immense pressure to our struggling health and social care sector. There has been more job uncertainty than ever before and there is not a high street in Scotland that has not seen closures over the past two years. You would think in the face of all of this that the Scottish Government would have put forward an ambitious forward-thinking recovery-focused budget, but sadly we are faced with something that largely disappoints. I do want to welcome the increase in the Scottish child payment, something that Labour and the third sector organisations called for in campaign 4, but make the observation that that will be insufficient to meet the target to reduce child poverty. It is the case that we are facing a cost of living crisis on a scale and intensity that has not experienced for many years. Household bills are rising, energy bills are rising, water bills are rising and it is likely that the council tax will rise too. Faced with this year's budget document, it reads like missed opportunity after missed opportunity. The SNP is making hard-working families across Scotland pick up the bill for almost 15 years of fiscal mismanagement. Let me turn to the impact that this budget will have on our NHS in the social care sector. Earlier today, the First Minister reminded us that she was the health minister previously. How could we forget? Indeed, she was the health minister who failed to pass on record levels of funding for the NHS from a UK Labour Government led by Gordon Brown. Had she passed on those Barnett consequentials, she received to health from 2007 to 2010. Instead of diverting the money elsewhere, the health budget would be £8 billion more now than it actually is. Of course, the SNP used to say that all Barnett consequentials for health would remain in health, but that is simply not true now. Now they have a strange formulation of words that says that it is the consequentials for front-line health and social care. If you need any more evidence, just look at the £45 million taken from the health and social care budget given to the business hardship fund in December. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will have a line to take in a briefing to justify that. However, how many care packages would £45 million have bought? How many delayed discharges could have been prevented to free up capacity in our hospitals? What measures could have been put in place to support staff? Figures published only yesterday by RCN Scotland highlighted the fact that a staggering six in 10 nursing staff in Scotland are thinking about leaving the profession. Nurses told the RCN that they feel undervalued and poorly paid, this at a time when the NHS cannot afford to lose a single member of staff. However, the workforce crisis existed before the pandemic. The First Minister cannot stand in the chamber and tell us how many more nurses there are when there are clearly not enough to meet demand. It is also just a little bit rich that she was the health minister responsible for cutting the number of nurse training places. The facts are clear. There is a workforce crisis in our NHS. There is an urgent need to put measures in place to value and retain the existing workforce and to make sure that there is a supply of clinical staff in the future. No, I will not. However, the workforce planning strategy is delayed yet again. What about the Health and Social Care Staffing Scotland Act 2019? It is all about safe staffing levels, high-quality services and better outcomes for service users. Nothing with which anybody in this chamber would disagree. The Government may point to the pandemic, but there is no reason not to implement the legislation now, because so far it has not brought it forward, it has not been implemented and it needs to be part of the context for workforce planning. Let me turn to social care. The £48 pence pay rise for social care workers is a slap in the face from the SNP and a stab in the back from the Greens, who only months ago promised a £15 per hour wage in their manifesto. Absolutely. I know that the member wants us to go further on social care pay, but dismissing it as £48 pence reduces the impact of it. It is equivalent to £3,000 per annum if you compare last year's minimum wage with next year's £10.50, £3,000 and a 10.5% increase. What the cabinet secretary fails to identify is that it is a severely low-paid workforce and she wants us to thank them for giving them a small increase. That simply is not good enough. £12 an hour immediately. We have done the costing. She knows them. I shed them with her last year. We have shed them with her again this year. It is doable if you have the political will to do it. The SNP, coupled with the Greens, simply does not. Delayed discharge remains a problem, as well as dealing with the issues of pay for social care workers. Delayed discharge removes bed capacity from the NHS. The numbers of people waiting for diagnostic tests and treatment are now staggering 650,000 people. That is one in nine Scots. To go back to social care, look at the Audit Scotland report. It found that social care workers are predominantly low-paid female workforce and felt that they were neither valued or rewarded for the work that they do. That is not me saying it. That is Audit Scotland telling this Government that you are not paying social care workers enough. The problems in social care workers are simply not addressed by this budget. Family carers have struggled to cope as care packages are withdrawn. Respite care is cancelled and support is removed, so urgent action is required to reinstate care across the country, and this budget simply does not do it. Scottish Labour has set out detailed plans in our response to the budget of action that can be taken across the NHS and social care to address just these challenges. Plans that have been informed by talking to those on the front line of health and social care. Plans that are about supporting and restoring our NHS, improving social care and valuing the staff who are the backbone of both services. However, I am sorry to say in conclusion that this Government is simply not listening. I am happy to clap for NHS and social care staff on a Thursday, but when it comes to this budget, this Thursday, they are simply deaf to their concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I guess that budgets are about choices and particularly how we choose to prioritise among the range of good things. Of course, we would all like to spend more on the NHS, as Jackie Baillie has just been saying. We would like to spend more on local Government, more on business support, more on railways, more on public transport, and so the list goes on. There are also the choices between spending more on existing services, including pay increases for public sector staff, or trying to expand services with initiatives such as the child payment, 1140 hours nursery and childcare, free bus travel for under 22s and a national care service. I guess that there is no absolute right and wrong in these choices. We all have manifestal commitments and I think that we want to protect existing services as well as developing new areas at the same time, but we all have to accept that it is about choices and particularly choices about how we spend the money that we have. There does not seem to be much appetite for raising taxes, so we know roughly how much money we have, and the vast bulk of that money is being allocated in this budget, and so we know where it is committed to. If there is an area that we would like to see more spending on, and I suspect that all 129 of us would like more money for something, then we need to be responsible and say where else should be a lower priority. I am grateful to Mr Mason for taking the intervention. He makes the same speech every year in the budget debate, so it was not a surprise to hear and make the points that he is making. However, in terms of the premise of his proposition that he is putting forward, does he not accept what the Fiscal Commission has said that the budget is £190 million less than it could be? If the economic growth and tax revenues in Scotland matched the UK average, that would be nearly an extra £200 million back in this budget. John Mason? I think that Murdo Fraser highlights a problem with the fiscal framework. I think that he may not have heard, but we had evidence from Wales, for example, that they are getting an extra 5 per cent every time on the Barnett consequentials that we miss out on. There are issues about how the whole thing is structured. We cannot compete with London, and yet the system is set up for us to compete with London. The biggest obvious choice that we have to make is between health and local government spending, as those are the two largest parts of the Scottish budget, something like 43 per cent and 30 per cent respectively, meaning that 73 per cent of our budget goes in those areas. More money for local government broadly means less money for the NHS, more money for mental health means less for physical health. I do not apologise for repeating those things every year because I do not believe that the Conservatives and Labour have been listening. The finance committee spent a lot of time between 2011 and 2016 looking at the question of preventive spending, especially following on from recommendations of the Christie commission, and we have been returning to that again lately, but again it is a question of choices. It is all very well stating that if we spend a pound on whatever today, we will save £5 on something else in five years' time. That may well be true, and many third sector organisations are keen to tell us that. However, that does not answer the question of where the £1 extra today is going to come from. That is broadly what is called disinvestment, meaning that we reduce spending on something urgent and reactive today in order to spend preventively and hopefully save money tomorrow. One example that previous members of the finance committee may remember was the American state, which needed a new prison, but they decided rather to put the money into preventative work, so in the longer term they would not need so many prison places. Of course, in the short term, that meant that they did not have enough prison places and there would be overcrowding and other problems. Therefore, in the same way, we faced the potential decision of cutting back some important reactive expenditure in order to spend more on prevention. An example might be cutting back expenditure in hospitals and putting more into GP practices and primary healthcare. However, when I asked John Swinney, who had been a previous finance cabinet secretary recently at committee, whether any party or individual MSP had ever asked him to cut current expenditure in order to spend on preventative measures, his answer was no, which shows how difficult it is to make those choices. To move on to some other aspects of the budget, first of all the £620 million—I think that I probably do not have time, I am sorry—the £620 million that is assumed for the resource budget but is not certain and the conveners were already touched on that. I think that the committee and our advisers and witnesses consider it reasonable to include such a figure, although the exact amount and the timing of receipts is up for debate. In particular, the personal allowance spillover dispute has been running for quite some time and I at least am certainly not clear when it is likely to be resolved and payment made. There is definitely a risk in the £620 million figure, although, based on past experience, it is likely that Westminster will announce increased spending at some point and we would then be due a share of that. However, I would also make the point that Westminster could be more helpful in clarifying earlier on what if any extra resources Scotland is getting, and I think that the convener also touched on that. To some extent, I accept their argument that they cannot always guarantee Barnett consequentials, as happened at some points during Covid. However, I do think that, when they announced new spending in England, they should say up front how much of this money is really new and how much is therefore to be allocated to the devolved nations. In relation to capital expenditure and capital borrowing, it concerns me that we are heading towards our limit of £3 billion, and that is largely an artificial limit imposed by Westminster and does not take account of inflation or our ability to pay back. To cut out a little bit of what I was going to say, I think that we should be thinking about a prudential framework that works very well for local government. Overall, I am very happy to support the budget at stage 1. Both Labour and Conservative amendments, as usual, propose more spending without saying where the money would come from, and I would suggest that they are both rejected. Can I start, as I did last week, when I opened our local government finance debate for the Conservatives to thank all those who work in our local authorities across Scotland, especially during the pandemic for the work that they have done? I want to concentrate today my comments specifically on local government funding, because at 3pm today, COSLA and all local authorities across Scotland faced a cut of £371 million. As of now, and what the cabinet secretary has said, they will still face a cut of £251 million. The core local government budget, which has been frozen in real terms and represented a cut of £271 million, I believe now will represent a cut of £151 million. Across Scotland, council leaders and councillors will be considering what they need to cut in terms of services. Even after what has been said today, SNP ministers and green ministers, indeed, are asking our councillors and our councils to do more with less. The cabinet secretary has tried and the spin that we have seen coming out from government today and previously to present it as a fair budget, but it is simply not fair to local government, and something has to change beyond what has been announced today. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. On the theme of doing more with less, is colleague Glysmith proposed a further increase in rates relief for the coming financial year. I was wondering how the Conservatives proposed both funding that and finding the £250 million that they presumably want for local authorities. From which other part of the budget would they take that money? I do not think that Mr Greer has a particularly strong ground on that, because last week I asked him specifically about national insurance and why the Government has not handed that on in his response. I have actually got to hear that there is no specific consequential for national insurance increases. The cabinet secretary has announced £70 million worth of that funding today, so I welcome that, but that is the UK Government handing on £70 million, which he said did not exist. The cabinet secretary has confirmed that. If I can get the time back. It is just a fundamental point principle that, in the UK Government's budget to us, if the member can identify the line that states national insurance contribution in the budget that we receive, I would be really interested in seeing it. There is over £800 million being passed on to all devolved Governments. Our £70 million equates to £40 million for local government and £30 million of which is still to be presented for the teaching pay rise, which we have not necessarily heard anything from the Government on today for how local authorities will meet that. That is maybe something for stage 2 when we will get more detail. I wanted to look at what we, as a local government committee, have also been looking at around this budget. Consideration has been given to a number of cuts that local authorities are facing. We specifically heard from Martin Booth, who is executive director of finance at Glasgow City Council, who was representing the Society of Local Authority chief executives and senior managers. He specifically stated that, during all the negotiations or during all the work that is to come within councils, they are going to have to look at over £34 billion of cuts, which was a leaked document that we saw yesterday. Mr Booth, given his evidence, stated that the opportunity to increase charges is fairly limited. Quite often we are the provider of last resort, so the people who would be impacted the most by charging would be those we would like to impact on the least. When SNP and green ministers try to spin this budget as one of delivering fairness for our communities, let us remember that every council across Scotland is going to be forced to make cuts because of this budget today. It is little wonder that council leaders such as SNP Dundee City Council leader John Alexander have labelled this budget perhaps the toughest in recent memory. I do not think that what has been announced today is going to make that statement go away or change. It is slightly less tough, but it is still going to be tough for local government, and that is something that we all fear for services and the impact that this will have. A cause will have been clear that this SNP green government needs to look again at what it is providing to budgets to councils simply as they say, what we need to survive. I do not know whether or not the cabinet secretary has really heard that message. I know that the First Minister met with COSLA and council leaders this week, but simply for the UK Government to be asked for £50 million of additional funding to be made available, which I welcome, and the national insurance contribution of £70 million, I do not think that that is enough. I think that we need to see at stage 2 and 3 a serious look at that again. I hope that the cabinet secretary genuinely has heard that message, even from leaders of Highland Council, who have also condemned this budget as well. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, let us be in no doubt today. If SNP green ministers do not look again at local government funding in this budget, it will hit the most vulnerable in our society. The finance secretary clearly knows, and we know this from every debate that we now have in this Parliament, that Greens' votes are in the bag on this, that deals done behind closed doors will see this Government being able to get this budget through Parliament. I would appeal to green MSPs in every MSP who will be out campaigning for their SNP councillor colleagues. They need to speak out as we see this budget go through. These are SNP green cuts that will have impact on all services, and in May at the council elections I hope they pay a severe price for that. I want to address the context in which the budget is set and the implications of that. Positively, Scottish economic growth returned to pre-pandemic levels in November. Scotland is developing and delivering and building on strong economic strengths and key sectors for a modern economy. Negatively, the drag of Brexit continues to hinder economic growth with the OBR forecasts that Brexit will reduce UK's potential productivity at twice the level of that of the Covid pandemic impact. Brexit has sorely hindered the availability for skilled labour, the number one concern of many businesses. After years building up exports, we see eye-washing drops in export business. However, the financial arrangements of this Parliament, which just about everyone now acknowledges, cannot respond properly to a crisis like that of Covid. This Parliament has no substantial powers to borrow. More generally, the adjustments from the UK are unpredictable and lack transparency, and transfers are often way behind the original announcement of health, business, culture or other funds for England, where Scotland is due its fair share. Often, as we have heard from today's announcement, it is very late in the financial year. It raises expectations of people in need in Scotland that cannot be fulfilled until finally those transfers are made. There is a vice-like squeeze on the parameters of what the financial secretary can work with in her decisions on the budget. The fiscal framework review must look at those issues. Multi-year funding would be welcome improvement within and to the Scottish budget. On top of that, we have political choices being made in Scotland, which are diverging, in part due to specific Scottish choices to deliver fair, progressive and net zero policies, but in part by the UK Government's decisions for England, where political choices to transfer funding for services in the wider health or education services to private models reduce the commensurate payments to Scotland. That is the nature of devolution when you have Governments from different parties with different priorities and it has consequences. Even if you believe that it ever did work once, the financial arrangements for this Parliament cannot be said to work properly for Scotland now. The wealth, capability, economic and financial power of Scotland needs to be leveraged for all Scotland. That, as we heard from Michelle Thomson, far outweighs the confines of the Scottish Government's budget. It is the tools to magnify the budget that we need. To disagree with some of the comments that Fiona Hyslop has made, particularly echoing some of the issues that were raised at the finance committee, would she accept that John Swinney signed the fiscal framework along with the UK Government in 2016? It is not just a question of Scotland being able to decide, it is a question of both Governments and both the SNP and the UK Government agreed on that. I acknowledge the history and agreement of the fiscal framework, but she should also acknowledge that everybody understands that it needs to be improved and changed and that is why in terms of the review that I hope will address some of those issues, some of the criticisms that people have made in this chamber already could be addressed by that review. Looking at the budget as it stands now, health and social care now account for £18 billion and with £12.5 billion for local council, that means £30.2 billion or on that account 68 per cent of Scotland's budget is distributed to health, social care and local government alone. Now it is a percentage that is steadily increasing and with a needed national care service on the horizon will increase further. That means that other important portfolios are left with the remaining 32 per cent and have to take the strain and absorb the pressures. So even within those constraints, I was pleased to see the cabinet secretary support funding for the three enterprise bodies at the highest level since 2010 and deliver its commitment to the Scottish National Investment Bank. I am concerned however that phase 2 recovery for tourism, as recommended from the Scottish tourism recovery group, as yet has no funding. As much of what it did is for one-off promotional work, I would urge that this area be a priority for any early in-year underspends and that it does not wait until near end reconciliations and adjustments. Despite a real terms cut in the capital budget of 9.7 per cent, the Scottish Fiscal Commission states that the Government should be able to meet in the national infrastructure mission target, but it is concerned about net zero needs, which is capital dependent in many cases. On net zero making funding work leveraging private funds, we face a very real danger and the serious risk of earthen by councils and other public bodies co-funding private sector initiatives to cut net zero if the centralising subsidy control bill at Westminster passes without serious amendment. The cabinet secretary has an enormous challenge and an increasingly difficult challenge. Meanwhile at Westminster, we see UK minister Lord Agnew resign because I was concerned that £4 billion, and I repeat, £4 billion of funds is being lost because of a systemic failure to operate fraud recovery and initial prevention from the Covid loans. I quote ably assisted by the tretery who appear to have no knowledge or interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy and society. Scotland needs to be independent by right, but it must be independent for a purpose. The purpose of independence is so that we can shape our own future with a budget supported by policies that reflect the values and the vision of the people of Scotland and not the waste and wantonness of Westminster. Scotland has got what it takes, what we need, as a fresh start for Scotland with independence. Thank you. I now call on Ross Greer to be followed by Pam Duncan Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like Miles Briggs and others who spoke last week, some of what I'm about to say is very much a repeat of that debate, though myself and Mr Briggs are certainly not singing from the same hym sheet. Given some of the contributions that have been made so far this afternoon, it is important to re-emphasise the context of the budget, as we discussed last Wednesday. Scotland's budget for the coming year will be around 5 per cent lower than for 2021-22. That is the result of Covid consequentials being largely withdrawn when Covid and its physical consequences across the country are still very much with us. As an example, bus and rail use are down by a third. That requires significant subsidy to keep essential services operating, but without last year's Covid consequentials repeating, the choices to either provide those subsidies to operators from the core transport budget, putting pressure on the other areas at funds or to let public transport services collapse across the country as operators withdraw. Those pressures are being felt across every area of government spending at the moment. No Opposition party has yet put forward a proposal for bridging that billion-pound gap, whether it be through tax rises, spending cuts or some combination of the two. It is easy to call for more spending in the areas that we all care about. I certainly want to see it. However, although it is reasonable to some extent for external stakeholders to push for spending in their areas without saying where it would come from, there is a responsibility on members of this Parliament to do more than just make impossible demands. The Greens did better than that from Opposition. We wanted to increase spending on everything from the co-local government settlement to public sector pay and the nature restoration fund. We did secure that, but we did it alongside proposals that we made and then secured for tax changes, for an end to the council tax freeze, for an overhaul of the rates and bans of income tax. That option of constructive engagement was available to all Opposition parties, but, year after year, instead, we saw exactly what we are seeing this afternoon—demands for more spending from a fixed budget without any explanation of where it would come from. That was not even an electorally rewarding strategy in the last session, so I really cannot understand why it is being doubled down on now. I am proud of what the budget, the first co-produced by Greens from inside government, includes. It reflects the strategic priorities of this Government, tackling the climate emergency, eradicating child poverty and a green recovery from the economic damage of the pandemic. I appreciate the member taking an intervention. Why is the SNP green government not to see local government as a priority any longer? Ross Greer. The Government prioritises local government to the extent that the local government settlement is increasing by more than £1 billion in the coming financial year compared to the current ones. That is a six-terms real percent increase in their budget. This budget fully funds the first year of free bus travel for young people. That is a flagship green policy, a genuinely transformational initiative that will ease the pressure on family budgets as other costs of living are increasing. It will help to take cars off the road, cutting emissions and cleaning up the air in our urban areas. It provides a record £150 million for walking, wheeling and cycling, £35 million for low-emission and ultra-low-emission buses, again contributing towards public health and climate ambitions. It establishes the fund first proposed by the Greens and exactly as Unite the Union has asked for, which will assist local authorities to develop plans for bringing local bus services back into public ownership. With transport having been the one area in which emissions have risen rather than reduced in Scotland, those investments are absolutely critical if we are to play our part in giving the planet a fighting chance of staying below two degrees of warming. Transport is far from the only area in which climate action is being prioritised. The climate justice fund has been trebled. £50 million has been allocated to support farmers to tackle the climate and nature crisis. The first £20 million of the north-eastern Murray Just Transition Fund is provided. There is £45 million to progress the circular economy and reduce waste and £2 billion overall for climate initiatives. One measure in this budget that I am particularly proud of is the piloting of a four-day working week. That has become an increasing priority of both the Greens and the trade union movement, and I am glad that we will be able to progress it through pilots in this coming year. In turning back to local government, despite the pressure that was mentioned earlier, the budget delivers a real-terms increase to the local government settlement. That includes an additional £145 million for teacher recruitment. That is enough to fund £2,500 permanent posts. There is £72 million for P1 to 5 free school meals and £30 million in capital funding to facilitate the expansion of those free meals to primary six and seven as soon as possible. There is £175 million to fund the pay increase for care sector workers and £200 million for health and social care. That is not me suggesting that everything is rosy, because it does have a perfectly legitimate case to make for more funding. They are not the only ones. That budget represents the fairest possible distribution of extremely limited funding in extremely challenging circumstances. Once again, I am yet to hear from exactly where the Opposition would reallocate a further £250 million, or what changes it would make to tax policy to raise £250 million in new revenue. I am grateful for the contribution that was made by green councillors across the country, whose feedback we were able to take into discussions with the cabinet secretary. The additional £120 million confirmed today will certainly go a long way. The only income tax proposal that I can remember coming from the Conservatives, by contrast, was a cut to the tax rate for the highest earners in the country that we have taken further £500 million out of our budget. We have heard yet again today another proposal, a perfectly legitimate proposal for further rates relief, but one that would only grow the gap in our public finances and no explanation of where that money would be found from. I am certainly of the view that substantial additional revenue will need to be raised through changes to our existing tax mechanisms and the creation of new ones. For the reason that is cited by the convener of the finance committee, bold decisions will be required in this parliamentary session if we are to meet the ambitious targets that we have set ourselves, particularly on child poverty reduction and net zero. The Greens are certainly prepared to make further constructive proposals for where the additional revenue we believe can come from. For now, though, we are proud to vote for a budget that certainly delivers for people and for planning. Thank you. I now call Pam Duncan-Glancy to be followed by Paul MacLennan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Human rights belong to all of us. When determining whether or not we are promoting them and protecting them, the first thing that we must do as a nation is to consider what the minimum core of those rights should be. The idea of a minimum core is simple. It sets a red line below which people should not fall. In a wealthy nation like Scotland, the minimum core of those rights should be high, and it should be met. It only takes a short glance around the reality of food bank use, child poverty, in-work poverty and care workers on poverty pay to realise that we are not meeting even the lowest of bars. It is often said that Governments should not tell us what they value but show us where they are putting their money. The Government has said that child poverty and reducing inequality is what they value, but I am deeply frustrated that this budget does not go far enough or fast enough to address either. The task ahead is huge. Child poverty in Scotland sits at 25 per cent. That is one in four children. I doubt that anyone in the chamber is comfortable hearing that figure, but this budget will not set us on track to meet our child poverty targets. Scottish Labour has called for an increase in the Scottish child payment, but the Scottish Government's plans do not go far enough. The increase is too small for us to stop there and helps too few for us to call it anything like a victory, and it will not allow us to meet our targets. That is not just my opinion. Earlier this week, its own advisers in the Poverty and Inequality Commission confirmed what we already know, that the Scottish Government simply is not going hard or fast enough to meet the child poverty targets that this Parliament set unanimously and without caveat. To miss those targets would be a complete dereliction of duty, and unless the Government takes urgent and bold action, that is exactly the path that is heading down. The only guaranteed way of ensuring that we meet our interim target is to increase the Scottish child payment to £40 by April 2023. The Scottish Government has run out of other options. Even at the current rate, the Scottish child payment is failing to deliver for thousands of children. While they have waited for full roll-out, 125,000 eligible children are not receiving any payment at all. I have asked the Government at every turn whether it will address that, and I have suggested how, but there is still no commitment or no plan to do it. It cannot ignore that. Those children depend on their Government to find a solution. There are 120,000 children who get bridging payments, but they will miss out on the vital £10 increase to the Scottish child payment. The Government has made no provision to double the bridging payments, and when I have asked about that, it has given no indication that it intends to change it. 295,000 children will not receive the £20 payment that they are entitled to when the increase comes into effect later this year. Over one third of them will receive nothing at all. The budget does little to address inequality either. We cannot address women's or disabled people's inequality if we do not address the care economy. The pay offer for care workers is a pull to 40p increase. I look to my Scottish Green colleagues, who now sit in Government who committed to £15 in our pay rate for social care workers, as did all of us on the Labour benches, and ask why they believe that it is sufficient now. I am grateful for the member taking intervention on that point. In opening for Labour, Daniel Johnson acknowledged that difficult decisions will have to be made. I would love to see care workers earning £15. What difficult decisions would the Labour Party take to fund that if they were in government? I am sure that the member will have heard my colleague Jackie Baillie explain earlier on to the First Minister that we have fully costed that. If he is committed to his manifesto and the manifesto that he stood on, I am sure that he will be eager to read it and help get it delivered. Unpaid carers, most of whom are women, have stepped up and stepped in throughout the pandemic, plugging the gaps of a social care system that does not meet people's needs and now they are floored. That budget has let them down too. Despite reassurances given by the Minister for Social Security last year, no provision has been made in the budget to extend the double payment of carers allowance supplement. This Government rushed through legislation on the matter, limited opportunities for scrutiny and batted-back criticism about the limited nature of the double payment extension. It reassured the Parliament, committees and carers that the legislation allowed scope for the Government ministers to extend the payment going forward and rejected amendments from the Scottish Labour group that would have protected the uplift. I have lost count of the number of times that I have spoken and heard in this chamber about the detrimental impact of removing the universal credit uplift. I am looking at this budget and I ask this Government why it does not include the uplift that you promised unpaid carers. If you still intend to double their payment, where will you find the additional funding in June? It is not only under funding and care that risks furthering inequality either. The budget line for lone parents, the majority of whom are women, is now set at zero, unless we properly recognise the value women's work, design a system that supports their participation in the workplace and recognises unpaid work, then tackling the gender pay gap and moving towards our child poverty targets will be a distant dream. Deputy Presiding Officer, the third sector too has long been key to addressing inequality and this year they too have gone above and beyond so I am dismayed at the Government's decision to cut their budget. SCVO have been clear that these cuts threaten weakening support for voluntary organisations and their volunteers and I urge the Government to reconsider. Lastly, Deputy Presiding Officer, I started my contribution talking about human rights. We immunise our country against a virus that has exacerbated inequality. We needed a budget today that immunised against inequality and protected human rights, but to do that we also needed to be able to assess the impact of what we are doing, but I am concerned that the considerable data gaps that must be addressed if we want to do this do not exist and will not be rectified until 2025. Deputy Presiding Officer, this budget will not meet child poverty targets, will leave women on low pay, will deny disabled people the support they need and fails to fund the third sector properly. Because of those things and for so many in Scotland it will not enable the realisation of the most basic of rights. It is far too little and we already know it is far too late, especially for the hundreds of thousands of children in poverty. We are staring long-term inequality in the face. This budget does not deliver nearly the scalar pace that we needed to address it. We are Scotland, our ambitions are high and we needed a budget that met them. It empowered us to realise our human rights and escape poverty and inequality, as it stands, I and others do not believe that this budget will do it. I asked the Government to reconsider its budgetary priorities so that it ensures that people can reach their full potential and Scotland really can be the land of opportunity. We all want and need it to be. I now call Paul McLaren, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. I am delighted to be speaking in this stage 1 budget debate today, which has its heart. It is about building a fairer, greener and more prosperous Scotland. As we recover from Covid's skewering stability and support for my constituents in Eastland, Scotland is my utmost priority and this budget sets out an ambitious path while balancing the management of the Covid crisis and the rising cost of living. Our public services and the hardworking people within them have held the country together during the pandemic and I want to thank all those who have worked in our public services. To those in Eastland and Scotland, we owe you a debt of gratitude. As we continue the battle against Covid, this budget is out providing stability and support for our public services, such as the record £18 billion investment in health and social care. That investment includes £1.6 billion for social care and integration. Of course, that will progress the commitment to increase spend by 25 per cent by the end of this Parliament. It also sees an increase to nearly £13 billion for our health boards. This general package will be an essential and supportive vital services in Eastland and beyond. As we rebuild our economy, we are taking every step to ensure that the approach prioritises needs of people of Scotland. As a strong advocate for the wellbeing economy, we must seek economic recovery as putting the health of the people and our environment first. A principled, focused approach on wellbeing is going to help Scotland to heal from Covid and meet the challenges of the cost-loving crisis that is impacting on our constituents. In November, the wellbeing alliance Scotland produced a report called failure demand, which argues that we should be doing more and preventative spend. What is the point that they are trying to make in arguing the failure to do so will see Government spending more money in the long term. The £20 universal credit cut is a prime example of how much that is going to cost us and other services in Scotland in the months and years ahead. Of course, alongside fixing those harms, we in Scotland are spending £600 million in mitigating harmful policies for Westminster such as the Virgin Tax, £600 million. The most recent UK budget has also seen measures that exacerbate the cost of living crisis, with national insurance rising, while the energy prices soar alongside the highest inflation rate for many a time. I want to focus on a few other commitments. The investment of £831 million into affordable housing is delivering 110,000 affordable energy efficient homes across the next decade will of course benefit all of our constituents, every single one of us in here. The Scottish Government is putting welfare first, with investment of more than £4 billion in social security and welfare payments, including doubling the game-changing Scottish health payment. Of course we need to do more, but this is a massive step forward. Tackling inequalities is core to building a more fair and equal society. The Scottish Government's commitment to the £500 million whole family wellbeing fund and investing 5 per cent of community-based health and social care spending on preventive whole families' bit of sport is very welcome. We had a debate just on that a few weeks ago. That has been recognised by all parties in the chamber as a key element in tackling poverty, supporting attainment and preventing mental health issues. That investment will help the Scottish Government to deliver commitments made when it accepted the promise of the report as an independent care review. Eastland has been a key player in showing the path versus animal loving with towns such as Dunbar as Scotland's first zero waste town. I am proud that this budget works to tackle climate change with a commitment to a just transition that provides £2.5 billion of public and private investment that is needed to meet our net zero target. The investment alongside the gripping businesses to grasp the opportunities of green recovery will secure new jobs and lay out the routes for long-term security and prosperity. I have already seen opportunities in Eastland in that regard. £350 million to drive forward decarbonisation and a generous package to support active travel has also been key commitments within the pledge to tackle climate change. The budget is a step in the right direction. The wellbeing economy is something that we can achieve. We hear many of this being discussed in many of the debate, but it is something that we can achieve with ambitious policies that our economy can prosper and that Scotland can care for the environment and its people. I want to touch on the constraints that we have as a devolved nation. The Fraser of Allander and the report on devolved fiscal frameworks, said in boring powers. There is a case for a modest extension to the scope and scale of the devolved government's boring powers in normal times. The ability to borrow, to fund discretionary resource spending would provide additional flexibility to respond to unforeseen events and therefore reduce the need to hold back funding instead. We have already heard a bit of issues around that. Even fairly substantial boring by the devolved governments would have little impact on the UK's borrowing and debt. This level of flexibility would allow us to invest more in our recovery, such as funding more in the Scottish National Investment Bank. The IFS added that, with the new Omicon variant of coronavirus across the UK, it is vital to learn lessons from earlier waves of pandemics to the devolved government's funding arrangements. Again, I quote, if new policy and spending announcements start to come in quick succession, the devolved government should swiftly be given some combination of the funding guarantees successfully deployed last year and or enhanced boring powers to allow it to respond in a timely and effective way. I look forward to both Labour and Conservative parties supporting that view. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, without the full economic levers of independence, we cannot fully deliver the bold economic redesign that a well-being economy requires. Support this budget, thank you. Thank you. I now move to the closing speeches and I call firstly on Paul Swinney to wind up for Scottish Labour around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that today has been a frustrating experience for many in this chamber. As colleagues have outlined, this budget has meant to be a recovery budget. It was meant to be a bold statement of intent for the country. Instead, it is one that fails to address the lasting impact of Covid, fails their local authorities and public sector workers, and risks compounding the financial challenges faced by households across Scotland. As my friend, the member from The Barton, has said, the 40 AP pay increase for social care workers is unacceptable, given the tireless work that they put in as part of the national effort to tackle the virus. The Government should treat fair-pay for workers as an urgent priority and commit to an immediate £12 in our settlement, moving towards a £15 baseline as soon as possible, in line with our aspirations for the national women's wages itself. If only all consequentials for health had been protected, that would have been a mechanism to deliver that measure. It would have driven wealth back into the lowest paid sectors of the economy. I thank my Glasgow colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy for her strong case for further and increasing the Scottish child payment, if we were to have a hope of coming close to the target of reducing child poverty to 10 per cent in relative terms by 2030 from a current situation of 25 per cent and flatlining—indeed, potentially even getting worse in the coming year. The Fraser of Allander Institute's own modelling has said that Scotland could meet its child poverty targets. All three of the policy models published succeeded in meeting the targets, and all three of the policy models included a significant increase to the child Scottish child benefit payment. Indeed, it may well be game-changing, as SeaGap has said, but I am afraid that the Scottish Government is playing that game very badly indeed. In the face of the cost of living crisis, a commitment from Government to further doubling the payment is therefore even more pertinent, and we wish to see that take place in this financial year. It makes sound economic sense to do this, too. Think about the tax base underperforming the UK. Surely the lowest-income households need every penny, because every penny will be spent back out into the economy, creating a multiplier effect that will therefore repay itself in due course and increase the tax base in time. That is what we call a virtuous cycle rather than a vicious cycle. If only there were more economists rather than accountants in Government, perhaps we would have that sort of thinking at the heart of what is going on in this budget. I would like to turn to the cuts that are faced by local authorities, too. Since 2013, the Scottish Government's revenue fiscal resource budget limit has increased by 3.1 per cent, yet, despite that, the funding that they have allocated to councils has decreased by 2.4 per cent. The starting point today was a cut of £371 million to councils across Scotland. It has now been ameliorated by an announcement of an additional £121 million pulled out of the bag. I am sure that the councillors will be grateful across Scotland to that. I doubt it, indeed, because it is cold comfort when it leaves £250 million more for councils to cut. How are they going to do that? It is an invidious choice that is faced by councillors, and it is a one-year patch-up job in an election year for councils. The Government has put local authorities in an impossible situation, where they will have to consider cuts to local services, increasing the price of accessing local amenities when there is already a cost-loving crisis, or hiking their aggressive and obsolete council tax, which the Government pledged to act in 2007 to make up for that critical and fundamental lack of funding. Indeed, Glasgow City Council's draft budget options for the next financial year include horrific proposals to offset £33.9 million in funding gap, by axing a holiday scheme for children eligible for free food, withdrawing services for dyslexic pupils, increasing crematorium charges for bereaved families and cutting teaching staff. That effect may well be reduced marginally by what was announced today, but it certainly is not going to take the pain away completely. In fact, it only addresses a third of the cuts that are potentially faced by local Government. The bulk of the pain remains, and it is disingenuous and cowardly of the Government to force councillors to wield the knife in this way. On February 17, councils in Glasgow will be asked to agree that budget, which is simply about how to slice a much smaller cake. The fact that there will be severe cuts is a fate of complete that is decided by the Government that controls 80 per cent of Glasgow City Council's annual budget allocation. The member seems to be suggesting that it should be this Government, rather than local authorities, making difficult decisions, taking aside the difficult decisions that have already been made in this budget. If this was a Labour Government, where from what has already been allocated would they find £250 million? Where would they cut or where would they raise taxes? I thank the member for his intervention. I note the commitment of the Greens to protecting local government and increasing it in real terms every a year of this Parliament, which has obviously not been achieved. As for how we address the tax gap and increase revenues, we have presented creative ideas. In fact, it was cross-party commissioners including his former colleague Andy Wightman who suggested introducing land value tax that would have raised an additional £12 billion in revenues for Scotland. We could be introducing and pushing these ideas now. Where is the sense of urgency coming out of this pandemic? Where is the idea of fundamental renewal? Local Government, the settlement that was achieved in 1996, has fundamentally failed. We need a routine branch review of local government. It is something that devolution has failed to address in two decades. That is something that I hope we can all agree needs to happen sooner rather than later. The impact in funding is evident to citizens across the country, no more so than in Glasgow. We have seen communities having to go and pick at their libraries week in, week out to protect them with fundamental services. We have seen facilities lying empty, such as the iconic people's palace. If Labour had done that in administration, we would have been hounded weekly and relentlessly by the SNP, yet it passes without comment. Facilities in Deniston, such as the Whitehall pool, are on the brink of collapse due to repair backlogs. The city's cleansing department is falling apart. Our councils deserve better, Deputy Presiding Officer. Workers deserve better. Quite frankly, Scotland deserves better. It is for that fundamental reason that Labour cannot possibly support the budget at stage 1, giving the severity and the civic vandalism that this budget proposes. I urge members, therefore, to support our reason of amendment, to try and salvage this budget before it is too late. I now call on Morda Fraser to wind up for the Scottish Conservatives around seven minutes, please, Mr Fraser. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is my pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I will start with the debate set off talking about the size of the overall budget settlement, because the backdrop to this bill is the most generous budget settlement from the UK in terms of a core block grant in the history of devolution. The Finance Secretary should be turning cartwheels down the canon gate, celebrating the fact that she has more money than any of her predecessors in office. Do I or do I not have more money next year, compared with this year? Taking out the extraordinary additional sums paid for Covid in the last financial year, this year's core block grant is up 10.6 per cent in cash terms and 8 per cent in real terms, some £3.9 billion extra, as Liz Smith said earlier. Do you think that they will be celebrating that additional resource, the largest block grant in the history of devolution? Speakers on the SNP benches like to talk about how this is a fixed budget. Of course, that is not correct, because this Government has tax varying powers. It is free to use if it feels that this budget is insufficient. It used to be the case that this Government called for the devolution of air passenger duty, so it could cut that tax. It used to call for the devolution of corporation tax, so it could cut that tax, and it is reneged on both these policies. Instead, it uses its tax powers to increase the tax burden on ordinary working Scots, and it damages our economy as a result. This week, we saw a damning report from the finance committee, a cross-party report on the Scottish budget, concluding that Scotland is lagging behind almost all other areas of the United Kingdom in key indicators of economic performance, and that is deeply worrying. We have the same macroeconomic policies across the whole United Kingdom, and yet Scotland almost uniquely is performing the poorest. We have to conclude the responsibility for that rest at the door of the SNP Government. The consequence of that is clear when it comes to the Scottish public finances, with our block grant being reduced due to poor Scottish income tax performance. According to the fiscal commission, as the committee convener reminded us earlier in the debate, the budget is expected to be £190 million worse off because of fiscal devolution, and that figure rises in subsequent years. Here we have a tale of two Governments, a Conservative Government in Westminster putting more money into the Scottish budget, more than ever before, and an SNP Government here in Holyrood due to its economic incompetence actually reducing the money available because we are not matching the economic performance elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am really interested to hear if anyone in those Tory benches is prepared to condemn the fact of financial crime under the regulation of the Tory Government of £290 billion every year that has a direct consequence on the money available to this Parliament and, in turn, money available to councils. Will you condemn their lack of action? What a splendid line of attack that would be if this Government had such strong fiscal rectitude and all the penny was being wasted. That sets me up so nicely for my next point, because we have been challenged throughout this debate. Mr Mason and his annual speech to this debate, making his points and Ross Greer made the same points about where the Opposition would find additional money. Let's just summarise where we could find some savings. £200 million spent building two ferries that are probably never actually going to serve any island communities and are years behind schedule. £40 million paid in compensation so far for the victims of the malicious prosecution of those involved with Rangers football club. Tens of millions of pounds paid in subsidies to Breswick airport, to BiFab, to Liberty Steel. Millions paid out in legal costs defending unsuccessfully challenges against his Government, including from their former First Minister, the man who cannot be named. All the resources being spent preparing for another bill on an independence referendum, everybody knows is not going to happen. That is where the money could come from and be far better spent on the people's priorities rather than wasted as it currently is. Despite all the extra money that we have identified that is available to this Government, what do they actually deliver? They deliver a real-terms cut in the funding of local authorities. Estimated by COSLA £371 million. That is money just to stand still, not to do anything extra money just to stand still. We heard earlier in the debate from the finance secretary an extra £120 million from the UK treasury. We should welcome the fact that money from the UK Government is mitigating the impact of SNP cuts on our communities, so that is very welcome. However, that still leaves us with a cut of £251 million just to stand still, as Douglas Lumsden said. That is going to mean that, when it comes to me, increases in council tax and cuts to local services. Unlike Miles Briggs, I am sure that people will be reminded of that on the doorstep in the run-up to the elections in May, that is what the SNP Government is delivering for us. That is a settlement that has been attacked by council leaders across the political spectrum, including from SNP council leaders. Shame on the SNP Government for delivering those cuts and shame on the Greens for enabling them. I remember in previous years that we could perhaps have relied on Andy Wightman and his negotiating skills as part of the green group to force the SNP Government to provide more generous support to local councils. Alas, a sad loss to this Parliament, Andy Wightman is no longer here. His memory is being bespurched by his erstwhile colleagues in the Green Party. With him gone, they have sold their souls for ministerial salaries and ministerial limit zones and as are councillors and local communities which are poorer as a result. I am Paul MacLennan and I have talked, of course, about independence. If only we were independent, how much money we would have. I would suggest very gently to them that they read the paper published this morning by David Phillips for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, saying that in his calculations Scotland's projected deficit in 2026 to 2027 would be 7.5 per cent of GDP, almost £3,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That would mean tax rises and spending cuts, and they have no idea how to meet any of those challenges. This is not a budget that Scottish Conservatives can support. With the record sums to spend, it delivers cuts to the services that people rely on, where money is being wasted and spent on SNP vanity schemes. I urge the chamber to vote it down at decision time. I now call on Kate Forbes' cabinet secretary to wind up the debate. Please take us to decision time. Stage 1 of a budget that tackles poverty and helps families with the cost of living, invests in the just transition that we all apparently believe in and secures economic recovery. Yet Labour, Tory and Lib Dem spokespeople could not start talking about the constitution fast enough in their remarks. That is why we are setting the budget and why they are still, after 15 years, still opposing it. The rhetoric today suggests that they will be opposing it for another few years yet. On to the substance, Kenny Gibson started with the comments from on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee talking about the additional funding and the need for transparency. To put on record, we expect the UK Government to finalise our budget in the coming weeks. Until then, we are proceeding on the basis of personal indications and meetings with the chief secretary and on the basis of communications with Treasury officials of where our budget might end up this year. I have chosen to prioritise funding out of those additional flexibilities for local government. Last week, in fact, just yesterday, everybody in this chamber was calling on me to do precisely that, yet I imagine that most will still vote against it at 5 p.m. today, which sums up the opposition that we have. Many members talked about priorities, and I agree that this is a budget of choices. Choices are, by their very nature, hard. Let us look at some of those choices. Douglas Lumsden talked, and I think quite rightly, about front-line nurses. Let us talk about our front-line nurses who, under this Government, are paid over £1,000 more per annum than they are under Douglas Lumsden's party. So there are some choices. Jackie Baillie talked about social care, and I agree with where she wants to end up, but we are delivering. It is not just rhetoric, but we are delivering increases. I think that to dismiss it as £48p is a complete disservice to the value of the wage increase to social carers, which is the equivalent of £3,000 per annum if you compare the £10.50 per hour to the previous year's national minimum wage, which is what many carers in Wales, under Labour and in England, under the Conservatives, are being paid right now. However, there are other choices. It is a fact of parliamentary life that every member wants all budget lines to increase. Jackie Baillie wants at least another £1 billion on health, and Tory's wants several hundred million pounds more on local government and rates relief and skills, and presumably they agree with the UK Government that health consequentials should be passed on to health and social care. In all the contributions, there are areas of agreement. I think that all of us agree that our priority is recovery. As Fiona Hyslop said, it should be welcomed that Scotland exceeded the pre-pandemic GDP levels in terms of growth this month in terms of the estimates. We need to build on that. It is a reflection on the resilience of our business communities, the resilience of our workers and the ability for the country to pull together in times of crisis. The challenges that we face right now require that same solidarity and that same commitment, two hard choices and two our priorities. We need all the tools that we can get to do that, particularly the fiscal tools. Those can be delivered through the fiscal framework review. There is an opportunity if, as Liz Smith says—I agree with her on that—both Governments are willing to approach the review in good faith. I certainly will be approaching it in good faith. I think that probably all parties agree on where there needs to be significant changes, and I will be meeting the chief secretary to the Treasury next week. I hope that those conversations will be constructive and that they will progress the discussion. This is just stage 1. There are, would you believe it, more debates to come on the budget. Let us not lose sight in all those debates on areas that we agree and areas that we disagree that this budget delivers on some very key commitments. I am always struck by Pam Duncan Glancy's remarks and was struck again, and I recognise the importance of opposition and scrutiny to push us to go further. However, next year's budget delivers on our commitment to double the Scottish child payment. There are others in the chamber that I have talked about the need to focus on economic recovery, and next year's budget delivers the highest level of investment for our enterprise agencies since 2010. I think that all members have seen the importance of our health and social care services over the past few years and recognise the pressures that they are dealing with right now. Next year's budget delivers record levels of investment in health and social care. I have talked about this budget being a transitional budget. It is a budget for one year, but where we really want to end up is in a position where we can set multi-year budgets. Where our commitment to reform, our commitment to improving outcomes, our commitment to delivering tangible benefits to the people of Scotland are delivered because we can set multi-year budgets. That opportunity is one that we have now as a result of the United Kingdom Government's comprehensive spending review, and we are now in the process of our resource spending review. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. The principle of setting multi-year budgets is about recognising things like the spend to save principle. Does she not recognise that an investment in social care and a meaningful uplift in social care pay is the sort of investment that will actually see us reduce delayed discharge in the massive cost that means to the public press? I agree with the principle, and that is precisely why we cannot just dismiss the choices that we have made when it comes to, for example, the increase in wages. However, I would also set the challenge down that, for preventative spend to work, you have to be willing to move budgets. It is not that there is additional budget, for example, to invest in social care and isolation. For us to deliver preventative spend, we all need to have a far more mature debate when it comes to budget lines because it will require for some lines to go up and other lines to go down. If we want to move more budget into social care, which I know is something that Jackie Baillie believes in, then it will need to come from other parts of the budget. In a parliamentary context where we only believe budgets should go up, that makes it very difficult. In terms of the resource spending review, we have an opportunity. We have a commitment to consult as widely as possible because it needs to be Scotland's budget. We will publish that in May after the consultation that is running just now concludes, and we have an opportunity to set those. As I come to a conclusion, there are many challenges that we face. This is a transitional budget that backs Scotland's key priorities. I hope that the Opposition can vote for it at 5 p.m. That concludes the debate on budget Scotland Bill, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 2964 on committee meeting times. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Thank you minister. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the minister for parliamentary business to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now, are we all agreed? We are agreed, therefore there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the amendment 2949.1, in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend motion 2949, in the name of Kate Forbes, on budget Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.